Boges Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 Uh oh the CPC is on board! http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/baird-tweets-support-for-uber-in-frustration-with-no-show-cabs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 The CPC is over-stepping their boundaries. The federal government should have never made a statement on this. Period. It's completely out of their jurisdiction. And I agree with this Uber program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 The CPC is over-stepping their boundaries. The federal government should have never made a statement on this. Period. It's completely out of their jurisdiction. And I agree with this Uber program. So Baird can't bitch about a consumer product? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 So Baird can't bitch about a consumer product? He's in the Ministry. That means any public statements he makes are a statement from the federal government. That's the sacrifice you make being a minister of the crown. So when he "bitches" about a consumer product, it's the federal government bitching about a consumer product. That's the way it works. He wouldn't be given the time of day if he was Joe Schmo Baird off the street. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 The CPC is over-stepping their boundaries. The federal government should have never made a statement on this. Period. It's completely out of their jurisdiction. And I agree with this Uber program. The Federal govt made no statement. The CPC is not even mentioned in the article. Baird agrees with you on the Uber program, as a private citizen sick of waiting for a cab. Perhaps that is what you hate. Maybe you did not realize that Baird has no jurisdiction over Ottawa taxi rules? Yes, that must be it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 (edited) Baird doesn't get to make public statements as a private citizen. His statements, appearances, etc. all reflect upon the Canadian Ministry. He chose to live a public life by being a cabinet minister. So any statement he makes, especially a political one like this, reflects the opinion of the Government of Canada. His Twitter handle even uses his Ministry honorific "@HonJohnBaird". Again, I agree with the position, but he needs to be careful about what he says if he's going to be posting on a Twitter account that reflects his role as a member of the executive. In this case, he's right, but this could be seen by the province, specifically the municipality, as unconstitutional interference from the federal government in something that is outside their sphere of influence. Edited October 14, 2014 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 Somebody <cough cough> is certainly not seeing the @HonJohnBaird on the tagline. Anything he says on Govt supplied media is a govt issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 Hon. John Baird supports a company that flouts Ottawa municipal laws... Can I ignore federal laws that I don't like? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 (edited) Hon. John Baird supports a company that flouts Ottawa municipal laws... Can I ignore federal laws that I don't like? Oh so Uber is now a bad thing? A CPCer likes them. MUST. BE. BANNED! I think Baird's commentary is apt. If a municipality can cap the number taxi licences given, creating an artificial shortage, then perhaps more competition should be considered. Edited October 14, 2014 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 Uber's a great thing. Let's not get sidetracked here. It's just that the federal government has no business commenting on municipal matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 Oh so Uber is now a bad thing? A CPCer likes them. MUST. BE. BANNED! I think Baird's commentary is apt. If a municipality can cap the number taxi licences given, creating an artificial shortage, then perhaps more competition should be considered. Where did I say it was a bad thing? The municipality claims that Uber is breaking the law... and Baird praises Uber with his government twitter account... Do you not see an issue there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 The municipality claims that Uber is breaking the law... and Baird praises Uber with his government twitter account... Do you not see an issue there? Nope, screw the municipality's bad laws! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 Nope, screw the municipality's bad laws! A MP should not be encouraging companies to break the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 A MP should not be encouraging companies to break the law. A Cabinet Minister. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 Isn't there a difference between a claim and a finding that a law has been broken? If there is then the question surrounding Baird is more about whether a Cabinet Minister can or should encourage people to push against a law that may be outdated or need to adjust to new realities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 He was just using an anecdote to illustrate why Uber might be a good idea. It's funny, Governments all encourage people to carpool and share rides (in many cases with complete strangers) but if you pay a person to share a ride then it's breaking the law because municipal governments have this ridiculous system of having a cap on licenses for people to drive taxis? The entire taxi industry is in need of reform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 He was just using an anecdote to illustrate why Uber might be a good idea. It's funny, Governments all encourage people to carpool and share rides (in many cases with complete strangers) but if you pay a person to share a ride then it's breaking the law because municipal governments have this ridiculous system of having a cap on licenses for people to drive taxis? The entire taxi industry is in need of reform. It is not 'sharing a ride'. Sharing a ride is when your work buddy drops you off at home. Calling for a car coming to pick you up and take you to a specific destination for hire is not sharing a ride, its a taxi service. Uber is the latter. It needs to be regulated for personal, public safety. For example, ordianry car insurance specifically does not cover carrying passengers for pay. That means in an accident the car and driver have no insurance on anybody. No thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 It is not 'sharing a ride'. Sharing a ride is when your work buddy drops you off at home. Calling for a car coming to pick you up and take you to a specific destination for hire is not sharing a ride, its a taxi service. Uber is the latter. It needs to be regulated for personal, public safety. For example, ordianry car insurance specifically does not cover carrying passengers for pay. That means in an accident the car and driver have no insurance on anybody. No thanks. There is insurance. http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/tale-of-the-taxi-tape-uber-vs-traditional-cabs Uber: How insurance works for Uber drivers in Ontario is creating some confusion. Pete Karageorgos, director of consumer and industry relations for the Insurance Bureau of Canada, said there’s a “grey area” around what kind of insurance drivers need to carry, particularly whether commercial insurance is necessary. Uber spokeswoman Altmin said drivers should check their personal insurance policies, although “every ride on the UberX platform in Canada is backed by that $5-million contingent auto liability insurance” covering the driver, customer and pedestrians. That insurance kicks in from when the trip is accepted until it ends, she said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 It is not 'sharing a ride'. Sharing a ride is when your work buddy drops you off at home. Calling for a car coming to pick you up and take you to a specific destination for hire is not sharing a ride, its a taxi service. Uber is the latter. Uber claims they're a technology company, sort of in the way that uTorrent can claim they don't distribute music and movies. Uber does not provide the cabs, nor are the drivers employees of Uber. Uber simply provides the means for ride-share providers to connect with people needing rides. Frankly, I don't know how well that will fly in court. They're obviously a de facto cab service. They operate in the same way as a cabbing company's dispatch. They organize the rides and go so far as to process the payments. You're a cab company. Now the question about the regulations around cab services is tantamount to the problem here. Is there a good reason to regulate cabs. If there is, then do the municipalities have a good reason for limiting the number of licenses available? The crux of the problem is that they artificially drive the price of licenses up by limiting their availability, which encourages grey market trade of these licenses. Will Uber be able to argue that the licensing system is unfairly limited? And will it matter legally? Perhaps only if they do not have licenses because they were unavailable. However, that won't fly if the city has them readily available and Uber simply chooses not to get them or require them of their drivers. Regardless, Uber's not arguing that they have an issue with regulations. They're arguing that the regulations don't apply because they're a tech company. On that argument, I believe they will fail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 (edited) For example, ordianry car insurance specifically does not cover carrying passengers for pay. That means in an accident the car and driver have no insurance on anybody. No thanks.Not true really. While there are some exclusions, the passengers and driver are not denied insurance in an accident. Then passsenger , assuming they have auto insurance are well covered for injuries. The drivers car is covered virtually withjout exclusion. Edited October 15, 2014 by Guyser2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Not true really. While there are some exclusions, the passengers and driver are not denied insurance in an accident. Then passsenger , assuming they have auto insurance are well covered for injuries. The drivers car is covered virtually withjout exclusion. I do not agree. I have commercial auto insurance and I am most definitely not allowed to carry passengers for hire. I am allowed to carry people in the normal conduct of business, as long as that business is not carrying passengers for pay. And nobody sane doubts the willingness of insurance companies to deny coverage in the event of a major accident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Uber claims they're a technology company, sort of in the way that uTorrent can claim they don't distribute music and movies. Uber does not provide the cabs, nor are the drivers employees of Uber. Uber simply provides the means for ride-share providers to connect with people needing rides. Frankly, I don't know how well that will fly in court. They're obviously a de facto cab service. They operate in the same way as a cabbing company's dispatch. They organize the rides and go so far as to process the payments. You're a cab company. Now the question about the regulations around cab services is tantamount to the problem here. Is there a good reason to regulate cabs. If there is, then do the municipalities have a good reason for limiting the number of licenses available? The crux of the problem is that they artificially drive the price of licenses up by limiting their availability, which encourages grey market trade of these licenses. Will Uber be able to argue that the licensing system is unfairly limited? And will it matter legally? Perhaps only if they do not have licenses because they were unavailable. However, that won't fly if the city has them readily available and Uber simply chooses not to get them or require them of their drivers. Regardless, Uber's not arguing that they have an issue with regulations. They're arguing that the regulations don't apply because they're a tech company. On that argument, I believe they will fail. Good post. Uber can argue all they like about license issuance being unfair, but in the meantime they do not have the right to issue those licenses themselves to themselves. I'd love to see the number of safe, properly insured taxis on the road quadrupled, but I agree that Uber will fail in their argument. They are a taxi company with slightly different technology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 They are free-trading innovators...I'm rather astounded at how much of a call there seems to be for governments to stand in their way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 I do not agree. I have commercial auto insurance and I am most definitely not allowed to carry passengers for hire.While that would be a material change in risk from the stated class of business, and subsequently denied for claims, that doesnt mean one cannot , in certain circumstances , accept pay for a ride. Think of cost sharing, school trips etc. . And nobody sane doubts the willingness of insurance companies to deny coverage in the event of a major accident. They can and will deny coverage in very few circumstances since the industry is heavily regulated . Denial of coverage is a rare event , but plenty of people say otherwise, they generally dont undstand what the policy says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 They are free-trading innovators...I'm rather astounded at how much of a call there seems to be for governments to stand in their way. I don't think the government should stand in their way, but I don't see the law being on their side either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.