Uber to Resume in Calgary December 6 2016

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Not sure if it's been discussed in the previous 25 pages, but thought I'd mention it having chatted with my Uber driver last weekend.

He was a former cab driver which obviously makes sense. I'm not sure why people think Cab drivers will suffer when in reality it's the companies themselves that will be suffering. He's much happier being his own boss and making his own schedule.

It was a pleasant ride for various reasons. He was playing top-40 music instead of the usual crappy AM stations that usually seem to be on instead. He had a couple calls, but didn't answer either of them which I've never seen before. You can really tell that Uber drivers want to make you happy and give you a good experience. Something cab drivers haven't ever cared about doing no matter what city I am travelling in.

The fare was 20 bucks when it would of otherwise been 35 after tip and I also arrived quicker then a cab would of. Cabbies will take you the long way 9 times out of 10 if you don't know where you're going well enough. And rarely will they be doing the usual 10km over the speed limit.

Also, this post is silly. The guy was a cabbie, but as soon as he stepped into an Uber car, he suddenly got better taste in radio stations, didn't answer his phone, and figured out how to get to your destination quicker without ripping you off?

Must've been down to magical Uber powers, rather than him just being a decent driver to begin with.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by Cameron Swift

Also, this post is silly. The guy was a cabbie, but as soon as he stepped into an Uber car, he suddenly got better taste in radio stations, didn't answer his phone, and figured out how to get to your destination quicker without ripping you off?

Must've been down to magical Uber powers, rather than him just being a decent driver to begin with.

No. As soon as he became an uber driver he decided to try and please his customers more. They follow a rating system and can be fired if they consistently get bad reviews. Its a pretty simple concept. Not sure why it's hard for you to understand.. they aren't protected by unions and can lose their jobs for being unpleasant.

Obviously any bad cabbies wouldnt last at uber long for these reasons.

[adc]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

No. As soon as he became an uber driver he decided to try and please his customers more. They follow a rating system and can be fired if they consistently get bad reviews. Its a pretty simple concept. Not sure why it's hard for you to understand.. they aren't protected by unions and can lose their jobs for being unpleasant.

Obviously any bad cabbies wouldnt last at uber long for these reasons.

Unless there weren't enough Uber drivers so Uber started to ignore the ratings to make sure they continue to get money in their pockets.

Or Uber is established enough in the community so they stop caring about the standards they so loudly publicize when going into a new market.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Zethrynn

There is demanding inspections on every other commercial vehicle on the road so why should über be any different? Unless you don't think they are a commercial vehicle I guess.

There are?

I call nonsense on this claim. I see vehicles being used for commerce every single day that wouldn't pass any sort of inspection process...demanding or not. (In fact I'm going to try and post a photo that I took myself a couple weeks ago to prove this) That's why when you see those commercial/truck check stops, they tow away vehicle after vehicle. They simply aren't mechanically safe in any sense of the word. And those aren't city stops IIRC, they are set up by Alberta transportation.

This whole concept of public/vehicle safety concerns by the city is preposterous. They care about one thing only in this case, and that's how to protect their financial well being from the taxi business and now how to extract 1500 bucks a crack from private citizens that are using their own vehicles to make a few bucks. I might add that these same people can pick up friends and family and drive them anywhere they need without a second thought, but the minute someone makes a dollar at it while couriering strangers it's the second coming of fentanyl.

I would really like to hear a serious and well thought out reason to oppose UBER instead of this stupid attempt at distraction. Though I suspect such an argument does not exist.

[Red Potato Standing By]

and them towing them away vehicle after vehicle is the reason why they need inspections. they should be doing roadside inspections more often in my opinion.

[Red Potato Standing By]

still shouldn't give a person a pass if they want to use a vehicle for commercial use.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I call nonsense on this claim. I see vehicles being used for commerce every single day that wouldn't pass any sort of inspection process...demanding or not. (In fact I'm going to try and post a photo that I took myself a couple weeks ago to prove this) That's why when you see those commercial/truck check stops, they tow away vehicle after vehicle. They simply aren't mechanically safe in any sense of the word. And those aren't city stops IIRC, they are set up by Alberta transportation.

Sounds to me that they are being inspected then, perhaps just not as frequently as they should be.

I would really like to hear a serious and well thought out reason to oppose UBER instead of this stupid attempt at distraction. Though I suspect such an argument does not exist.

There are plenty:

-The Uber driver insurance issues
-The attempt to mis-classify employees as contractors and general need to prevent corporations from exploitative relationships with labor
-The ability of a city to best determine transportation options inside its borders
-Taxation (though for Calgary, more of a federal thing)
-Background checks on drivers
-Avoiding race to the bottoms as has historically happened with unregulated driving for hire

Anyways, it's not as though Calgary is alone in opposing Uber. They've been banned in multiple cities and countries.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Sounds to me that they are being inspected then, perhaps just not as frequently as they should be.

None of those types of checkstops ever pull taxis over though....always 3 ton trucks and bigger. So when "commercial" is used in this term its only about obvious transportation vehicles.

The Uber driver insurance issues

When did the city become the conscience of who has what insurance for driving? Do they worry about every other vehicle on the road and making sure they are properly insured? Simple answer is ....no.

The attempt to mis-classify employees as contractors and general need to prevent corporations from exploitative relationships with labor

None of this is city business...none of it..

The ability of a city to best determine transportation options inside its borders

OK this one I will agree with. However, since this entire issue is happening because the city has dropped the ball in this area and the existing plan is completely inadequate, then we are back to square one.

-Taxation (though for Calgary, more of a federal thing)

Not in the city of Calgary's scope of powers.

Background checks on drivers

Sure...this one I can get behind and maybe when the city finally capitulates with uber, they can make this a condition.

experience with one another.

-Avoiding race to the bottoms as has historically happened with unregulated driving for hire

Lets let the market dictate this shall we? Works for every other aspect of business.

Anyways, it's not as though Calgary is alone in opposing Uber. They've been banned in multiple cities and countries.

They have attempted to be banned in a lot of places, most of them unsuccessfully. This is not about safety of citizens, its all about the financial well being and the relationship between the taxi commission and certain members of city hall

[transplant99]

This was taken out in foothills industrial a couple weeks back. This is OK, but driving someone from bankers hall to their home in Beddington is unsafe.

Everybody got that?

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by transplant99

When did the city become the conscience of who has what insurance for driving? Do they worry about every other vehicle on the road and making sure they are properly insured? Simple answer is ....no.

No that's not the simple answer. Liability is huge in this case. The city has been sued before in vehicle accidents. If they outright say that Uber can run in city streets even though they're not insured properly that just opens them up for litigation.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

No that's not the simple answer. Liability is huge in this case. The city has been sued before in vehicle accidents. If they outright say that Uber can run in city streets even though they're not insured properly that just opens them up for litigation.

But that can happen anyways can it not? What I mean whether or not its an uber driver with a fare or joe schmoe with a car full of buddies, is it not the same level of liability? Particularly if the city is not responsible for the licensing of said drivers...which they aren't.

Or maybe I am missing something?

[Fuzz]

Fairly sure a cop would have (or should have) stopped that guy.

Commercial inspections for passenger vehicles are strict, and every vehicle must display a sticker with inspection date. Are their blitzes for this? I don't think so, but if they get pulled over, a cop will look for that sticker and from what I remember, that vehicle can't be used until it has an updated inspection. I'm sure there is a ticket that goes along with it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Lets let the market dictate this shall we? Works for every other aspect of business.

Every business is regulated in some way. Regulation is a necessary control of capitalism. Look at the mortgage crisis, Enron, etc were all caused by a lack of regulation.

The minimum amount of regulation required for the public good should be applied. The current level is obviously too high but there is some that should be required. The idea that we live under pure Adam smith capitalism is very incorrect.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by transplant99

But that can happen anyways can it not? What I mean whether or not its an uber driver with a fare or joe schmoe with a car full of buddies, is it not the same level of liability? Particularly if the city is not responsible for the licensing of said drivers...which they aren't.

Or maybe I am missing something?

No. It's not the same level of liability.

If Joe Schmoe has a car full of buddies, he's still covered under insurance. While I'm sure the city could still get sued, I'm going to assume the chances are less because insurance would be covering everything.

If Joe Uberdriver isn't covered (that's on the insurance companies and the uber driver not the city), the city opens itself up to litigation because now the damages need to be paid from somewhere, and it's not the insurance company. So if the city can't say they did their due diligence to prevent Uber from operation in city limits, I would have to assume that makes the case for the city successfully getting sued much higher.

The city isn't responsible for licensing said drivers, but they can be held responsible if they come out and say "we know your insurance isn't valid but we're going to allow this anyway".

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Avoiding race to the bottoms as has historically happened with unregulated driving for hire

How is this any of the business of city hall? Does the city care to make sure there's not too many pho places in Calgary, to ensure pho restaurant owners make a decent living? Sorry, but this argument always bugs the crap out of me, as it is really not the city's business whether cab drivers can make a living or not. That just screams lame reasoning to me whenever someone uses it.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

How is this any of the business of city hall? Does the city care to make sure there's not too many pho places in Calgary, to ensure pho restaurant owners make a decent living? Sorry, but this argument always bugs the crap out of me, as it is really not the city's business whether cab drivers can make a living or not. That just screams lame reasoning to me whenever someone uses it.

They do regulate zoning quite stringently.

They also set standards which must be maintained for businesses to be licensed to operate in the City. Health, Safety, insurance, must all be adequately maintained for any Pho shop.

Same thing is generally being regulated under the livery bylaws. Ensuring there are minimum standards of service, regulated rates, insurance, inspections, etc, are all done in the CONSUMER's name, not to protect some taxicab oligopoly.

Don't get me wrong, I like Uber and the current taxi system is broken, but your arguments against the city's regulations just make you sound ignorant to how the world operates. This cannot be the wild west with a race to the bottom.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Fairly sure a cop would have (or should have) stopped that guy.

Commercial inspections for passenger vehicles are strict, and every vehicle must display a sticker with inspection date. Are their blitzes for this? I don't think so, but if they get pulled over, a cop will look for that sticker and from what I remember, that vehicle can't be used until it has an updated inspection. I'm sure there is a ticket that goes along with it.

I am 100% positive this simply is not true.

What sticker? Who issues it? Where do these inspections take place?

as for passenger vehicles, the only inspections required are for those from out of province and those more than 10 years old IIRC and that's solely for registration purposes. Nothing to do with city ordinance.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by GGG

Every business is regulated in some way. Regulation is a necessary control of capitalism. Look at the mortgage crisis, Enron, etc were all caused by a lack of regulation.

The minimum amount of regulation required for the public good should be applied. The current level is obviously too high but there is some that should be required. The idea that we live under pure Adam smith capitalism is very incorrect.

Except regulations have little to nothing to do with the level of service that was suggested in that post. Markets decide what is good and what isn't.

Otherwise the current city regulations have failed epically at providing the necessary service that taxis should be providing and instead their ridiculous protectionism has paved the way for ineptitude at every level.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Ducay

They do regulate zoning quite stringently.

They also set standards which must be maintained for businesses to be licensed to operate in the City. Health, Safety, insurance, must all be adequately maintained for any Pho shop.

Zoning, yes. But the other examples of health and safety are set and enforced by the province.

[Amethyst]

When I first heard of Uber, I was totally on board. As most Calgarians, I have experienced the nightmare of trying to find a taxi at busy times. However, as I learned more about Uber, I decided that in their current form, they come across as quite "sleazy." The big one for me is the insurance issue. They claim they are just an app and that they tell their drivers to "check their insurance." Do they really think their drivers are going to spend $23 000 on insurance?

Considering all the issues we have with the taxi industry, do we really want another company coming in, that also has serious issues? I don't care what radio station a driver plays, or whether he/she gives me a bottle of water. I do care about the fact that insurance may or may not cover things on the off-chance that something happens.

If the city allows them to operate, despite being aware of issues, such as the insurance one, you can bet that someone is going to sue them as soon as something happens.