Uber to Resume in Calgary December 6 2016

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by Johnny199r

Again, people who get behind the wheel of a vehicle after they've been drinking are making a selfish, potentially fatal decision. There is no rationalizing, no excusing, no explaining, nothing. Take that B.S elsewhere.

I can't wait for the headlines "crash kills family after drunk driver left with no choice but to drive after uber shut down". I'm so tired of this B.S. People who drink and drive are selfish menaces. If people choose to do it whether it is +15 or -100, they don't care about anyone on the roads except themselves.

Put your blame where it belongs, the people who choose to drink and drive.

No one is saying they are not grade A a$$holes, but expecting them to make good decisions on their own isn't really working right now is it. So a drunk driver leaves the bar at 2am, it's -30, no cabs. His options are to freeze to death or drive home since his car is there and it's a quick drive home. We can either point out that these geniuses should have made better plans before, cuz they have done such a bang up job of that so far, or provide more options to make it easier for them to do the right thing.


My biggest piss off from this whole Uber situation is wondering why cabbies get such special treatment and a nice safe protected industry. No other industry is like that, all at a time where I have watched our company cut 60% of its staff over the last year.

[Mr.Coffee]

Yes at the end of the day, the decision to drink and drive is the idiot that drives.

However, it can't be denied that the city is either actively or inactively contributing to a scenario that encourages risk taking behaviour.

It's sorta like the gun control situation in the States. Is it the government's fault if a citizen shoots up some people? No. Obviously not. But would it be helpful for them to try to crack down on gun crimes by trying to get more guns off the street? Yes.

And it is not clear to me why exactly the city is so hellbent on keeping the taxi business insulated from operating in a proper rational market, just like every other industry.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

When it's -15 and people can't get a cab, some people are going to do stupid things, and the mayor and City Hall will are directly contributing to the lack of responsible rides home. So no, blaming them for spikes in drinking and driving is not stupid.

If you just change your example around to suggest that people would be freezing to death outside of bars because they had no way to get home after a night of drinking, you might get a better response than suggesting that people should absolve themselves of responsibility and blame city council and the mayor for having to drink and drive.

edit: And really, if somebody is freezing outside and they have access to their car, they can surely get in, turn the heat on and warm up without being a menace by driving around. Now, why being drunk in your car, but not driving, is illegal is something that it mind boggling.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

This is absolutely atrocious and city council is completely at fault. Get your #### together. Of course drunk drivers are the ones making dumb ass decisions, but uber helped to keep them from drunkingly making that dumb decision. Now this holiday season will have increased drunk driving incidents and cases of hypothermia. What a corrupt bunch of ass holes.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Studies have shown that an increase in other alternatives, including Uber, have reduced DUI related accidents. It's a fact.

Nenshi, along with Council, have been very heavily against Uber. It's another fact.

It's not a stretch to fault them for their decisions in the last couple years because of the first fact. Of course they aren't personally responsible for Drunk Bill getting into his vehicle and smashing into a pole. Had they done more to get Uber legalized (or done less to get it removed) there would be less drunk drivers on the road. I can blame them for that, it's stupid to suggest otherwise when it's a proven fact.

[Vulcan]

My biggest piss off from this whole Uber situation is wondering why cabbies get such special treatment and a nice safe protected industry. No other industry is like that, all at a time where I have watched our company cut 60% of its staff over the last year.

Do you think those 60% of employees who have lost their jobs are going to be using taxis in the near future. There is going to be a downturn in cab trips along with the downturn in the economy, so the average cabbie is going to see a loss in wages. At the same time Uber is making a move into the city further reducing the taxi business. Maybe we should take a longer view of the situation before going off the deep end.

The main problem I see is that the cab industry needs to update their dispatch system so the rider and the cabbie can communicate on a personal level much like Uber provides. If that doesn't solve the situation, more plates should be opened up but with the economy on the downturn that needs to happen on a needs basis.

[Stay Golden]

Uber's ownership is smug and arrogant and their actions prove it by deliberately attempting to circumvent the rules knowing full well that they were. Operating until the city shuts them down forcing a legal standoff. The court decision was 100% correct.
When Uber gets the proper insurance to operate then they play in the "sandbox".

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Do you think those 60% of employees who have lost their jobs are going to be using taxis in the near future.

Or go out for dinner, catch a movie, purchase a home, head over to Chuck E. Cheese with their kids? They're going to have to penny pinch on a lot more than just taxi fares yet no other industry is getting the same treatment.

And the taxi industry was getting it when times were good anyways.

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Do you think those 60% of employees who have lost their jobs are going to be using taxis in the near future. There is going to be a downturn in cab trips along with the downturn in the economy, so the average cabbie is going to see a loss in wages. At the same time Uber is making a move into the city further reducing the taxi business. Maybe we should take a longer view of the situation before going off the deep end.

The main problem I see is that the cab industry needs to update their dispatch system so the rider and the cabbie can communicate on a personal level much like Uber provides. If that doesn't solve the situation, more plates should be opened up but with the economy on the downturn that needs to happen on a needs basis.

The main problem I see is the plate system. I have yet to hear any actual response as to why this is a protected monopoly. Free market economy that we live in and all...

[adc]

Its amazing (well not really reading this thread from the beginning) that the City gets all the blame (and now blamed for Drunk Driving LOL) and Uber skates when it is Ubers refusal to follow the rules that is causing all the problem.

How come nobody is up in arms that Uber refuses to work with the City and follow guidelines soley because it a. hurts them financially and b. possibly makes them liable for things they should be liable for?

A court just pointed out that Uber is in the wrong here and still people are railing against the city.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by morgin

No. Council has absolutely bungled the rideshare bylaw situation, no doubt, but absolutely no one is responsible for drinking and driving except for any selfish ###### who does it. Trying to place blame elsewhere is ridiculous. even if there were zero taxis and zero public transport and literally private vehicles were the only option, drinking and driving is still a choice by that person and the wrong choice. Don't blame anyone else - makes it seem like a few bad decision makers after a night of drinking is reasonable to expect and we should somehow protect them from themselves. It's not and they deserve every bit of vitriol for being selfish and stupid.

Get off your soapbox. No one is saying drinking and driving under any circumstances is acceptable under any circumstances and clearly the idiot that makes that decision is making that decisions themselves. That said, when there's no rides home available , it increases the chance one of the idiots is going to make a poor decision, and pulling Uber of the streets is increasing the chance a poor decision by an idiot will be made.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by adc

How come nobody is up in arms that Uber refuses to work with the City and follow guidelines soley because it a. hurts them financially and b. possibly makes them liable for things they should be liable for?

They first entered Calgary in October, 2013. As they were Sedans at the time they would have had to follow the limousine guidelines. They stopped for 2 whole years as City Hall "looked into" some of the rules around the limousine regulation. Those rules, were the automatic $85 minimum fare and a minimum 30-minute pre-arrangement requirement (obviously both are rules to protect the taxis..)

This was the result in October 2015.
http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...et-says-nenshi

A proposal to lower fares and ease rules around limousines and luxury sedan service in Calgary was roundly rejected at Monday’s meeting by a majority of council over safety and market fairness concerns.

It took 2 whole years for the city do anything and the end result was nothing. That's when Uber went into it illegally. A month later of Uber not playing nice and we get this:
http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/11/16...il-by-february

City council took a big step toward legalizing Uber drivers in Calgary, but with conditions.

A bylaw outlining the rules for Uber drivers will come back to council no later than Feb. 22.

So they sit back, do nothing for 2 years and get roundly rejected in minor changes and then they operate illegally for a month and City Hall decides to do something. That's the reason people aren't blaming Uber. If it wasn't for pressure, City Hall would be doing nothing at all. Not even pretending to work on something.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by adc

Its amazing (well not really reading this thread from the beginning) that the City gets all the blame (and now blamed for Drunk Driving LOL) and Uber skates when it is Ubers refusal to follow the rules that is causing all the problem.

How come nobody is up in arms that Uber refuses to work with the City and follow guidelines soley because it a. hurts them financially and b. possibly makes them liable for things they should be liable for?

A court just pointed out that Uber is in the wrong here and still people are railing against the city.

Because no one believes the City made an honest effort to work with Uber. They had two years to work with them and did nothing to Uber forced their way into the market.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Or go out for dinner, catch a movie, purchase a home, head over to Chuck E. Cheese with their kids? They're going to have to penny pinch on a lot more than just taxi fares yet no other industry is getting the same treatment.

And the taxi industry was getting it when times were good anyways.

Tell me about it. I was trying to raise a family and pay the mortgage during the 80s. If it gets to that stage this is just the beginning of the recession but it's no reason to take revenge on the cab industry.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Tell me about it. I was trying to raise a family and pay the mortgage during the 80s. If it gets to that stage this is just the beginning of the recession but it's no reason to take revenge on the cab industry.

Take revenge on the cab industry? What?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Take revenge on the cab industry? What?

And the taxi industry was getting it when times were good anyways.

So you want the taxi industry to suffer because they had it good in the good times?

Myself, I'd like there to be no suffering by anyone. That the taxi industry needs some changes is correct but most aren't looking at the big picture of the economic downturn and just want a cab this Friday night.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

So you want the taxi industry to suffer because they had it good in the good times?

Myself, I'd like there to be no suffering by anyone. That the taxi industry needs some changes is correct but most aren't looking at the big picture of the economic downturn and just want a cab this Friday night.

This is crazy. Absolute crazy. Jesus Christ. I want revenge on the cab industry because I don't like how the mayor has handled Uber? #### off.

You can't argue they are protecting the cab industry during the economic downturn when the same rules have been in place long before the economic downturn. That's all I was getting at. And considering nearly every other industry isn't protected, why should the taxis be?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

This is crazy. Absolute crazy. Jesus Christ. I want revenge on the cab industry because I don't like how the mayor has handled Uber? #### off.

You can't argue they are protecting the cab industry during the economic downturn when the same rules have been in place long before the economic downturn. That's all I was getting at. And considering nearly every other industry isn't protected, why should the taxis be?

The plate rules were brought in during the 80s recession when limiting the cab plates seemed to be a good idea. I agree they should have been opened up as things got better but as now things are getting worse, another look needs to be taken.

How's the mayor supposed to handle it. He's following the law while Uber wants special rules for themselves.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by morgin

No. Council has absolutely bungled the rideshare bylaw situation, no doubt, but absolutely no one is responsible for drinking and driving except for any selfish ###### who does it. Trying to place blame elsewhere is ridiculous. even if there were zero taxis and zero public transport and literally private vehicles were the only option, drinking and driving is still a choice by that person and the wrong choice. Don't blame anyone else - makes it seem like a few bad decision makers after a night of drinking is reasonable to expect and we should somehow protect them from themselves. It's not and they deserve every bit of vitriol for being selfish and stupid.

Recognizing cause and effect is not the same as tolerating bad behaviour. It's just recognizing there are conditions under which it will increase, and conditions under which it will decrease.

For example, when more people have handguns, more disputes turn lethal. So saying increased availability of handguns increases homicide is not the same as excusing people who shoot and kill other people. It's just recognizing availability makes it happen more.

Whether you like it or not, reduced access to cabs and other vehicles for hire means more impaired driving. Couching it in moral terms doesn't change that causal relationship.

Edit: I see Mr. Coffee beat me to the punch with the same analogy.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

How's the mayor supposed to handle it. He's following the law while Uber wants special rules for themselves.

Uh, changing the laws?

We all know what the end result will be. By the time the next election rolls out Uber will be legal anyways or at least there will be a reasonable bylaw in place that will be up to Uber if they want to follow it or not. He's just been trying to 'protect' the taxi industry when it's not an election year.