Just because there are rules saying that something should happen, does not mean in reality that the thing will happen.

Reasons why cab drivers could not pick you up: 1.) shift change in 15 minutes. So they can take you 15 minutes away but they can't drive an hour into Brooklyn and miss their shift change. 2.) Car maintenance, refueling. If the car is running low on fuel they can pick people up on short drives towards the gas station but it wouldn't make sense for them to go the opposite way.

I am all for dialing 3-1-1 and think people should, however sometimes knowing the full context will take you from being upset at the cab driver to being understanding.

"1.) shift change in 15 minutes. So they can take you 15 minutes away but they can't drive an hour into Brooklyn and miss their shift change. 2.) Car maintenance, refueling. If the car is running low on fuel they can pick people up on short drives towards the gas station but it wouldn't make sense for them to go the opposite way."

99% of the time these are not the circumstances when a cab driver attempts a pick-up but refuses when he hears the location.

I believe the law is also to prevent discrimination.

How does one know the true reason a cab might refuse to take you? Sex? Race? Age? What if a cab took a white guy (non-threatening looking) to a location, but refused to take a black guy (also non-threatening looking) to the same location?

Yes, there are valid reasons like shift ending, etc, but perhaps they could have signs stating their hours.

It's almost always between 4:00 and 5:00 in the afternoon. If you need to catch a cab at that time in Midtown, it's time to find a hotel queue.

Yup, has happened to me. They wouldn't go too far out of Manhattan, midtown exactly, because they're getting ready to clock out and leave midtown. Was supremely annoying, in the rain. And I was only going uptown about 20 blocks. After three refusals, I wasn't so open about my destination when I just got into the next one. I was thinking to myself, "what a crock of sh*t, I can't get a cab between 4:00 and 4:30?! In Manhattan?!"

Similar rules in London, UK. And, I suppose, most cities.

The standard way to hail a cab in London is to lean in the passenger window when the cab pulls up to you, tell 'em where you're going and then they unlock the doors and you get in.

A couple of times I had people say they weren't going that way, etc. Once I said "I know you have to take me!" but there's not a lot you can do when they say "feck off you cahnt" and drive off. By the time the next day rolls around it's just not worth the effort to file a complaint.

On the other hand, as many times as that happened, I had cab drivers say that they were on the way home, heading in the same direction as I was, and so they stopped the meter early and I got a discount. I also got meters stopped early a few times for showing them a totally awesome short cut near where I lived.

Last week I was refused a cab from the south side of Blackfriars Bridge to Leicester Square, because the driver said it was "too busy" in central London right now. (Fortunately the cab behind him accepted us, and it didn't seem "too busy" at all.) Didn't know this rule applied, thanks!

While it may technically be true that a cab has to take you anywhere within city limits, it seems to me that it is only polite to ask first before you ask to go someplace out of the way.

On the occasions where I wanted to use a cab to go from Manhattan to Brooklyn or an airport, I always ask first. Most of the time, they say ok, and it's all good. Once in a while (maybe 1/4 of the time) the driver refused. I'm fine with that, you can usually catch another cab within a few minutes -- one who will be happy to serve you.

These guys work long hours and I do not view it is as my right to force them to provide me with service. The law is probably a good one. That said, I believe a certain level of consideration on the part of customer would also be nice.

It's not easy for everyone to catch a cab in New York, and unfortunately the unlucky ones are more likely to be going to "somewhere out of the way". Better to prohibit discrimination for all reasons, not that it helps me even though I live in Midtown.

There's a great book on NY cab drivers and their tricks from someone who worked there a while, the one catch is it's written in Russian as it is authored by an immigrant from the Soviet Union:

http://fictionbook.ru/author/lobas_vladimir/jieltiye_koroli/

It came out in the late 80s but the rules and the medallion system haven't really changed. The book describes the business and the psychology of drivers in-depth.

The book helped reinforce two opinions I hold:

Cab drivers are for the most part scumbags. I can't wait for self-driving cars and automated cab service.

"Political exiles" from the Soviet Union are for the most part scumbags (the author of the book is a "dissident" who worked as a propagandist at Radio Liberty but took up cabbying because that wasn't paying enough).

Now as to how this relates to the parent:

There are four reasons why a cabbie won't pick up passengers in NYC (these have been mentioned in various replies here):

1. Going from the city to the boroughs is a waste of time for cabbies.

2. Cabbies parked in front of hotels only want airport fares.

3. Cabbies racially profile for certain categories of people that have a reputation for paying their fares, tipping well, and unlikely to be muggers. This also depends on the time of day and pickup location.

4. In the 80s certain parts of the city were unsafe (going to Harlem meant being pelted with rocks and getting carjacked; not an exaggeration). Again, depending on who is going and time of day, there is still risk even today.

Yeah, robot cabbies, can't wait for them.

I am fully aware of this rule, and I have a strategy to deal with it.

The last time I had trouble I was trying to get a ride from the Javits to Queens. Having a friend helped. First we would take a picture of the cab as it approached, getting the number on the roof and proof that he was on duty.

What guys will do who refuse you, but know they aren't allowed to, is switch their on/off duty light. If you tell them you are going to report them and have a picture, they might suck it up and give you the ride.

If they refuse, call 311.

On a moderately related note, did you know that it is a violation of a merchant account agreement for anyone who accepts a credit card as payment to have a minimum charge or to charge you a different price because you chose to pay by credit/debit? If someone is giving you trouble, call the number on the back of the credit card to report them.

Regarding card payments, the rules are changing soon because of Dodd-Frank: http://blog.vantagecard.com/post/Merchant-Card-Acceptance-ch...

It's also important to differentiate PIN based transactions from signature based. The "accept all cards" rules are the creation of Visa and Mastercard, they aren't inherent in law, and don't apply to (most? any?) PIN-based debit networks.

It's generally not against the rules to charge a surcharge on debit transactions.

It's my understanding that it's not a violation to charge different prices for cash/credit. It's a violation to have a standard price and have a surcharge for credit.

So they can have separate "cash" and "credit" prices but they can't have a single price and say "5c more for credit". The obvious reason being that the credit card companies want their piece of the pie but it also protects consumers from hidden signs. I know of one station that has a single price with a "5c more for credit sign" that isn't illuminated and can't be seen at night without looking closely.

On your second point, I'd like to ask if that applies to gas stations as well. Because many of them display in big numbers a price that is reserved for cash, while a higher one (~10-15c more a gallon) for credit. Is it illegal?

On a related note, I also believe (no link or citation sorry) that there can't be a maximum on the amount you want to pay with credit. For example, car dealerships tend to say they can only accept up to a certain amount to be put on a credit card, even though the agreements with credit card companies say they can't do that.

It's only against the rules to not accept credit cards or charge more for them (like a fee on top of your total if you pay with one). You can discount for cash, which is what you've seen gas stations do. The bar with a $20 minimum is against the rules and I have reported them in the past, along with refusing to pay.

These rules were implemented to re-enforce the "everywhere you want to be" mantra. It would get really confusing if every merchant had different rules. The net positive of taking plastic typically outweighs the negative of low dollar transactions, so retailers go with it. Losing the ability to take Visa is a huge knock on a business, so they tend to follow these rules.

None of it is illegal. It's just a violation of the merchant account agreement. The worst that can happen if you complain is that they will lose the ability to accept credit cards at all.

In many states, including New York, California, Colorado, and a few others, it is actually a crime for them to add a surcharge to a credit card transaction.

For example, in New York, levying a surcharge is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $500, one year in prison, or both.

And also potentially lose a lot of money in fines. They keep your money for a bit until it clears, so your fines come out of that and you don't have the ability not to pay them.

Is that just in NY? Tons of NJ gas stations charge less for cash than for credit/debit.

This likely has more to do with avoiding the credit card merchant fees than avoiding the tax.

The other problem is even though this is the law, I have had friends who avoid taxi's who don't want to take them because of that sense of hostility.

Unless I'm desperate for a cab, normally I would just find a new one. It's not like SF where there's no way you'll ever find a cab, NY they're so abundant

My experience is that if you do not look like a white yuppie, cabs won't even stop for you to refuse service, especially at night. I once grew a goatee that made me look Hispanic, and I couldn't hail a cab at night to save my life.

I was upset about this and even once filed a complaint with the Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) after a cab slowed down, looked at me, then sped away to pick up a white guy down the street. However, for the complaint to result in a sanction, you have to show up at the TLC court to testify, or the complaint is tossed. I didn't want to spend a day in TLC court so I didn't follow up.

When it got warmer, I shaved my goatee and stopped wearing my leather jacket. Magically, I then got picked up every time. I was disgusted by this and now I take cabs only in extremis.

I don't know when you filed your complaint. However, you can attend the hearing over the phone. You just call and everything is all set on the other end. The driver (and his lawyer) has to be present.

My coworker had his hearing over the phone a few weeks ago.

Agreed. My mother-in-law owns a NYC cab. They get hit with complaints all the time...even when its not them and the person had the wrong cab number.

Cab drivers are guilty till proven innocent.

God forbid a service provider be able to decide for themselves what services they actually want to sell.

This is absolutely ridiculous.

Cab drivers are free to pursue any other career path if they so choose and are made aware of the rules before they get behind the wheel.

They are implicitly agreeing to the laws governing Yellow Cabs by driving one.

What you're suggesting would be like if I told my boss I wasn't programming today and if he wanted any work out of me that he better come up with something else.

That is not an equal comparison. Your boss either owns the company you work for or was hired by the person/group that owns the company to tell you what to do. New York City does not own the taxi cab/service.

A better example would be your local government creating a system that requires you to pay $100,000+ for a medallion just for the right to create code in your city and then forcing you to accommodate any potential client's request for software.

Of course they can make rules, but the rules they did make have simultaneously driven up cab fare and made the jobs much worse for the drivers/operators.

What I am saying is that these rules are not well thought out rules.

I disagree. Being required to take you almost anywhere you ask, most likely arose because of racial discrimination. That's perfectly well thought out.

The cabbies or cab companies are allowed by the city to operate, and that's a nearly steady stream of money, based on a limited number of medallions. The least the public can expect, is that any authorized cab will take them to where they want to go.

And yeah, I avoid the black car "limos" whenever possible. They're like vermin way-uptown (way, way too many of 'em), and they charge whatever they feel like charging. Always negotiate that fee before you get in.

I don't feel sorry for cabbies. It's not much more of a job than a shoe-shine boy with a driver's license, and some of these guys still shouldn't be behind the wheel.

It's also better, as a customer, once you learn the map yourself. I've had these guys deliberately take congested or longer, round-about routes, to jack up the price. Once you know the map yourself, you can sometimes insist on a certain route, within reason.

Tons of NYC cabbies were also recently busted leaving some kind of "outer borough surcharge" feature engaged on the meter, within Manhattan where it doesn't apply. Tell me how all the money they raked in over the years doing this, could ever be returned to the customers?

It's an adversarial relationship, IMO. I don't trust a single one of 'em, as far as I could throw his non-English-speaking, sweat-stinking a. To generalize.

Even though the cab drivers are 'free agents', the economics of the business are pretty harsh (due to the city limiting the number of yellow cabs) : http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/travel/2009-08-05-t...

I believe (maybe incorrectly) that an individual driver pays (>$100) to take a taxi out on a shift. 12 hours later, when they return the cab, it's a pure win/lose situation. The drivers themselves don't feel like the city is subsidizing them at all.

Whereas the rules are put here by the city to create the public good of reliable, non-discriminatory transport everywhere, the drivers actively pay for the fact that the city is creating artificial shortage of cabs...

Err, no. It would be like XYZ random client coming to your boss and saying, "I want a website that does FOO. I'm paying your standard fee, and if you don't build it, I'm filing a complaint with the government."

Also, FOO might just be something that statistically increases the chance of your boss getting robbed/murdered.

If your boss is required by law to provide FOO upon payment of the standard fee, then our examples are the same.

Cab drivers aren't blind sided by the potential pitfalls of their job. They know the hazards when they start. To suggest anything else is not only ridiculous, but it undermines the judgment of cab drivers.

I'm questioning the existence of the law not the judgment of the taxi drivers. I'm also questioning why hackers would report people under this law in the transportation industry when an analogous law in their own industry would be rebelled against and circumvented almost immediately.

If there were similar laws in my industry then I wouldn't have sympathy for myself.

I knew the risks of my industry before I started the job. I made a decision to take it based on my salary/benefits vs the potential hazards. Cab drivers do the same. The law is in place to prevent people from being exploited by cab drivers. If my industry likewise needed further anti-exploitation rules, I wouldn't be opposed to them.

But not only that, as fun as it is to debate the merits or pitfalls of laws regarding yellow cab drivers in NYC, at some point it is important to recognize that the laws are a certain way and until they are changed or made "blue", they are the system that we have to work within.

Your last sentence confuses me. The way to change them is to first debate their merits and pitfalls. Your entire case seems to be "The law is the way that it is and thats final, anyone who doesn't like it just shouldn't be a cab driver". My argument is that "this system is inefficient and does more harm for the majority of consumers and cab drivers while benefitting the larger cab companies that can work their way towards a monopoly or oligopoly easily so we should act, as consumers, to reform it (or at the very least jeer it)".

If there is a similar law in your industry you'd just give up? Your argument of knowing the risk beforehand is irrelevant. I'm not a cab driver nor do I want to be, I'm just pointing out that this system is ill conceived and as most of us our entrepreneurs, aspiring entrepreneurs or just problem solvers in general I am surprised that this sort of scheme of creating an artificially high barrier of entry, price fixing and regulation has received such a positive response.

I am shocked that you're still clinging to this argument. You are suggesting that officially sanctioned NYC cab drivers should be allowed to not give rides to people based on race and destination (extrapolate to any service provider be allowed to discriminate against anyone for any reason). The fact that you're claiming racism (and any other subjective thing about a rider) solves harms caused by inefficiency in the NYC cab industry is morally repugnant.

I don't appreciate how you've bastardized my argument and then really eloquently explained yours. But that doesn't matter because your argument is a wash.

Maybe the system is inefficient, maybe it's not. The law came out of people not offering rides based on race and destination. What is the point of a subjectively offered city service with no viable alternative?

I know you think you understand the system, but why do you claim to know the system is inefficient and does more harm to both consumers and cab drivers? Is it based on this article? The comments? Have you done or read studies on effects of official city taxis and how their destination rules impact the citizens and drivers?

I doubt you have. So this is my argument You're trying to impose what you think (with likely not enough information) on an entire industry and all of its consumers. If the industry was so terrible towards cab drivers, then the industry would change because no one would be a cab driver. But there are still more people willing to drive a cab than there are medallions available so this horrible injustice your claiming doesn't seem to impact drivers as much as you wish it did.

If there was a law that made my industry so inefficient it harmed me and my customers so much and benefited my boss to an outrageous extent then I would show my disapproval by changing industries (either permanently or temporarily via a strike). That is how changes to the status quo are made in a market. Reducing demand so suppliers have to change their offer.

>>You are suggesting that officially sanctioned NYC cab drivers should be allowed to not give rides to people based on race and destination

My argument is that a private company should be able to offer whatever service they want. If the city of New York wants to offer a complete service then they should add a taxi service as part of the MTA. Also, I don't think I mentioned race. Destination discrimination is mainly about minimizing risk and avoiding areas dense with blue dots on this map http://projects.nytimes.com/crime/homicides/map

>>What is the point of a subjectively offered city service with no viable alternative?

This is not a city service. It's a private service in the city that well established companies have lobbied nyc government to increase the barrier of entry for. Subways and busses are city services, they are the ones that should have universal service routes.

>> If there was a law that made my industry so inefficient it harmed me and my customers so much and benefited my boss to an outrageous extent then I would show my disapproval by changing industries (either permanently or temporarily via a strike). That is how changes to the status quo are made in a market. Reducing demand so suppliers have to change their offer.

No, going on strike would decrease supply NOT demand. Also, do you really think cab drivers have an alternate industry to flock to?

>My argument is that a private company should be able to offer whatever service they want.

This is not your original argument. The Yellow Cab company does offer the service they want -> A trip to anywhere that cant be discriminated against based on race or destination (it’s on the NYC transportation website). Your argument was that each individual driver should be able to pick and choose who to take based on any factors they deem relevant, which DOES include race, religion, or any other factor you can think of.

>This is not a city service.

I apologize, I began to use “city service” instead of “only service governmentally sanctioned by the city.” But the argument remains, what is the point of allowing subjectivity in the only government sanctioned cab company?

>No, going on strike would decrease supply not demand

Again, I apologize for not being more explicit. I was referring to the demand for cab driver jobs by potential cab drivers. I switched from talking about the market for cab rides to the market for cab driver jobs without explaining. Going on strike would decrease the demand for cab driver jobs. The suppliers would then have to make a more compelling offer to potential cab drivers for them to get back behind the wheels of cabs.

>Do you really think cab drivers have an alternative industry to flock to?

Yes. At any point I’m sure there are thousands of other unskilled-labor jobs in NYC that cab drivers can get in to. Driving is not a field of specialized labor. Anyone with a license and can pass the test can do it.

This would be after your boss took a job that legally required him to perform FOO upon request.

NYC grants yellow taxicabs a monopoly (they're the only vehicles allowed to pick you up when you hail them on the street) and regulates the number of licensed cabs, which creates an artificial shortage of taxis. In return for these pleasant market conditions, the taxis have to play by the rules.

SF has similar laws. The one I see cab drivers break most often is refusing to accept payment via credit card. If you ever get in a cab in San Francisco and they tell you they don't take credit cards they're either lying or shouldn't be driving the cab in the first place.

Chicago had a similar problem when they started requiring that taxi's accept credit cards at no extra charge. When someone tried to pay their fare with a credit card a cab driver who didn't want to pay the service fee would either say that the machine was broken or "accidentally" overcharge riders. They are moving towards screens in the back seat now though.

More commonly (in NYC), I have had cab drivers request me to pay cash if possible as they have to pay quite high credit card processing fees.

You can now pay with plastic in NYC taxis through the little screen/swiper thing in the back seat. :)

Was it around 4:30 or 5:00 in the afternoon? Likely just shift change cab drought.

Around shift change, cab drivers have to get the cab back to the garage so the next cabbie can take over. If they don't get it back on time, there are repercussions. But cabbies like to maximize their working time, so they're happy to take fares going in the same general direction they're going.

You can file as many complaints as you want, but no cabbie is going to take you to the Bronx when they have to be in DUMBO in fifteen minutes. If this rule was 100% enforced, the alternative isn't more convenience, it's less convenience, since cabs around shift change wouldn't stop at all. At least this way people moving in the general direction of the garage get rides.

Thank you for posting this, could be useful to someone.

But let me remind you that this post does not fall within the general guidelines for HN posting. For your reference:

http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Hacker News Guidelines

What to Submit

On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.

This is on topic and you wouldn't have objected if he put "start-up transportation advice for newbies to NYC"in the heading or the first line.

This is a good tip for anyone who is working or having meetings in NYC. Getting around the city trying to meet clients or partners can be tricky and if you're in a hurry you don't have time to argue if the cab driver can get you there or not.

Or further down:

Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.

The relevant part of the guidelines is a bit further down:

"Don't abuse the text field in the submission form to add commentary to links. The text field is for starting discussions. If you're submitting a link, put it in the url field. If you want to add initial commentary on the link, write a blog post about it and submit that instead."

Everyone is saying that they might be on their way back to the garage and I agree except that the driver should have the off-duty light on at that point. They should pull over and explain "Hey I'm on my way back to the garage but I can take you if its close"

Note On the cabby's behalf: If you rent and drive a yellow cab it cost you $150 to get in it. You have to fuel it up at the end of the shift so thats another $30-40 per shift.

At $5-10 per ride and assuming you can average 2 or 3 rides in an hour...it explains why they drive like maniacs and look to hustle.

Is asking a cab if they go somewhere in a major city normal? Excuse my ignorance if it is, but I'm from a very small town (so no prior experience with cabs in general) and have lived in Chicago (city and suburbs at various times) for the last 5 years and I have never even thought to ask a cab driver if he goes somewhere in particular. And I've taken cabs pretty far within the city.

The only time I was ever refused was when I tried to get a ride to the suburbs (a mega expensive cab ride but I needed it).

It's true. I've learned my lesson after living in Brooklyn and now Queens for the last few years. Just get in the cab, ensure your entire party is in the cab. Shut the doors. Say where you're going and sit tight. I've been fortunate to live by the bridges in both locations so I have an easy counter if they start to argue. Hold your ground!

Out of maybe 100 cab rides from Manhattan to Brooklyn, I have sensed reluctance maybe 5 or 10 times. Definitely get in the cab, close the door, and only then start talking destination.

Also, be aware that they have a counter-strategy if they don't want to take you. One time, my girlfriend and I got into the cab, told him where to go in Brooklyn, and within 60 seconds he had "car trouble". I was pretty sure sure he was bluffing and called him on it, and he said either (can't quite recall) he needed to go to a shop immediately, or he needed a tow. We sat in the cab for about 30 seconds, and then got out. He pulled away, almost certainly to find another fare.

Next time, I will get the details and file a complaint. If he really did have car trouble and a record of service, he should be able to have it dismissed.

Any idea why a cab driver would want to reject a journey? Is there some other bureaucracy that makes it hard for them to turn a profit if they abide by this?

For example it is very common in England for "distance and a half" fares to be invoked when journeys are outside of a particular region. This is in place so that if a cab driver takes you to "Stixwich" they're not out of pocket on the drive back since there are likely no return fairs from that point. Does NYC deny this 1.5x for further journeys?

It's about a New York City that's 25 years long gone, but this question, and thread, reminded of Ted Rall's recollections of driving a Cab in NYC during the early 80s

http://www.rall.com/longarticle_003.htm

Hey, that's still a great read. I love the little vignette about Woody Allen. I voted you up because reading this completely answers the question of "why won't NY cabbies take me to Brooklyn?"

It's almost impossible for me to get a ride out to Ozone Park in queens, but reading this totally makes me understand why.

The last time I was in NY, I emerged from a hotel in midtown, and asked the next cab waiting in line outside the hotel to take me to SoHo. He just shook his head and sat there. I asked the hotel cab-wrangler if the cab was working, and he just shook his head as well. I walked a block and got a cab on Broadway instead.

Only thing I can figure is that he was holding out for an airport fare. Give that it was raining pretty hard, this was kind of annoying.

> Any idea why a cab driver would want to reject a journey?

As stated by OP, shorter journeys within Manhattan tend to be more profitable. The main reason is that once in an outer borough, it takes longer to find a fare to get the cab back in Manhattan. So they either burn time and gas looking for the right fare, or they burn time and gas driving back to Manhattan empty.

> Does NYC deny this 1.5x for further journeys?

There are myriad rules and fare schedules for journeys outside NYC, airports, etc. The 5 boroughs are within NYC, and this is what OP is addressing.

So for example I live in SF but grew up in Millbrae (which is pretty much where SFO is actually located) I'd park my car there and then take a cheap cab ride back and forth to the airport.

The problem was the cab drivers at SFO are looking to get a $40 fare back to the city, not a local $10 drop off. I've had a driver refuse to take me once (I now know better). In NYC taking a fare to the outer boroughs is usually a one way trip, you're going to have to dead head it back to Manhattan which is time lost.

Here is the NYC taxi cab rates.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/passenger/taxicab_rate.shtm...

You have to pay $2.50 just to get in the cab in the first place, no matter how far you go. Thus, it is much better for the driver to do multiple short trips. It also means that longer trips are actually affordable for riders.

The biggest issue is probably just trying to find a return fair. Late at night most people are going from Manhattan to one of the outer boroughs - not the other way around. The usually end up driving an empty cab back to Manhattan, so they are effectively getting a half-fare.

I cannot disagree with the reasoning behind wanting to avoid an empty return trip. However, as a customer with a legit need, this isn't really my problem. Either the city, or the cab co, or the cabbie needs to resolve this problem, not me. The law exists for a very good reason, like many other "consumer protection" laws.

So I'll ask the obvious question as a person who has visited, but never lived in, NYC. Why is this a problem?

I've never had a problem getting a cab to take me where I want to go in the cities I've lived in nor the ones I've visited. The only downside I can see is if you're requesting somewhere that's remote and that would be difficult for the cab to find another fare on the return trip. NYC does not strike me as a place that would have this problem.

There are a surprising number of remote places in New York. For instance, I doubt any cab would pick up a fare to Broad Channel, Queens. The truly far places like Staten Island aren't an issue, because the fare is so expensive nobody is trying to cab it out there anyway.

The fares the cabbies hate are to emerging yuppie gentrification neighborhoods in Brooklyn, Uptown and the part of Queens near Manhattan. Places like Greenpoint, Astoria, Windsor Terrace, LIC, Prospect Heights, Morningside Heights, etc. In these neighborhoods a cabbie is almost certainly not going to get a fare back to the city, especially late at night.

Astoria has never caused trouble for me..not once have I been refused, and I cab it back to 23av/31st a couple of times a week from lower manhattan. Maybe it's all of the tlc-oriented services along 21st that make it less of a hassle?

The common case is being in Manhattan and needing to get to Queens or Brooklyn or far far uptown. The solution that's worked for me is to get in the cab first and then give your destination. Asking the driver through the open window if they'll take you to X is usually going to get you nowhere in that case.

Good info, indeed.

Personally, these kinds of articles always crack me up. New Yorkers know this. Transplants from CT, NJ or whatever cul-de-sac in Wisconsin you people are coming from lately, frankly you deserve whatever crap treatment you get from cabbies.

And don't complain to 311, you transplants complain to much as it is. Just hash it out in a nice little argument with the cabbie. It'll be cathartic and maybe it'll get you down enough to not buy that V-neck.

"New Yorkers know this. Transplants from CT, NJ or whatever cul-de-sac in Wisconsin you people are coming from lately, frankly you deserve whatever crap treatment you get from cabbies."

Really? Guess what? Everyone in NYC is a transplant, at some point. And everyone has to learn just how things work, in detail, over time. It's a process, not a badge to brag about. Natives are the worst...

Be polite to the cab drivers. Ask first. You don't have to be an asshole just because the city ordinance allows you to be one.

it's odd that tv and movies haven't fixed this problem. i'm always surprised when i see people talking to the cabbie before they get in, because a) i'm from queens and therefore would never do that and b) have they ever seen someone in a movie do that? no. standard protocol is the cab stops, you get in, and THEN say where you are going.

It is pretty rare that a cab drives around with his doors un-locked. I almost always have to tell them where I am going before they unlock the door.

Another pro-tip: many times Lincoln town cars will take you like a taxi but they are not allowed to pick you up unless you called for a car so get in before negotiating the price

I recommend people never take a non-yellow cab. They have far fewer regulations, so they can charge ludicrous amounts. Even if you negotiate a price beforehand, it might surprisingly change when you arrive.

Agreed. I took one of those black Towncars once, and the driver tried to charge me something absurd at the end of the rather short trip. I told him all I had was a twenty, didn't get any change. That was the first and last time I'll ever hail one of those.

Negotiate through the window before you get in, they have set prices based on "zones". Those towncars are roughly twice as expensive I find. I Don't tip those guys since it they are doing it without the dispatcher's knowledge so it's pure profit for them

Thanks for the tip, I see people getting refused for Queens/Bronx/Staten Island from Manhattan all the time.

I actually learned of this from my coworker. He filed a few complaints already since they refused to take him from Manhattan to Brooklyn. It's actually to a nice part of Brooklyn too.

Somewhat OT, but I'm wondering why you felt the need to mention that the guy who was refused was white along with "non-threatening" and "well dressed". I appreciate your posting this and would like to thank you for it, but it made me feel really uneasy when I came to that part.

And that's why I tip really good when I need to cab it back to Staten Island - I understand that they won't make any money on the return trip and that it is out of their way.

All this talk of NY cabbies and not a single mention of Uber App? I can't wait for them to arrive here in the city and disrupt this chaotic system of NY and gypsy cabs.

What's the distinction between uber app and gypsy cabs?

I don't see it as a moral issue, in the least. The law was created, for a very good reason. Prior to the law, I've no doubt the public got screwed over, often, and on a regular basis. Let alone "less desirable" fares.