Uber has no hope in this town

[guyser]

I guess taxis will just have to provide cheaper faster service to compete.

Screw the monopoly.

.

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.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Guyser2

[Boges]

I heard on the radio a few weeks back that the value of a cab license in Toronto has pretty much been cut in half recently.

You have to think that's because of Uber.

[jacee]

cool!

and the fares have decreased?

and you can view and order the nearest car online?

Edited February 9, 2015 by jacee

[guyser]

cool!

and the fares have decreased?

and you can view and order the nearest car online?

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 ?

[Argus]

I heard on the radio a few weeks back that the value of a cab license in Toronto has pretty much been cut in half recently.

You have to think that's because of Uber.

The crux of the problem municipalities have found themselves in is that they made the licenses both transferable and limited. Thus most of the licenses wound up being bought up by third parties for large sums. Not all those third parties are wealthy men. A lot of cab drivers have scraped and borrowed to buy a single license. They use it all day, and rent it to someone else when they're not using it. It's basically their life's savings, which they hope to sell when they leave taxi driving. If you suddenly make licences non-transferable, or offer a bunch of new ones, their life savings gets wiped out. Uber too is threatening their life's savings.

Uber makes sense as an efficient, fast, cheap ride service. Further, the majority of the money goes to the driver, which is most definitely not the case with the existing licensing systems. On the other hand, it's true that professional drivers are going to be better at it. They'll also know the city better, and not just have the GPS on their screen telling them where to go. But the way it's set up is grossly inefficient.

I don't have a perfect answer to this. I don't think anyone would approve of the city buying back its $50 licenses for $250,000 each. I don't think any city could even afford to do that. But I feel for the little guys who have gotten a licence and see their life savings threatened. In the end, I think Uber, or something like it, makes so much more sense and is so much more efficient it will replace the existing system. But I expect the cities to resist in favour of the status quo for some time.

[TimG]

It's basically their life's savings, which they hope to sell when they leave taxi driving. If you suddenly make licences non-transferable, or offer a bunch of new ones, their life savings gets wiped out.

The same issue comes up whenever government regulation has made it profitable for businesses to make a profit at the expense of others. This is not an argument for continuing bad regulation (e.g. dairy quotas, renewable subsidies, et. al.).

[guyser]

The crux of the problem municipalities have found themselves in is that they made the licenses both transferable and limited. Thus most of the licenses wound up being bought up by third parties for large sums. Not all those third parties are wealthy men. A lot of cab drivers have scraped and borrowed to buy a single license.

Yup, the Muni's are in a pickle.

But I feel for the little guys who have gotten a licence and see their life savings threatened. In the end, I think Uber, or something like it, makes so much more sense and is so much more efficient it will replace the existing system. But I expect the cities to resist in favour of the status quo for some time.

I feel for those too, but a system that serves thousands and thousands and needs revamping cannot truly worry about the fallout for the half dozen or so small guys who get crushed.

[guyser]

Uber has now filed an injunction to prevent the release of any documents relating to the insurance they claim to hold (which I am postive they have) and are doing so for competitive reasons.

Sounds pretty fishy to me as any other insurers out there are well aware of what it is supposed to have in the policy , and none of those items that should be included have any proprietary properties for the most part.

The devil is in the details and there certainly can be a wide variance with respect to the throw ins on a policy, but the main tenents of the policy would be virtually identical save for limits.

The Uber position is they are not a taxi service but merely a P2P service and therefore do not have to play by the rules set up by every cities Muni licence branch.

It would appear on first look that Uber is content to let the drivers they contract with to flutte in the wind and makes it very hard for most drivers to know whsats going on. No idea if the drivers themselves have seen any insurance docs from Uber. If they have, they are very good at keeping quiet about it. But frankly, I suspect none of them have seen it in any detail. Otherwise someone somewhere would have infiltrated Uber for access to the same docs.

If nothing else, Uber should shake up the industry and bring it into the here and now.

http://www.thestar.com/business/2015/03/10/uber-seeks-court-order-to-seal-insurance-documents.html

[overthere]

Uber’s wholly owned subsidiary Rasier holds contracts with Uber’s drivers. Raisier said it spent seven months working with its insurance broker and multiple insurers in Canada and other countries to develop a policy to meet their needs.

That is a common corporate dodge in situations where litigation is inevitable: create a subsidiary to isolate the assets of a parent company. I would bet anything that Raiser has no assets of its own and when the first liability lawsuit succeeds, the policy will prove to be worthless, Raisier will have no assets, and some crippled or dead passengers will have no recourse. I'm sure the policy meets Raisiers needs, but has nothing to offer frivers or their passengers. And that is why they want it sealed. A critical component of this is public safety, which is covered by triditonal public carriers.

And the reason for Ubers secrecy is indeed competitive, but not because they fear disclosure of some magic common policy. It's ebcause they know that a main reason that they are attractive is the very very low overhead for their drivers. Forcing drivers to have the same insurance costs as other taxis makes it far less atrractive for their own drivers..

[guyser]

That is a common corporate dodge in situations where litigation is inevitable: create a subsidiary to isolate the assets of a parent company.

In many cases yes.It allows them to shield from being doled out should a claim top their liability coverage.

I would bet anything that Raiser has no assets of its own and when the first liability lawsuit succeeds, the policy will prove to be worthless, Raisier will have no assets, and some crippled or dead passengers will have no recourse.

Dont make that bet, you'll lose.

If they succeed (plaintiff) then there was a trial, there was a defence entered and that means there was a policy since it would be Ins CO lawyers doing so on behalf of Uber/Raiser.

Chances are, the industry would be well aware of Ubers policy and actual existence . I would think it would be fraudulent for them to say otherwise.

I'm sure the policy meets Raisiers needs, but has nothing to offer frivers or their passengers.

A liability policy never 'offers' anyone anything. It exists to meet the requirements needed to protect the company against lawsuits.

A cab company has the same thing, no coverage offered to the passenger, only the drivers policy does that. (and your own of course, which is first defence-mandatory)

A critical component of this is public safety, which is covered by triditonal public carriers.

Uber has been working with traditional carriers here and in the US. As for here, the rules are pretty strict against using off shore Ins Co's and while it is done it is done under the strictest of arrangements.

Forcing drivers to have the same insurance costs as other taxis makes it far less atrractive for their own drivers..

No doubt about that.

[overthere]

In many cases yes.It allows them to shield from being doled out should a claim top their liability coverage.

yes, that is what i just said.

Dont make that bet, you'll lose.

Yet you just agreed that Raiser will prove to have no assets and no policy, therefore plaintiffs will get zippo. If the policy is sealed now, the first battle will be to get it unseladed, and I am certain it will be an empty envelope. It is at the heart of the matter, and instead of simply disclosing the policy (which could be done under strcit non-disclosure agreements) Uber chooses to stonewall. The reason is that it is completely bogus. So, plaintiffs get nothing because Raiser has no assets, there is no liability policy that matters, and the parent company is isolated from harm.

Uber has been working with traditional carriers here and in the US.

We are talking about UberX here, and Uber does not want to discuss the details of their insurance because their whole business model collapses without it.

[guyser]

yes, that is what i just said.

No you didnt.

Let me explain it to you.

You said...

I would bet anything that Raiser has no assets of its own and when the first liability lawsuit succeeds, the policy will prove to be worthless, Raisier will have no assets, and some crippled or dead passengers will have no recourse.

The assets have nothing to do with the lawsuit UNLESS the judgment is more than the liability limit.

The lawsuit proceeding means there is a liability policy in existence as evidenced by the ins co defending it.

The no asset ruse means nothing to the policy being active.

Example: You own a house. You file for bankruptcy and have zero assets left. You get sued for a slip and fall on your property and you lose that suit.

You have no assets though.

Doesnt matter, the ins co is paying the suit and the defence costs.

Should the plaintiff get more than a $mill, then the lack of assets means you are held personally.

Yet you just agreed that Raiser will prove to have no assets and no policy,

I never said that so how could I agree?

Having no assets means nothing to the validity of having a policy.(see above)

therefore plaintiffs will get zippo.

The plaintiff will sue the company and the ins co will respond. They have to.

If the policy is sealed now, the first battle will be to get it unseladed, and I am certain it will be an empty envelope.

Cahnces are a claim will arise to test these waters, and it is a certainty that Uber does have a liability policy.

So, plaintiffs get nothing because Raiser has no assets,

Assets mean nothing until the policy limits are exceeded.

there is no liability policy that matters, and the parent company is isolated from harm

NO idea how you come to this conclusion.

A liability policy will have standard terms and conditions applicable to every company written on form. There will be minor variances.

A suit will be before a judge and should he find for the plaintiff, under liability, then judgement will be rendered and the ins co will pay.Hell, there could be some exclusionary wording that a judge could easily ignore, it has happened plenty of times. Yes appeal appeal appeal ad naseum, but thats a normal course of business.

We are talking about UberX here, and Uber does not want to discuss the details of their insurance because their whole business model collapses without it.

Ubers real problem is convincing folks to sign up with them and for those (foolish) folks to think that Uber has some policy that is readily available to cover shortfalls that may occur....like denial of any passenger compensation under Accident Benefits .

The scenario goes like this....

Pssgr injured in Uber Cab. ------> got his own car-----> file claim with own personal car insuance carrier.

Pssgr injured in Uber Cab.-------> No car at all?------> file claim with driver of Uber car------>claim denied *** then sue driver and Uber.

(*** Or as many in the business think, dont confess to the uber angle from passgr and driver alike and hope ins co pays and doenst look to hard into it- a VERY real possibility)

[overthere]

The assets have nothing to do with the lawsuit UNLESS the judgment is more than the liability limit.

The lawsuit proceeding means there is a liability policy in existence as evidenced by the ins co defending it.

Huh? The plaintiff will be suing Raiser and Uber primarily, as being the owners of a company that caused loss in an accident. Where they get the money is not relevant to the plaintiff. And as we all know, Uber will claim that legally Raiser has nothing to do with them and they'll be dropped from the suit. And if the insurance company is named as a plaintiff, they will surely claim the policy does not cover. Raiser can then sue the insurance company, but of course won't because the whole liabil;ity policy issue is a sham, as noted in their unwillingness to demonstrate coverage by simply providing a copy to a judge in private. Raiser has no assets, plaintiff wins and collects nothing. Not uncommon.

it is a certainty that Uber does have a liability policy.

and equally certain that it is worthless in the context of the insurance carried by other public carriers.

Evidence: the unwillingness of Uber or rather Raiser to simply disclose the contents, dispel all doubts and get on with their business.

there is no liability policy that matters, and the parent company is isolated from harm

NO idea how you come to this conclusion.

Because the policy is not held by the parent company Uber, but by a subsidiary Raiser. The only reasons for this is the policy is not what Uber claims, and by creating a subsidiary with no assets they protect Uber from lawsuits regrading passenger and public liability. Why would they bother unless they had a compelling reason, and what other reason could there be for all this dicking around with concealment of their policy?? Have they patented some revolutionary policy that is so groundbreaking it has to be kept secret from a court? Answer: let's not get stupid here.

[guyser]

Huh? The plaintiff will be suing Raiser and Uber primarily, as being the owners of a company that caused loss in an accident. Where they get the money is not relevant to the plaintiff. And as we all know, Uber will claim that legally Raiser has nothing to do with them and they'll be dropped from the suit. And if the insurance company is named as a plaintiff, they will surely claim the policy does not cover. Raiser can then sue the insurance company, but of course won't because the whole liabil;ity policy issue is a sham, as noted in their unwillingness to demonstrate coverage by simply providing a copy to a judge in private. Raiser has no assets, plaintiff wins and collects nothing. Not uncommon.

Ok, lets go thru this again.

Uber/Raiser sign up with INs Co for liability.

ANY SUIT that names Uber and raiser has to be defended by the ins co. HAS TO BE DEFENDED . Thats what they pay premiums for.

The ins co can defend that they should not cover , but that is extremely diffulcult to obtain. In any event (barring criminal actions) they will have to defend and a judge will determine the outcome.

Raiser being a shell company means virtually nothing unless and until the limit for the liability is reached. Raiser can not remove themselves, nor can Uber remove them, the association of the two is readily apparent for all to see.

The insurance company is always named as a defendant, unless one has a lousy lawyer, but even then a lousy lawyer would know to add them going forward.

The Ins CO has agreed to defend any and all suits arising out of the legal operations of the insured, it states that in every single liability policy.

I have no idea what you are tlaking about or meant by 'their unwillingness to demonstrate coverage by simply providing a copy to a judge in private' What judge, why is he asking for it, does he have something to adjudicate? No one has any business seeing the policy per se, however anyone who is doing business with them can ask for a Certificate of Insurance that will detail only the limits and deductibles and show any other named insureds. There are no wordings attached to a Cert apart from the blurb reading (short form) ..."the insurance afforded by the policies described herein is subject to all the terms, exclusions and conditions of such policies."

and equally certain that it is worthless in the context of the insurance carried by other public carriers.

Evidence: the unwillingness of Uber or rather Raiser to simply disclose the contents, dispel all doubts and get on with their business.

Any insurer getting into bed with Uber and raiser know their operation and what they do and where the liability lies. They charge for that exposure since there can be no denial of service for the main operating point of the insured.

(like an auto policy exludes any damage caused to others-cant happen)

In any event, they are on the hook to defend the suit as presented. There is no escaping that.

Because the policy is not held by the parent company Uber, but by a subsidiary Raiser.

Do you really think that Uber would leave their fortunes exposed to this sort of thing? Uber will have a policy that responds and there is no doubt whatsoever .

Uber will have a policy that insures and indemnifies them against all the operations of the insured, which will include Raiser, and raiser will also have their own policy. It has to be that way and no other.

In fact I can guarantee you they have mutliple policies. There is a board of directors including a google executive , Uber has raised in excess of $1.5B and you think all of that is exposed by no one thinking ' we need insurance' ?

They will have E&O, D&O, CGL and many other policies, absolutely no question about it.

And why? Because each Director would have his personal wealth on the line , and NONE of them are doing that. The insurance carried would have been vetted by each Directors own lawyer, these guys are worth ...well uber money !

The only reasons for this is the policy is not what Uber claims, and by creating a subsidiary with no assets they protect Uber from lawsuits regrading passenger and public liability.

The operations of Uber is such that all hiring and payment is handled exclusively through Uber and not with the driver personally. This legally ties Uber to whatever actions the driver may do. It cannot be any other way, nor is there any way for Uber to negate that.

Why would they bother unless they had a compelling reason, and what other reason could there be for all this dicking around with concealment of their policy?? Have they patented some revolutionary policy that is so groundbreaking it has to be kept secret from a court?

Proprietary property. Not one entity (Muni's et al) has shown they have any legal right to see such property.

Answer: let's not get stupid here.

Um...yea, lets not.

[Boges]

I know this thread is about Uber, but I've seen AirBnB mentioned in it as well.

http://www.thestar.com/business/2015/03/18/noisy-airbnb-renters-raise-ire-of-willowdale-residents.html

Residents of a quiet, suburban Willowdale street are complaining about living near a house that’s being rented out on the popular website Airbnb, bringing added noise, garbage and parties.

Renters have ranged from a large family reunion to workers on a construction project. But the five-bedroom house on Glenelia Ave., near Bayview and Cummer Aves., was the site of a party last June that appeared to be a high school prom celebration, where police had to be called.

“That was the icing on the cake,” said Peter Hopperton, estimating there were over 100 teenagers there that night. “The next morning, we were picking up beer bottles and garbage.

“You never really know who’s going to be there from one week to the next. There are no rules and there’s no one to contact,” he said.

“There are lots of people coming and going,” said Jan Morrissey, Hopperton’s wife. “Until I talked to the cleaners one day, I didn’t realize it was on Airbnb.”

The owner of this house is such an ingrate. I guess it's just an investment property.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Boges

[guyser]

I know this thread is about Uber, but I've seen AirBnB mentioned in it as well.

The owner of this house is such an ingrate. I guess it's just an investment property.

it is becoming a problem for the insurance industry for reasons such as nobody seems to want to advise the compnaies that they are renting out a room(s) or any part of the house.

It gets even worse when the homeowner is not on site since then the renter is left to his and her own and problems can easily crop up. Your example is a prime one. What idiot rents to a bunch of teems for a prom? Well....maybe they did not, someone of an older age did under the ruse they would be there. But I will attack that later

The idea is quite good, and I suspect it will stick around and somehow someway the ins co's will respond with appropriate coverage as a rider....subject to high premiums and even higher deductible. The programme works and works pretty well.

I used a similar service when I went to Australia last year for a month. Rented 3 condos without hassle, they were all that they said they were, clean, well stocked and convenient, and the in two of the rentals we met the owners who could not have been more nice. Since there was mainly just my GF and I they likely thought there should be no worries, and there certainly wasn't . But the system worked great.

The rules are all pretty much the same, no noise after 11 , limits on numbers of guests staying, limits on numbers of visitors they can have, relatively high damage deposits and so on.

Also, a violation of the rules (such as the Prom party)observed from the owner or a Prop mngmt person can result in immediate eviction forfeiting the rental fee and the deposit. This tends to limit the hassles anyone should have. Afterall, who wants to travel to another city, flying or driving only to be booted out ?

Whatever the onwers of your example were smoking , they should have cottoned on that someone in the same city renting a place raises questions they didnt ask , nor did they do a drive by obviously.

As for that insura...wait it is not insurance, the Airbnb $900,000 Host Guarantee is pretty much a sham. The devil is in the details.

It does not cover any fine arts, jewellry, liability or common areas.

It also states that a Police report is needed for any claim over $300. No one will bother with a Police report on almost any claim that occurs. It is not worth the hassle. It also states that the first step is to try and settle with the renter.

If a simple accident/failure of item occurs , I sure as hell (as renter) wont be paying the owner. Negligence is a funny thing and most people can understand it is hard to prove . Most owners with half a brain also realize that some things just happen and is a cost of business. Handle breaks on a faucet, toaster stops working, drain blocks up, that sort of thing.

And funny, but if you live in the US, you deal with Airbnb USA , if outside the US then you are contracted with Airbnb Ireland. That alone creates a lot of problems if I was an owner interested in signing up.

The thing works, but as usual a bunch of folks will screw it up for others.

[Boges]

I guess there isn't enough actual crime for Toronto police to deal with.

http://www.citynews.ca/2015/03/31/toronto-police-blitz-targets-uberx-drivers/#__federated=1

Thirteen UberX drivers are facing 26 Highway Traffic Act charges after a one-week sting by Toronto police.

‘Project Snowball’ took place between Mar. 5 and 11 and had an undercover police officer order an UberX through the app to a Tim Horton’s location. The officer would request to be driven to another Tim Horton’s, where a uniformed police officer was waiting to charge the driver.

Drivers were charged with licence and insurance violations.

One UberX driver who was caught in the sting told CityNews exclusively he feels he’s caught in the battle between the ride sharing service and the city.

“I said ‘why are you stopping me?’ he said you’re driving UberX… UberX is misleading people,” Owais Matin said. “If they’re illegal, catch them.”

What? Waiting at the bottom of a hill for people speeding to boring for these cops?

[guyser]

I guess there isn't enough actual crime for Toronto police to deal with.

http://www.citynews.ca/2015/03/31/toronto-police-blitz-targets-uberx-drivers/#__federated=1

What? Waiting at the bottom of a hill for people speeding to boring for these cops?

Hey, bring it to a head is what they all want.

Sometime soon we should see some answers .

[jacee]

Re Airbnb (and Uber?)

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-tech-desk/airbnbs-hospitality-chief-eschews-predictability-but-clean-towels-are-a-must?__lsa=255d-a47f

Mr. Conley said regulatory issues are part of being a pioneer in a new, disruptive industry. He said he doesnt have a preference for whether governments amend regulations to accommodate Airbnb or just leave the space unregulated, because different solutions will be appropriate for different places.

"Orville Wright and his brother, the first people to fly a plane, they didnt have a flying licence", Mr. Conley said. "Neither did Henry Ford have a drivers licence. Were in an era where some of the history is being written right now."

Edited April 6, 2015 by jacee

[Michael Hardner]

Mr. Conley said regulatory issues are part of being a pioneer in a new, disruptive industry.

Disruptive is a good term, there's also one they used on the Freakonomics podcast recently: creative destruction. The idea is that change brings a basket of destruction with it, but on the whole will be better for people.

We should all be understanding that from the outset, ie. that there will be businesses impacted, jobs lost, and that those events alone shouldn't be enough to reject change.

[Moonbox]

Except of course they can't, because they don't own the licenses. Also, they're in a union, and they can't drive for more than one company at a time.

The one thought I have is how can the City of Ottawa stop Uber, or ride-sharing websites like it, from operating? Ultimately, I see this finally being what puts an end to the utterly ridiculous system of the Taxi Driver "Guilds" we see all over North America. There will eventually be two options:

1) Make sites like Uber illegal, thus forcing people who want to use such services to do it on the low (probably not safe)

or

2) Legitimize them and give up on trying to make huge cash for the cities (and cab companies) through Taxi systems that make it impossible for the people who need them to afford them.

[Boges]

All I have to say to these Cabbies is WAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Suck it up buttercup!

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/05/29/toronto-cabbies-plan-uber-protest-at-city-hall.html

Hundreds of Toronto cab drivers plan to stage a protest against Uber by blocking traffic outside City Hall on Monday.

Drivers say they are fed up losing business to the transportation network app.

In the demonstration, drivers will move slowly along a planned route beginning at Queens Quay and Yonge St. around 9 a.m., coinciding with the beginning of a three day court hearing into the city’s request for a permanent injunction to block Uber’s operations in Toronto.

“A company came into a regulated market and decided the rules don’t apply to them. In any other industry, this would not be happening. No restaurant could open without food inspections or a liquor license,” said Kristine Hubbard, operations manager for Beck Taxi, one of Toronto’s largest taxicab companies.

Beck is not organizing or formally supporting the protest.

It's funny, I've never used Uber in Canada, because you know I own a car and stuff, (Also it's not out in GTA burbs quite yet) but I used it in the US without issue. When I explain it to a women they're like "I'd never do that". It just seems sketchy when an independent contractor comes pick you up, even though the App gives you all their information before they even pick you up and you have immediate ways to review their performance.

Uber is here to stay folks. The idea that a Taxi license should be a commodity is retrograde and completely out of fashion with how many do business nowadays.

I've heard there are Apps now where you can rent a parking spot before even entering the city. That's pretty cool.

[Boges]

No one cares about Uber, on this site, anymore.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/mayor-john-tory-to-meet-with-taxi-companies-uber-at-city-hall-1.3139511

Mayor John Tory is calling on taxi drivers to back down from threats to cause traffic chaos during the upcoming Pan Am Games to protest Uber.

Tory is set to meet with the two sides at city hall on Monday morning, days after a judge dismissed the city's request for an injunction against the popular ride-sharing service.

Last week, some cab drivers threatening to shut the city down during the Pan Am Games, something Tory is hoping to avoid.

It's not the cab industry's fault. It's the oodles of red tape governments pile on cab drivers and companies to operate. But to protect them would have been like governments protecting Blockbuster in the face of Netflix.

The solution is NOT! to clamp down on the way Uber operates. It's to loosen up all the restrictions on traditional cabs.

I used the service again on the weekend. Very affordable, a lady who picked me up had me sit up front so it didn't look like a cab. I could follow the trip on my own GPS so it's impossible to scam a tourist.

I hear there are riots in France over Uber. It would be interesting if cabbies do try some job action for the upcoming Pan Am games in Toronto. More embarrassment for governments that have been pillaging working peopl.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Boges

[On Guard for Thee]

No one cares about Uber, on this site, anymore.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/mayor-john-tory-to-meet-with-taxi-companies-uber-at-city-hall-1.3139511

It's not the cab industry's fault. It's the oodles of red tape governments pile on cab drivers and companies to operate. But to protect them would have been like governments protecting Blockbuster in the face of Netflix.

The solution is NOT! to clamp down on the way Uber operates. It's to loosen up all the restrictions on traditional cabs.

I used the service again on the weekend. Very affordable, a lady who picked me up had me sit up front so it didn't look like a cab. I could follow the trip on my own GPS so it's impossible to scam a tourist.

I hear there are riots in France over Uber. It would be interesting if cabbies do try some job action for the upcoming Pan Am games in Toronto. More embarrassment for governments that have been pillaging working peopl.

Loosen the restrictions on cabs and they the become ubers. Simple enough.

[Boges]

Loosen the restrictions on cabs and they the become ubers. Simple enough.

Are you advocating for this? Why would anyone use a cab if they were comfortable with Uber.

I've explained how it works to women and they said they wouldn't do it alone. Some independent contractor picking you up using a GPS on their phone to get around doesn't seem as safe.

But I'd say it can be more safe as the App gives you opportunities to give immediate feedback on both sides.