• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, Toronto's largest and longest running online community. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register on the forum. You can register with your facebook ID or with an email address. Join us!

Banning Uber: More bullshit coming from the City of Toronto

K

kyfe

TRIBE Member
Should be interesting, I'm hoping Toronto does it right and while it doesn't make everyone happy, it will at least allow all parties to compete
 
Bernnie Federko

Bernnie Federko

TRIBE Member
Drivers for ride-sharing services such as UberX would face less stringent safety rules than regular cabbies under new draft regulations Toronto city staff will unveil on Thursday.

Sources say the proposals would require drivers with Uber and similar services to submit to the same kind of criminal record checks that taxi drivers do now. However, unlike the system for cab drivers, Uber, not the city, would collect and screen the records. City inspectors could obtain them on request.

Different standards would also apply for safety inspections to the vehicles, the sources say. Drivers for UberX would be required only to submit an annual safety certificate from a licensed garage, while taxis would continue to have semi-annual mechanical inspections run by the city. City officials could ask either type of driver for a safety inspection at any time.

Both kinds of drivers would be required to have some sort of minimum insurance. The changes would also loosen some of the current regulations for traditional taxi cab drivers.

Mayor John Tory, who has said Uber should be accommodated in Toronto and that the city cannot block innovation, said on Wednesday that the proposals would protect consumers whatever service they use.

“The whole idea is to have a balanced system that offers people choice, that offers them the most advanced technology, and that offers protection for public safety whether you’re in an Uber car or a taxi or a limo,” Mr. Tory told local TV news channel CP24 in an interview from San Francisco, where he is on a trip to promote Toronto’s high-tech sector.

The debate over the popular ride-sharing service has raged in Toronto and other cities for months, even sparking violent confrontations between traditional cabbies and UberX drivers. The service has so far operated in Toronto with no regulation, angering regular cab drivers, who must follow rules and pay hundreds of dollars in licensing fees every year.

City council passed a resolution last fall calling for new regulations that would level the playing field. The taxi industry is expected to oppose the draft proposals.

After city officials release the details on Thursday morning, the city’s licensing and standards committee will debate the plans on April 14. The final proposal, likely with amendments from councillors on the committee who are vocal allies of the taxi cab industry, is expected to go before city council next month.

Other Canadian cities where Uber operates, including Ottawa and Edmonton, have proposed regulatory changes. A move in Calgary to impose a $220 licensing fee and other rules caused Uber to announce it could no longer operate there.

Uber has said its service deserves different treatment than regular cabs because many UberX drivers work only five or 10 hours a week. Uber says it has more than 400,000 users in Toronto and 16,000 drivers. The city has about 5,000 traditional licensed taxi cabs.
 
H

Ho||yw0oD

TRIBE Member
While I am pro-Uber, it seems strange to have two sets of regulations for what is seemingly one industry. But whatever, if the taxi cab drivers can't make ends meet then they should start driving for Uber! The only losers will be corporate and plate owners.
 
wickedken

wickedken

TRIBE Member
Ho||yw0oD said:
While I am pro-Uber, it seems strange to have two sets of regulations for what is seemingly one industry. But whatever, if the taxi cab drivers can't make ends meet then they should start driving for Uber! The only losers will be corporate and plate owners.
Click to expand...
Absolutely! And then when everyone starts using Uber and there are no more taxis, the city can get rid of the department of Taxis and save money for the taxpayer. Might as well get rid of the restaurant health inspectors as well, no use and they just add unnecessary license fees. Stop the gravy!
 
Puma

Puma

TRIBE Member
wickedken said:
I heard somewhere that Uber drivers actually make less than minimum wage on an hourly basis.

Uber Drivers Say They're Making Less Than Minimum Wage - Business Insider

As long as you can get from A-to-B cheaply though right? It's an interesting economic effect.
Click to expand...
One of my friends can't find a job and is driving uber and it is true the drivers are treated very poorly and the money they make is way below minimum wage especially if you factor in the maintenance and wear and tear on the car.

That 4-5 dollar ride that you are taking is actually not worth it for the driver if you think about it. it will take at least 5-10 minutes for the driver to pick you up and drive you a short distance then drop off another 5-10 minutes that will take about 20 minutes. also they have to wait 10-15 minutes between rides sometimes hours. So that's like max 10 dollars an hour and did not even calculate the gas and insurance and the rest into that wage. They make up for it by working insane hours.

He told me that uber drivers will give you a bad rating if you go for a short ride so that they can look at your rating later and decide not to pick you up since they will think that you want to go for another short ride. In fact he refuses to pick people up around bus stations and walmart and places like that because he figures that you will only go for a short ride.

Also he has kicked people out of his car for all kinds of legit and not so legit reasons as well.

The shit he tells me that he does and other drivers do sounds nothing like the great service that is being parroted by some people.
 
wickedken

wickedken

TRIBE Member
It's going to be fun. Part of the deal with the city was that Uber would do its own checks, and have those records available for audit. But...

Uber will pay as much as $25 million to settle a civil lawsuit with the district attorneys in Los Angeles and San Francisco over claims that the ride-hailing company misled people on its safety practices and the methods it used to screen drivers.

And then...

Toronto Taxi Alliance commends Niagara Region Police for enforcing the law on Uber - as Toronto should be doing
TORONTO, April 8, 2016 /CNW/ - 20 Uber drivers have been charged under the Highway Traffic Act by Niagara Regional Police in a sting operation conducted over several weeks. The Toronto Taxi Alliance commends Niagara Police for its dedication to enforcing the law for the protection of passengers and citizens.

The Toronto Police Service has chosen not to enforce the very same law despite repeated requests that it do so.

Frighteningly, in charging only 20 Uber drivers, Niagara police also found:

One of the drivers was not the advertised Uber driver of record
One of the drivers was currently charged with a criminal offence
One of the vehicles used was not currently registered
Three of the drivers were from outside the Niagara Region and did not know the area
You can read the entire Niagara Region Police Service release here:

Media Centre - Niagara Regional Police Service

SOURCE Toronto Taxi Alliance
Click to expand...
This reminds me of the gun control debate, like how much can you really trust a company to obey a regulation when it's very presence in the first place flouted those same regulations? same way a criminal won't think twice of an illegal firearm possession.
 
Last edited:
praktik

praktik

TRIBE Member
Same logic applies to the drug control debate

And arguably the murder control debate


Which of these things is worth the effort and consequences of trying to prevent?
 
Lojack

Lojack

TRIBE Member
The logic is different. In the case of a criminal with a gun, or a drug dealer, or someone who has murdered another, those are individuals with no legitimate organization backing them up. In the case of Uber, there is something for the law to hold a measure of responsibility to. That doesn't mean I trust Uber, but at the very least, they have to be accountable in some fashion.
 
praktik

praktik

TRIBE Member
Lojack said:
The logic is different. In the case of a criminal with a gun, or a drug dealer, or someone who has murdered another, those are individuals with no legitimate organization backing them up. In the case of Uber, there is something for the law to hold a measure of responsibility to. That doesn't mean I trust Uber, but at the very least, they have to be accountable in some fashion.
Click to expand...
Yes - thanks for steering us back OT, had been following the digression from gun control
 
wickedken

wickedken

TRIBE Member
Lojack said:
The logic is different. In the case of a criminal with a gun, or a drug dealer, or someone who has murdered another, those are individuals with no legitimate organization backing them up. In the case of Uber, there is something for the law to hold a measure of responsibility to. That doesn't mean I trust Uber, but at the very least, they have to be accountable in some fashion.
Click to expand...
Seems pretty straightforward doesn't it? But didn't Uber start in various cities will full knowledge that their operation violated various city's regulations? Shouldn't they be held accountable for that?

If you open a restaurant and flout the various health and food requirements, you will be shut down, because, well.... you're violating the law.
 
Last edited:
J

Jeffsus

TRIBE Member
As many of you know, I live in Kitchener.

When I need a cab, which is fairly often given my propensity for the drink, I have several companies to choose from. I don't bother about it too hard because the one, which happens to have an easy to remember phone number, will be at my door in less than five minutes, and the fare I pay is less than $10. I have no need for uber.

Taxis are not as convenient if you live somewhere further than downtown.

My point is, current legal Taxis offer a great service at a reasonable charge already, so why do we need Uber in downtown Kitchener?

Note that I have also used uber in the same area, and there was confusion about which car is the car that's driving us... but other than that it was straight forward. I'll not that it was not cheaper.

-jM
A&D
 
KickIT

KickIT

TRIBE Member
Both the taxi industry and Uber drivers will be toast in a few years once the Uber autonomous fleet is on the road.
 
X

xtcfreak

TRIBE Member
Jeffsus said:
As many of you know, I live in Kitchener.

When I need a cab, which is fairly often given my propensity for the drink, I have several companies to choose from. I don't bother about it too hard because the one, which happens to have an easy to remember phone number, will be at my door in less than five minutes, and the fare I pay is less than $10. I have no need for uber.

Taxis are not as convenient if you live somewhere further than downtown.

My point is, current legal Taxis offer a great service at a reasonable charge already, so why do we need Uber in downtown Kitchener?

Note that I have also used uber in the same area, and there was confusion about which car is the car that's driving us... but other than that it was straight forward. I'll not that it was not cheaper.

-jM
A&D
Click to expand...
Are taxi drivers in Kitchener more pleasant to deal with than the ones in Toronto? While I don't take a taxi often, they are rarely a good experience.

Jay
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top