Uber to Resume in Calgary December 6 2016

[Baaarrden]

I'll probably never use a cab ever again after using Uber for the first time on Saturday night. At about 2 am I attempted to call a cab 72 times, getting through one single time and on that one time I got through, was hung up on immediately. Got a friend to grab me an Uber, they showed up within 5 minutes of the request, the guy was awesome and I got home 10 minutes after that.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I am saying that the city issued a statement that one of the reasons they oppose UBER is because of no safety inspections on that vehicle. The problem with that stance is that...that same vehicle does not require any safety inspections as long as it isn't used to make the owner of the car a few bucks on the weekend driving that car. So their stance that it is a "public safety concern" is a load of horse puckey because that car, whether used as an uber or not, is still the same car whether it has one, two or 4 people riding in it and whether or not that driver is getting paid.



I never said you did defend the cartel. Where are you getting that from?





Aaaaaand there it is. You go complete jackass and get personal like always.
Well done.

Well when you said,

Its a joke allright and apparently you have fallen for it.

I found personally insulting and what else could you be referring to "it" other than what you call the cartel? So don't throw stones when you live in a glass house.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Baaarrden

I'll probably never use a cab ever again after using Uber for the first time on Saturday night. At about 2 am I attempted to call a cab 72 times, getting through one single time and on that one time I got through, was hung up on immediately. Got a friend to grab me an Uber, they showed up within 5 minutes of the request, the guy was awesome and I got home 10 minutes after that.

I don't even doubt your claim of calling 72 times. I'm sure I've probably called even more times, and/or waited on hold for over an hour, just to get hung up on, or told that the ETA was another hour or two.

Seriously, taxis in Calgary are the worst service ever. I have absolutely zero sympathy for an illegal service cutting their grass.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Geordi

Just wanted to point out that Uber does require inspections. It's when you activate and every year though. Just google "uber calgary inspections", it's the second link

http://www.driveuber.ca/s/Vehicle-In...on-Form-V4.pdf

There's a lot of misinformation and assumptions out there apparently.

I'm not sure that 1/2 page form compares to the city inspection...
https://www.calgary.ca/CA/city-clerk...f?noredirect=1
Starting on page 73...and continuing to 109.

That looks like a basic insurance inspection, which I'd imagine Uber's insurance company is making them do. I doubt it has anything to do with Uber's concern for safety.

[Dan02]

It's crazy to think of with how many people are switching to Uber that the cab companies still can't keep up at peak times. Just goes to show how horrificially underserved this city was/is.

As for myself, if i walk out of my apartment and there is a cab within sight I'll grab it, but if I reach for my phone it's almost always uber, though I will admit the checker cab app is pretty decent.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Well when you said,



I found personally insulting and what else could you be referring to "it" other than what you call the cartel? So don't throw stones when you live in a glass house.

Referring to the "inspection" process that is supposed to make city streets safer....yet that same car does not require one as long as it isn't competing with taxis. The entire premise of my post that you responded to.



Maybe you disagree, whatever, but their claim that this is about vehicle safety is a transparent and bold face lie. That UBER car is no more dangerous on the street driving a guy home from the bar for 20 bucks than it is driving the car owners kid to a hockey game.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Geordi

Just wanted to point out that Uber does require inspections. It's when you activate and every year though. Just google "uber calgary inspections", it's the second link

http://www.driveuber.ca/s/Vehicle-In...on-Form-V4.pdf

There's a lot of misinformation and assumptions out there apparently.

Maybe I am just being cynical, but how is taking a picture of this form and uploading it doing anything to assure that the vehicle is safe?

What measures are taken to ensure that the person doing the 'inspection' is legit? I mean, I could fill out this form if I wanted to. How does this differ from the inspections that cabs must go through? I look at this form and think to myself that it seems the safety inspection I got on my car was more thorough.

[You Need a Thneed]

I'm getting sick of people blaming the city, so I'll say this again.

The city had literally no option to give UBER a go ahead. There are provincial rules, discussed over and over again. The city cannot endorse a company that does not follow those rules. Should those rules be tweaked? Perhaps, but the city cannot tweak them, they are bound by the provinces rules.

The way the city has responded to the whole thing is they only way they legally could have responded.

I suspect very early in negotiations between uber and the city, the city would have told them, "ensure your drivers all have the proper licences and insurance, and then we'll talk. Without that, we cannot possibly endorse you". To which uber likely said "that's not part of our business model." All the city can do at that point is try to work with the province to tweak the rules - but in general, those rules are there for a reason.

[Geordi]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm not sure that 1/2 page form compares to the city inspection...
https://www.calgary.ca/CA/city-clerk...f?noredirect=1
Starting on page 73...and continuing to 109.

That looks like a basic insurance inspection, which I'd imagine Uber's insurance company is making them do. I doubt it has anything to do with Uber's concern for safety.

Yup, that is much more comprehensive than what I had to do.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Referring to the "inspection" process that is supposed to make city streets safer....yet that same car does not require one as long as it isn't competing with taxis. The entire premise of my post that you responded to.



Maybe you disagree, whatever, but their claim that this is about vehicle safety is a transparent and bold face lie. That UBER car is no more dangerous on the street driving a guy home from the bar for 20 bucks than it is driving the car owners kid to a hockey game.

Yeah, I disagree because when you put money into the equation, greed follows and it can get to the point where you do just the bare necessities in order to make the most profit. It's a pretty common theme for all industry and why we have government controls.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Is it really? Outside of the realm of possibility?

what explains the city's bizarre stance on taxis? Regulations? Uh huh, okay then.

Originally Posted by 4X4

That's the question, isn't it? Why is the City so intent on butt-raping the citizens of Calgary, by maintaining this inexplicably horrendous "taxi service industry"?

It just blows my mind that there has been no correction in the industry in my adult life. And it's clearly sanctioned by the City. So yeah, who is getting their palms greased? I actually want to know. And in the meantime, bring on Uber. I'd use them out of spite, even if it cost more than a taxi.

These regulations have been in place for decades. The City isn't just inventing new rules to block Uber, they're telling Uber what the rules are and what they need to do to adhere to them. Uber wants to pretend it's not a ride-for-hire service, but as they say, if it walks like a duck...

If you've ever been to a city where taxi regulations are a lot more lax, you'll be thankful for what we have in Calgary. I have taken taxi rides in some cities where I was just happy to get to my destination without the car breaking down (or worse). There are many cities where you have to remember to negotiate the price of the trip before you get in the cab, or you might get a surprise when you get to your destination.

Does the taxi industry in this city need a change? Absolutely.

Is Uber coming into town and making its own rules the right solution? Absolutely not.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by getbak

These regulations have been in place for decades. The City isn't just inventing new rules to block Uber, they're telling Uber what the rules are and what they need to do to adhere to them. Uber wants to pretend it's not a ride-for-hire service, but as they say, if it walks like a duck...

If you've ever been to a city where taxi regulations are a lot more lax, you'll be thankful for what we have in Calgary. I have taken taxi rides in some cities where I was just happy to get to my destination without the car breaking down (or worse). There are many cities where you have to remember to negotiate the price of the trip before you get in the cab, or you might get a surprise when you get to your destination.

Does the taxi industry in this city need a change? Absolutely.

Is Uber coming into town and making its own rules the right solution? Absolutely not.

Yeah man, I spent a year in Rome. If you didn't know where your destination was, you'd get the scenic route. But TBQH, I'll take an expensive ride over no ride at all. Especially in the winter.

There's no point in lecturing Calgarians about why Uber being illegal is bad. Nobody cares. All people care about is getting a damn ride. And after almost 20 years of putting up with this crap-ass service level, I'm A-OK with an illegal service shaking it up.

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I am saying that the city issued a statement that one of the reasons they oppose UBER is because of no safety inspections on that vehicle. The problem with that stance is that...that same vehicle does not require any safety inspections as long as it isn't used to make the owner of the car a few bucks on the weekend driving that car. So their stance that it is a "public safety concern" is a load of horse puckey because that car, whether used as an uber or not, is still the same car whether it has one, two or 4 people riding in it and whether or not that driver is getting paid.

Well, the one guy here who said he was driving for Uber, said that if he hadn't done that this weekend, he would have stayed home and watched a movie. It may be the same car, but it's on the road more if it's used as an Uber car, so there is a difference.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I'm getting sick of people blaming the city, so I'll say this again.

The city had literally no option to give UBER a go ahead. There are provincial rules, discussed over and over again. The city cannot endorse a company that does not follow those rules. Should those rules be tweaked? Perhaps, but the city cannot tweak them, they are bound by the provinces rules.

The way the city has responded to the whole thing is they only way they legally could have responded.

I suspect very early in negotiations between uber and the city, the city would have told them, "ensure your drivers all have the proper licences and insurance, and then we'll talk. Without that, we cannot possibly endorse you". To which uber likely said "that's not part of our business model." All the city can do at that point is try to work with the province to tweak the rules - but in general, those rules are there for a reason.

Oh they're there for a reason alright, that's exactly my point. If the city needs to change whatever idiotic rules they have in place for an alternative and better (and probably safer, reduced intoxicated drivers) transportation system, they should do it within a decade IMO. They didn't. So they're either incompetent, which is possible but personally I don't think is the case or morally bankrupt and fiscally incentivized not to (this is what I suspect is going on, I'm probably not alone). To sit around and say "but the rules say this" is garbage because the rules aren't working for the city. Evidenced as corporate jay points out by people willing to break the law just to get around town. How ridiculous is that? That is on the city no matter how you look at it.

Originally Posted by getbak

These regulations have been in place for decades. The City isn't just inventing new rules to block Uber, they're telling Uber what the rules are and what they need to do to adhere to them. Uber wants to pretend it's not a ride-for-hire service, but as they say, if it walks like a duck...

If you've ever been to a city where taxi regulations are a lot more lax, you'll be thankful for what we have in Calgary. I have taken taxi rides in some cities where I was just happy to get to my destination without the car breaking down (or worse). There are many cities where you have to remember to negotiate the price of the trip before you get in the cab, or you might get a surprise when you get to your destination.

Does the taxi industry in this city need a change? Absolutely.

Is Uber coming into town and making its own rules the right solution? Absolutely not.

You know what other regulations have been in place for decades? You can't tie your horse or donkey to a street post. Is it relevant? We likely won't ever agree here and I really respect you as a poster. I think you're great. But the reality here is that nothing else could break up this taxi cartel problem. That's the problem with powerful lobbyists or bribery with city officials to artificially preserve a business model and suppress competition in a market.

Was the city going to change the rules? Obviously not. They aren't incentivized to do so because they're being taking care of (my opinion, bribed). As transplant points out, the arguments on safety or regulation aren't strong enough for a guy like me to buy. Uber whether illegal or not is going to force the much needed change the people of Calgary wanted but couldn't get.

My friends and I joked that if the next municipal election, a person ran and the only thing on their platform was to destroy the taxi cartel and get more licences out there, they'd be elected with 99% of the vote. The 1% not voting for them would be the taxi commission and friends.

Come on. At some point practicality trumps regulation. Canadians and their unhealthy obsession with regulation is one of the country's biggest weaknesses, and you can see an example of that very mindset here with this ridiculous argument. What's the right thing to do? Sit on our asses and continue to be screwed, or fix the damn problem because of a bylaw being broken that's propped up to protect the financial interests of a handful whilst the city freezes their testicles off year over year just looking for a ride, not wanting to chance driving drunk because they had one too many.

[jammies]

Any of you that truly believe politicians are on the take from what is a small time business like taxis are deluded. I would like to be more circumspect, but it is such a ridiculous idea that I cannot take anyone who has such a wrong headed idea seriously.

There is zero chance that decade after decade every council has been in the pay of the so-called taxi cartel. Are you under the impression that taxis make money like the real estate industry or the oil companies? How much money do you think the mayor would need to get to risk his political career? Do you think the cab companies have that kind of cash just lying around in a slush fund? Do you think hiding bribe money is trivial?

This has gone far beyond a rational discussion into some kind of theological argument between good, as exemplified by uber, and the diabolical, as exemplified by the cab companies and their corrupt minions. Even the stories of uber trips sound more like medieval hagiography than reality.

I'm not saying the taxi companies are doing a good job or that at change is not needed, but the hyperbole has gone past the merely amusing to the absolutely mind bending.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by jammies

Any of you that truly believe politicians are on the take from what is a small time business like taxis are deluded.

While a individual cab might not be a big business, they all have to be associated with one of the 10 brokers, and in a $100 million+ industry I'd suggest checker which has more then 50% of the fleet definitely qualifies as a big business,

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by jammies

Any of you that truly believe politicians are on the take from what is a small time business like taxis are deluded. I would like to be more circumspect, but it is such a ridiculous idea that I cannot take anyone who has such a wrong headed idea seriously.

There is zero chance that decade after decade every council has been in the pay of the so-called taxi cartel.

I agree. But you need to ask yourself why Calgarians assume bribery is behind the dysfunction of the taxi industry. Why is it so hard to get a cab in Calgary on weekend evenings - far harder than any other big city in Canada? Why hasn't the city addressed the issue, when citizens have been voicing their mounting anger for over a decade?

When a problem is so evident, and a system so broken for so long, is it really surprising that citizens look for explanations outside the normal run of affairs? The City has done a poor job explaining why the taxi shortage is such an intractable problem that it has persisted for council after council after council, mayor after mayor after mayor.

I don't like to see trust in our elected officials undermined by widespread presumption of corruption. But if it makes these councillors wake up and realize they can't sit on these tough issue for decades and hope they'll go away - that sometimes they need to make bold and tough decisions - then maybe some good will come of it.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I'm getting sick of people blaming the city, so I'll say this again.

The city had literally no option to give UBER a go ahead. There are provincial rules, discussed over and over again. The city cannot endorse a company that does not follow those rules. Should those rules be tweaked? Perhaps, but the city cannot tweak them, they are bound by the provinces rules.

The way the city has responded to the whole thing is they only way they legally could have responded.

I suspect very early in negotiations between uber and the city, the city would have told them, "ensure your drivers all have the proper licences and insurance, and then we'll talk. Without that, we cannot possibly endorse you". To which uber likely said "that's not part of our business model." All the city can do at that point is try to work with the province to tweak the rules - but in general, those rules are there for a reason.

Get out of here with your "facts" and "legal statutes", they've got no place here and don't hold water against the fact that clearly the city is accepting BRIBES from the lobbyists in BIG TAXI. You're just a pawn in the cog in the machine, playing right into their hand. He could approve Uber instantly, but this is exactly what Nenshi wanted, propping up his cartel of cabs that line his purple pocket.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

The way the city has responded to the whole thing is they only way they legally could have responded.

I suspect very early in negotiations between uber and the city, the city would have told them, "ensure your drivers all have the proper licences and insurance, and then we'll talk.

The above is why this is completely the cities fault. It shouldn't take uber wanting to enter the market for them to look at fixing the taxi problem.

The city have had multiple studies saying taxis are fine. Independent of ubers existence the city has incompetently handled the taxi issue.

So yes the cities response to uber is what they had to say however where has the city been the last 10 years on the issue. They deserve all of the flack they are getting for being incompetent or being corrupt

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Dan02

While a individual cab might not be a big business, they all have to be associated with one of the 10 brokers, and in a $100 million+ industry I'd suggest checker which has more then 50% of the fleet definitely qualifies as a big business,

If council could be bought by an industry making 100+ million, the multi-billion dollar real estate industry would have them all in their pockets and we wouldn't be hearing the constant crying and moaning from all the people here who want an endless supply of suburbia. .

Originally Posted by GGG

The city have had multiple studies saying taxis are fine. Independent of ubers existence the city has incompetently handled the taxi issue.

You're treating a chaotic collective as a single entity. One of the features of a taxi commission is that it operates semi-independently - I doubt very much that, until Uber came along, the majority of council and the bureaucracy gave more than a cursory though to the taxi situation. Why WOULDN'T they trust the results of these studies? In this particular case, maybe the shouldn't have, but you can't run a city on your gut feel and anecdotal evidence from angry people on the internet.

I think there is a vast overestimation of the importance of this issue to your average Calgarian. For every drunk hipster stuck on the side of the road at 2 AM in a blizzard, there's another 99 citizens who take a cab once a year to get to the airport during offpeak hours and never ever see a problem. Nobody has ever gotten elected on challenging "Big Taxi", and assertions to the contrary, no one ever will.

Again, I'm not saying the situation is acceptable, I'm saying you can attribute the lack of solutions to inertia and a perception that an imperfect but understood model is preferable to changes that might actually cause new and worse problems. And, of course, that it's not really been a big issue with the public until now.

Expecting things to change overnight, even with the impetus of Uber coming in and stirring the citizenry up, is not realistic - that's not how big bureaucracies work. That the mayor and councillors have to play the public image game and support the status quo doesn't mean that they are antediluvian idiots who are beholden to their bags of loonies delivered by Checker every month: I am certain that out of public view, posteriors are being kicked and actions contemplated, but the legal questions around Uber make it impossible to simply give in and let them do as they please. Uber drivers might (foolishly) disregard legality and drive uninsured, but the city cannot be as cavalier with the law..