Uber to Resume in Calgary December 6 2016

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by shogged

I signed up to be a driver today, took about 20 minutes and included taking four photos of my documents and watching a short "how to" video. Gonna give it a shot when I get home from work and see what the earning potential is like. I was intrigued that the only vehicle requirements are 2005 and newer, and 4 doors.

This does nothing to reassure me that Uber drivers are safer than taxi drivers! I'm watching with interest to see how this all turns out, as I am certainly no fan of the taxi industry and the way its regulated in this city, but I'm not willing to be a guinea pig who takes a chance on insurance maybe being sufficient.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

Read your own link. Does it say anything about insurance? No. The Edmonton bylaw only speaks to matters it controls, not the insurance industry's lack of willingness to cover ride sharing

That's the point. Ride-sharing for profit, outside of vehicles with the city issued plates, is illegal in Calgary because of the city bylaws. Period. Insurance is an implicit requirement, but the threat of the $5000 fine that City Hall and Calgary is not due to lack of insurance, it's because of the city bylaw that explicitly outlaws ride-sharing for profit.

There's nothing stopping City Hall from coming up with a new bylaw draft, like Edmonton is doing, that makes ride sharing for profit legal under certain conditions. One of those conditions could (and will end up being) proper insurance, but to what level, to a degree, is up to City Hall.

City Hall, over the last 2 years, could have made a bylaw permitting ride-sharing for profit under these conditions:
a) such and such insurance
b) so and so type of licence
c) x number of vehicle inspections
d) blah
e) blah
f) blah

And then if a) was impossible because of the provincial regulation, City Hall could start blaming the provincial level. As it stands now there's an explicit bylaw that prohibits Uber. That falls on City Hall. The insurance is much more of a grey area that will certainly need to be worked out, but City Hall needs to be involved in that discussion to give Uber and Alberta an understanding of what will work to make ride-sharing for profit legal in Calgary.

And for the record, there is commercial insurance available that would likely cover Uber. As it stands now, it costs a lot and not many Uber drivers have it. But some people do have it, and yet they are still illegal Uber drivers in Calgary. So blaming insurance is very much a cop out in my opinion.

[worth]

Used uber twice tonight from downtown to wood lands and back. $22 a trip, not many drivers out there though. Tough to get a car, I think a lot of people are using it.

[TopChed]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

That's the point. Ride-sharing for profit, outside of vehicles with the city issued plates, is illegal in Calgary because of the city bylaws. Period. Insurance is an implicit requirement, but the threat of the $5000 fine that City Hall and Calgary is not due to lack of insurance, it's because of the city bylaw that explicitly outlaws ride-sharing for profit.

Apparently I was an illegal driver a while ago for a few months when I was driving a couple guys to work and accepting their cash in lieu of them having to pay for transit.

Why would that bylaw even exist if it weren't for taxis?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

"The Superintendent of Insurance is of the view that Uber’s supplemental insurance does not currently meet the requirements of, nor is compliant with, Alberta’s Insurance Act and Regulations."

What does this actually mean? I could probably figure it out but I'm lazy. Does it mean that you wouldn't get coverage? Because I really doubt that; all insurance is is a contract. I can't imagine the insurance act voids the contract.

[heep223]

This all smells a bit.

They keep saying that there's a "risk" that instance coverage won't be sufficient. So either a) nobody really knows, or b) they're just fear mongering.

Nobody has come out and said "your liability insurance will not cover you or others in the event of an accident".l

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by heep223

This all smells a bit.

They keep saying that there's a "risk" that instance coverage won't be sufficient. So either a) nobody really knows, or b) they're just fear mongering.

Nobody has come out and said "your liability insurance will not cover you or others in the event of an accident".l

Uhh....

If you have an accident while carrying passengers for pay, you’d be personally liable. Because your personal auto policy doesn’t cover you as a ride-for-hire, you’d be on the hook to personally cover the costs of any associated lawsuits from passengers, or repairs to your vehicle and the other vehicles involved.

https://ama.ab.ca/2015/03/25/wed-lik...hire-services/

The link has some other good info.

[getbak]

Here's a story from Toronto this summer: http://globalnews.ca/news/2172234/ub...sh-in-toronto/

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Uhh....
https://ama.ab.ca/2015/03/25/wed-lik...hire-services/

The link has some other good info.

Sorry I meant as a passenger.

[adc]

Uber is a very scummy company so it is odd how many are painting them as the good guys and the City as the bad guys. Personally from what I have heard the taxi situation in Calgary is far from ideal but it would be nice if there was a better option than Uber to solve the problem.

That said I don't live in Calgary, don't think I have taken a cab anywhere in about 5 years, I have always had fine service from cabs in Calgary in the past and would never use or drive for Uber in Calgary or anywhere else so I guess at the end of the day it doesn't really affect me if Uber is approved or continues to operate illegally.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by craigwd

Are the drivers classified as employees of Uber or are they independent contractors?

If they are contractors how many don't pay tax on the income?

The same could be said of contractors in any industry.

[Slava]

I think that the insurance issue here is for the Uber driver, and their vehicle. Between the uninsured motorist coverage I brought up earlier, or the liability coverage that Uber claims to have in place, how can there be a significant risk to the passengers or other vehicles?

If Uber doesn't have the policy, or its not paying, that is another story. But the guy who is risking everything is the driver. Your vehicle won't be fixed, and if Uber doesn't buck-up for liability issues, you could get sued. But if you are an innocent third party to an accident of some sort, there appear to be mechanisms in place.

I think that once the word "insurance" gets thrown in it gives the impression that there is absolutely no coverage and its completely illegal. It doesn't appear to be the case though.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think that the insurance issue here is for the Uber driver, and their vehicle. Between the uninsured motorist coverage I brought up earlier, or the liability coverage that Uber claims to have in place, how can there be a significant risk to the passengers or other vehicles?

If Uber doesn't have the policy, or its not paying, that is another story. But the guy who is risking everything is the driver. Your vehicle won't be fixed, and if Uber doesn't buck-up for liability issues, you could get sued. But if you are an innocent third party to an accident of some sort, there appear to be mechanisms in place.

Highlighted a few key points.

A quick search brings up a lot of results of Uber not paying out for their insurance policy, or paying out in the range of 50-100k.

And no the guy risking everything isn't just the driver.

A number of years back, a close co-worker's son got hit by a car. He was paralyzed and brain damaged as a result. The driver that hit him had a suspended license, and was not insured. So to add to the (obviously larger) issue of their son being paralyzed, they had nothing to cover medical costs, or costs to retro-fit the house to make it accessible, or to cover the fact that one of the parents would have to stay home and not be able to work now. It took about 7 years of suing pretty much everyone within 6-degrees of separation of the incident to get anything to cover these costs.

So if one's insurance is void, and Uber finds a loop-hole to not pay out it's policy, it's not just the driver that's going to be screwed. Because yeah you might be able to successfully sue the insurance company, or Uber, or the driver, but suing one of those is likely attempting to get blood from a stone, the other likely to take a decade.

Maybe I'm way off base, but I just don't see this 5-mil Uber insurance policy to cover what it's advertising when it comes down to the fine print. Unless something's changed from what I've read, you're covered by a fraction when en-route to a pickup, and your personal insurance still won't work, because that's still commercial use.

My other question, is if the insurance companies start denying claims for Uber drivers even in non Uber-related accidents. Complete speculation, but I can see them taking the list of Uber drivers and denying claims based on failure to disclose information. Even when not driving for Uber at the time of the accident.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Does it mean that you wouldn't get coverage? Because I really doubt that; all insurance is is a contract. I can't imagine the insurance act voids the contract.

No, but not disclosing the fact you're using your vehicle for commercial use voids the contract.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by pylon

Good.

I hope this brings the utterly corrupt Taxi commission or whatever it's called to their knees. And I am laughing so hard that those cab plates probably just went from being worth 100k a piece, to probably a couple grand.

hahaha lol yeah, #### those people who invested their hard earned money in a taxi plate

[Fuzz]

Kunkstyle, your point at the end is a good one. When you get insurance, you are asked if you use your vehicle to get to work. So if someone hasn't said yes to that, they could be denied because they are basically always driving to work between calls.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by adc

Uber is a very scummy company so it is odd how many are painting them as the good guys and the City as the bad guys. Personally from what I have heard the taxi situation in Calgary is far from ideal but it would be nice if there was a better option than Uber to solve the problem.

That said I don't live in Calgary, don't think I have taken a cab anywhere in about 5 years, I have always had fine service from cabs in Calgary in the past and would never use or drive for Uber in Calgary or anywhere else so I guess at the end of the day it doesn't really affect me if Uber is approved or continues to operate illegally.

Obviously everyone has the right to their opinion, but if you haven't depended on transportation from cabs in this city over the last five years, you don't know how terrible it has been.

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

There's also the matter of those $100k licenses they paid for.

Originally Posted by Cameron Swift

hahaha lol yeah, #### those people who invested their hard earned money in a taxi plate

someone previously posted that the 100k sale of these licenses was done in a non or quasi legal black market. If this is true then I say ya, #### them. Just another reason among a large list of why the current taxi system should have been torn down long ago but the city did nothing.

[The Ditch]

some guy posted a thing on reddit that he got denied a license even though he won the lottery due to "not enough experience", anyways he said it was like $3,000

the $100,000 is the black market resell value, inflated because this city won't give out enough licenses due to my guess back room greasing of palms.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Cameron Swift

hahaha lol yeah, #### those people who invested their hard earned money in a taxi plate

Yes. I do say #### em. As others have alluded to, it's the equivalent of buying a scalped hockey ticket at 10x face for the big final game of the season to determine a playoff spot, then finding out the game is meaningless because you got knocked out of the race the night before.

You know how many great small businesses those people could start with their 100k? Unfortunately that would require probably learning a couple skills, and taking some courses. I didn't force them to chase after the easy money. Because let's be honest. The hours might suck for a cab driver, but it isn't exactly a skilled or difficult profession. The hardest thing used to be getting out and ringing the doorbell. They won't even do that now everyone has a cell phone.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

Highlighted a few key points.

A quick search brings up a lot of results of Uber not paying out for their insurance policy, or paying out in the range of 50-100k.

And no the guy risking everything isn't just the driver.

A number of years back, a close co-worker's son got hit by a car. He was paralyzed and brain damaged as a result. The driver that hit him had a suspended license, and was not insured. So to add to the (obviously larger) issue of their son being paralyzed, they had nothing to cover medical costs, or costs to retro-fit the house to make it accessible, or to cover the fact that one of the parents would have to stay home and not be able to work now. It took about 7 years of suing pretty much everyone within 6-degrees of separation of the incident to get anything to cover these costs.

So if one's insurance is void, and Uber finds a loop-hole to not pay out it's policy, it's not just the driver that's going to be screwed. Because yeah you might be able to successfully sue the insurance company, or Uber, or the driver, but suing one of those is likely attempting to get blood from a stone, the other likely to take a decade.

Maybe I'm way off base, but I just don't see this 5-mil Uber insurance policy to cover what it's advertising when it comes down to the fine print. Unless something's changed from what I've read, you're covered by a fraction when en-route to a pickup, and your personal insurance still won't work, because that's still commercial use.

My other question, is if the insurance companies start denying claims for Uber drivers even in non Uber-related accidents. Complete speculation, but I can see them taking the list of Uber drivers and denying claims based on failure to disclose information. Even when not driving for Uber at the time of the accident.


No, but not disclosing the fact you're using your vehicle for commercial use voids the contract.

I hate to say it, because we're getting off topic here, but that situation might well exist with insurance coverage. The issue becomes more cloudy with a liability issue involved (if there is one) and things like medical costs, home renos, people missing work are left largely until the claim is settled which can be a number of years.

I do agree that the Uber policy is questionable, and I haven't done any major research into its effectiveness or anything like that. I just get the impression that the City (which has known for a number of years that Uber wanted to operate here), has done nothing, and this is a convenient explanation. That doesn't mean there are no concerns, but to me the city should be in a position to say "here's the bylaw we have regarding these services, and oh, btw, there are many concerns regarding the insurance and as a result the legality of these services."

Really though, I take taxis only on rare occasions, so I guess I have no strong feeling on the topic.