Uber to Resume in Calgary December 6 2016

[ranchlandsselling]

Just to beat a dead horse and make an annoying useless post. I just tried to find an Uber app for my BB. No luck. Now I'm going to go get drunk and should no app be available when I end my drunken binge I'm going to drive home and hold Uber and Blackberry socially responsible should something happen. Not to mention the City of Calgary and the Cab industry (regardless that I won't try to find a cab because it's usually impossible on a weekend).

But seriously, is there not a Blackberry app*?

*Disclaimer I don't really even know how to get apps on BB-World since I've barely seen anything of use the few times I've looked.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

Just to beat a dead horse and make an annoying useless post. I just tried to find an Uber app for my BB. No luck. Now I'm going to go get drunk and should no app be available when I end my drunken binge I'm going to drive home and hold Uber and Blackberry socially responsible should something happen. Not to mention the City of Calgary and the Cab industry (regardless that I won't try to find a cab because it's usually impossible on a weekend).

But seriously, is there not a Blackberry app*?

*Disclaimer I don't really even know how to get apps on BB-World since I've barely seen anything of use the few times I've looked.

They have a mobile page, but you have to enable it. I use it on my BB device and it works perfectly fine, just like the app. You can request access to it here: https://help.uber.com/h/1ed2c9ac-daa...e-09c8aefec8da

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Well, in fact he has pointed out what needed to be done and Uber as a result ARE working on it and apparently making progress. All he said is they decided to launch before issue was resolved.

As the mayor pointed out: https://www.kanetix.ca/uber-rideshare-insurance


UBER AND INTACT WORKING ON RIDESHARE INSURANCE

In response to the rapidly growing and somewhat controversial rise of ridesharing programs, Uber and Intact Financial Corp have announced plans to develop a new insurance product that protects drivers who use their own personal vehicles for ridesharing programs.

The organizations said they are in the process of working with provincial governments in the provinces that currently have ridesharing programs (Ontario, Alberta and Quebec) to develop an insurance product that is nationally consistent but customized to each province's regulations...

The insurance grey area

Ridesharing programs such as Uber are growing in popularity, but they introduced a slew of challenges for insurers, drivers and passengers alike.

On the one hand, Uber provides its UberX drivers with $5,000,000 commercial auto liability insurance that covers bodily injury and property damage. On the other hand, drivers are jeopardizing their own personal auto insurance coverage by using their vehicle for commercial purposes, which could result in many Uber drivers not being properly insured.

Drivers who use their own vehicles as essentially a taxi service are not covered under their personal auto insurance policies. If you are an Uber driver and you get in an accident your insurance could be void-especially in the event of non-disclosure. If your insurance is not void, you may lack sufficient coverage. Most insurers recommend a minimum of $2 million liability.

Provinces like Ontario operate on a no-fault system, which means regardless of who is at fault in a collision each driver must go through their own provider. Where Uber's commercial policy comes into play in this matter remains unclear.

I understand this, but I think that this risk is somewhat overstated. In Alberta you have coverage for uninsured motorists and its built into every auto policy. So if you are in an Uber vehicle and the guy crashes, this should provide coverage for your damages. I also note that this would apply for an uninsured motorist causing damages to another vehicle.

So really, what are we looking at as not being covered? Damage to the Uber driver and his vehicle. I agree that is concerning, but that is the real risk here.

I also recognize that an enormous slew of SEF44 claims is probably not something we want either, but to say there is no safety net is a little untrue.

[CubicleGeek]

I'm in full support of Uber jumping the gun. If you want to talk about unsafe - I've resorted to taking Gypsy cab a couple times after wandering aimlessly for a couple of hours unable to get a taxi in the winter and unable to get through to the taxi line.

[Swayze11]

I apologize if this has already been answered in this thread.

What is the difference between Uber and carpool.ca (Who has permanent signs in Calgary)?

Directly from carpool.ca website:

This carpool generally has one driver and one or more passengers. The driver provides the vehicle and passengers pay a daily, weekly or monthly fare based on expenses such as fuel, maintenance and parking. - See more at: https://www.carpool.ca/Information.a....iwZiMPU7.dpuf

Does carpool.ca have insurance that would cover any issue?

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Slava

I understand this, but I think that this risk is somewhat overstated. In Alberta you have coverage for uninsured motorists and its built into every auto policy. So if you are in an Uber vehicle and the guy crashes, this should provide coverage for your damages. I also note that this would apply for an uninsured motorist causing damages to another vehicle.

So really, what are we looking at as not being covered? Damage to the Uber driver and his vehicle. I agree that is concerning, but that is the real risk here.

I also recognize that an enormous slew of SEF44 claims is probably not something we want either, but to say there is no safety net is a little untrue.

I think the solution is a new (previously unthought of) insurance category. Sort of an pseudo commercial insurance class for ridesharing, or a personal auto insurance plus if you will.

By the sounds of it, that may be the direction insurance companies and regulators go.

[zamler]

What is the difference between car pooling which the city strongly encourages, and an Uber driver? Just the fact the driver is being paid? So a driver in a car pool can't accept gas money because that makes it a commercial endeavour and invalidates any insurance?

edit- I see the question has already been asked/addressed.

[shermanator]

Unfortunately, Nenshi's not going to win the PR battle on this one. People have been frustrated with the situation for too long.

[prarieboy]

Originally Posted by CubicleGeek

I'm in full support of Uber jumping the gun. If you want to talk about unsafe - I've resorted to taking Gypsy cab a couple times after wandering aimlessly for a couple of hours unable to get a taxi in the winter and unable to get through to the taxi line.

I did this after a Hockey game one night. The wife was NOT happy with my decision.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I think the solution is a new (previously unthought of) insurance category. Sort of an pseudo commercial insurance class for ridesharing, or a personal auto insurance plus if you will.

By the sounds of it, that may be the direction insurance companies and regulators go.

yeah and I guess that is fair enough. I just have no idea why Calgary has this issue when hundreds of other markets seem to have adopted Uber without this issue. I think that this is why people start wondering whether we have a political issue as much as a practical one.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally Posted by Slava

I understand this, but I think that this risk is somewhat overstated. In Alberta you have coverage for uninsured motorists and its built into every auto policy. So if you are in an Uber vehicle and the guy crashes, this should provide coverage for your damages. I also note that this would apply for an uninsured motorist causing damages to another vehicle.

Sweet, so you're saying that Uber drivers don't need insurance coverage as they can take advantage of the emergency funds that the insurance industry has set aside for non-insured drivers?

That just means that us law abiding insurance payers have to pay for all accidents had by people driving for Uber. That's just the way insurance works - the claims of the few are paid by the many.

[polak]

Nenshi is an idiot for towing the line on this one. Screams back door taxi cartel shenanigans.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

Sweet, so you're saying that Uber drivers don't need insurance coverage as they can take advantage of the emergency funds that the insurance industry has set aside for non-insured drivers?

That just means that us law abiding insurance payers have to pay for all accidents had by people driving for Uber. That's just the way insurance works - the claims of the few are paid by the many.

Well like I also said I don't think that we should encourage a run of claims in that manner, but I think that the idea that thousands of people are going to be injured with no recourse is a little disingenuous as well. That's on top of the Uber coverage of $5M which has been brought up in this thread, so it's not like I suggest this as a first line of defence either.

Clearly I wouldn't suggest breaking the law as an option here. First and foremost buy the commercial policy and register the vehicle properly. But the fact is there is some recourse for a party suffering damages.

I do find it odd that we are the one city/province struggling with this though? Surely somewhere else has dealt with the insurance angle?

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by polak

Nenshi is an idiot for towing the line on this one. Screams back door taxi cartel shenanigans.

But you certainly can't expect Nenshi singing praises for Uber, can you? I can't believe I'm defending Nenshi in this case. But his best course of action is to remain relatively quiet until this is sorted out which is very hard for him to do.

[Canehdianman]

I find it hilarious that Uber operates in over 300 cities in 58 countries but the city of Calgary has decided that it isn't safe and doesn't meet safety requirements.

[Raekwon]

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Slava

yeah and I guess that is fair enough. I just have no idea why Calgary has this issue when hundreds of other markets seem to have adopted Uber without this issue. I think that this is why people start wondering whether we have a political issue as much as a practical one.

Has any city not had these exact same issues when Uber has launched there?

People are acting like Calgary is the odd one out, but I've been reading these same types of stories from seemingly every city Uber has ever gone into. There have been links to stories from other cities throughout this thread.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

I'd argue that this discussion would carry on for another 10 years if it wasn't for Uber forcing their hand.

The taxi industry in this city is incompetent and unwilling to change. Don't you think it says something when the vast majority of users on this thread are willing to use Uber even though it's "technically illegal"?

I wholeheartedly agree.

Originally Posted by Bunk

Regardless of one's feelings on the taxi industry as it stands or what reform has or hasn't happened, where is Uber's responsibility in this situation related to ride-sharing services? The City can't force Uber to do what it needs to do.

It seems very clear the City and the Mayor have been very open to enabling and the ball has been in Uber's court, no?

Naheed Nenshi ‏@nenshi
@99spru @fusiliyyc well, Uber has known for many months what they need to do to fix. They are working on it, but chose to launch before done

Naheed Nenshi ‏@nenshi 10h10 hours ago
@MoUsEsVloG uber has had years to solve the insurance gap that they are aware of and have been working on. They have not finished yet.

Again, I wouldn't dispute not enough has been done fast enough to fix the broken taxi system. It's not an easy knot to untangle due to the generations of layers of bad regulation, equity that's been created from a flawed licensing system (and therefore extremely expensive to dismantle buying out licences), etc.

I've got to call BS.

Uber works in hundreds of Cities around the world with few to no issues, what makes Calgary the special snowflake?

I think the City has been continuously moving the goalposts as it suits them in order to do the same thing they've been doing for the past 20 years:

Trying to cling tooth and nail to their lucratively extortionist Taxi License system by any and all means necessary.

I'm with Iggy City, eventually a competing service came in and instead of trying to meet constantly fluctuating standards said: "Here we are, deal with it."

Easier to ask forgiveness than permission. They were never, ever going to be 'approved' until they forced the issue.

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by polak

Nenshi is an idiot for towing the line on this one. Screams back door taxi cartel shenanigans.

Nenshi is a back door taxi.

On my way home last night and was almost hit by a cap because he decided to make an illegal turn. Screw taxis. Either give better service and revise their prices or they are dead in the water.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Swayze11

I apologize if this has already been answered in this thread.

What is the difference between Uber and carpool.ca (Who has permanent signs in Calgary)?

Generally, with carpooling the driver announces their route and see if there are other people that are traveling this same route. With Uber, the passengers decide the route. Usually the driver has no idea what the final destination is until they get to the passenger.

Does carpool.ca have insurance that would cover any issue?

From what I'v read, personal insurance usually covers this as long as the driver isn't making a profit of it (ie passengers just covering their share of the fuel and other vehicle costs is ok).