Uber to Resume in Calgary December 6 2016

[peter12]

Also, Nenshi is crushing her.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by peter12

Also, Nenshi is crushing her.

Pretty much.

Her argument is basically "It's so unfaaaaaair!".

Pretty clear from how quickly Nenshi rebutted her San Antonio example of unworkable regulations that Nenshi is far more informed about Uber than Romanow is.

[heep223]

I find Nenshi extremely unprofessional on social media sometimes.

[Otto-matic]

Naheed Nenshi ‏@nenshi 1m1 minute ago
@MicheleRomanow it's very clear that you are a great advocate but could benefit from a bit of research.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by heep223

I find Nenshi extremely unprofessional on social media sometimes.

Really? As compared to who? At least it isn't canned stuff straight from the fingers of a staffer.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by peter12

Really? As compared to who? At least it isn't canned stuff straight from the fingers of a staffer.

That's true, and I like that he's active and accessible. But I don't think he should be heatedly debating with people on twitter about important civic issues, re-tweeting random people that support his personal views, ignoring others that don't.

There needs to be a more structured and thoughtful process that he follows. Just IMO obvs

[HotHotHeat]

Nenshi definitely cherry picks on Twitter. There are some well worded questions he refuses to address around this issue. Uber does the same though.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Swarly

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.

The new insurance schemes probably won't help these charities very much; they are meant to cover the gaps when an driver is active but not covered by Uber's insurance. Depending on the market, this could include situations like when the driver has the app on but has no passenger, when the driver has a fare but still in the process of driving to the passenger, or collision/medical coverage when the driver gets into an at-fault accident even with a passenger. Plus the one being offered in Ontario right now is limited to a maximum of 20 hours per week.

[peter12]

When are people going to wise up to the claim that ride-sharing is some kind of job-creator? There are no barriers to market entry, the tech is easily replaceable, and the whole thing depends on drivers being dumb enough to drive for free.

This is not the future.

http://www.reuters.com/article/uber-china-idUSKCN0VR1M9

[heep223]

Originally Posted by peter12

When are people going to wise up to the claim that ride-sharing is some kind of job-creator? There are no barriers to market entry, the tech is easily replaceable, and the whole thing depends on drivers being dumb enough to drive for free.

This is not the future.

http://www.reuters.com/article/uber-china-idUSKCN0VR1M9

The future is probably automated vehicles. Which is going to be freaking awesome and put both taxis and uber out of business. Though what do you mean about "drive for free"?

Anyways here's a comparison of Calgary vs. Edmonton's regs:

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/ABS/Pages...TNC-Bylaw.aspx

[peter12]

Originally Posted by heep223

The future is probably automated vehicles. Which is going to be freaking awesome and put both taxis and uber out of business. Though what do you mean about "drive for free"?

Anyways here's a comparison of Calgary vs. Edmonton's regs:

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/ABS/Pages...TNC-Bylaw.aspx

Lots of problems with that too - regulations, infrastructure, and economies of scale all need to be worked out.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by heep223

Though what do you mean about "drive for free"?

With Uber pay in Calgary previously at ~75c/km (after commission), after factoring in the operating costs of the vehicle (including the empty km when there aren't any passengers) the actual profit is pretty tiny. And Calgary was relatively high compared to Edmonton or Toronto.

That's why increasingly Uber drivers end up using similar hated tactics employed by taxi drivers; avoiding certain areas, refusing short trips or trips with little chance of getting another passenger at the destination, driving with increasingly poorer quality cars plus only working with a surge.

[Canehdianman]

https://newsroom.uber.com/canada/en/...sharing-bylaw/

Uber's response to the difference between Calgary and Edmonton proposed by-laws.

[Resolute 14]

I love how Uber still tries to pretend it is "ridesharing".

Also, don't just say that a CPS background check is "unworkable". I'm not willing to simply take your word for it. Explain to me how it is unworkable in your view. Same with vehicle inspections.

Really, that press release is just more of Uber's typical pouting.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

https://newsroom.uber.com/canada/en/...sharing-bylaw/

Uber's response to the difference between Calgary and Edmonton proposed by-laws.

I would agree with Uber on Point 4 Driver Licensing. There is no reason for the city to have a prescriptive requirement when the province already addresses it.

The CPS background check is interesting but what is the real difference in quality between the two? And does that difference in quality add protection to the consumer. Seeing Nenshi's tweet about wanting to see Pardoned records makes me favour Uber hear as the purpose of a Pardon is to allow people to be employed without discrimination.

Cost recovery Fees -- How much is Edmonton receiving on a per trip basis? The $600 comparison here is not genuine as it includes the inpections so closer to $300 is probably correct. How many trips is the break even point on licensing as an individual vs uber. I think the cities model is probably better here.

Vehicle inspection twice a year I agree with. Not sure how onerous it needs to be but if its similar to the out of province inspection you have to get or the one for older vehicles that insurance companies ask for this seems reasonable.

I am happy to see Uber not fighting having to share ride data/stats as these are important to setting future policy.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by GGG

Vehicle inspection twice a year I agree with. Not sure how onerous it needs to be but if its similar to the out of province inspection you have to get or the one for older vehicles that insurance companies ask for this seems reasonable.

The out of province inspection is next to useless by my book. As long as your brake and signal lights are working, wipers are in good condition and tires have tread left, you will pass.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I love how Uber still tries to pretend it is "ridesharing".

Also, don't just say that a CPS background check is "unworkable". I'm not willing to simply take your word for it. Explain to me how it is unworkable in your view. Same with vehicle inspections.

Really, that press release is just more of Uber's typical pouting.

I agree with this. Even if Uber is being reasonable they are certainly not conveying the reasons as to why they reject Calgary's regulation very well.

Show me the differences between the CPS and Girlscout's background check. Let me know the cost difference, let me know the difference in the reports.

Same with the cost recovery fee. How much is the average driver paying in Edmonton compared to the $600/year in Calgary?

[northcrunk]

And everyone knows a guy who will do the inspection for a case of beer. If not they know a guy who knows a guy.

[Oling_Roachinen]

"Allows ridesharing companies to use the same checks as Girl Guides of Canada..."

I don't have experience at all with Girl Guides of Canada, but I imagine one of the checks is a bit of a 'common sense' thing that the way Uber is structured would not be possible.

I doubt that there is many situations where a person just walks up to the Girl Guides from the streets, show a receptionist he/she has no convictions, and then proceeds to be unaccompanied with the girls. Yet, in essence, that's what an Uber driver would be doing frequently.

I think we can all agree that we want the Uber drivers to have a background check. Council deciding that the background check comes from the CPS seems entirely reasonable.

If there's a reason that it doesn't work for Uber, the onus should be on Uber to explain why. They didn't even bother going into any detail on this. I'm sure they have their reasons, but they did a piss poor job conveying it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by darklord700

The out of province inspection is next to useless by my book. As long as your brake and signal lights are working, wipers are in good condition and tires have tread left, you will pass.

Those to me are the items I want checked in a livery vehicle,

Good breaks, good tires, signals and lights work what else should be checked for?