guyser

Um...

No, the Municipality sets the rates. Going to a bit of a long wait til the fares get amended. Uber has to be dealt with, new guidelines set up, lots of crap to do before we get any benefit. Int eh meantime I guess there is ..............uber ?

Lets hope the PM stops in to read this forum.

I want her there, but I also see her as young and trying to figure all this out. She will be back,

Are those the Police that stood around and did nothing, then got embarassed and made up for it by rounding up families having a picnic (Queens Park) and the ones peacefully protesting downtown, and corralled and beat some of them?

Well said

The inflated price of taxi licences will keep things up there costwise for some time. If the licence is high, then the access is high, so we pay for costly cab rides . But yes, someone somewhere will have to find the middle ground, allow the driver, the plate owner and the fleet owner to make some cash. Geico (govt employee insurer) in the US has an Uber/Private passenger car insurance programme ready to go. I believe the wait is for regulatory approval. Once that is done, insurers up here will have a look at it and see if feasible for them.

Of course they refused. It is none of Edmonton council's business to see it. As for your buddies, ask them if I can see (or yours for that matter) their insurance? Pound sand you say? Exactly. Now tell Edmonton Council the same. Edmonton Council can set up the rules for gaining a licence which can (and does) happen with regular cabs, but Uber isnt a cab company (insofar as they call themselves). So since Uber doesnt apply for a licence in Edmonton, then Council has no right to see it. If...IF council gets an application for cab service, then they have the right since they would be an additional named insured on it. That may not be true at all.(worthless) They would definitely have insurance since they operate down in the States too , so if not directly then vicariously they carry insurance. I am not privy to the wordings, but suspect highly that it is a form follow type of policy, whereby the underlying limit has to be exhuasted before the pierce to the Excess insurance is made. But there are plenty cases where the wording has tripped up insurers who are then deemed to pay by the courts. (Both primary and excess insurers) In the case of Uber, a simple car accident between two people (one an Uber driver with a paying passenger and no injuries) may never be discovered by the insurers. Afterall, the veh is unmarked, the passenger will likely remain quiet and/or leave,the Third Party likely has no idea whos in the other car, so realistically you (insurer) are left with nothing due to lack of proof. No insurer has any real feasible way to know that the car they insure was used as an Uber at the time of the accident .Ergo....they pay. Pretty much agreed, but I doubt Uber wants any licencing restrictions such as a cabbie has. At least not until the whole industry is rejigged so they can make more money. Just another day in the life of insurers. If the municipality sanctions Uber, then they will demand a Certification of Insurance from all parties along with myriad of other legal requests and requirements. How can they 'sanction' and at the same time be "doing nothing " ? They can't. The injured party will sue the driver (the ahole w the Camry) the primary insurer, the excess insurer and likley try to tie in the Muni, but I dont have much confidence that the Muni will remain, theyll likley get off at discovery. You keep making these statements that are categorically not true. A guy has insurance, he signs up with Uber, he still has insurance, he drives the kids to school, he still has insurance, he goes shopping or to work, he still has insurance, he drives home and his cell alerts to an Uber call.......the courts have not (as yet) been presented a case to determine if this violates the insurance for those Uber moments or not . Chances are things will get very sticky and it would be no surprise if they rule in favour of insurers and if they rule the excess insurance (from Uber) is there to pay it off . You dont read very well obviously, Pretty sad really.

Yup And I have a hunch why so low.......a 98 per cent response rate , meaning they dont need to go after anyone.

54 people were referred for prosecution .

Yes the driver does have coverage maintained.The driver on his way to work has it, but he doesnt 10 seconds later? Insurance doesnt work that way. It may not be what is ultimately needed but there is insurance in place. Think of the drunk driver scenario discussed earlier. Its also wise to look at the words used by Uber, they are being very disingenuous with the press . Pretty sneaky of them. Thats because Uber doesnt carry Commercial Auto Insurance because they dont own the cars. They would carry excess Liability and certainly Comprehensive General Liability Insurance. They could show what they have but I suspect they wont since no operating agency in Edmonton has asked for a Certificate, which is their right, but without that request, they dont get to see the policy. That goes for anyone by the way. No company or person should see anothers policy voluntarily. If the third party needs assurance, then they request a Certificate which spells out the particulars that affect them, but they are not privy to all the limits and coverage on the policy. But Uber may have to play ball a bit better than this if they want to make a go of it, but then again, they dont want all the red tape that comes with it. Glad Uber can afford to do so. Yikes. City lawyers have their opinion, they also know that the courts and the lawyers from the other side have an opinion. What may be law is fine, but as discussed earlier, that may not be enough to get an insurer off the hook. The insurance company cannot deny a claimant suing them. They have to respond. Once thru discovery and all that legal junk, then they can apply to be excused but that will be extremely hard for them to do. It could be cheaper for them to pay it off , perhaps negotiate a lower payout (settle out of court) or maybe other insurers will kick in money behind the scenes and have the current litigant push hard for a total exclusion in order to use it on other claimants arising from Uber accidents. Id bet my life on Uber having a policy, no doubt about it. But it would be excess insurance, and aUBer too would have to respond to a lawsuit. Since there is no way Uber found coverage for anything other than a service for hooking up people and drivers I cannot fathom any scenario that they are not court demanded to pay above and beyond the first responder insurance. Since many Provinces have set limits/threshholds for compensation resulting from a car accident, only the horrific accident is ever going to make a dent in this. Minor Injury and own a car...?...claim from your own carrier (Statute ) But if you dont own a car....well, you may be in for a wait. However , even there is an out for that person. Uninsured Vehicle coverage is everywhere and it is one avenue a person denied results from an injury in an Uber car could turn to.

How many do you want? There arent any actuaries,scientists,researchers, academia and so on who think not having this data is good for anyone....except those who wish to govern by ....oh whatever bullshit reason they come up with. Hell, the party of Crack down on Crime bozos never did read Stats Can numbers about falling crime rates. They just appeal to that ignorant base that 'thinks' crime is up.

Heaven forbid that actuarial folk,scientists,researchers, academia are all performing puffery . Lets face it, the savings werent there for the value given up . This is just a govt who wants to form their own data to do what they want to do. Transparent to all but those who bleed blue.

Not ignore, I mocked it because it was a dumb point trying to be made. The question is madatory long form census is not torture....in any way shape or form. Like taxes.

The govt is well known (past and present) for going to homes and pointing a gun at the kids/pets/Grannies head to get the long form census completed.

The law works in strange ways? Maybe they couldnt decide enough evidence was there for any charge. I think they will go for the low end of the spectrum becuase the delay signifies they havent much. Nope dont have that charge in Canada. But we do have.... But that charge demands that wanton disregard to others was at play. Hard to prove that one I suppose. I dont think it was a Criminal Code thing, so hard to amalgamate the two.

Let me reprint this...

What charge do you think they will lay on him? Endangered/restricted animal charge? After his $500 fine...then what?

Cuz.....Dinosaurs = Informed. Not sure what world that is from, but then again......

Lucky to have. Sure will. But we both know , in many many places (off the lakes) you'll see abject poverty the likes of which you will not ever see in the city. Ramshackle homes with very little support structure, Muskoka siding (aka Tyvek-yellowed from age),windows covered w anything but glass, crap and cars junked up on front lawns with a beater in the driveway .Its the hidden (only because tourists stick to the lakes for the most part) part of Muskoka, Parry Sound Georgian Bay and the Kawartha's. Thats of course not to say the city is free from it, but the rules of home ownership in the city do not allow for any of that. The truly poor are mainly in apt bldgs so one does not see it the same. And we get all the homeless since the sity has the infrastructure to handle it, whereas local towns up north cant afford them and the homeless now a better gig awaits if they can get out.

Lets look at who really is the twaddle here. "Think-tanks, economists, scientists and academics in Canada and around the world have dismissed the 2011 data as fatally flawed. It can’t be compared in a meaningful way with the 2006 data, because they were gathered using different methodologies. Vital research projects on issues like income, unemployment and poverty that require long-term data have been compromised. And Statistics Canada can’t provide an accurate picture of how Canadians are faring, relative to 2006, since the 2008 economic crash." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/ending-mandatory-long-form-census-has-hurt-canada/article21486149/ Too cute by half. The govt knew the data would be comprimised by ending the mandatory aspect...and they were right. They want to govern on idealogy , not facts. There is no question that is fact. Probably why you arent a statistician/economist/academic....and neithe am I , but rational thinking would come to the conclusion that data from all areas in long form would be better than piece meal as it is. SOme areas are excluded from any data sharing since no one in that area filled them out. Most people in canada honestly filled them out, that you would be a liar is your problem but the data would still be useful since honesty would triumph that data you provide So much fail. Its now the opposition that needs to educate the public, not the sitting govt? Maybe you meant this...."If the government actually cared about the quality of data they would be educating the public about the importance of choosing to fill it out. But they would rather just be ignorant on whats really going on and to govern with their ignorance in order to rile up their base.

Quite expensive, which is why the avg Uber guy will forego getting it. Depending on your record and prior commercial coverage it likely would be too expensive for the casual driver for Uber. There are very few carriers who want anything to do with insuring taxis , Facility (insurer of last resort) is one of the main ones and their rates are outrageous. If one has a fleet and great prior record then its a different story. Guesstimate if you were to take this on? Something in the neighbourhood of $7-$10,000 . Now can the avg Uber driver recoop enough to make it profitable? Perhaps but not likely. This is entirely a different kettle of fish. You are already paying to insure your car, adding the OPCF #27 merely covers you for the rental ,they are extending your premium for the car you own that you are not driving when renting one. My take on that is to pay extra for the rental when down south. I know it is expensive but look at it this way. You are in a strange city, strange roads and a strange car. If you are in an at fault accident then all the details of same stay down there. Chances are insurers up here will not find out, saving you from being charged an at fault accident and rates rise. (meaning 1,000s of $) Now...if you wipe out a bus full of schoolkids we will find out and youll get dinged but that will be the leats of your worries. If you are always going to the same place , say a home in Florida, then getting the OPCF 27 makes sense, but beware , it is a form follow policy and what coverage you have here is the same down there. But buyer beware, plenty of insurers have a limit on the Rental Covg , seems %50,000 is the avg limit. So dont rent a BMW or similar or youll be out some cash. And for heavens sake, always retuirn the car at night

By any chance do you have the time stamp for the naked bits of any women in this movie? I dont really wanna sit thru it all.

...ahem..... Want to give credit where credit due ? MH....shame on you for not seeing nor reading this book. Grab the movie and try and figure out who Boo Radley is portrayed by. No cheating......youll like the surprise.

You're three pages too late....and a dime short . Besides, its Trawna , everyone loves us but disguises it as hate. Too jealous I suppose.