Uber to Resume in Calgary December 6 2016

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Dan02

The only reason I can possibly fathom that someone would be against "ridesharing" is if they have a financial interest in the current cab system.

The only reason I can possibly fathom that you would be for unlicensed, unregulated gypsy taxis with uninsured drivers pretending to offer "ridesharing" is that you have a financial interest in Uber.

See how easy that is?

[Fuzz]

[GGG]

Until Uber goes a few months without actually starting up we do not know if the proposed rules work for them or not. Uber sent out their letter specifically to rile up the public to get them to lobby the city on their behalf to enact legislation that will protect them.

Right now uber is losing nothing by taking their stand insurance is not available so they couldn't operate anyways.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by Dan02

Secondly, I've yet to see a actual legitimate rideshare company say they can work in Calgary.

[...]

There are 2 real players at the moment and both have said they are not moving into Calgary at this time. Given the fact both are in over 100 cities worldwide I think the logical conclusion is that the cities rules probably are prohibitive.

Why does it have to be a large multinational company? In cities around the World, pre-booked taxi services have been operating as local small businesses well before Uber and smartphones showed up.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by Addick

Why does it have to be a large multinational company? In cities around the World, pre-booked taxi services have been operating as local small businesses well before Uber and smartphones showed up.

Because they have the infrastructure in place already and get the ball rolling quick. Calgary is in desperate need to the cab problem, and these guys can solve it quickly. You aren't going to get a local business up and going quickly enough. I'd be more than happy if a local group got into this and would even pay a premium over Uber to use them.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

Because they have the infrastructure in place already and get the ball rolling quick. Calgary is in desperate need to the cab problem, and these guys can solve it quickly. You aren't going to get a local business up and going quickly enough. I'd be more than happy if a local group got into this and would even pay a premium over Uber to use them.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The only reason I can possibly fathom that you would be for unlicensed, unregulated gypsy taxis with uninsured drivers pretending to offer "ridesharing" is that you have a financial interest in Uber.

See how easy that is?

Super easy especially when you're willing to completely ignore the facts and go all Trump on the issue just saying whatever you want in spite of the facts. You act like people without a license are breaking into a junkyard and stealing a jalopy with a busted strut, missing side mirrors and broken taillights and careening around the city madmax style without insurance when nothing could be further from the truth.

All drivers have a valid drivers license, all drivers have personal insurance when off the clock, all drivers are covered by Ubers commercial insurance policy when going to pickup a fare and while delivering them to their destination. Here's how Ubers insurance works.

https://newsroom.uber.com/insurance-...h-ridesharing/

I have no financial interest in Uber, but i sure as hell do have a vested interest in me and my friends, not just financial but also from a reliability aspect as well as safety. No one likes being stranded in the cold late at night because of a lack of cabs and introduction of Uber to a market has on average led to a 5-10% reduction in both DUI arrests and accidents involving intoxicated drivers. Given the horrible cab situation in this city, Calgary would probably be at the high end of that spectrum.

So in short, I am for safer cheaper alternatives for transportation around Calgary and giving citizens the individual choice.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by peter12

Provide an argument against? Because he is right.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Provide an argument against? Because he is right.

Well, yeah, there may be a supply problem of sorts, but the fact is, it may also be a structural problem, which can't be solved automatically by letting in an unregulated, and so far, unproven entity like Uber into the market.

Resolute has done a great job of highlighting issues with driver stability (wages, wear-and-tear on vehicles, insurance), which in the long-run would exacerbate the supply problem - maybe even to a worse degree.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Dan02

Super easy especially when you're willing to completely ignore the facts and go all Trump on the issue just saying whatever you want in spite of the facts. You act like people without a license are breaking into a junkyard and stealing a jalopy with a busted strut, missing side mirrors and broken taillights and careening around the city madmax style without insurance when nothing could be further from the truth.

I mean, most people are smart enough to not make hypocrites of themselves in literally the next sentence after attacking someone else. You couldn't have put a different comment in between before you went said "whatever you want in spite of the facts?"

All drivers have a valid drivers license, all drivers have personal insurance when off the clock, all drivers are covered by Ubers commercial insurance policy when going to pickup a fare and while delivering them to their destination. Here's how Ubers insurance works.

https://newsroom.uber.com/insurance-...h-ridesharing/

All drivers have valid licenses to operate personal vehicles. By and large, they do not have valid licenses for operating commercially.

All drivers have valid personal insurance (presumably). What they lacked was proper commercial insurance. And by failing to inform their insurance providers that they use their vehicles for commercial use, they were fraudulently abusing their personal policies.

As I have noted before, Uber was facing a lawsuit in Toronto over its claimed insurance for the driver being more fantasy than reality. Also, if Uber is properly covering its drivers, one has to ask why the company is making such a big stink about the provincial government not rushing through new insurance plans.

But hey, if you want to go "all Trump" and make things up, even when reality contradicts you, that is your choice. Doesn't make you any less of a gullible shill.

[zhulander]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Provide an argument against? Because he is right.

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/ABS/Pages...entations.aspx

Majority of Calgarians don't take cabs too often and the ones that do are satisfied. I only take them during work Christmas and Stampede parties which are the busiest times of the year and never had any complaints.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

Because they have the infrastructure in place already and get the ball rolling quick. Calgary is in desperate need to the cab problem, and these guys can solve it quickly. You aren't going to get a local business up and going quickly enough. I'd be more than happy if a local group got into this and would even pay a premium over Uber to use them.

The taxi situation in Calgary is problematic but it isn't wise to solve one problem through the creation of another potentially problematic situation. It is going to suck having to wait for the problem to be fully resolved via the solution selected by Council but it is very much short-term pain for long-term gain. It it long overdue but the City is finally applying a solution and one that is arguably optimal.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by zhulander

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/ABS/Pages...entations.aspx

Majority of Calgarians don't take cabs too often and the ones that do are satisfied. I only take them during work Christmas and Stampede parties which are the busiest times of the year and never had any complaints.

Love that the city called 500 landlines to get a feel for how citizens view our taxi service.

Just a terribly conducted study. Wow.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

All drivers have valid licenses to operate personal vehicles. By and large, they do not have valid licenses for operating commercially.

There is no requirement to have a different license for operating commerically, I have 2 vehicles insured commercially which both only require a standard class 5 license to drive.

You do require a class 1 2 or 4 license in Alberta to drive with passengers. Both Calgary and Edmontons proposed bylaws require this and Uber has not objected to it. So can we both agree to strike this from your anti-uber crusade?

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

All drivers have valid personal insurance (presumably). What they lacked was proper commercial insurance. And by failing to inform their insurance providers that they use their vehicles for commercial use, they were fraudulently abusing their personal policies.

First off in regards to the "presumably", we presume everyone on the roads has both their license and insurance, Uber makes you provide copies of both to be a driver.

In regards to insurance Uber is covering the use of the vehicle while it is being used for commercial purposes not their personal policies. Unless it is your position that you cannot have personal insurance coverage on a vehicle when you're using it for your personal use and commercial coverage when you're using it for commercial use.

If your real concern here is people fraudulently using their personal coverage then I sure hope you've never ordered food/pizza delivery because those guys legitimately are defrauding their insurance companies. Not to mention the vast majority of tradesmen using their vehicle for work. As I mentioned my vehicles are commercially insured, I do not promote using personal coverage to cover commercial uses and yes I actually walk the walk.

As I have noted before, Uber was facing a lawsuit in Toronto over its claimed insurance for the driver being more fantasy than reality. Also, if Uber is properly covering its drivers, one has to ask why the company is making such a big stink about the provincial government not rushing through new insurance plans.

I'm assuming you're talking about Tawfiqul Alam, which is interesting you're arguing Uber is a fraud because here we have a case where someone actually did try to commit insurance fraud. He was involved in a accident as a uber driver then tried to fraudulently file a personal insurance claim which was quite rightly denied by his personal insurance company.

Then he lawyered up and went to the media who lapped it up because it fits the uber is evil mantra. However, seeing as he was driving for Uber and covered by their policy, a settlement was reached. If you've ever had to file a claim you'd know that's pretty much exactly how insurance works.

Uber is probably going to break the billion rides a year mark this year, undoubtably there have been a ton of accidents we should be hearing all over the media Uber is refusing to cover, yet we don't. Why is that? We hear threats from the insurance industry that you might not be covered but i'd be interested to see if you can actually find a instance where coverage was refused, maybe my googling is poor but I can't find one which is weird because the media would totally eat that story up.

The long and short of it is the transportation livery bylaws have been stagnant for way to long because of the influence of the taxi industry. The world is a changing place and the people want alternatives. I believe it is the governments job to facilitate giving people those alternatives.

No one is saying let Uber do whatever it wants, but we have people who want a service, a company who wants to provide it, people who want to drive for it and insurance companies who want to insure it. the government needs to provide a reasonable framework for all these party's to get together and everyone can be happy, well except for the cabbies and some people who apparently hate on "ridesharing" for no discernible reason.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by zhulander

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/ABS/Pages...entations.aspx

Majority of Calgarians don't take cabs too often and the ones that do are satisfied. I only take them during work Christmas and Stampede parties which are the busiest times of the year and never had any complaints.

You are delusional if you don't think there is a cab problem in this city. I don't give a #### if they called 500 elderly people sitting at home doing surveys to pass the time until they die. Try getting a cab on Friday or Saturday, or after any sort of event in this city. It's impossible. So much so that our firm hires town cars/limos every time we have an event with clients because half the time our guests can't get a cab and we are scared ####less that one is going to say screw it, drive home, get into an accident and we'd be liable.

All I see in this thread is a bunch of pissed off people complaining about the brutal taxi service in this city that are willing to accept any means of correcting the situation even if it means breaking bylaws, and 2 people posting the same BS over and over again (half of which isn't even applicable to Calgary) without any consideration of why people are as pissed off as they are. As I said before, they are either contrarians looking to spend days arguing with the majority on an internet site, or they have some sort of stake in the cab companies.

To sit here and suggest there isn't an issue with the taxi industry in Calgary is nothing short of asinine. It's like arguing that the world isn't round.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Dan02

No one is saying let Uber do whatever it wants, but we have people who want a service, a company who wants to provide it, people who want to drive for it and insurance companies who want to insure it. the government needs to provide a reasonable framework for all these party's to get together and everyone can be happy, well except for the cabbies and some people who apparently hate on "ridesharing" for no discernible reason.

Then why are you complaining? The city amended its bylaws to allow Uber to enter the market and allow drivers to drive for it. Insurance companies are working on the insurance - that you claim isn't necessary anyway, even after Uber abandoned that argument.

You have your reasonable framework. You, and Uber, are just upset because in your world, compromise means "I get everything I want".

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

You are delusional if you don't think there is a cab problem in this city. I don't give a #### if they called 500 elderly people sitting at home doing surveys to pass the time until they die. Try getting a cab on Friday or Saturday, or after any sort of event in this city. It's impossible. So much so that our firm hires town cars/limos every time we have an event with clients because half the time our guests can't get a cab and we are scared ####less that one is going to say screw it, drive home, get into an accident and we'd be liable.

All I see in this thread is a bunch of pissed off people complaining about the brutal taxi service in this city that are willing to accept any means of correcting the situation even if it means breaking bylaws, and 2 people posting the same BS over and over again (half of which isn't even applicable to Calgary) without any consideration of why people are as pissed off as they are. As I said before, they are either contrarians looking to spend days arguing with the majority on an internet site, or they have some sort of stake in the cab companies.

To sit here and suggest there isn't an issue with the taxi industry in Calgary is nothing short of asinine. It's like arguing that the world isn't round.

Honestly, three years ago I would have agreed. Within the last year and a half there has been a huge improvement in being able to at least find taxis even during busy events. I have no stake and have even argued with resolute in this thread pro Uber but the cab situation is not as dire as it once was.

If you can't find or hail a cab these days, it's on you.

[zhulander]

Originally Posted by Barnes

Honestly, three years ago I would have agreed. Within the last year and a half there has been a huge improvement in being able to at least find taxis even during busy events. I have no stake and have even argued with resolute in this thread pro Uber but the cab situation is not as dire as it once was.

If you can't find or hail a cab these days, it's on you.

Exactly, have friends that go out all the time to raves and even at the big BMO events, they don't have issues getting cabs except for maybe half hr wait times.

[peter12]

It really goes back to what I have always said - the party crowd hates the taxi situation because drivers don't really like taking drunks home to the suburbs, or down 6 blocks or whatever. I understand the frustration, but if you look at markets where Uber has restricted the fare, well, the drivers follow the same incentives.

There are instances of markets in the UK where drivers are literally piling up in suburban neighbourhoods outside of airports waiting for a fare.

Anyway, for the business crowd, taxis seem to work quite well. Like Kermit, I used to take about 5-10 cab rides a month. Not only to-and-fro the airport, but to weird locations across town (our company storage locker was in Ramsey). Drivers never complained.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by Barnes

Honestly, three years ago I would have agreed. Within the last year and a half there has been a huge improvement in being able to at least find taxis even during busy events. I have no stake and have even argued with resolute in this thread pro Uber but the cab situation is not as dire as it once was.

If you can't find or hail a cab these days, it's on you.

I've noticed it lately has improved. That said, it's been an absolute clusterfata here until about the last couple months, but that is 110% economy driven. People don't have the money they used to, severance packages are running out, so they aren't as many people going out as in the past. Issue may have solved itself for now, but if oil rebounds, we are going to be right back in to the same old BS.