[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

All drivers have valid licenses to operate personal vehicles. By and large, they do not have valid licenses for operating commercially.

There is no requirement to have a different license for operating commerically, I have 2 vehicles insured commercially which both only require a standard class 5 license to drive.

You do require a class 1 2 or 4 license in Alberta to drive with passengers. Both Calgary and Edmontons proposed bylaws require this and Uber has not objected to it. So can we both agree to strike this from your anti-uber crusade?

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

All drivers have valid personal insurance (presumably). What they lacked was proper commercial insurance. And by failing to inform their insurance providers that they use their vehicles for commercial use, they were fraudulently abusing their personal policies.

First off in regards to the "presumably", we presume everyone on the roads has both their license and insurance, Uber makes you provide copies of both to be a driver.

In regards to insurance Uber is covering the use of the vehicle while it is being used for commercial purposes not their personal policies. Unless it is your position that you cannot have personal insurance coverage on a vehicle when you're using it for your personal use and commercial coverage when you're using it for commercial use.

If your real concern here is people fraudulently using their personal coverage then I sure hope you've never ordered food/pizza delivery because those guys legitimately are defrauding their insurance companies. Not to mention the vast majority of tradesmen using their vehicle for work. As I mentioned my vehicles are commercially insured, I do not promote using personal coverage to cover commercial uses and yes I actually walk the walk.

As I have noted before, Uber was facing a lawsuit in Toronto over its claimed insurance for the driver being more fantasy than reality. Also, if Uber is properly covering its drivers, one has to ask why the company is making such a big stink about the provincial government not rushing through new insurance plans.

I'm assuming you're talking about Tawfiqul Alam, which is interesting you're arguing Uber is a fraud because here we have a case where someone actually did try to commit insurance fraud. He was involved in a accident as a uber driver then tried to fraudulently file a personal insurance claim which was quite rightly denied by his personal insurance company.

Then he lawyered up and went to the media who lapped it up because it fits the uber is evil mantra. However, seeing as he was driving for Uber and covered by their policy, a settlement was reached. If you've ever had to file a claim you'd know that's pretty much exactly how insurance works.

Uber is probably going to break the billion rides a year mark this year, undoubtably there have been a ton of accidents we should be hearing all over the media Uber is refusing to cover, yet we don't. Why is that? We hear threats from the insurance industry that you might not be covered but i'd be interested to see if you can actually find a instance where coverage was refused, maybe my googling is poor but I can't find one which is weird because the media would totally eat that story up.

The long and short of it is the transportation livery bylaws have been stagnant for way to long because of the influence of the taxi industry. The world is a changing place and the people want alternatives. I believe it is the governments job to facilitate giving people those alternatives.

No one is saying let Uber do whatever it wants, but we have people who want a service, a company who wants to provide it, people who want to drive for it and insurance companies who want to insure it. the government needs to provide a reasonable framework for all these party's to get together and everyone can be happy, well except for the cabbies and some people who apparently hate on "ridesharing" for no discernible reason.