24/7 Taxi Cab Company/Talk

This page is for discussing the contents of 24/7 Taxi Cab Company.

Comments:

Note: You must be logged in to add comments

Hopefully we can have a less chaotic discussion now. Is anybody else bothered by the fact that the lion's share of complains are from two competitors posting under three names? Note that I'm not trying to remove complaints or edit toward any particular outcome, just rework and improve the entry to read better and not be so back-and-forth between drivers. I've got a comment referring to a non-existent Talk page. -jw

• Yes, I am bothered. I know you weren't asking for this, but I'd like to delete all of the comments. —CovertProfessor
  

• I concur. If customers want to complain, fine. If ANYONE ELSE has evidence of shadiness, fine. As it is, we have competitors with no proof insinuating things that may or may not be true. —wl
  

• Complete agreement....I also suggest that complaints being posted by the two competitor's simply be removed when posted. —PeteB

Honestly, why not just wipe it practically blank and let it be rebuilt slowly. Reading the page is painful. Proposed:

Upload new image "A representation of a vehicle for edification of the masses.jpg"

24/7 Taxi Cab Company is a taxi service operating in Davis, although their office is in Sacramento. Andrew Nnodim, in addition to being the owner, is one of the taxi drivers. The other is Cocoa Gale, who has noted how much she's enjoyed Davis, and even hopes to have her son transfer to UCD.

• Special: $45.00 to Sacramento Airport if you mention this special. This rate is for drop off only and not for pick up.
  

• Student Special: Every Saturday from 12:00p.m. - 6:00p.m. Present your student I.D. and get 75% off your total taxi fare — within the city of Davis only.

• Davis Business License- on file.
  

• Sac Airport Permits- No permit to transport to or from Sacramento International Airport which is a requirement to transport guests to the airport.
  

• Yolo County Business License- As of Mar. 31, 2010 No License on record with Yolo County, possibly restricting transportation outside of Davis, if not within the Davis city Limits.

• Need to get somewhere in a hurry? Davis has many taxi services for your transportation needs!

Comments:

Note: You must be logged in to add comments

---

---

2012-04-12 16:38:13   But the issue with the permits turned out to be at least partially true. This company advertises that it carries passengers to the Sacramento Airport as well as the Sacramento area in general and Woodland; this represents at least 3 permits which they should have but have failed to acquire. Clearly this company is either shady as hell or is greatly ignorant of the law. If you guys choose to delete the anecdotal allegations, I won't stop you, but I think it would be good to at least note that this company appears to have highly questionable business practices. —ScottMeehleib

---

2012-04-12 16:51:25   Scott - Read the suggested wipe. It would seem to address those points of fact. —JabberWokky

• Aren't the Sacramento Airport and Sacramento city permits two separate permits though? I think the entry should not just imply, but should explicitly address that he is missing at least three permits. On another note, if you look through the changes, you will see that Wes-P backs up Josh's hit-and-run allegation by stating that he spoke to the victim himself. It's still just anecdotal evidence, but I thought we've generally been allowing that sort of thing when multiple people come forward, as in the situation of that one Yoga studio's molestation scandal. -SM

• I believe that for counties, it's the area that you pick up the fare that you need a permit for. I could be wrong. I think I heard that from either Art or Josh, or possibly a Sacbee article. And I feel that the hit-and-run allegation should certainly stay for the reasons you state: it was backed up by multiple people. It might make sense to ask Wes about it again, however, now that the situation is less heated. -jw
  

• Okay, that sounds fair. -SM
  

---

2012-04-12 17:26:52   "OUR TAXI COMPANY NAME AND PHONE NUMBER IS ON BOTH SIDES OF OUR TAXI'S.  IF WE ASK YOU, 'DO YOU NEED A RIDE?', AND YOU'VE CALLED ANOTHER TAXI COMPANY, IT'S GOOD IF YOU ASK US OR READ OUR COMPANY NAME AND PHONE NUMBER SO YOU WILL KNOW WHICH TAXI COMPANY WE ARE.  IF YOU DECIDE TO RIDE WITH US, BUT YOU HAVE CALLED ANOTHER TAXI SERVICE TO PICK YOU UP,( as this happens many times, not only with us but with ALL the taxi services), please call and cancel the taxi service you already made arrangements with so they are able to service other customers." -Taken from their website. It basically seems like they admit to trolling downtown and poaching other customers who look as if they are waiting for cabs. He seems to justify this by saying that all the other cabs do this, but is that really true? If this company is the only one with this practice of soliciting waiting customers, it seems to validate yet another concern of the local cab business and would help explain why they are so pissed off. —ScottMeehleib

• That would be new. I think EdWins' idea of wiping and building slowly and carefully is a good idea: this would be something to add as it gets built back up. -jw
  

• Fair enough. -SM
  

---

2012-04-12 21:21:00   Also, what are we supposed to do about the allegation where Josh Lawson said he was nearly hit? I understand the fact that he is a competitor may add a feeling of suspicion, but is the correct response to delete a firsthand testimony? Unlike some of the accusations dealing with, say racism at establishments, Josh was not a driveby editor and he was willing to stand by his comment with a real name It kind of reminds me of the other taxi drama where an editor claimed to see sexual misconduct in a cab. Like Lawson, she had no proof for her experience, but several editors were supportive of letting the comment stay. If we would have found out that she had some affiliation with a competing cab company, would that have suddenly changed everything to the point of widespread support for deletion? To be honest, in the case of Josh, it seems like the best way to be fair would be simply to say "competing driver Josh Lawson" and let the comment stay, thereby informing the reader of possible bias. Then they come to their own conclusions. Otherwise, it doesn't seem like we are being very consistent. —ScottMeehleib

This is the same Josh Lawson who massively attacked another competitor, then just disappeared without acknowledging or retracting it when it was demonstrated that it was all made up. Much of it was clearly, demonstrably false (claiming another driver had multiple DUIs... I saw his DMV record, he had zero DUIs). I have no way of evaluating whether it's true beyond Josh's history of attacks on other companies, and I know that at least one of those was baseless. To me, competitor + proven track record of making things up about competitors (or repeating made up things and failing to acknowledge the fact that it's false) = delete. —TomGarberson


• True, but he has made some accusations that turned out to be true. I would therefore be inclined to believe that he was repeating incorrect information rather than simply making things up. I would also be more inclined to give his firsthand experience the benefit of the doubt. Other editors have made incorrect allegations in the past as well, but I don't believe people would be quite as quick to delete their firsthand experiences. It's no secret that Josh is a fairly unpopular editor. -SM
  

---

2012-04-12 22:13:09   I propose using EdWins' template, deleting all comments, and adding the following section under the heading "Criticisms and Allegations":

Competing driver Josh Lawson says he heard via a Friendly Cab driver that Andrew Nnodim, hit and ran down a Summit Security guard who reported it to the highway patrol. Two other Davis Wiki editors, one a driver and one not, claimed to have heard the same story. The editor who is not a taxi driver stated that he spoke directly with the guard who was hit. Josh Lawson also said that he was personally almost run over in spring of 2011 on G Street and was forced to punch his hood to get Andrew's attention. In another instance, a driver from Friendly Cab once claimed that he was given the finger by Andrew as he drove off with a group of passengers who had chosen to ride with 24/7 instead of Friendly.

Some local cab drivers view 24/7 as poachers, taking money directly out of their pockets. The drivers of 24/7 admit to cruising downtown late at night in search of people needing rides. They will offer rides to anybody who appears to be waiting and accept all as passengers, regardless of whether or not they had already called for another cab company. 24/7 justifies this behavior by stating that all local companies follow the same practice; they also encourage the passengers to cancel their reservation with the other company so the competing drivers won't be wasting their time.

24/7 is based out of an office in Sacramento. Some people feel it would be better to support the purely local cab companies, in hopes that more of the money exchanging hands will stay within the local Davis economy. The 24/7 website vehemently denies this idea, stating that their drivers spend much of their money in Davis. The company has expressed the desire to relocate to Davis in the future. Some feel this is a rather petty or unrealistic concern in the first place. —ScottMeehleib

That would mean 186 words of information about 24/7 in the initial section, plus another 314 words in the criticisms and allegations section. I think it would also almost inevitably recreate the same series of reactions and disputes that the initial allegations caused. I really don't think a rewrite's primary focus should be on everything competitors hate about 24/7. Under this proposal, that would become the primary content of the page (my impression of it, obviously). —tg


• I'm not sure why what I wrote would devolve into greater conflict. The page and the related issues have lied dormant for over half a year. The only recent activity was somebody stopping by to write a very brief comment stating that 24/7 has never done anything illegal (even though the permit issue makes it obvious that they have been operating out of compliance.) Then, seemingly because of this one commenter, we now have a growing mandate to nearly whitewash a page that nobody expressed a problem with until very recently. I feel that I softened and neutralized the content a great deal; in fact, a good chunk of it is my attempt to paraphrase the explanations and implied defensea given on the official 24/7 website. -SM
  

• I agree with Scott. I did not propose to either eliminate conflict or remove complaints, but rather to rewrite to improve the entry, and also to see if we can get some commentary from non-competitors... and that is in order to improve how the page reads: right now it looks like a pile up. If I didn't know anybody here, I would think this is purely a back and forth bashing between taxi drivers in the current form. Again: I'm not keen on editing to avoiding conflict. I do think we can edit to improve the entry. That may mean removing some of the complaints — it may also mean buttressing some with other people's support or quotes. Right now, it's an emotionally written mess. -jw
  

• I don't care too much either way, but I don't think its comparable, as Josh established a pretty good history of just slamming and attacking other companies (and people). Sometimes for the sake of being outrageous. He's also a direct competitor, right? Different allegations, different editors, different contexts. It's lame that the bulk of the wiki page would be about how crappy this place is, especially when we're keeping most of the allegations from the same guy that was insisting this is America and Andrew should be deported or is here illegally. So, I'm closer to Tom's standpoint. I wiped it because I figured it should build itself up just like other wiki businesses, not based primarily on he-said/she-said from direct competitors (again, who in my opinion were pretty obviously on the 'attack', and in Josh's case shown themselves on other pages to intentionally being a dick). If there's something substantial to be found, I'm fine with keeping it. As a specific example, to keep the line about the other cab company (on the attack) being given the finger is ridiculous. I'm fine with keeping a criticism section if you want, maybe a pared down version of what Scott wrote above. -ES
  

• To clarify, I'm only jumping into this discussion coming from the stance of "the wiki is not a weapon." A page doesn't need to be under active editing and discussion in order to be used as one, and in my view, it has been for quite a while. -ES
  

• I'm a bit confused. I said that removing some of the complaints is fine by me. Especially the emotional ones from people with an (at the time, very heated) agenda; although some specifics from those people seem to be factual statements that should be kept. I'm not quite sure where people are disagreeing. Do you think all criticism should be removed, even from non-taxi drivers? If so, then I would disagree. Do you think it should all stay as it is, a messy pile-up of angry rants? Then I would disagree as well. If you're saying that you want to untangle the mess and remove the questionable criticisms and seek some less involved support (as I mention, going back to Wes Pierce would probably be a good idea), then we're in agreement. There's a puzzling "trying to find factions" here, when it seems that everybody essentially agrees. My only quibble is that it should be driven by making the entry better represent the subject, not blinding seeking to remove all sources of potential future conflict, which you don't seem to be implying in your support for "keeping a criticism section". -jw
  

---

2012-04-13 11:43:07   I don't have strong feelings about this issue either. So, I'll just flag a possible concern. The rewrite is a whitewash of a different sort. It makes the participants look like completely reasonable contributors, whereas the comments in all of their full glory perhaps reveal things about the writers that deserve to be revealed. I think I'd prefer to delete the whole sordid mess rather than making it look better than it is. —CovertProfessor

• I think that can be achieved and still make the entry more readable. Typically rants are limited (which is not a problem here) and framed in a way where they stand on their own. -jw
  

---

2012-04-13 12:44:30   Ultimately, it seems like it boils down to the grey issue of how much content, if any, we decide to allow from inflamed competitors of a given company. It is tempting to just wipe the whole page because it's pretty much laughably unreadable in its current state. It's like a back-and-forth argument between ten year olds. The problem I have is that many of the allegations seem potentially credible, despite the tone and despite the fact that they have more to do with competitors than the general Davis community; it seems highly likely that the company is shady (at least in regards to its competitors and proper permitting), and I feel like the EdWins' wipe on its own is like giving 24/7 a free pass on what is clearly a controversial business. Even if it's only controversial mainly to other competitors, isn't that a fact worth noting in itself? I don't have an issue with paring down the criticisms section. Even if we were just to simply mention that the cab company is "controversial to its competitors for allegations which are largely unproven", I think that would be better than acting like this fiasco never happened. —ScottMeehleib

• I have an issue with paring down the criticisms section. Are you really advocating removing it? I will have to strenuously feel that is a mistake. -jw
  

• Honestly, I don't really care that much anymore. I was trying to compromise with people. I felt like I was in a minority position by being probably the one person who would rather the page just be left alone even though it sucks, but I don't want to engage in that battle. I don't believe any proposed solution is perfect, including my own, and I don't have the stamina to debate this issue with people much further. -SM
  

---

2012-04-13 13:06:04   Also, I feel like the middle finger comment, as silly as it is to read, is the sort of thing we often allow from non-competitors in the comment section so long as it comes across in a believable context. It seems like there is a growing belief that competitors need to provide more proof than general customers to back up their comments. I definitely see the reasoning behind this, but I want to know if that's what you guys want to do in the future as well. Because by wiping this page, we are setting a pretty clear precedent that competitors are to be treated with much greater suspicion than everyone else, assuming we want to remain consistent in the future. —ScottMeehleib

• Well, I'm also against deleting the Front Page, but I'm not seeing anybody proposing that either. Who are you arguing against here? Who is proposing wiping the page (other than as a starting point to re-add things to)? -jw
  

• I was responding primarily to EdWins who said he felt the middle finger comment was ridiculous and seemed to imply it should be removed. -SM
  

---

I decided to resurrect the following comments from the old talk page to show that it's not just been taxi drivers who have had issues with this company. The honking thing hasn't even been added to the main page, but it probably should. But I'm just trying to express why I think it's at least fair to state that this company is controversial if we do decide to get rid of nearly all the other allegations. " * I speak up cause you operate illegally in Davis, with the honking, the no Yolo county Weights and Measures seal, and the lack of commercial insurance on all of your vehicles, not to mention the lack of Sac Airport transponder/records on file with them and the impersonation of other cabbies. Your race has nothing to do with it, but after around the 6th time you honked at me and slowly drove past while creepily looking at me while I was in or around downtown was when my opinion changed. Kindly leave the good professor alone. Daubert  * I too have been honked at. As a young female I feel very threatened by this even knowing it's a cab driver looking for a fare. I would never get into a cab that has honked at me. —OliviaY

• Are you unaware that it is this kind of addition that the original proposal is advocating? It's actually Daubert's supporting statements that were the first thing I wanted to add. -jw
  

• I am not unaware of this, but I was trying to stress that additions by non-cab-drivers such as Daubert make me feel that the EdWins solution on its own is a wash. I don't really believe that many if any of the allegations should be removed. I'm simply trying to compromise and give some vague final input to a matter in which my opinion is the clear minority. I think you are the only who has agreed with at least somewhat with my initial proposals. I also feel this a grey area that could be debated endlessly, and I'm not up for it. I understand the reasoning behind wiping the page in its current form, but I sense there will be a lot of resistance to the gradual build-up that I would like to see. If people are already taking issue with what I felt was a pretty innocuous re-write by me, just imagine how stressful it could get when we actually try re-adding things on the real page. -SM
  

• From my point of view, this has been a pretty low key discussion, with people offering their views on how they'd like the page to look. I wouldn't call it a debate, and I'm sorry if you have found it stressful. I think we're all just discussing how we'd like the page to end up. —cp
  

• I agree that it has been low-key and everyone has been respectful so far. Perhaps I'm just too traumatized about the taxi wars of the past. Part of me feels this civilized discussion could erupt into chaos at any moment. Just wait for Lawson to break through the walls like Kool-Aid Man. ;-) -SM
  

• Let's hope that doesn't happen. :-) —cp
  

---

2012-04-13 19:55:59   Incidentally, I'm making my tiny edits and waiting to see what others do, and allow feedback. —JabberWokky

---

2012-04-16 09:12:53   I see only two things remaining that need to be added. One is the hit and run allegation: I can certainly find the quotes that attest to the event and put them into a reasonable paragraph. The second, however, is this block:

2011-05-02 08:22:20   A couple of years ago Andrew showed up to work in Davis by trolling in his Sacramento taxicab association cab. Andrew got the attention of the local companies, because they found out that he was picking up customers who had called and were waiting for a pickup downtown, by telling them that he was the cab that they had called. It appeared that he was working in Davis because he had his Sacramento City cab permit revoked. After he had stirred things up awhile, I heard from someone with that Sacramento taxicab association that they had dismissed him. After that Andrew removed the name of the association from his cab. Years before then a high bar had been set for inter-cab ethics, in particular by Max with Village Cab. Andrew definitely has lowered the standard for inter-cab ethics and we've also heard complaints from his customers. He has asked why doesn't someone help him with his "original" wiki page. I wonder why I should help him with that or refer customers to him. Over a week ago a Summit security guard told a local Friendly Cab driver at the Research Park Chevron that when he had nearby, just moments before, tried to talk to Andrew about his misbehavior, he pushed him with his cab and drove off. Last Friday night someone called Friendly Cab for a ride on Via Colonna Terrace in Mace Ranch in East Davis. It was unusual for Andrew to also show up for a cab call outside of downtown, but against taxi etiquette the customers had called more than one cab company. Also they didn't answer the cell phone they had called from for a cab. Andrew gave a vulgar hand sign to the driver as he took off with the passengers. That's pretty much the way we see him. —BruceHansen

Integrate it? Leave it? Most of the rest of the comments are meta-topic (i.e., discussing "wiki" rather than "24/7"). This one is a perspective from a taxidriver that seems pretty reasonable, and I'm inclined to keep it pretty much verbatim (with a note about the fact that Bruce runs a competing company). Thoughts? —JabberWokky

• I'm inclined to believe this should be integrated as well. -SM
  

• I agree... Integrate with notation — WP
  

---

2012-04-16 17:44:16   I think the information about honking at pedestrians should stay. I'm ambivalent about the information from Bruce. I'm leery about including the hearsay that Andrew was kicked out of the Sac cab association unless someone wants to actually call and confirm it first, but whatever. Your call. I'm still opposed to having any accusations from Josh on there because he's proven he's so unreliable, and because some of them are so blatantly obviously speculation (the illegal immigrant thing). —TomGarberson

• The honking bits have been moved up already. Right now I'm planning on moving the whole kebab from Bruce up as a single, attributed block. -jw