Uber to Resume in Calgary December 6 2016

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by GGG

Yes they should, some studies show that drunk walking is actually more dangerous than drunk driving. Don't have a link just remember reading it

I'm not talking about drunk walking. Being completely sober but can't find a cab so decide to walk instead. Would the city be to blame if you got killed? The lack of taxis made you make the dumb decision to walk across Deerfoot apparently.

And how is it we like Uber but blame the taxi industry for our dumb decisions? So if Uber is clogged and you can't find a Uber driver at 2AM on a Saturday will you blame Uber when you make the idiotic decision to drive drunk?

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by heep223

It's absolutely the city's fault, because they've let this issue fester for a decade. They're supposed to be representing their constituents who have been pointing out his problem for years. They should have a) solved this problem long ago, and/or b) used the last year that they've been working with Uber to actually help them get operational in our city.

As for the mayor - he was elected on his promise of being progressive, innovative and will cut through red tape. Essentially dismantling the "old boys club". This looks terrible on him.

But if the City is requesting certain information to enable that change and the proponent does not, what are they supposed to do?

It's like if I as a developer was trying to build something using an equivalency to the meet fire code provisions in a new way because I believe the existing fire code provision is onerous. The City says OK, show us how that works. And I say no, and then build the building anyway.

I agree taxi reform has been too slow, but at least in recent years some tangible steps have been taken. That hadn't been the case in a generation.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally Posted by heep223

They should have a) solved this problem long ago, and/or b) used the last year that they've been working with Uber to actually help them get operational in our city.

How does the City control the insurance industry? The insurance required for drivers to be adequately insured doesn't exist. Blame the insurers for that, just like how I can't get overland floor for my particular house.

I'd love to try and support Uber but this is no different that bumming a ride off someone that doesn't have insurance coverage. Till then I'm not going to put drivers or myself at risk.

I'll echo someone else's question as to why Uber doesn't get a fleet policy and issue pinks to all drivers. Problem solved.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Bunk

But if the City is requesting certain information to enable that change and the proponent does not, what are they supposed to do?

It's like if I as a developer was trying to build something using an equivalency to the meet fire code provisions in a new way because I believe the existing fire code provision is onerous. The City says OK, show us how that works. And I say no, and then build the building anyway.

I agree taxi reform has been too slow, but at least in recent years some tangible steps have been taken. That hadn't been the case in a generation.

Re: your analogy to development, it's not a perfect analogy but in general it's a fair point. But I just don't care. The problem has stagnated for far too long and the public sector can't handle it.

This is Calgary. We should hold high standards for our publicly elected officials just as we do in the private sector. We pride ourselves on cutting the the BS and getting things done (as Nenshi has said numerous times). They've been working on this for a year. If they can't get a deal done by sitting at a table with Uber and the insurance industry, I applaud the private sector coming in to shake things up and take advantage of an opportunity regardless.

[V]

The Mayor's entirely at fault for allowing the situation to get to the point where people would rather take a ride with an uninsured driver than a taxi, because, well, they can't get a taxi. Uber's just filling a need that the City's government created.

[Looch City]

I'd argue that this discussion would carry on for another 10 years if it wasn't for Uber forcing their hand.

The taxi industry in this city is incompetent and unwilling to change. Don't you think it says something when the vast majority of users on this thread are willing to use Uber even though it's "technically illegal"?

[CliffFletcher]

I think one of the problems might be that the dire taxi situation in this city is only evident to people who have tried to get a cab late in the evening on weekends. And I have a feeling our councillors don't fall into that population. While Andre Chabot and Brian Pincott probably have no problem catching a cab from city hall at 7 p.m., I doubt they have ever trudged down Macleod Trail for an hour on a February night after midnight desperately trying to flag down a cab.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by heep223

Re: your analogy to development, it's not a perfect analogy but in general it's a fair point. But I just don't care. The problem has stagnated for far too long and the public sector can't handle it.

This is Calgary. We should hold high standards for our publicly elected officials just as we do in the private sector. We pride ourselves on cutting the the BS and getting things done (as Nenshi has said numerous times). They've been working on this for a year. If they can't get a deal done by sitting at a table with Uber and the insurance industry, I applaud the private sector coming in to shake things up and take advantage of an opportunity regardless.

Regardless of one's feelings on the taxi industry as it stands or what reform has or hasn't happened, where is Uber's responsibility in this situation related to ride-sharing services? The City can't force Uber to do what it needs to do.

It seems very clear the City and the Mayor have been very open to enabling and the ball has been in Uber's court, no?

Naheed Nenshi ‏@nenshi
@99spru @fusiliyyc well, Uber has known for many months what they need to do to fix. They are working on it, but chose to launch before done

Naheed Nenshi ‏@nenshi 10h10 hours ago
@MoUsEsVloG uber has had years to solve the insurance gap that they are aware of and have been working on. They have not finished yet.

Again, I wouldn't dispute not enough has been done fast enough to fix the broken taxi system. It's not an easy knot to untangle due to the generations of layers of bad regulation, equity that's been created from a flawed licensing system (and therefore extremely expensive to dismantle buying out licences), etc.

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I think one of the problems might be that the dire taxi situation in this city is only evident to people who have tried to get a cab late in the evening on weekends. And I have a feeling our councillors don't fall into that population. They probably have no problem catching a cab from city hall at 7 p.m. I doubt Andre Chabot or Brian Pincott have ever trudged down Macleod Trail for an hour on a February night desperately trying to flag down a cab.

Or on travel (business or personal) have city officials used taxis and uber in other cities to get sense of how Calgary compares.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Bunk

But if the City is requesting certain information to enable that change and the proponent does not, what are they supposed to do?

It's like if I as a developer was trying to build something using an equivalency to the meet fire code provisions in a new way because I believe the existing fire code provision is onerous. The City says OK, show us how that works. And I say no, and then build the building anyway.

I agree taxi reform has been too slow, but at least in recent years some tangible steps have been taken. That hadn't been the case in a generation.

You're not going to win this argument Bunk. The taxi industry has been so bad for so long with so many politicians in their pockets that it doesn't matter what points you make, Nenshi is the bad guy in this. And whether you agree or not, the public is better served by Uber starting now than waiting for whatever appeasements the city wants out of them

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

You're not going to win this argument Bunk. The taxi industry has been so bad for so long with so many politicians in their pockets that it doesn't matter what points you make, Nenshi is the bad guy in this. And whether you agree or not, the public is better served by Uber starting now than waiting for whatever appeasements the city wants out of them

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you're saying (except about taxi industry having politicians in their pockets - they're such a minute contributor relative to the whole). Just pointing out that (I think fairly) it's a two way street with these things. I definitely understand and empathize with the frustration that's led to this in the first place.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you're saying. Just pointing out that (I think fairly) it's a two way street with these things.

Of course it is. But the public has been underserved by taxis for so long that their dissatisfaction has turned to pure anger. There's nothing the city can say or do to get them back on their side, and Uber knows this. So Nenshi and the rest of the council's best move is to just say nothing and quietly fast track some new regulations

[para transit fellow]

Has anybody here started driving for Uber?

tell us about it

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Regardless of one's feelings on the taxi industry as it stands or what reform has or hasn't happened, where is Uber's responsibility in this situation related to ride-sharing services? The City can't force Uber to do what it needs to do.

It seems very clear the City and the Mayor have been very open to enabling and the ball has been in Uber's court, no?

Naheed Nenshi ‏@nenshi
@99spru @fusiliyyc well, Uber has known for many months what they need to do to fix. They are working on it, but chose to launch before done

Naheed Nenshi ‏@nenshi 10h10 hours ago
@MoUsEsVloG uber has had years to solve the insurance gap that they are aware of and have been working on. They have not finished yet.

Again, I wouldn't dispute not enough has been done fast enough to fix the broken taxi system. It's not an easy knot to untangle due to the generations of layers of bad regulation, equity that's been created from a flawed licensing system (and therefore extremely expensive to dismantle buying out licences), etc.

Nenshi has lost a lot of credibility in the past 24 hours.

His endless tweets that reference the same article over and over again are a tired argument that lines up perfectly in tow with the taxi industry.

What efforts has Nenshi made to encourage a dialogue at a provincial level? (Alberta government has not yet allowed insurance companies to sell the proper insurance to drivers).

Again, I've never seen an issue in Canada where elected officials are this relentlessly against the overwhelming popular opinion. It's disgusting.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

I'd argue that this discussion would carry on for another 10 years if it wasn't for Uber forcing their hand.

The taxi industry in this city is incompetent and unwilling to change. Don't you think it says something when the vast majority of users on this thread are willing to use Uber even though it's "technically illegal"?

That's my opinion. Uber forcing itself in should finally get the city to act on changing the regulations despite the resistance from the taxi corporations. The people want Uber, and it's the city responsibility to allow them to operate within reasonable terms since they've been operational globally for a while now.

This is a good thing since it'll get people more options which is what we ultimately want. It'll also allow more people to get home safely during the nightlife hours of the weekends.

[para transit fellow]

In addition to the insurance issue, there is the licencing requirement. Driver licencing is something Council has no say over.

How is Uber dealing with the provincial requirement of a class 4 ( or class 2... or class 1) licence to drive for hire in Alberta?

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Nenshi has lost a lot of credibility in the past 24 hours.

His endless tweets that reference the same article over and over again are a tired argument that lines up perfectly in tow with the taxi industry.

What efforts has Nenshi made to encourage a dialogue at a provincial level? (Alberta government has not yet allowed insurance companies to sell the proper insurance to drivers).

Again, I've never seen an issue in Canada where elected officials are this relentlessly against the overwhelming popular opinion. It's disgusting.

Well, in fact he has pointed out what needed to be done and Uber as a result ARE working on it and apparently making progress. All he said is they decided to launch before issue was resolved.

As the mayor pointed out: https://www.kanetix.ca/uber-rideshare-insurance


UBER AND INTACT WORKING ON RIDESHARE INSURANCE

In response to the rapidly growing and somewhat controversial rise of ridesharing programs, Uber and Intact Financial Corp have announced plans to develop a new insurance product that protects drivers who use their own personal vehicles for ridesharing programs.

The organizations said they are in the process of working with provincial governments in the provinces that currently have ridesharing programs (Ontario, Alberta and Quebec) to develop an insurance product that is nationally consistent but customized to each province's regulations...

The insurance grey area

Ridesharing programs such as Uber are growing in popularity, but they introduced a slew of challenges for insurers, drivers and passengers alike.

On the one hand, Uber provides its UberX drivers with $5,000,000 commercial auto liability insurance that covers bodily injury and property damage. On the other hand, drivers are jeopardizing their own personal auto insurance coverage by using their vehicle for commercial purposes, which could result in many Uber drivers not being properly insured.

Drivers who use their own vehicles as essentially a taxi service are not covered under their personal auto insurance policies. If you are an Uber driver and you get in an accident your insurance could be void-especially in the event of non-disclosure. If your insurance is not void, you may lack sufficient coverage. Most insurers recommend a minimum of $2 million liability.

Provinces like Ontario operate on a no-fault system, which means regardless of who is at fault in a collision each driver must go through their own provider. Where Uber's commercial policy comes into play in this matter remains unclear.

[The Ditch]

when i take the uber i get the person's photo, their license plate number, i get to see what kind of car they drive, they have to maintain a 4.8 out of 5 rating, i can look at the route on my map to make sure they're not doing anything shady, and I don't have to carry any cash on me.

yet somehow i'm supposed to worry about my safety in an Uber compared to a cab who tries to take me to an atm to pay for the trip with cash at night.

[Burninator]

If one became an Uber driver does gas and service on your car become a tax deduction?

[heep223]

I can see both sides of this but yes Bunk, this is 100% the city's fault. Uber likely decided to launch anyways because they know how embarrassingly bad our city's taxi service has been for so long and how angry people are. Uber is doing us all a favour.

This issue is less trivial than it may seem on the surface - it affects the city's life and vitality.