Uber to Resume in Calgary December 6 2016

[jammies]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Wrong. The lack of availability of cabs at peak demand times has been an issue in this city for over a decade. Look at the archives of newspapers as far back as the 90s and you'll see columns about the problem. City council has wrangled with the taxi commission for decades.

That there has been an issue for decades that hasn't been resolved points to the opposite of the conclusion you've drawn, that I am wrong and that council spends a lot of resources on the problem. People complain, they commission a study, the study sees no viable solution that is bettr than the status quo, repeat ad infinitum. It is a back-burner issue that has only come to the fore now that there is a perceived solution, despite that "solution" being very much better in the short term but almost certainly not better in the long term, if Uber achieves its goals.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Angry people on the internet? People are angry in the real world. And yes, I expect councillors to react to the displeasure of their constituents. That's their job.

No, their job is to do their best for the city. If that means weathering the anger of constituents that are concerned only with how things directly affect them, and not the city as a whole, then so be it.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The same could be said about a great many issues that only bother a minority of Calgarians. Stray cats pooping in gardens. Noise from backyard fire pits. Clearing snow from bike paths. That
hasn't stopped council from addressing those issues.

They have addressed this minor issue multiple times, just not to anyone's satisfaction. Again, the fact that different councils over decades haven't been able to reconcile the needs of the taxi companies - and they DO have needs if they want to be able to run viable businesses, or there are no taxis for anyone - with those of consumers and the City, almost certainly means it's not as easy as "Down with Big Taxi! Up with Uber! Nenshi is a shill!"

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by peter12

Yeah, so if it was purely just about a convenient ride, then people would want the regulation. Except Uber doesn't do regulation because it would price them out.

People would ordinarily want regulations, but the city has propped the corrupt taxi industry up for so long in this city and dragged their feet purposely, that people are saying to hell with regulation.

This kind of reminds me of the old Sunday Shopping debate they had back in the Maritimes when I lived there. Stores were not allowed to be open on Sunday. Finally, NB decides to get with the times and allows it to occur within certain hours (regulated by the province). Nova Scotia flat out still refuses despite this move by NB. Residents are getting pissed off, going to shop in NB on the weekend, and then Sobeys decides to say #### this, and opens anyways and tells the Province of Nova Scotia to go ahead and fine them, their profits on Sunday will more than pay the fine. This goes on for a few months, and than Nova Scotia has no choice to approve Sunday shopping.

This would have never happened if Sobeys hasn't said enough is enough, and all the people of Nova Scotia benefited, well except for the few small stores who had an inclusive Sunday market because they had a loophole which allowed them to be open.

Switch Uber for Sobeys, and you basically have the same story. I'm pretty pumped Uber has forced the City of Calgary's hand here. I would prefer regulation, but that wasn't going to happen unless someone held a gun to the city's head. Uber has now done that.

[Geordi]

The passenger in this video got fired from his Taco Bell Executive job. The driver was smart to flip his dashcam around!

Taco Bell Fires Marketing Manager Who Was Caught On Video Punching Uber Driver

Originally Posted by GreatWhiteEbola

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by peter12

The question that reasonable people, and I think some of these people work in City Hall, are asking is what is the long game? Taxis have kind of worked for a long time. The economics of maintaining a semi-public good like a city livery service are complex, and it includes maintaining a standard of living for drivers, keep vehicles somewhat roadworthy, providing some choice for consumers, and providing a modicum of security through livery insurance.

Now, what is it that people hate about taxis, and what is it that they love about Uber?

People hate that when they need taxis at night on weekends they can't get them. And forget about Uber. The only thing Uber represents is an alternative to a broken system. At this point, people who need cabs in the evenings on weekends would welcome any alternative.

Originally Posted by peter12

Yeah, so if it was purely just about a convenient ride, then people would want the regulation. Except Uber doesn't do regulation because it would price them out.

Wrong. The regulations aren't flexible enough to handle the dramatic variations in demand. And efforts to widen the pool of licenses have been met with fierce resistance from the license-holders, who paid a fortune for the rights to drive a taxi in this city.

Originally Posted by jammies

That there has been an issue for decades that hasn't been resolved points to the opposite of the conclusion you've drawn, that I am wrong and that council spends a lot of resources on the problem. People complain, they commission a study, the study sees no viable solution that is bettr than the status quo, repeat ad infinitum. It is a back-burner issue that has only come to the fore now that there is a perceived solution, despite that "solution" being very much better in the short term but almost certainly not better in the long term, if Uber achieves its goals.

Wrong again. The city recognized the crisis in cab supply several years ago, before Uber was a viable alternative. This issue may have only come to your attention recently, but it has been simmering for years.

Originally Posted by jammies

They have addressed this minor issue multiple times, just not to anyone's satisfaction. Again, the fact that different councils over decades haven't been able to reconcile the needs of the taxi companies - and they DO have needs if they want to be able to run viable businesses, or there are no taxis for anyone - with those of consumers and the City, almost certainly means it's not as easy as "Down with Big Taxi! Up with Uber! Nenshi is a shill!"

You're right, the city chose the interest of a few hundred cab drivers and a few taxi companies over the interests of hundreds of thousands of citizens. And no, they didn't do it because of corruption. They did it because in 1985 the city put in place a misguided and dumb licensing system, capped the number at 1,311 in 1986 and only increased it by 100 by 2011, and then sat back and watched as a third-party market in licenses grew and grew until it cost the price of a small mortgage to get one. And once that happened, you had hundreds of people and several medium-sized companies deeply invested in protecting a system that was essential for them, but dysfunctional for a great many Calgarians.

I'm not suggesting the city had any easy options. They were going to make some people very, very pissed off whatever they did. But they chose to coast along on the path of least resistance, while the crisis in availability got worse and worse and worse. Once they reached a point where tens or hundreds of thousands of Calgarians had been left stranded multiple times, and so many citizens were furious enough that it became a serious political issue (which was about three years ago), the city started to make some changes to open up licenses to more drivers. But it was too little too late. Enough Calgarians are so frustrated with the current system that they'll welcome any alternative.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Haha, it's not quite as rosy as you forgot a couple groups.

Police have started behaving how they should against Uber.

Insurance companies are behaving how they should against Uber.

Drivers are not behaving how they should and the only reason Uber works is because they're willing to drive without proper insurance.

I'd argue drivers are putting short term profit against risk they don't understand. Which is fairly typical and expected human behaviour, one that Uber profits from.

So everyone but the city is behaving how you would expect. So why hasn't the city fixed its regulations in the past 10 years

[Geordi]

Originally Posted by zamler

I don't understand why some feel the need to demonize Uber so much.

I think people dig their heels in to support a side no matter what. I can tell you why my riders tell me they like uber.

1. Availability - Cars are almost everywhere in <10 mins instead of (for example) sitting at the airport waiting for the long rides at 2am. Drivers don't refuse to take people places because of #2
2. Ranking system - Uber drivers HAVE to be kind because they will literally be fired with anything less than a stellar rating. Number one comment "It's so nice to be in a clean car!"
3. Price* - Clearly people love the cheaper rides combined with the generous amount of promo codes thrown out there
* I suspect price gets people hooked, but it sure seems like people have no problem paying surge fares because I was hopping even on Halloween when it was 3x.
3. GPS - the guys like knowing they aren't getting screwed around by taking the long way, girls feel safer know they are tracked
4. No cash - People like having everything done through paypal/credit card beforehand. Get right out at the end. Some people told me that taxi credit card machines are often broken
5. The app - Watch your car arrive, know exactly when it's coming, don't have to talk to a person to order

If you don't like Uber lobby your municipal reps, but I can tell you that you're probably not going to change people's minds who are actually using the service. They really really really like it.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by Geordi

Some people told me that taxi credit card machines are often broken

I think you meant "broken".

[Geordi]

Lol, yeah, that's what I think what they meant.

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

I think you meant "broken".

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

The app works great, until the driver forgets to manually end the trip. Then you can't make any future reservations, because you have an incomplete trip.

In summary, it's

Really? cause i have been using the apps for over a year now. I have even cancelled when the car arrived because I did not need it anymore with no punishment.

I have never waited for more than 10 minutes for a cab any time between 2 pm and 2 am from pretty much all over downtown and some 'burbs ish areas. Seriously the apps work great.

[Tron_fdc]

I really don't get the whole "insurance" argument. I take cabs in China all the time, where you can basically make money off putting a rototiller on the road in Beijing and haul people around. I've never once stopped to ask if they were insured, and really I don't care. I need to get somewhere, and that jalopy with 3 wheels is the only option right now. Over 15 years of doing it, and I still have all my limbs intact.

Yes, I live my life on the wild side. Total bad ass because I get in an Uber car that is new, clean, has 4 wheels and runs, and even if it barely passed a safety inspection 10 years ago I still would use it. Guaranteed it's no worse than my 1972 Toyota Landcruiser that ran on purple farm gas.

Like I said, I'm a total bad ass

[Ducay]

Of course you don't care about insurance if you haven't been involved in a Taxi accident.

No one ever cares or notices insurance until they need it, thats precisely why it exists.

[Tron_fdc]

My point is it's a little (a lot?) overblown.

It's a car service, same as getting a ride home from a pal.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

My point is it's a little (a lot?) overblown.

It's a car service, same as getting a ride home from a pal.

Its the same, except not.


When your pal wraps the car around a light pole and paralyses you, you can rely on his insurance being valid and whatever limits & protections are included in that.

When Uber man does the same, all that goes out the window and you'll likely end up relying on a mishmash of your own policies and government coverage for uninsured. Could probably also sue him and collect a couple cents towards your live-in nanny costs.


The government does not have specific commercial insurance requirements for livery drivers for their own amusement. This is not a case of BIG TAXI and BIG INSURANCE being in cahoots to force Uber off the road so they can all get rich along with the municipality and provincial elected officials.

[Tron_fdc]

And how often does that actually happen?

Like I said, I roll the dice all the time on unregulated Chinese cabs and have yet to come home in a wheelchair.

Does saving 30-50% of the fare while getting a VERY convenient service outweigh the insurance risk for me?

Yes it does.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

And how often does that actually happen?

Like I said, I roll the dice all the time on unregulated Chinese cabs and have yet to come home in a wheelchair.

Does saving 30-50% of the fare while getting a VERY convenient service outweigh the insurance risk for me?

Yes it does.

Oh, I'm not arguing that personally you are okay taking the risk, but rather, the reason why the government has these rules and is trying to enforce them.
Even if they end up protecting victims in 2 cases by forcing the insurance requirements, that, again, is why insurance exists. You 99.99% likely won't need it, but it exists for the .01% cases and to ensure everyone in society is protected.
I'm sure if you got in a wreck and had no insurance you'd be crying bloody murder as to how dumb it was to get in the Uber without insurance. But 99.99% of the fares end perfectly fine.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Dagger

Really interesting post, and I appreciated you spelling out some of the more hidden nuances. I have a question for you though:

What's your take on what their long-term game is? In the medium-run, won't taxi companies have to reduce their fares in order to compete with Uber's prices? In turn, with how unprofitable Uber has been thus far, they'll presumably raise their own prices, to both become more economically healthy, and reflect additional costs they'll incur to meet regulations should they choose to compete. Won't that be better for consumers in the long run? Is this not competition at work?

The thing that works great for Uber is that they pass along a lot of the expense and risk of their business model to their "independent contractor" drivers.

Because they don't have a physical product to sell and just take their 20% cut of every dollar spent, it doesn't matter to them if they sell 1,000 rides at $10 each, or 10,000 rides at $1 each. If you're a driver for them though, you'd much rather have 1 ride at $10 than 10 rides at $1 because each ride costs you money to provide.

We've seen in other cities that Uber will drop their prices over time to drive up demand. That's great for Uber because they're still getting 20% of every dollar spent. That sucks for the drivers because they're getting 80% of less without their expenses dropping to match.

It seems like a bit of a pyramid scheme. As long as new drivers keep signing up for the service to replace those that leave, the pyramid will remain stable. If they start losing too many and don't replace them, then it can collapse quickly.

Originally Posted by GGG

If the regulation was fixed and there were surge cabs available to meet demand no one would back uber entering the market.

I doubt that. Uber has been supported in plenty of cities where cabs are extremely plentiful. I'd bet that the cities where Uber has had its most success are the ones where cab service is also the best.

NYC is arguably the biggest taxi cab city in the world, and it's also one of the biggest Uber cities in the world. It's dead simple to get a cab in NYC (I have photos I've taken there where every vehicle in the photo is a yellow cab) and yet the public has embraced Uber there.

There are a lot of great things about Uber style services that make them infinitely better than regular taxis. As someone said in one of the previous threads on this topic, if the taxi industry didn't exist, and you were creating it from scratch today, what you'd create would look almost identical to Uber and almost nothing like the taxi industry today.

[BigNumbers]

I feel like I am taking crazy pills here.. The solution seems so simple:

- Some form of 'tweener' insurance coverage that covers personal vehicle use for up to X amount of KMs / hrs / etc of livery driving - tracked by the uber app for verification if needed.

- Annual inspections, the same as cabs - again can be uploaded to uber and/or the city as required

- Police Information Check annually - again, uploaded to the uber app and/or city as needed.


Realistically, the only stumbling block is uber needs to work with underwriters to create a "tweener" policy to cover these scenarios that does not throw the economics of driving uber casually / semi-professionally out the window.

Once that happens, I see no reason why the city wouldn't allow uber.... And it all seems pretty easily accomplished.

[Geordi]

Originally Posted by BigNumbers

Once that happens, I see no reason why the city wouldn't allow uber.... And it all seems pretty easily accomplished.

Taxes. How are you going to sell cab licenses for tens of thousands of dollars when the market is flooded with Uber cars?

Put a 5-10% "ridesharing sales tax" bylaw and everyone wins. The insurance issue is temporary and a scapegoat. The city makes absolutely nothing off Uber, and they should.

[heep223]

Cab driver today asked me if I had taken Uber. I told him I had - after a Flames game, when 3 available taxis wouldn't pick us up. He actually laughed about that. I wasn't laughing.

Question - let's say as a passenger that you get seriously hurt in an Uber, and nobody's insurance will cover your rehab or lost wages. Wouldn't long term disability through work benefits cover it? It just seems like there's so many avenues to have it covered. We pay so many different types of insurance premiums...

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Geordi

Taxes. How are you going to sell cab licenses for tens of thousands of dollars when the market is flooded with Uber cars?

Put a 5-10% "ridesharing sales tax" bylaw and everyone wins. The insurance issue is temporary and a scapegoat. The city makes absolutely nothing off Uber, and they should.

Unless I misunderstand how things work, the City doesn't make any money off of people reselling their taxi licenses either.