Uber to Resume in Calgary December 6 2016

[corporatejay]

"ridesharing". What a ####ing joke.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Missed this on Friday...
http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary...i-bylaws-.html

So how long before Uber says "screw it" and starts operating again? At least we know the city isn't shy about starting a lawsuit...Should be interesting where this goes.

Given Uber is already under an injunction for failing to abide by the city's by-laws, I would suspect the city could get another injunction fairly easily if Uber chose to operate outside of the city's new by-laws.

That would look great on Uber though. "We don't support things like proof of maintenance on our drivers' vehicles, proper insurance or accessibility options for the disabled."

[woob]

Was in Toronto Thurs-Sun and due to car2go not being as friendly/easy to use like it is here in YYC, we decided to try Uber. Ease of use factor was extremely high. I don't think we waited longer than 3 minutes on any of our trips. Cars were a mixed bag, from a run down Chevy Cobalt, to a smoky Toyota Vezina, to a brand new Toyota Rav4. Drivers were a mixed bag as well as some were quiet and some were friendly and chatty. Pricing was a bit cheaper than taxis (I used them three times on the trip) but we encountered surge pricing 3 (1.2, 1.3, and 2.0) times which negated the small pricing difference for those trips.

It still made me uneasy not knowing exactly how I'd be covered if we ended up in a serious accident, but we never took any major highways, just city streets and thus slower speeds.

As well, I didn't have any trouble getting taxis the three times I used them and all three were pleasant to deal with.

[taco.vidal]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...vote-1.3422479

Edmonton city councillors voted Wednesday to legalize the ride-hailing company Uber.

Uber will be allowed to legally operate in the city starting March 1, provided the company's drivers are able to get legal commercial insurance approved by the province. That process is still underway.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...vote-1.3422479

Edmonton is no good

[Fuzz]

wrong info...

[Fuzz]

http://www.edmonton.ca/bylaws_licenc...ire-bylaw.aspx

The major difference I see between this and Calgary is that they don't appear to require inspections. They still do require a class 4 license though.

Ramit Kar, Uber's general manager for Alberta, said Edmonton's bylaw is a model for other Canadian municipalities. He thinks the insurance issue will be resolved shortly.

I'm actually a little surprised Uber is OK with the licensing requirements. Is Edmonton the first jurisdiction anywhere to require a commercial license for "ride sharing"? Be interesting to see what the drivers think of that...

[Resolute 14]

Looks like Edmonton requires an annual inspection. Calgary wants semi-annual. Calgary also wants some of the logs Uber already collects regarding number of rides for each driver and whatnot. Edmonton doesn't seem to be asking for any of that.

[getbak]

How is the approved bylaw in Edmonton different from what was proposed previously, which Uber had said was unworkable?

[HotHotHeat]

Good news:

Uber has cleared another hurdle in its attempt to become regulated.

Ontario’s insurance regulator approved coverage for drivers using ride-hailing services like Uber today.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada says it’s the first coverage of its kind in the country.


Aviva Canada will begin offering coverage for drivers that carry paying passengers in their own vehicles after getting the go ahead from the financial Services Commission of Ontario.

The insurer says it is an addition to its personal auto policy and will be available to drivers licensed for at least six years, who spend up to 20 hours a week participating in ride hailing, and for a maximum of eight occupants.

Aviva says it will be working with regulators across the country to make this insurance available in other provinces.

http://www.newstalk770.com/syn/60/11...egally-insured

[Resolute 14]

Up to 20 hours is a good compromise figure too. Helps differentiate between part timers and those who make it their career.

[peter12]

Looks like Uber is starting to have its own PR problems.

http://observer.com/2016/02/9000-ube...-with-protest/

[Otto-matic]

Just got this email from Uber, ugh!

Over the past few months, we've been working hard to bring Uber back to Calgary. During that same time, we've made meaningful progress in Alberta, with Edmonton adopting ridesharing regulations that work.


Here in Calgary, things don't look so good. Despite our efforts to work collaboratively, City Staff have drafted unworkable rules that would prevent us from coming back to Calgary.


These City proposed rules create far too much red tape. For instance, Calgarians looking to drive and earn some extra income for their families would have to pay almost $500 in fees and administrative costs for unnecessary processes in order to partner with Uber.

[ZedMan]

Lol @ "Desipite our efforts to work collaboratively" = City drafts reasonable proposal, Uber pouts.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by ZedMan

Lol @ "Desipite our efforts to work collaboratively" = City drafts reasonable proposal, Uber pouts.

Is Calgary's proposal pretty similar to the one Edmonton just passed? If so, how has Uber responded to the Edmonton framework?

[peter12]

Ah, the Randians have been defeated.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by heep223

Is Calgary's proposal pretty similar to the one Edmonton just passed? If so, how has Uber responded to the Edmonton framework?

Probably identical. It wouldn't surprise me if Edmonton über drivers received the same email, but complaining about how Edmonton's rules are too much red tape and Calgary is going swimmingly.

[PsYcNeT]

I didn't realize so many people were for protectionist practices in private industry until I read this thread.

It's a good thing all the taxi operators have city council to keep them safe.

[Resolute 14]

Actually, Psychnet, expecting Uber to obey some pretty basic and reasonable regulations, expecting both sides to play by the same rules, and being unimpressed when Uber throws a hissyfit because it isn't getting the uneven playing field it requires in order to compete is not the same thing as supporting "protectionist policies". But nice attempted ad hominem attack anyway.

Originally Posted by Wormius

Probably identical. It wouldn't surprise me if Edmonton über drivers received the same email, but complaining about how Edmonton's rules are too much red tape and Calgary is going swimmingly.

Not quite. Edmonton demands an annual inspection, while Calgary's bylaw wants semi-annual. Calgary is also asking for far more documentation, but that is apparently stuff Uber already collects. Calgary is also requiring a class 4 license and proper commercial insurance (or ride sharing, if the government and insurance companies ever get that going). I'm unsure of Edmonton's requirements there.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Actually, Psychnet, expecting Uber to obey some pretty basic and reasonable regulations, expecting both sides to play by the same rules, and being unimpressed when Uber throws a hissyfit because it isn't getting the uneven playing field it requires in order to compete is not the same thing as supporting "protectionist policies". But nice attempted ad hominem attack anyway.

Hey I'm not against Uber following rules, they have to do it everywhere else, that's not the issue.

The issue is, if Uber does pick up their ball and go home (and it's seeming more likely as time goes on), we're still stuck with North America's worst taxi system that is coddled by city hall for the 20th year in a row.

In the end, the user is still losing, why are we happy about this?