True – however, even if we looked at the stats and there was not many retired folks who roll into the market that doesn’t mean that there wouldn’t be during a large event like the RWC.

I expect this regulation to lead to a spate of those TV shows where there are drunk people in cabs embarrassing themselves – not looking forward to seeing myself 😉

If there are a reasonable number of basically retired folks who pick up extra fares on weekends or around big events, dispatching with minor dispatchers, but otherwise don’t bother, then the supply effect will be pretty big. If there are hardly any in that category, the effects won’t be that large. Pointless regulation either way, but I’d like to have a better idea of how costly it’ll be.

I think you meant dream – a nightmare is a bad thing 😉

I thought the purpose of policies was to make economists happy?

Spambot,

If the taxi driver takes his safety into account already, why is there a need to legislate? If they aren’t willing to buy a camera, it could be that the expected benefit from putting it in is lower than the cost for the individual driver …

@Eric Crampton

I also think it is a significant enough cost to prevent “casual” entry just before a major event. It is more than the cost of the camera, but the hassle involved with setting it all up which will prevent entry from potential small players.