Uber to Resume in Calgary December 6 2016

[calgaryblood]

Good. Why should we care if taxis are going out of business? We don't owe Taxi companies a dime and if they over price themselves out of business then why should we care? That's how business works.

Sick and tired of cab companies thinking they are the poor victims. The city is not responsible to make you rich.

[Pizza]

Aside from all the points everyone has made about a better, cheaper, faster service, I'll go on a limb and say, the current taxi system is socially irresponsible

After a night of getting #### faced, drunks are willing to do the responsible thing and leave their vehicle behind and take a cab home. They're willing to pay good money for it too. The problem is they can't get a cab because there isn't enough cabs in the system to work peak hours. Instead of allowing part time cab drivers on the street, they hold the numbers back for the benefit of full time cab drivers so they may make a certain ideal salary

So what's a drunk to do at 1am? he can't take transit as they've already gone out of service at that time. So his choice is to either wait it out in the cold street, or take his chances and drive home drunk. Had there been enough cabs on the street, drunks wouldnt have to make that choice as they'd be safely on their way home. This f'd up taxi system is essentially pushing more drunks behind the wheel by limiting the number of taxis during peak times

if Uber is allowing more people to arrive home safely and lower the number of drunk driving fatalities, all the power to them

F the Taxi industry

[Pizza]

here's some more fuel to the fire...

Most recently this in Malaysia:

http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-...n-kuala-lumpur

Cab drivers threatening Uber drivers and passengers in Ottawa

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...-tensions-rise

and this one in Toronto where a cabbie blocks a passenger and threatens the Uber driver for his GPS device

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Pizza

Aside from all the points everyone has made about a better, cheaper, faster service, I'll go on a limb and say, the current taxi system is socially irresponsible

After a night of getting #### faced, drunks are willing to do the responsible thing and leave their vehicle behind and take a cab home. They're willing to pay good money for it too. The problem is they can't get a cab because there isn't enough cabs in the system to work peak hours. Instead of allowing part time cab drivers on the street, they hold the numbers back for the benefit of full time cab drivers so they may make a certain ideal salary

So what's a drunk to do at 1am? he can't take transit as they've already gone out of service at that time. So his choice is to either wait it out in the cold street, or take his chances and drive home drunk. Had there been enough cabs on the street, drunks wouldnt have to make that choice as they'd be safely on their way home. This f'd up taxi system is essentially pushing more drunks behind the wheel by limiting the number of taxis during peak times

if Uber is allowing more people to arrive home safely and lower the number of drunk driving fatalities, all the power to them

F the Taxi industry

I hate the taxi system but driving drunk is a choice and taxis are not to blame for someone's choice to drive drunk. If you know you can't find a taxi, don't get drunk or make prior arrangements for a ride home.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

I hate the taxi system but driving drunk is a choice and taxis are not to blame for someone's choice to drive drunk. If you know you can't find a taxi, don't get drunk or make prior arrangements for a ride home.

He's not advocating driving drunk. He's (correctly) pointing out that our terrible taxi service is directly responsible for some of the drunk driving that occurs and that Uber will reduce that.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

He's not advocating driving drunk. He's (correctly) pointing out that our terrible taxi service is directly responsible for some of the drunk driving that occurs and that Uber will reduce that.

Drinking should also take into account the cab situation. Totally off basis.

That's like a guy going out getting wasted wandering out on the ice over the bow in the middle of winter and falling in and dying followed by a suggestion it's the city's responsibility as they didn't make enough fancy art bridges.

[Bunk]

So, my understanding is the City's been meeting and working with them for quite some time and has said the concern we (and the Province) have is with gaps in the insurance for drivers under Alberta law, please go address and come back to us.

http://alberta.ca/release.cfm?xID=38...523635E34F0FD8

Ball is in Uber's court, they don't address City's concern about insurance, start operations anyway.

How is the City's and the Mayor's fault? I could see if they were just digging in and saying no no matter what, but is there any evidence that is the case?

[CliffFletcher]

But when the province set the new .05 impaired threshold, everyone from the premier to Calgary's police chief was saying that Albertans could still go out and have drinks, they just had to arrange for a cab. And if the cab shortage in Calgary really meant people should not have been going out in public to drink, then it was an even worse system than we thought, because it was detering customers from the much larger food and drink industry.

The fact is, the lack of cabs in this city has almost certainly increased the incidence of drunk driving. That doesn't make drunk driving right or excuse it - it's simply cause and effect.

[Party Elephant]

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

Drinking should also take into account the cab situation. Totally off basis.

That's like a guy going out getting wasted wandering out on the ice over the bow in the middle of winter and falling in and dying followed by a suggestion it's the city's responsibility as they didn't make enough fancy art bridges.

All pizza is saying is that more available rides will lead to less people choosing to drive drunk. Are people who choose to drive drunk still idiots, of course they are. No one is saying a drunk driver has the right to blame the city for their actions, just that there are preventative measures that would certainly reduce the amount of drunk drivers on the road.

Thank you for that fancy art bridge analogy though, that really hit the nail on the head.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

If it were that simple, I don't there would be much issue. Uber has no intention of getting their dress t have that.

But if the city had a reasonable policy then über could choose to enter or not and enforcement would be reasonable.

Instead über to get laws change which allow that business model to exist they need to fight politicians who have been bought by can companies.

The city has completely failed to adapt to modern technology and provide options to what is clearly a failed system. So you get where you are today.

If uber can't meet reasonable requirements then they shouldn't be here. But right now there are no reasonable requirements to meet so uber becomes the good guys trying to drive change.

This entire issue is on the city for failing to provide a reasonable regulatory framework for which companies can operate in.

It sounds like the risk is now on the driver rather than the public so I'd be okay taking an uber right now. Just make sure you have uninsured motorists protection on your personal policy.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

But when the province set the new .05 impaired threshold, everyone from the premier to Calgary's police chief was saying that Albertans could still go out and have drinks, they just had to arrange for a cab. And if the cab shortage in Calgary really meant people should not have been going out in public to drink, then it was an even worse system than we thought, because it was detering customers from the much larger food and drink industry.

The fact is, the lack of cabs in this city has almost certainly increased the incidence of drunk driving. That doesn't make drunk driving right or excuse it - it's simply cause and effect.

Originally Posted by Party Elephant

All pizza is saying is that more available rides will lead to less people choosing to drive drunk. Are people who choose to drive drunk still idiots, of course they are. No one is saying a drunk driver has the right to blame the city for their actions, just that there are preventative measures that would certainly reduce the amount of drunk drivers on the road.

Thank you for that fancy art bridge analogy though, that really hit the nail on the head.

I can interpret what both you and him think he's trying to suggest. But if we're playing the social responsibility game then I'd suggest the Bar would be above the cab, as would Mr. Drunky drunks friends, followed by his/her family members, followed by . . .

What if buddy couldn't get tickets to the local sporting game because they were sold out. Let's use those Calgary Flames for example. He showed up on Saturday night at 7:59pm for the Oilers vs. the Flames showing on Hockey Night in Canada only to find out the demand exceeded supply. So instead he goes to a bar, gets drunk and drives home at the end of the night. Should put the flames in the social responsibility group too. Nah, because common says says MAYBE, just MAYBE he should have looked into the tickets in advance, maybe ordered some a few hours earlier, or maybe a few days/weeks.

Or wait, is that equally as stupid as my bridge analogy? Yes, it is.
If drunky drunk was worried about not having a cab maybe he should have booked one in advance. Everyone knows the implications of drinking and driving. EVERYONE. Those that choose to get in the car are ignoring those implications whether they're too drunk to realize it or not.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bunk

So, my understanding is the City's been meeting and working with them for quite some time and has said the concern we (and the Province) have is with gaps in the insurance for drivers under Alberta law, please go address and come back to us.

http://alberta.ca/release.cfm?xID=38...523635E34F0FD8

Ball is in Uber's court, they don't address City's concern about insurance, start operations anyway.

How is the City's and the Mayor's fault? I could see if they were just digging in and saying no no matter what, but is there any evidence that is the case?

Shouldn't the city change its regulatory requirements first rather than negotiate regulatory requirements with one company.

Set up reasonable rules after talking to industry then implement them fairly. Requir ring uber to jump through hoops for future unknown regulatory framework doesn't work.

They fix the insurance issue at the next issue pops up

[GGG]

A victim of drunk driving can blame the lack of cabs. If I'm killed by a drunk driver and I learned he tried to take a cab but got sick of waiting so drove drunk as a victim I would hold the cities taxi policy as partly to blame.

The drunk driver has no excuse for drunk driving but victims have every right to demand that people who failed to put in place reasonable mitigating measures be held accountable

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

He's not advocating driving drunk. He's (correctly) pointing out that our terrible taxi service is directly responsible for some of the drunk driving that occurs and that Uber will reduce that.

so a drunk who's obviously been drunk before in Calgary doesn't know about our terrible Taxi service? And just hoping this Friday night will be better? Blaming taxis because of irresponsible decisions just gives these drunks valid excuses *in their mind* to drive drunk. There is never an excuse for driving drunk it's pure selfishness and irresponsibility. Can't call a cab or find another way home? Don't get drunk.

If I couldn't get a cab but instead walked home completely sober but jaywalked onto Deerfoot for a shortcut and got hit and killed would anyone blame the taxi industry?

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by GGG

A victim of drunk driving can blame the lack of cabs. If I'm killed by a drunk driver and I learned he tried to take a cab but got sick of waiting so drove drunk as a victim I would hold the cities taxi policy as partly to blame.

The drunk driver has no excuse for drunk driving but victims have every right to demand that people who failed to put in place reasonable mitigating measures be held accountable

So the city is responsible for getting drinks home? This notion is ludicrous.

Again if I walk across Deerfoot to get home sooner and get killed can I blame the city as well?

[GGG]

Yes they should, some studies show that drunk walking is actually more dangerous than drunk driving. Don't have a link just remember reading it

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Bunk

So, my understanding is the City's been meeting and working with them for quite some time and has said the concern we (and the Province) have is with gaps in the insurance for drivers under Alberta law, please go address and come back to us.

I think this is reasonable on the city's part. I'm surprised that Uber hasn't come up with a group insurance policy to bridge the gap. Uber can easily build that into their take on the fare so every Uber driver is covered and doesn't need to go get extra insurance by themselves.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

So the city is responsible for getting drinks home? This notion is ludicrous.



Again if I walk across Deerfoot to get home sooner and get killed can I blame the city as well?

If the city failed to put any pedestrian crossings over Deerfoot they would be partialy at fault.

f they city chose to remove speed limits from Deerfoot and people got killed who is to blame?

The city failed to put up sufficient barriers to prevent cars from crashing into oncoming traffic and took some of the blame.

Bad policy and design has real consequences and if you want to solve social issues you need to have some of the effort placed on designing out the problem because people really suck at making risk based decisions.

So victims of bad design have every right to blame the designer

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

so a drunk who's obviously been drunk before in Calgary doesn't know about our terrible Taxi service? And just hoping this Friday night will be better? Blaming taxis because of irresponsible decisions just gives these drunks valid excuses *in their mind* to drive drunk. There is never an excuse for driving drunk it's pure selfishness and irresponsibility. Can't call a cab or find another way home? Don't get drunk.

If I couldn't get a cab but instead walked home completely sober but jaywalked onto Deerfoot for a shortcut and got hit and killed would anyone blame the taxi industry?

Jesus, no one is arguing with you there. But guess what? People WILL get drunk and decide to drive after not being able to get a cab. It doesn't matter what they should do, it only matters what they will do. Drunk driving happens in this city due to lack of transportation options, that's just a simple fact. Adding in another transportation option that can flexibly expand during peak hours will help reduce that, morality doesn't need to come into this conversation at all

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Bunk

So, my understanding is the City's been meeting and working with them for quite some time and has said the concern we (and the Province) have is with gaps in the insurance for drivers under Alberta law, please go address and come back to us.

http://alberta.ca/release.cfm?xID=38...523635E34F0FD8

Ball is in Uber's court, they don't address City's concern about insurance, start operations anyway.

How is the City's and the Mayor's fault? I could see if they were just digging in and saying no no matter what, but is there any evidence that is the case?

It's absolutely the city's fault, because they've let this issue fester for a decade. They're supposed to be representing their constituents who have been pointing out his problem for years. They should have a) solved this problem long ago, and/or b) used the last year that they've been working with Uber to actually help them get operational in our city.

As for the mayor - he was elected on his promise of being progressive, innovative and will cut through red tape. Essentially dismantling the "old boys club". This looks terrible on him.