Uber to Resume in Calgary December 6 2016

[GGG]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

I don't know enough about the system to discuss it, but the city has pointed the finger in the past to the taxi companies on plates saying they recommend X amount be issues but only X amount ended up going on the road.

The city has issued fewer plates than the taxi commission (also the city) has recommended or delayed and staggered their distribution.

The city tends to blame the too many taxis at the airport and so began requiring ride data from all taxi companies

[pgsieve]

I've never had a civic issue that makes me more angry. I hope this costs Nenshi any future spots, but I suppose he doesn't care anyway as he is likely waiting to ride the tide to provincial or federal politics

[Rutuu]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Actually, the city took Uber's solution to high demand periods and gave the taxis the same option: surge pricing. You just gotta book through an app.

Though I like your idea too. If only to watch you lose your mind if Uber itself gets fined for not having enough cars on the road.

I live in a district that has had Uber for nearly 2yrs now...the only time I've never seen any Uber cars has been at 5am in the suburbs, so they should be safe.

[HotHotHeat]

How does Uber arrive at $500 in fees?

[Fuzz]

Probably twice yearly inspections and class 4 license (pay for driver's medical, test, drivers abstract).

[jayswin]

Is there anyone here that couldn't care less about anything? That would be far more meaningful than those that can.

[northcrunk]

Taxi drivers attacked an UberX car with eggs/sugar while a police car sat there and did nothing.

http://globalnews.ca/video/2522712/r...gg-uber-driver

Wed, Feb 17: Montreal taxis threw eggs and icing sugar at an Uber driver as part of a protest in downtown Montreal.

[Flames89]

I have been riding in UberX's here in Toronto for over a year. Take probably about 4 per week, plus the odd taxi.
Every Uber car I have ridden in has been in far better shape than the majority of my taxis. Further, every driver uses proper technology and already knows where I am going. Every time I take a taxi, I immediately regret it and meanwhile I pay 2x more for a lesser service (not knowing where I am going, run down cars, cars that smell like death).
I want a service where a willing driver picks me up and takes me where I want to go, and that driver takes pride in their work. That has been Uber to me after well over 200 rides.
Let's hope Calgary allows for some revolution in a broken model.

[Fuzz]

More footstomping, this time aimed at the province. I guess they finally realized the city doesn't control licensing and insurance...

Uber is urging its drivers and passengers to push the province to change licensing and insurance legislation by March 1 to accommodate the ride-hailing company.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...451848?cmp=rss

By March 1st. Pfftht! Never watched the gears of government work, have you, Uber?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

By March 1st. Pfftht! Never watched the gears of government work, have you, Uber?

But we know Uber and the provincial government have been discussing insurance for awhile now.

It's unfortunate, but Uber has shown that sitting back and playing nice didn't accomplish anything - they did that for years. It was through tactics like this that things started getting done for them.

Because of the public pressure, look at how fast City Hall worked to come up with a bylaw (one that I find suitable even if Uber wants to cry about it) after sitting on their asses for multiple years. This is a case of the squeaky wheel.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

More footstomping, this time aimed at the province. I guess they finally realized the city doesn't control licensing and insurance...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...451848?cmp=rss

By March 1st. Pfftht! Never watched the gears of government work, have you, Uber?

Last month, Edmonton became the first city in Canada to allow Uber to operate legally, but only if drivers can get legal commercial insurance, currently unavailable in the province.

It's funny how some people complain that Uber is an evil corporation that uses loopholes when it's pretty clear both sides do it. On the surface it appears that the government is trying to make this work but now they can just wash their hands and blame the insurance companies. Ridiculous.

I just want to be able to have a few drinks and get a ride to the Saddledome ffs

Uber is forced to appeal directly to consumers because the government doesn't seem to want to do anything for years except protect their relationship with the taxi boys.

[Oling_Roachinen]

heep223, that was always going to be the case though. The municipalities don't deal with insurance, it's the provincial government that does.

City Hall didn't mind using insurance as an excuse though to keep their taxi company happy though. "Oh Uber drivers can't be insured, we are just looking out for passenger safety" while ignoring the actual bylaws that made Uber illegal, regardless of insurance, in Calgary and never actually telling Uber what it would need to become legal until years after "looking into" it.

The provincial government though has been "looking into" the insurance issue for at least the better part of a year now as well. I don't blame Uber if they think the provincial government is putting on the same dog and pony show that Calgary city council put on. I don't blame them for asking for public pressure, because that's the only thing that has forced anyone to change anything in Alberta.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/07...n_7883348.html

Originally Posted by From July, 2015

The office of the Superintendent of Insurance will continue to work with Uber on finding ways for the ride-sharing service to safely and legally operate in this province

[Fuzz]

If Uber weren't trying to do things as underhanded as possible, I could see their complaints about this. But what happened was they tried to launch, ignoring current laws, seeing if they could get away with it. When they got busted, they got the cities to accommodate them, not thinking that hey, the cities are following provincial regulations. So now they think that giving government and insurance companies 2 weeks to sort it out is actually going to happen.

What any sane company would have done would be to look at the regulations before starting, then go to the appropriate levels of government and insurance and see if they could get the job done. Instead you get this weird angry teenager behaviour trying to rally customers to do the impossible.

[Fuzz]

And seriously, you think the province gives a FFF about taxi companies? Really? People like to call them the mafia, but I doubt they have that kind of control. Maybe the 3 competent ministers(being generous here) the govt has have been busy dealing(poorly) with real crises in the province.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

If Uber weren't trying to do things as underhanded as possible, I could see their complaints about this. But what happened was they tried to launch, ignoring current laws, seeing if they could get away with it.

This is simply not true Fuzz. They stopped for 2 whole years and waited for the city to open up for them. http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...postcount=1092

Originally Posted by Fuzz

When they got busted, they got the cities to accommodate them, not thinking that hey, the cities are following provincial regulations.

City wasn't following provincial regulations. They busted people for breaking city bylaws. Again, you're factually wrong. City bylaws that had nothing to do with insurance at all. City bylaws that explicitly outlawed companies like Uber from providing services regardless of insurance levels.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So now they think that giving government and insurance companies 2 weeks to sort it out is actually going to happen.

2 weeks after working for at least months, if not over a year at this point.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

What any sane company would have done would be to look at the regulations before starting, then go to the appropriate levels of government and insurance and see if they could get the job done.

And they did. We know this. The provincial government has said as much. They said in July they were continuing to work with Uber. How long is appropriate wait until you ask for the public's help? It took City Hall years to look into minor bylaws and they didn't do anything until there was public pressure.

And while the Alberta Government has other far more important things to deal with, it's not like Uber was trying to talk with Rachel Notley. They were talking with the Office of the Superintendent of Insurance, you might be able to guess what there whole job is . It's not like low oil prices affected that position at all...

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

This is simply not true Fuzz. They stopped for 2 whole years and waited for the city to open up for them. http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...postcount=1092

So they started operations without meeting regulations. Like I said. They do this everywhere, and see if they get called out on it. They did, then they waited, then they started up again. Maybe breaking laws is the best way to get them changed, but it doesn't come across as working with the city.

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

City wasn't following provincial regulations. They busted people for breaking city bylaws. Again, you're factually wrong. City bylaws that had nothing to do with insurance at all. City bylaws that explicitly outlawed companies like Uber from providing services regardless of insurance levels.

? Ya, they have recently got the cities to work with them. But they didn't bother to think that there are provincial regulations too? They got busted becuase they were breaking the current bylaw that includes provincial and city clauses.

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

And they did. We know this. The provincial government has said as much. They said in July they were continuing to work with Uber. How long is appropriate wait until you ask for the public's help? It took City Hall years to look into minor bylaws and they didn't do anything until there was public pressure.

Well clearly the insurance industry doesn't have an appropriate product yet, and the province isn't willing to bend on that. The only other provincial regulation is a class 4 license, which I think is appropriate.

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

And while the Alberta Government has other far more important things to deal with, it's not like Uber was trying to talk with Rachel Notley. They were talking with the Office of the Superintendent of Insurance, you might be able to guess what there whole job is . It's not like low oil prices affected that position at all...

Ok, and where did that go? Is the holdup with the Office of the Superintendent of Insurance? I don't see why that allows them to stomp their feet and throw out a 2 week deadline. Lots of industries would like laws changed or dropped to make them more profitable. Should that be allowed?

The fact is, Uber is allowed to operate, they now have(or will soon) Bylaws in Calgary and Edmonton. They just don't like them, becuase they know they don't get the competitive advantage over the rest of the industry.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So they started operations without meeting regulations.

Nope. The rides were free, so they didn't break the bylaw that would have prohibit them. It was a "demo" to show the city how Uber worked and then they requested a bylaw change to allow them to enter legally. 2 years later they looked at the bylaw and decided not to change it. That's when Uber entered illegally shortly after. They waited, it's really not disputable.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Like I said. They do this everywhere, and see if they get called out on it. They did, then they waited, then they started up again. Maybe breaking laws is the best way to get them changed, but it doesn't come across as working with the city.

If the only way to enter is illegally, especially after waiting years, that's on City not on Uber.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

? Ya, they have recently got the cities to work with them. But they didn't bother to think that there are provincial regulations too? They got busted becuase they were breaking the current bylaw that includes provincial and city clauses.

They knew, it was only in July 2015 that the Alberta Government chimed in publicly and since then, based on the Alberta Government's own statement, Uber has been working with them.

You're mistaken on what actually happened. Uber was unable to operate in Calgary and Edmonton because of bylaws that prohibit ride-sharing companies (well any type of company really) from accepting passengers without a taxi plate without meeting certain conditions (the ones limousines operate under). Those bylaws have nothing to do with insurance and they really had nothing to do with the Alberta Government. Now, as Edmonton's bylaw comes into affect requiring Uber drivers to have insurance is when the insurance becomes more than a red-herring.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Well clearly the insurance industry doesn't have an appropriate product yet, and the province isn't willing to bend on that. The only other provincial regulation is a class 4 license, which I think is appropriate.

It's the provincial government who sets the insurance regulation here. Not really up to the industry.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Ok, and where did that go? Is the holdup with the Office of the Superintendent of Insurance? I don't see why that allows them to stomp their feet and throw out a 2 week deadline. Lots of industries would like laws changed or dropped to make them more profitable. Should that be allowed?

Uber believes so. When it came to the municipalities the only way they got anything done was through public pressure. You understand that, right? They are now trying the same thing with the provincial government. And the only thing that they are saying is that Uber will cease operation...essentially obeying the law because otherwise they would be breaking it. Is that not what you were asking them to do just a paragraph up?

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The fact is, Uber is allowed to operate, they now have(or will soon) Bylaws in Calgary and Edmonton. They just don't like them, becuase they know they don't get the competitive advantage over the rest of the industry.

Uber is okay with Edmonton's bylaws and is willing to follow them but it's impossible without insurance. They are asking for their drivers to be able to get the insurance required in time for when the bylaws take effect, otherwise they will be breaking the laws if they operate...so they'll have to cease operations.

[para transit fellow]

There is a table on this link comparing the proposed Calgary requirements for uber activity vs Edmonton's requirements

http://www.calgary.ca/citycouncil/wa...News/Uber.aspx

[Oling_Roachinen]

Fuzz, just because I do think you might be confused on the situation.

Over the past couple months, Edmonton approved a bylaw that will allow Uber to operate legally in the city. One of the conditions is that the Uber driver must have proper insurance. The bylaw starts March 1, 2016.

That proper insurance is unavailable to the drivers currently. It's the Alberta Government's jurisdiction.

Because the bylaw comes into effect on March 1, 2016, without the Alberta Government approving that proper insurance, Uber will not be able to operate in Edmonton legally because they will not be meeting the bylaw conditions.

Uber is urging it's drivers and customers to write their MLA's to try and drive up public pressure to get the insurance approved quickly. If it is not approved by March 1, 2016, then Uber can not function until it is. It's not some type of ultimatum, it's just the facts. And unless you want Uber to break the law, it's their only option.

Here's the actual statement from Uber:
https://view.et.uber.com/?j=fe941775...64017d7412&r=0
"We need your help! If the provincial government doesn't act on driver's licensing and insurance before March 1st, Uber will be unable to operate in Alberta."

[Fuzz]

Sounds like they also want to waive the class 4 requirement. Does the insurance industry have a product ready and is waiting for provincial approval?

And no, I'm not really confused. Just because Edmonton made a bylaw and said they will activate it March 1, it doesn't mean the province is forced to do anything about insurance and licensing. Uber sees it as the last obstacle to them operating under different rules than other companies providing ride services. Nothing at all is stopping an Uber driver, March 1, from getting commercial insurance and a class 4 license(like all other companies are required to do) and working 100% legally in Edmonton. Uber just wants special rules to undercut competition. That's all this is about at this point.