Austin pedicab safety meeting - Nov 20, 2008
Hey Pedicabbery,
I am pleased and hopeful that the city of Austin transportation department is actively working toward making Pedicabs safer and improving our image with the public. The Transportation Department is asking for the input of pedicab owners to help develop updated safety standards. This meeting was initially called in response to the concerns that were raised by Luke Iseman’s pedicab.
I attended the meeting with other pedicab shop owners as a representative of the Dikes on Bikes collective. The meeting was facilitated by Steve Grassfield, the City of Austin Transportation Regulatory Manager. Marcy and Joe of the Transportation Department were also in attendance. The pedicab shop owners in attendance were Steve of Heart of Texas, Nathan of Metrocycle, Austin of Austin Pedicab Co-Op, Will of ATX, Greg of Capital Pedicab, Shannon and Paul of Tricyclo, Luke of Dirtnail, and myself, Ken Cameron representing Dikes on Bikes.
Steve Grassfield is proactively working to improve the safety and appearance standards of Austin Pedicabs. He asked for the input of the Austin pedicab shop owners on the following list of items which may or may help to improve the safety of Austin’s pedicab fleet:
- Addition of turn signals and or additional lights (4 instead of just 2)
- Requirement of a horn or bell
- Requirement of review mirrors
- Establishment of standards for tires
- Standard for Bike type used to pull pedicab trailers
- Number of spokes per wheel
- Dimensional requirements for pedicabs. (Max width, length, minimum dimensions for pedicab passenger seats)
- Appearance standards
- Braking standards
Steve Grassfield researched regulatory requirements placed on pedicabs by various cities. He cited regulatory requirements in San Francisco, New York City, Phoenix and Denver. Steve was most impressed with the regulations placed on pedicabs by New York city, and least impressed with those found in Denver. Steve pointed out that the Austin pedicab inspection requirements have not been substantially modified since they were created approximately 7 years ago.
In no particular order of importance the following are points that were brought up during this discussion, as best as I can remember them. Steve Grassfield specifically asked that no audio or video recording devices be on during the meeting.
1) ADDITION OF TURN SIGNALS:
- There is no current requirement for lighted turn signals being installed on Austin pedicabs. Currently hand signals are used to indicate lane changes.
- Hand signals can not be seen at night, thus are insufficient.
- Austin requires that pedicabs drive in the right or left most lane. As such turn signals are not often needed.
- What about when you have to turn left from the right lane?
- From personal experience of pedicabbing, hand signals are sufficient, can be seen at night and automobile drivers do react to them allowing for safe lane changes.
- Currently most pedicabs in Austin use 2 to 4 blinking bicycle safety lights. Combining blinking turn signals with this type of light would be problematic, and possibly in effective.
1a) REQUIRING FOUR RED LIGHTS ON THE BACK OF PEDICABS INSTEAD OF TWO:
- The current requirement is for there to be two lights (solid or blinking) and two red reflectors.
- No objections were raised to the 4 lights.
- Heart of Texas has already be using 4 lights on its pedicabs.
- There is no current requirement for the placement of the lights. It was suggested that the 4 lights could be placed near the out most rear corners of the pedicab. This would improve visibility over the lights being placed near each other, and help to establish for car drivers the size of the pedicab in front of them.
2) REQUIREMENT OF A HORN OR BELL TO BE INSTALLED ON PEDICABS
- While this may be a standard item installed on many pedicabs, ther is no current requirement for a horn or bell.
- Pointed out that yelling is always an option and does not cause the pedicab driver to remove hands from the brakes. Bells do not tell pedestrians that they are in immediate danger.
- Audible warning devices can be used to warn pedestrians of the approach of a pedicab.
- Bells are useful when approaching a blind corner where pedestrians might be present.
- Some sort of auditory warning device should be present to help prevent accidents.
- No strong objections were raised to requiring bells.
- There was little if any support for the requirement of an automotive style horn.
3) REQUIREMENT OF REVIEW MIRRORS TO BE INSTALLED ON PEDICABS.
- This is a requirement recently established in Phoenix.
- Almost unanimous agreement that it is better for the pedicab driver to look over his or her shoulder instead of in a mirror.
- One rider pointed out that few bicycle mirrors are actually usable due to vibration.
- Another pedicab rider and owner reported that mirrors are useful.
4) ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDARDS FOR TIRES USED ON PEDICABS.
- There is no current standard for tires to be used on pedicabs.
- Concern was expressed that very thin road bike tires could be installed.
- Several riders expressed that the biggest danger of using inappropriate tires would getting a flat tire.
- It was suggested that flat tires are not a safety concern, rather they just cost the rider money. Because of the money lost from using inappropriate tires, pedicab drivers and shop owners are going to tend to use the tires get flats the least often.
- It was brought up that if no standard is established, then any tire could be installed.
- It was suggested that a minimum rim width be established instead of tire width.
- Tire properties were discussed. Minimum tire pressure is easily determined. Tire width is easily determined. However other factors that better establish the strength of a tire like maximum recommended weight load and number of threads per inch in the fabric of the tire casing is often not advertised and harder to determine.
- It was pointed out that the brand names are not a good determinate in that manufactures often make tires of of widely different costs and quality.
- Suggested that BMX and MTB grade tires are sufficient for pedicab usage.
- Pointed out that there is no such thing as a “BMX” or “MTB” standard for tires.
- Suggested that the only requirement for a tire should be that they are not visibility worn.
- We were asked to recommend a minimum width and tire pressure.
5) STANDARD FOR BICYCLE TYPE USED TO PULL PEDICAB TRAILERS.
- There is currently no standards for the bicycle used to pull a pedicab trailer.
- It was suggested that 21 speed or greater bicycles like a mountain bike be required.
- Very little discussion on this point.
- Pointed out that mountain bike style bikes are generally going to have stronger brakes than other types of bikes.
6) NUMBER OF SPOKES PER WHEEL
- There is currently no standard for the number of spokes in each wheel used in a pedicab.
- It is pointed out that more spokes will make wheels stronger.
- Most bicycle wheels will come with between 32 and 48 spokes.
- One pedicab owner observed that his pedicabs have double wall rims and 48 spokes per wheel. He stated that due to the weight of his trailers, the strongest wheels available were being used.
- Suggested that rim width width was also important determinant of wheel strenght.
- It was pointed out that most bicycles sold in bike shops today have 32 spokes per wheel. It was suggested that if this is a common standard for the bicycle industry that it could be used as a minimum standard for Austin pedicabs.
7) DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PEDICABS (Max width, length, and minimum dimensions for pedicab passenger seats)
- Currently there is no Maximum or minimum widths or lengths of pedicabs. There are also no minimum requirement for the size of the passenger seat on a pedicab.
- It was noted that the majority of tricycle pedicabs are 110 inches long and 50 inches wide.
- It was noted that New York City allows pedicabs to be up to 120 inches long and 55 inches wide.
- One owner stated that his pedicabs are likely to be wider that 55 inches, but he did not know the exact sizes of his cabs.
- One owner observed that bike lanes are approximately 60 inches wide.
- One rider suggested that a maximum width of 60 inches might work.
- One rider observed that a trailer with bike attached is longer that a trike.
- In discussing the size of passenger seating, one owner observed that his seats are approximately 22 inches deep, some of which is taken up by padding.
- Steve Grassfield asked the pedicab shop owners to email him with the dimensions of their seats, and the dimensions of their pedicabs.
UPDATED APPEARANCE STANDARDS FOR PEDICABS
- Currently there are few appearance standards for Austin’s pedicabs, and the ones in place are ambiguous.
- The existing appearance standards are as follows:
- A vehicle and any equipment used to provide non-motorized service must be in safe, sanitary, and clean condition.
- The interior of a vehicle used to provide non-motorized service must be clean.
- All portions of the interior upholstery of a vehicle used to provide non-motorized service must match in color or be of similar shades, without noticeable tears or other damage.
- Missing, broken, or significantly damaged interior and exterior parts of a vehicle used to provide non-motorized service must be repaired or replaced in a neat and inconspicuous manner.
- The vehicle must conform with other equipment requirement prescribed by the department under Section 13-2-165(4) (Contents of Operating Authority).
- Several pedicab owners suggested that existing appearance standards are sufficient.
- One pedicab owner suggested that the best way to enforce appearance standards is to fine offending operators heavily.
- It was suggested that paint should be in good condition.
- It was suggested that metal frames should not be rusty.
- It was observed that pedicabs get scraped on obstacles, causing damage to paint, and these minor scrapes will lead to small rusty spots.
- It was suggested that such small rusty spots could be touched up or painted over with nail polish or similar paints.
- It was suggested that upholstery should be free of tears.
- One owner suggested that small tears should not be cause for concern. Large tears should be more of an issue.
- It was suggested that subjective judgments about what is a small or large tear can lead to problems.
- It was suggested that the Transportation Department could give a time period of 10 days to allow for repairs to be made. If repairs are made during this time then any fines could be waived.
- It was suggested that pedicabs should have a professional appearance.
- I believe other points were raised, but I can’t recall them at this time.
9) BRAKING STANDARDS.
- The only current objective standard for brakes on a pedicab is one wheel of the vehicle should be able to skid.
- As part of the current inspection process pedicab drivers are asked to pedal the vehicle up to speed in the Transportation Department’s parking lot and then apply the brakes at full force. The Inspector needs to be satisfied that the brakes work adequately.
- There is however no objective standard of braking performance.
- It was observed that the city of Phoenix requires that all wheels of a pedicab must be braked and be able to skid.
- There was mention of a hill test that for braking performance. Details of how such a test would work were not discussed.
- It was observed that none of the trailer pedicabs in operation in Austin have brakes installed on the passenger carriage’s wheels. The braking is supplied by the bicycle pulling the trailer.
- It was observed that trailers there for never have their brakes inspected.
- It was suggested that the bicycles pulling a trailer could be inspected and get a sticker from the city.
- It was suggested that solutions to these problems should not place undue burden to the Transportation Department’s limited staff resources.
- A city staff member stated that she was not familiar enough with bicycles to be able to inspect them.
- It was suggested that Trailer pullers could be required to show a receipt from a bicycle shop for recent brake work for the city to approve the bicycle for trailer hauling duty.
- Objections were raised about the cost and complications of inspecting and approving bicycles as well as trailers.
- It was suggested that the City’s issuance of operating authorities to pedicab company operators is a way of saying the the City trusts authority holders to ensure the safety of their passengers. This trust relationship has meant that operating authority holders are responsible for making sure that bicycles that pull trailers have sufficient brakes to stop the pedicab. Further this pedicab owner described his procedures for inspecting the brakes on his drivers bicycles. He suggests that the city should continue to trust that operating authority holders will continue to exercise proper judgment on the trailer bikes suitability for duty.
- More points were raised on this subject, but I am unable to recall them at this time.
Additional discussions was brought up on the subjects of standardized
training manuals, the suitability of telespar as a material for use in
a pedicab (Luke Iseman’s “Dirtcab”), and the golf carts giving rides
with out an operating authority.
On the subject of a training manual several pedicab owners supported
the idea. A member of city staff suggested that they would be willing
to help with this effort.
No time frame was set for the the next follow up meeting. Pedicab
shop owners were asked to email Steve Grassfield to further detail
their thoughts on these matters. Steve stated that telling him
verbally is not going to be as effective as writing it down in an email.
26. November, 2008 at 16:45
Very informative Ken… But there is one thing I would like to add to your article.
Now. I want to make it clear to everyone, that these proceedings are supposed to be CLOSED proceedings, that means that they are for “Sponsor’s Only”. One individual rider (whose identity will not be disclosed), took it upon Himself to masquerade as an independent Sponsor at this meeting. He was subsequently TERMINATED for insubordination and for violating this protocol.
If anyone has got a problem with that, and you don’t like the way your Sponsor’s conduct these meetings, before you act on your own, you should bring your grievance to the attention of your Sponsor, before you unwittingly ostracize yourself from the entire Austin Pedicab collective.
27. November, 2008 at 12:16
He was subsequently TERMINATED for insubordination and for violating this protocol.
Wait, the guy was fired by his sponsor- for attending a meeting???
30. November, 2008 at 16:16
You know, I find Luke Iseman’s tactics and his deathcab construction pretty despicable in general but after reading here that you can be ostracized from the “Austin pedicab collective” for “insubordination” and going to a meeting, I think a new low in despicability has been reached.
Is it any wonder that a kid might want to “strap a wheel burrow to his ass and go independent” instead of leasing one from a clown like this?
For what it’s worth, I think the sponsor (and any sponsors in consensus with him) who terminated that rider ought to be ashamed of his petty and negative reaction. Good for that rider for being an individual and taking action on his own to seek some transparency in how the local pedicab industry is run.
And thanks ATX for sharing this information with us.
14. December, 2008 at 17:25
For the full story on Luke’s Iseman’s termination, talk to his former employer, Metrocycle (not ATX).
Luke now owns his own company and like all owners he can only be “fired” by the city or his insurance company.
The guy in question who rubbed a pedicab company owner the wrong way by attending a pedicab owners meeting while not being an owner or representative of an owner was NOT Luke Iseman. Talk to his former employer (ATX) to get the full story.
Texas is a right to work state, as such employers do not have to provide any justification in order to fire an employee. Pedicab drivers, for the most part are independent contractors, not employees. In some cases the pedicab driver is an owner/operator. Shop owners rent their equipment to pedicab drivers. It is up to the owner of the equipment to decide whom them want to rent it to.
15. December, 2008 at 03:29
I’m not referring to Metrocycle at all here.
15. December, 2008 at 05:17
sorry for the misunderstanding. I did not read things closely enough.
15. December, 2008 at 09:49
Because it’s been put in writing in this public forum, as a warning no less, I’d really like some elaboration on the use of the word “protocol”. Is this really the consensus among the owners as ATX suggests: Go to a city meeting and no pedicab for you? I read that paperwork when I signed up for this chauffeur gig again at the Ground Transport office a few weeks ago and there is no mention of protocols, closed proceedings, or ostracization anywhere in those forms.
As long as there is room in the office, I think any pedicabber who takes the time to attend one of these meetings in a non-disruptive way should be supported for his or her interest and exercise of their citizenship rights, not terminated. I for one would like to have more transparency about what is discussed and decided at this level.
And for the record I mentioned the deathcab here to make it clear I’m no fan of build-your-own-pedicab-from-popsicle-sticks-and-bottle-caps approach, not as a personal attack on Luke. And when I wrote a new low, I meant a new high.
15. December, 2008 at 13:09
I think I can help you here PJ…
Allow me to elaborate on the protocols of a pedicab company. Most every business has protocols for it’s employee’s, a pedicab company is no different than any other business. More often than not, most all pedicab company’s are sole proprietorships, meaning that the business is owned by one person. The proprietor is solely responsible for establishing their own company’s internal protocols. As a sub-contractor, when you sign a contract with a given company, that company then becomes your Sponsor, making you subject of those protocols and granting you the privilege of obtaining a chauffuers permit under your Sponsors name.
Now I understand that there is a lot of confusion in the pedicab industry among independent contractors, and it is possible that the term “independent” is over exaggerated within the pedicab industry, many people seem to misinterpret the terminology and allow it to go to their head. Well lets look outside the box so you can get a better understanding of the terminology;
Subcontractor; someone who enters into a subcontract with the primary contractor. (Your sponsor would be the Primary, your subcontract would be your lease agreement.)
Independent contractor; a worker who provides specific services to a company but is not an employee or agent of that company. (Which means the contractor has no right or authority to act as an employee or agent in an official capacity beyond the scope of the position for which they are sub-contracted.)
Sub and Independent contractors are one in the same, and they do not have the same rights or privileges as that of an employee or agent. Contractors are obligated to abide by and fulfill their contractual obligations as established and governed by their Sponsor, nothing more.
Now, most every business has a code of conduct drawn up for it’s employees and sub-contractors, this code pretty much describes your position and job duties within a given company, this code is very important because it details everything you need to know about your specific position in the pedicab industry. This important information could come in the form of rules, policy’s or lease contract that you are required to accept and abide.
Every business has protocols of diplomatic formality within it’s company structure. These protocols are usually embedded within a given company’s rules and policy’s. It defines who the senior officers and managers are, and it defines who is subordinate and subject to that authority. If your a pedicabber, more than likely your a SUB/IND-contractor, which makes you subordinate to the authority of the Primary Sponsor, who technically speaking, is your Boss.
As a sub-contractor, your citizenship rights to make official business decisions on your Sponsor’s behalf are non-existent, because that would constitute a breach of contract and infringe upon the rights of the Primary Sponsor. Commiting such an act against your Sponsor could be construed as insubordination. For instance, a sub-contractor who acts in an official capacity without the knowledge or consent of the Primary Sponsor is in breach of their contract, because they willfully superceded their prescribed job duties in a subversive and hostile fashion. Another example would be a sub-contractor who publicly address’ his Sponsor with vulgarity, or who subversively takes it upon themselves to reschedule company meetings or re-negotiate lease agreements without the authority of the Sponsor.
These are all acts of insubordination, they are all terminable offenses, as they would violate most any legitimate business’ company protocol.
15. December, 2008 at 14:28
Hey, no arguments about your leasing decisions. In the case of the rider at the city meeting, I think you drastically expand the concept of insubordination to absurd levels but if those are your rules, fine. We all can make our choices about who we give our lease dollars to, and it’s great you put all this information out there in this forum.
But, I didn’t sign off on any contract or written code of conduct or protocol that equates simple attendance of a city meeting with making an unauthorized official business decision for my sponsor, or deeming it a fatal offense. In one year of pedicabbing, I’ve yet to receive my own copy of any written rules at all, let alone a rule like that. I don’t think I’m alone in this respect. So, I’m gonna assume your initial comment refers only to your internal operation (ATX Pedicab) and the rest of it is rhetorical flourish.
16. December, 2008 at 02:08
Patricia, you have reminded me of how small our pond is and how big are our egos. I am humbled.
5. January, 2009 at 15:53
. . . And I thought my golf carts were subject to some pretty harsh and unfair scrutiny. We don’t have to be enemies you know. We aren’t going anywhere, no matter how many insults, videotapes, or police reports that are made we are here to stay. The city is working with us to get us an operations permit, can’t we all just get along?!?!?! I was surprised at the level of hostility my company received when we started last July (extreme aggression, slanderous untrue comments, and one of you even spit on my little sister when she was driving!!!). After receiving numerous citations from APD (all of which were dismissed by the way)we are still operating despite the best efforts of those in your community which will remain nameless to have us shut down. We are insured, my drivers have spotless driving/criminal history records, and even the Mayor has taken a ride with us and loved it! This is America guys. . .We can be mortal enemies, or we can be friends. I prefer the latter.
Chris Nielsen
Owner
Capitol Cruisers
5. February, 2009 at 18:46
Chris,
The vast majority of the complaints that I have heard from other pedicab drivers has been about your golf cart drivers. Many of your drivers have been seen picking up rides on the side of the road. Many have of your drivers have solicited passengers out of a pedicab as they were underway. Many of your drivers have parked their motorized vehicles on sidewalks.
When your drivers operate in this fashion they are a Gypsy Taxi service.
Currently the only thing that differentiates your business from a gypsy taxi service is that your employees ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ACCEPT ANY MONEY FROM THEIR PASSENGERS. If your employees do accept any money (this includes tips) from their passengers they are breaking the law, by operating without an operating authority, operating an unmarked, uninspected and unregistered vehicle, and driving without a chauffeurs permit.
You have stated again and again that you operate a shuttle service. Further you have stated that this shuttle service is not covered by section 13-2 of the Austin City code because your vehicles do not have internal combustion engines. Your vehicles being electrically powered is not the issue. At the point where money is accepted from passengers you are required to obtain an operating authority from the city of Austin. But then again you know this already.
While you say that you and your lawyers have read though the Austin City code please review sections 13-2-1-10, 13-2-3, 13-2-101, 13-2-161, 13-2-232
You can see the section 13-2 of the Austin City code here:
http://austinpedicab.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/austin-city-code-chapter-13-section-2.rtf
I would like also like to point out that should you be successful in getting your electric golf carts authorized to transport passengers in the downtown area, that many many other golf carts will flood Downtown Austin. You are not the only one to try to skirt around city regulations. Just look at the numbers of golf carts that operate at UT football games. Do you think it will take more than a few weeks for those guys won’t be out in force?
7. February, 2009 at 18:36
Drunk Tosser: a hi speed golf cart hauling drunk poeple with no seat belts that travels at a hi speed with rear facing seats.
Chris, its all fun and games until someone punches, robs or an automobile hits your riders. Happens to us pedicabbers all the time. Yea man, you can join in the festivities, just dont be suprised when you get more then you asked for.
I just think its going to be pretty painful when someone sitting on your rear facing seats gets their legs crushed from a drunk rear end collision.
Or someone falls out cuz their drunk and at a higher speed then a pedicab.
Ive had 2 poeple drunkenly fall out of my cab at low speeds. Not so funny when going over 10mph. You should have seat belts on those rolling drunk tossers.
Also, you are loading more people then taxi cabs are legally allowed to. 3-4 people max.
We pedicabbers are held to rules and regulations, you are no different, other then you have a small grace period until the red tape hits you.
Good luck Scroe~
Dont work to hard. Leave that to the pedicabbers.
7. February, 2009 at 18:44
Hey guys, I hope you don’t mind if I chime in here…
Ken makes some very interesting points, but realistically Chris, I don’t feel that your business is as serious a threat to the Austin pedicab market as others may lead on. I am sure you are proud of yourself, after all it’s a miracle that your business has survived this long under APD & AGTD’s radar. But for what it’s worth, so far I think the only thing you have proven is the total lack of concern the city of Austin and it’s mayor has when it comes to the subject of shutting down an illegal Jitney operation. But if the city want’s to risk the public safety like that, hey, who am I to argue with the mayor?
I’m sorry your sister got spit on, but it’s hard for me to share sympathy for you, because you are the one who put her in that position to begin with. Winning the respect of Austin’s mayor is one thing… But, if you want the respect of the pedicab community, you have to earn that respect by respecting city code just as we all do. The problem that many pedicabbers have with your Jitney/Gypsy operation stems from your drivers practice of standing in our non-motorized stands, parking on the side walk, blocking lanes of traffic, operating without a permit, and the snaking of our fares. We have both spoken face to face about this before, and to ease my concerns, and as a sign of friendship, you assured me that it was not your intent to invade our operational territory, yet your drivers have continually crossed that line with your consent to do so. Many of my competitor’s can’t hold to an honest accord either, I should have expected nothing less from you as well.
It has also been reported to me that your drivers have repeatedly snaked/scooped fares from pedicabbers. That in itself is an illegal activity, but luckily no ATX Pedicab has yet to be involved in such a scenario. You should consider yourself fortunate that most pedicabbers lack the training to deal with such a situation… However I should warn you, that I know how to handle that type of situation, and I know how to make certain that such a case is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. So, if it is your intent to keep practicing such deceptive business trade practices, I suggest you proceed with caution, and keep your lawyers on retainer because you may need them in the near future if both you and your driver’s insist on breaking the law.
Also, you are operating an illegal motorized cab service under questionable pretenses, You know that, I know that, everyone knows that, that we can all agree. It doesn’t matter if it’s electric or combustion, it’s motorized, and the city code clearly defines the difference between motorized and non-motorized vehicles, you can bitch and gripe all you want but you cannot deny the fact that golf carts have an electric motorized propulsion system. Yet you insist that the city should segregate their inspection standards for both electric and combustion propulsion systems just for you. Excuse me, but why is it that you feel that the Austin City Council and the AGTD should stop whatever their doing to rewrite it’s city code and adjust it’s inspection standards to assist you, and only You?
Even if you are some how miraculously successful in convincing the City to do this favor just for You, in granting your request for a monopoly. Your still going to have to get an operating authority, even if you already have insurance, your drivers are still going to have to get chauffeurs permits, your still going to be required to retro fit all your cabs with meters and fare lights, and your Jitney carts are still going to wind up in the taxi stand on 6th and San Jacinto right along with Yellow, Austin, and Lonestar, right where they belong with the other motorized taxi’s… So even if you win, your still going to lose!
It’s obvious that you don’t have the financial backing necessary to operate a legitimate taxi company, but still you insist on carrying on this charade. So please tell me, why is it that you don’t suspect we’re intelligent enough to smell the B.S. your shoveling? Everybody but you it seems, can smell it all up and down 6th Street! Quite frankly, I’m getting tired of the smell around here… But hey, if you think you got the brass nuggets to fight city hall, more power to you.
8. February, 2009 at 15:22
[…] Chris “Neils” Nielsen has written in to the comments section of the safety meeting post. He suggests that his company is hear to stay. He also suggests that he is operating a legal business, and holds himself to the same standards that Taxi and Pedicab companies are held to. Chris further suggests that the pedicab community has been putting forth our best efforts to put him out of business. Honestly any efforts that have been put forth have been spotty and half arsed and lacking any follow through. Maybe it is time to put forth some “Best efforts” to continually inform the city of the ongoing illegal operation of Capitol Cruisers. Capitol Cruisers says: 5. January, 2009 at 15:53 […]