Uber to Resume in Calgary December 6 2016

[Fuzz]

How many cab drivers are there in the city, let alone his constituency? He's loyal to a small portion of the people he is supposed to represent, presumably the most noisy ones.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

How many cab drivers are there in the city, let alone his constituency? He's loyal to a small portion of the people he is supposed to represent, presumably the most noisy ones.

Well lets focus on his constituency, not the city, that was exactly my question.

[Amethyst]

I'm no fan of Uber (I think they're a sleazy company that tries to get around regulations and proper insurance by using words like "ride sharing" when they are a transportation company). However, I have no sympathy for idiot on TV whining about his mortgage payment being in jeopardy because of his Uber bill. If his mortgage payment is in jeopardy, it's because he's an idiot who does stupid things while drunk and then expects to be saved from himself.

I believe that he accepted the price at the time, perhaps not being able to figure out what it meant in his inebriated state, but so what? Did he really think that having someone drive him around Edmonton for over an hour on New Years Eve was NOT going to be crazy expensive? He likely needed this lesson and I'm just disappointed Uber cut his bill in half.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

Well lets focus on his constituency, not the city, that was exactly my question.

And my point was he's only representing a very small portion of his constituency. I'm sure the rest that aren't taxi drivers feel the same as the rest of the city. He should be objective. Doesn't sound like he is.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

So he is loyal to his constituency? Doesn't seem like the worst trait. Should he be loyal to the city over them? Honest question.

I don't love our cab industry, but this seems similar to a politician from a rural riding voting to keep farm subsidizes.

It's still a small part of his constituency, but there's 0 reason to piss them off when there's not enough 'support the other way.' He knows there's a problem with the industry, but rather than piss the industry off and hurt his chances with a vocal minority going against him he supports them. He's far from the first politician to do so, hell most of them do, but that's not loyalty.

In any case, my point was that Ray Jones is knowledgeable about Uber. He's not some elderly man who can't figure out our crazy contraptions and gizmos. He's bumbling around because he can't come up with a good argument but still wants to argue in favour of the taxis.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by transplant99

http://www.newstalk770.com/audio-on-demand-2/

Brutal, guy doesn't give a damn about the public at all.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

You're mistaken with Ray Jones. He's researched on this topic thoroughly. He's just nearing becoming a shill for the taxi companies.

Which again begs the question: Why do taxi companies need shills?

Holy balls man this whole thread is jam packed with people who just want a goddamned ride! And are willing to pay for it no less!

The whole crux of this issue is that there exists more people requiring rides than can be satisfied by the status quo ergo there exists an excess of people willing to give the taxi companies their money than the taxi companies can accept.

Seems like a pretty slam-dunk case for me. I'd be looking at getting a piece of that sweet, sweet, ride-giving/money-collecting action by attempting to give more rides in exchange for currency which in turn can be exchanged for goods and services. Like transportation.

So why do the taxi companies need shills? So they can charge more? That doesnt appear to be the case. Why do they need civic protection of their industry? To prevent competition? This seems at least plausible but it makes more sense to prevent competition by accommodating the market yourself and creating a barrier for entry whilst collecting currency in exchange for transportation. You know, that thing that TAXIS DO!

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Dan02

Why is that? what other business gets that kind of guarantee, i know mine doesn't.

I'm not saying it's a good arguement but you need to do something to ensure safe vehicles are being used. Inspections is probably a better tool but a minimum rate like minimum wage has some merit.

[rayne008]

Originally Posted by GGG

I'm not saying it's a good arguement but you need to do something to ensure safe vehicles are being used. Inspections is probably a better tool but a minimum rate like minimum wage has some merit.

Why do they only ensure taxi's are safe? Shouldn't pizza delivery vehicles have the same requirement? Shouldn't my vehicle? Where is the difference?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

The difference resolute is that the taxi industry manufactures the supply / demand imbalance by restricting supply on purpose. That's why at least taxis get no sympathy from me.

Surge pricing is a natural supply / demand balancer that in the long run encourages supply at the right times. More cars, cars in the right places at the right times. For a decade plus I watched the cab industry give a flying F about demand in Calgary. You need capitalism, and no social interference to let the system work properly.

When you say you find its funny that the two groups are treated differently that's why.

No, that is not why. They are treated differently because Uber ignores every rule, regulation and law that it does not like by pretending to be something other than a taxi company. I'm not defending the current system - because it does need to change for many of the reasons already noted in this thread. But I will not support the laughable arguments that try to rationalize holding Uber to lower standards. They should all be playing by the same rules, whatever those rules become.

If you want the wild west, lassez faire system Uber wants, then give that to everyone. But if you want to retain consumer protections, then Uber needs to be called to the carpet every time they violate them - exactly as the City of Calgary did with the insurance issue.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Nvm

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

We already know a new bylaw will come out requiring Uber (or other ride-sharing drivers):

1. the proper insurance, this will require a joint discussion with the Alberta government.
2. vehicle inspections periodically and probably certain vehicle make and models.
3. criminal background check on the driver.
4. etc.

Then if Uber cries or tries to break the bylaws, no one will support them. The issue is that City Hall has deliberately delayed action on this for 3 years and will probably continue to do so until it becomes an election issue.

Seems like a smart move for the city to be staying away from the economic side directly (prices, fees, surge, etc) while having a bylawythat is all "safety" oriented.

You won't see too many people complaining that the city is requiring background checks or insurance.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

No, that is not why. They are treated differently because Uber ignores every rule, regulation and law that it does not like by pretending to be something other than a taxi company. I'm not defending the current system - because it does need to change for many of the reasons already noted in this thread. But I will not support the laughable arguments that try to rationalize holding Uber to lower standards. They should all be playing by the same rules, whatever those rules become.

If you want the wild west, lassez faire system Uber wants, then give that to everyone. But if you want to retain consumer protections, then Uber needs to be called to the carpet every time they violate them - exactly as the City of Calgary did with the insurance issue.

Honestly man, why don't you put forth what you think a solution should look like? You dismiss every explanation and/or solution posted.

[Bill Bumface]

They did a segment on this last night on CTV news and had a guy talking about how unfair it was that he was charged 3x the price one night, and Uber can say what they want, but he KNOWS he wasn't warned that it was a higher price.

So you just admitted, on TV, that you were so hammered one night you forget hitting "Ok" on the surge pricing and then typing in the number "3" to confirm you accept the posted surge pricing and then hitting "Ok" again?? Or you somehow got a different version of the Uber app than everyone in the world?

And then you have someone from the city saying the price has to be agreed upon between the customer and the driver in the new laws to protect the consumer. Isn't doing so on your phone when you book the thing a much more efficient way of doing the exact same thing?

They the had a bunch of people complaining about how their assessments for property tax were too high. So, if the City drops all assessments by 20%, and everyone still pays the exact same amount of tax in the end, will you all be happy?

I had no idea how lowest-common-denominator local news was...

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Honestly man, why don't you put forth what you think a solution should look like? You dismiss every explanation and/or solution posted.

No, I merely dismiss the fanatical devotion to Uber.

Some of the solutions are already in the works - namely an offering of insurance intended for part time drivers as Uber/Lyft/Other drivers are intended to be. Though I would suggest anyone who chooses to drive full time should be held to the same insurance standard of any other taxi.

Obviously I don't support price gouging, so I do think there should be limits on how high "surge pricing" can go - and at the same time, other taxi companies should be given the same limits.

The legal questions over employee vs. contractor, minimum wage requirements, expense reimbursements, EI, etc. are all before courts, so not much can be said about those until the legal decisions come down.

The medallion system, obviously, needs to either go or be significantly reworked.

[llwhiteoutll]

Aviva is rolling out insurance for those who want to drive for Uber. Should be based on amount driven, location and driving record. Ontario first, then the rest of Canada.

Should be funny to watch what BS the cab companies start spewing when their "Uber is unsafe because of no insurance" spiel isn't true anymore. I'd say it will be something along the lines of "Our fares are set. Never mind you can barely ever get a ride during peak times or you run a good risk of a ####ty ride, the fare is set".

Unfortunately, Calgary city council is probably to try to word the bylaw in such a way that it makes it pointless to drive for Uber, insurance or not.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

If you want the wild west, lassez faire system Uber wants, then give that to everyone. But if you want to retain consumer protections, then Uber needs to be called to the carpet every time they violate them - exactly as the City of Calgary did with the insurance issue.

If the free market is the "wild west", where prices are based on supply and demand and there's room for new competitive entrants if economic rents get too high, then yes that's what I want.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

No, I merely dismiss the fanatical devotion to Uber.

Some of the solutions are already in the works - namely an offering of insurance intended for part time drivers as Uber/Lyft/Other drivers are intended to be. Though I would suggest anyone who chooses to drive full time should be held to the same insurance standard of any other taxi.

Obviously I don't support price gouging, so I do think there should be limits on how high "surge pricing" can go - and at the same time, other taxi companies should be given the same limits.

The legal questions over employee vs. contractor, minimum wage requirements, expense reimbursements, EI, etc. are all before courts, so not much can be said about those until the legal decisions come down.

The medallion system, obviously, needs to either go or be significantly reworked.

So in other words everyone here more or less agrees with each other.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by GGG

So in other words everyone here more or less agrees with each other.

For the most part, yes.

When push comes to shove, some here see the taxi industry as the Oilers and Uber as the Flames. I see the taxi industry as the Oilers and Uber as the Canucks. They both suck and I hope they both fail. Then the marketplace will be open for something better than either.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by heep223

If the free market is the "wild west", where prices are based on supply and demand and there's room for new competitive entrants if economic rents get too high, then yes that's what I want.

Which, while being what we want should also have some provisions for government regulation. Airlines, buses, trains etc require them. I don't think it's to onerous to require taxis(including Uber) to be regulated.