Uber to Resume in Calgary December 6 2016

[Resolute 14]

Just as a point of order, "proper insurance" does exist currently - but is a fully commercial policy that is prohibitively expensive for a part time driver. What Uber wants is an intermediate policy that lies between personal and commercial.

[Fuzz]

Right, and is the holdup with the insurance companies, or with the province approving the packages the insurance companies are putting forward?

[Resolute 14]

That's a question we don't have enough information to answer, Fuzz. I don't know if Intact or others have submitted for approval of a new plan or not.

[Fuzz]

I assume Uber would know. If they are saying the province is holding them up, and they are being truthful, then I guess the insurance companies have plans submitted, and are waiting for the province to approve them.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I assume Uber would know. If they are saying the province is holding them up, and they are being truthful, then I guess the insurance companies have plans submitted, and are waiting for the province to approve them.

Alberta has the Alberta Insurance Rate Board:
http://www.airb.alberta.ca/drivers/

The primary role of the Automobile Insurance Rate Board is to regulate insurer rating programs for basic and additional coverage for private passenger, miscellaneous private passenger and commercial vehicles

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in simple terms I believe they set what is called the grid rate, the maximum value an insurance company can charge. The insurance companies have 'free range' to compete with each other at lower prices than the grid.

This is why I believe this is the provincial government's territory. They need to come up with a classification for the drivers and set the max rate that insurance companies can charge.

Which is why I don't really blame Uber at all for asking their customers/drivers to contact their government representatives, as it's a government issue and until it's resolve Uber will not be able to operate in Edmonton. Seeing as so far only public pressure has resolved anything in Alberta (more so the cities, not the provincial government), I don't blame them for trying the same tactic. Especially when they don't have a choice at this point, get the insurance or cease operation until they can.

[Fuzz]

Well, they can get commercial insurance and operate, just like anyone else.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Let's not be obtuse. The Alberta Government has committed to working with Uber and providing a reasonable opportunity to allow ride-sharing companies to operate safely and legally in the province. They were public with this months ago. Everyone knows that means a 'hybrid' insurance classification for ride-sharing drivers.

Uber is just letting people know that they believe it will not be ready in time for the March 1, 2016 deadline when the Edmonton bylaw takes effect, and if they have an issue with that they should contact their government representatives with the hope that the public pressure may increase the 'urgency' for the government to get it out. It may or may not, who's to say, but framing it as though Uber is "stomping their feet" I believe is just anti-Uber bias.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Well, they can get commercial insurance and operate, just like anyone else.

This is an odd arguement to make. Who cares if they can operate in the current system. Uber could have operated under the medallion system as well. The current system sucks for consumers. Taking Uber out of the equation the province (and I'm assuming the delay is with the province) should provide a way for an insurance policy to exist if there is demand for that type of insurance.

We have a business doing the leg work here to make changes necessary to improve delivery to fill a need. Yes it needs oversight but vilifying them for pushing people to lobby the government to fix the laws that prevent them from offering a service we want is a good thing

[Fuzz]

Maybe I'm being a little extreme with my dislike of Uber and their tactics. It just seams that in every city they bully their way in, abuse the competition, politicians, and eventually their drivers and customers. So the cheer leading around them makes me question everything they do, legitimate or not.

[Oling_Roachinen]

I'm not ready to canonize Uber just yet either, and some of the stuff they have done in other cities was wrong I can definitely agree with you there. (I wont say that about Calgary, I blame City Hall for being incompetent).

But at this point, in terms of what they are doing now in Alberta, is just asking people to contact their government representatives. It's not illegal, it's not underhanded, it's not malicious. I would argue, if anything, it's common sense.

[Fuzz]

Fair enough. Maybe when regulations change enough to make it all on the up and up, some other company with some scruples will swoop in and steal Uber's lunch.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Maybe I'm being a little extreme with my dislike of Uber and their tactics. It just seams that in every city they bully their way in, abuse the competition, politicians, and eventually their drivers and customers. So the cheer leading around them makes me question everything they do, legitimate or not.

I see the bullying their way in as necessary to break the status quo. Technology is disruptive and people fight to protect the status quo to protect the profits they make.

I do think that a minimum wage or fee will eventually be needed to protect drivers from the race to the bottom

[para transit fellow]

Wow

Nonprofit organizations haul disabled seniors in a whole bunch of Alberta towns while paying commercial insurance.

Meanwhile, Uber is screaming bloody murder that commercial insurance is just too expensive...

[getbak]

Can someone explain what the hold-up is from the Province's standpoint (other than just the general speed of government)? It seems like if there's an insurance company willing to offer the product, and customers willing to buy it, that's all that should be needed.

[Resolute 14]

^Probably just speed of government. We don't even know when or if anyone has applied to the government for the creation of this new classification.

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

Wow

Nonprofit organizations haul disabled seniors in a whole bunch of Alberta towns while paying commercial insurance.

Meanwhile, Uber is screaming bloody murder that commercial insurance is just too expensive...

Understandable from Uber's POV. Their entire model relies on the existence of a glut of drivers. Higher costs to the drivers results in fewer drivers. And a smaller pool reduces Uber's ability to cut rates to below minimum wage.

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

Wow

Nonprofit organizations haul disabled seniors in a whole bunch of Alberta towns while paying commercial insurance.

Meanwhile, Uber is screaming bloody murder that commercial insurance is just too expensive...

this has zero to do with the current problem. These organizations raise money and drive seniors around at a loss because its charity. So if they can do it this should be our template for all businesses in Calgary?

Also correct me if I am wrong but since these organizations (I'm completely guessing here as I have no clue to any specific group you are talking about here) are not charging the seniors for rides they would not require commercial insurance, similar to how Uber was not breaking any laws a few years ago when they were demonstrating their business model and gave free rides.

Only point your post proves is that being required to pay full commercial insurance for part time driving would cause you to operate at a loss like a charity.

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by Swarly

this has zero to do with the current problem. These organizations raise money and drive seniors around at a loss because its charity. So if they can do it this should be our template for all businesses in Calgary?

Also correct me if I am wrong but since these organizations (I'm completely guessing here as I have no clue to any specific group you are talking about here) are not charging the seniors for rides they would not require commercial insurance, similar to how Uber was not breaking any laws a few years ago when they were demonstrating their business model and gave free rides.

Only point your post proves is that being required to pay full commercial insurance for part time driving would cause you to operate at a loss like a charity.

Well... your assumptions are incorrect.

About 65 small communities in Alberta operate a wheelchair accessible vehicle(s) and they have to be inspected under Alberta transportations commercial vehicle inspection program, carry commercial insurance and use drivers with a clas 1,2 or 4 licence. Note: there is also the challenge of getting a wheelchair accessible vehicle costs --$45,000 - $95,000.

Almost all groups charge some sort of fare/ fee for transportation. For example, Cochrane to the Lougheed hospital (40KM) might be $40, Travel across a small town (5km) might be $3-$4. while Sometimes a passenger fare might be waived but pretty much all of the groups with wheelchair accessible vehicles charge some sort of fare.

The balance of the transportation expense might come from any combination of sources: lottery funding, community donations, volunteer labour, municipal grants/ contracts, and/or occasion fee for service contract work (charters). Bear in mind that charities generally can't operate at a loss. They have to break even... or they die.

So my point: A bunch of do-gooders have to follow the same criteria as Calgary now recommends for Uber (maintenance, insurance and personnel licencing) but Uber finds the criteria too onerous.

Something seems backward to me.





Now, could someone help me off my soapbox?

[Swarly]

^by operating at a loss I mean when not counting the lottery funding, donations, volunteer hours, grants, and massive tax breaks given by the gov't. All the stuff that a normal business would get zero of.

If anything Uber doing this will make it better for these charities, now they can get the new class of part time insurance (once available) and save money too. These non-profits just accepted the law as was and did what they had to do at the time, good for them but there is a better way. Just that Uber has the means to be a squeaky wheel and force the lard-asses in office to finally make some changes and accept new tech being introduced into the world.

personally I wouldn't care if Uber as a company went belly up tomorrow, I am just glad they are starting the slow inevitable demise of the taxi cartel system.

[Otto-matic]

Michele Romanow and Nenshi are duking it out on twitter right now,

Michele Romanow ‏@MicheleRomanow 22m22 minutes ago
Michele Romanow Retweeted Naheed Nenshi
Background checks that are good enough for girl guides and firearms owners seem beyond reasonable for safety @nenshi

@nenshi why are you playing this game? People want it. Our city is bleeding. And you are trying to call their bluff? But only hurting YYC

Naheed Nenshi ‏@nenshi 19m19 minutes ago
@MicheleRomanow @Alx_Weidl @CouncillorKeats @Uber_Calgary they can set their own. We prefer seeing if people have pardoned convictions.

Naheed Nenshi ‏@nenshi 18m18 minutes ago
@MicheleRomanow @Alx_Weidl @CouncillorKeats @Uber_Calgary point is: police check not expensive, onerous, or unreasonable.

Michele Romanow ‏@MicheleRomanow 14m14 minutes ago
@nenshi @CouncillorKeats @Uber_Calgary seems to me you are digging into the sand on issues that don’t impact pubic safety

Naheed Nenshi ‏@nenshi 13m13 minutes ago
@MicheleRomanow @CouncillorKeats @Uber_Calgary digging into sand is correct. But it's Uber doing it, not us.

Michele Romanow ‏@MicheleRomanow 11m11 minutes ago
@nenshi @CouncillorKeats @Uber_Calgary but you’re the one creating onerous regulations?….

Naheed Nenshi ‏@nenshi 8m8 minutes ago
@MicheleRomanow @CouncillorKeats @Uber_Calgary what's onerous about a cheap police check and the inspection every mechanic in Alberta does?

Michele RomanowVerified account
‏@MicheleRomanow
@nenshi @Uber_Calgary. It’s not about being cheap…it’s about creating unnecessary hoops that don’t add incremental public safety

Naheed Nenshi ‏@nenshi 7m7 minutes ago
@MicheleRomanow @CouncillorKeats @Uber_Calgary we've been willing to discuss amendments. They keep trying to threaten they'll just leave.

@nenshi @CouncillorKeats @Uber_Calgary That just doesn’t make sense? Have you taken a meeting with Uber? They are asking for amendments

Haha grabbing my popcorn

[peter12]

I just love it when people tout Uber as a job creator.