Vancouver Rideshare Discussion

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by casper

I am for Uber. Good move, that levels the playing field.

There is a downside, this article on heathrow and the mess when city planning and airport design does not take uber into account is something that needs to be addressed. Uber drivers should be able to use the same lots setup for taxi drivers at airports.

http://www.flyertalk.com/articles/li...speration.html

If it smells like a taxi and drives like a taxi and uses taxi-specific infrastructure, shouldn't it be regulated like a taxi?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

If it smells like a taxi and drives like a taxi and uses taxi-specific infrastructure, shouldn't it be regulated like a taxi?

The issue is the rise of Uber has revealed that technology has rendered the existing taxi regulations largely obsolete. The principle of requiring a "medallion" to operate a taxi basically amounts to a government-sponsored cartel. I can't fathom why cities all around the world are so resistant to the obvious and inevitable change that's upon them. Sure, they should be regulated and subject to the same sort of scrutiny, but it shouldn't be an exclusive club.

[SpongeG]

because cities are losing out on tax revenue.

I was watching a show about san francisco and this problem and they are passing bylaws regulations that will see the city being able to collect taxes, for example air bnb will now have to pay taxes where previously they did not, it said they will be backtracking and airbnb has to pay $25 million to the city for past taxes

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The issue is the rise of Uber has revealed that technology has rendered the existing taxi regulations largely obsolete. The principle of requiring a "medallion" to operate a taxi basically amounts to a government-sponsored cartel. I can't fathom why cities all around the world are so resistant to the obvious and inevitable change that's upon them. Sure, they should be regulated and subject to the same sort of scrutiny, but it shouldn't be an exclusive club.

I agree, I'm not talking about medallions (or, at the very least, make them affordable and not as stringently limited as Vancouver's are), I'm talking about things like insurance or passenger pass-ups, regulations on how the taxis are allowed to operate. Uber likes to get around these things by saying they're not a taxi company, they're just an umbrella corporation for a bunch of contractors.

I like the idea of Uber, I just don't like how Uber has implemented that idea.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

I agree, I'm not talking about medallions (or, at the very least, make them affordable and not as stringently limited as Vancouver's are), I'm talking about things like insurance or passenger pass-ups, regulations on how the taxis are allowed to operate. Uber likes to get around these things by saying they're not a taxi company, they're just an umbrella corporation for a bunch of contractors.

I like the idea of Uber, I just don't like how Uber has implemented that idea.

I believe Uber has its own insurance policies to cover passengers. If they didn't fully cover passengers, they would be done. Also, passengers can rate drivers from 1 to 5 stars, conversely, drivers can rate passengers, and the app records which vehicle you're getting into. There's a level of safety and screening that the taxi industry doesn't have.

[Jimbo604]

Recent Globalnews article/video concerning Uber in B.C.:

WATCH: Are B.C. Liberals warming up to sharing economy services like Uber? - January 16, 2016 1:17 pm

[Jebby]

It's interesting how every single one of the comments against Uber on the Liberals facebook page is by an Indo-Canadian....

[Henbo]

I would love to see Uber in Vancouver as soon as possible, but I think the Liberals are going to wait and use it has a campaign promise

[theKB]

I just don't understand the dislike for it.

Used it exclusively again in seattle. Drivers were happy and pleasant, fares were good enough to justify not driving the car everywhere. Cars are available within minutes. They were all new or pretty recent SAFE, CLEAN cars...

Everyone who complains or doesn't want it seemingly hasn't experienced the service.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by theKB

I just don't understand the dislike for it.

Used it exclusively again in seattle. Drivers were happy and pleasant, fares were good enough to justify not driving the car everywhere. Cars are available within minutes. They were all new or pretty recent SAFE, CLEAN cars...

Everyone who complains or doesn't want it seemingly hasn't experienced the service.

Every time I've taken a Taxi in Vancouver they've been Toyota Camry hybrids. Every time I've taken Uber in Seattle or somewhere else they've been kinda random.

The UberX vehicle requirements are:

4-door sedan, must seat 4 or more passengers excluding driver.
Year 2000* or newer.
In-state plates.
No marked, taxi, or salvaged vehicles.
Pass Uber vehicle inspection.
The car must be currently registered, but your name does not have to be on the registration.

Requirements for Uber Black, Uber Select, Uber XL, and so forth are different. But most of the criticism is aimed at the UberX service which is the one that has less requirements than a commercial taxi.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Kisai

The UberX vehicle requirements are:

4-door sedan, must seat 4 or more passengers excluding driver.
Year 2000* or newer.
In-state plates.
No marked, taxi, or salvaged vehicles.
Pass Uber vehicle inspection.
The car must be currently registered, but your name does not have to be on the registration.

The model year 2000 requirement is outdated. It's 2001 now and in many cities it's even more strict:

Atlanta – 2005 or newer
Boston – 2001 or newer
Chicago – 2001 or newer
DC: 2005 or newer
Denver – 2001 or newer
Dallas – 2003 or newer
Milwaukee – 2001 or newer
Nashville – 2001 or newer
New York City: 2010 or Newer
Philadelphia – 2000 or newer (could be 2001 or newer but not updated yet on Uber)
Pittsburgh – 2006 or newer (hybrids 2004 or newer)
LA/OC/SD and SF – 2001 or newer

http://www.idrivewithuber.com/uber-c...r_Requirements

Here in Mexico City UberX cars must be 2007 or newer.

[theKB]

Seattle my last experience was a towncar and a 2013+ Audi A4 using uberX plus.

Both were better than the rebuilt prius with no suspension and check engine light on we typically get here in Vancouver.

I in general don't have a problem with the taxis. For the most part the drivers are OK. I have had a few attempt to take me on a tour of the city to get to the destination but the cars 50% of the time feel as though they shouldn't be on or even near a road. So every time I hear anything about the "unregulated uber bad guy" I question the logic. Typically the loudest complainers are people who have never experienced the service.

[BCPhil]

I think they should have kept air care open, expand it to the entire province, and upped its responsibility. They should inspect your car for safety and give you a report that affects your insurance rates. You could then use this report and your class 4 restricted license to register your private car for a service like Uber. There. Regulated (and ICBC can make money off all the class 4 road tests they would do and from special insurance rates to cover uber drivers).

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

I think they should have kept air care open, expand it to the entire province, and upped its responsibility. They should inspect your car for safety and give you a report that affects your insurance rates. You could then use this report and your class 4 restricted license to register your private car for a service like Uber. There. Regulated (and ICBC can make money off all the class 4 road tests they would do and from special insurance rates to cover uber drivers).

They could to that just as easily without having to maintain an expensive AirCare infrastructure simply by requiring a safety certificate from approved garages. AirCare was in the stage of seriously diminishing returns since there are fewer and fewer cars that have emissions problems.

The could do something about all those trucks, though...

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

They could to that just as easily without having to maintain an expensive AirCare infrastructure simply by requiring a safety certificate from approved garages. AirCare was in the stage of seriously diminishing returns since there are fewer and fewer cars that have emissions problems.

The could do something about all those trucks, though...

Usually when a program is working, you want to keep it. It's like if the number of people drinking and driving goes down, they stopped doing road checks. Or now that people recycle, we'll stop city pickup and hopefully people will take care of it themselves. And cars don't stay the same quality forever. Whose to say cars that were passing now, would continue to pass forever.

Ontario is keeping theirs. And I was just thinking of expanding it's functionality to improve safety on the roads in general. I've seen many cars, especially outside the lowermainland, that should not be on the roads in the condition they are in, that are an accident waiting to happen, and I can feel my premiums go up as they drive by.

And having a state agency that can attest to a vehicles safety and condition would make implementing regulations on Uber easy and straightforward. In a jurisdiction where we are all paying for each other's insurance and healthcare, it would be nice to make sure something like Uber is implemented in a way that is not a drain on that.

[SOSS]

I visited an AirCare-type facility in Portugal over 10 years ago and it was far more extensive; The IPO (Inspecção Périodica Obrigatória) is a requirement for registration. They tire tread (must have a minimum of 1.6mm of tread remaining), exhaust emissions, shock absorbers, brakes, wheel alignment, windscreen wipers, headlights (including intensity), indicator and brake lights, steering, horn, speedometer, seat-belts, mirrors and reflectors, and licence plate. They also assess overall body work and windshield. They make sure that a reflective danger jacket, one red reflective warning triangle, and a spare wheel and the tools necessary to change it.

Driving is definitely considered more of a privilege then a right. I for one think that AirCare should have been expanded not removed. I see to often cars that I don't think are road worthy and would easily fail such an extensive list.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by SOSS

I visited an AirCare-type facility in Portugal over 10 years ago and it was far more extensive; The IPO (Inspecção Périodica Obrigatória) is a requirement for registration. They tire tread (must have a minimum of 1.6mm of tread remaining), exhaust emissions, shock absorbers, brakes, wheel alignment, windscreen wipers, headlights (including intensity), indicator and brake lights, steering, horn, speedometer, seat-belts, mirrors and reflectors, and licence plate. They also assess overall body work and windshield. They make sure that a reflective danger jacket, one red reflective warning triangle, and a spare wheel and the tools necessary to change it.

Driving is definitely considered more of a privilege then a right. I for one think that AirCare should have been expanded not removed. I see to often cars that I don't think are road worthy and would easily fail such an extensive list.

The easiest thing is actually to require licensed garages to perform these tests when the tires are rotated. Most road-worthy cars in Metro Vancouver are at least Year 2000 vintage or newer, but there is a geological reason for this... no snow. Everywhere else in Canada gets enough snow to warrant salting the roads, and thus cars that aren't "winterized" don't even last 10 years. The car I drove out in the Kootenays was an '87 and the muffler had serious problems by '97 (and was replaced), and eventually Shell's gasoline killed the cars fuel system around 2001, when I got to the island.

Vehicles that aren't serviced twice a year, should not get their insurance renewed.

[casper]

Originally Posted by SOSS

I visited an AirCare-type facility in Portugal over 10 years ago and it was far more extensive; The IPO (Inspecção Périodica Obrigatória) is a requirement for registration. They tire tread (must have a minimum of 1.6mm of tread remaining), exhaust emissions, shock absorbers, brakes, wheel alignment, windscreen wipers, headlights (including intensity), indicator and brake lights, steering, horn, speedometer, seat-belts, mirrors and reflectors, and licence plate. They also assess overall body work and windshield. They make sure that a reflective danger jacket, one red reflective warning triangle, and a spare wheel and the tools necessary to change it.

Driving is definitely considered more of a privilege then a right. I for one think that AirCare should have been expanded not removed. I see to often cars that I don't think are road worthy and would easily fail such an extensive list.

There are two different things. A vehicle safety inspection program used to exist in BC back in the 70's and I think even into the early part of the 80's. It was disbanded at some point in time. I would not be against this. I think there is good justification for such a program and potentially even a business case for ICBC. I don't know what the cost saving in fewer accidents and insurance premium payouts would be but it could be significant.

The AirCare program had nothing to do with safety. It was a silly attempt to save the environment. The problem is the test is affected by how warm the engine is, the kind of gas, etc. To many variables for it to be reasonable.

On the uber front recent used it Miami. Great service, much better than a taxi service. Would love to see it come to Vancouver and Victoria. I would go out of my way to use it over a Taxi.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by casper

There are two different things. A vehicle safety inspection program used to exist in BC back in the 70's and I think even into the early part of the 80's. It was disbanded at some point in time. I would not be against this. I think there is good justification for such a program and potentially even a business case for ICBC. I don't know what the cost saving in fewer accidents and insurance premium payouts would be but it could be significant.

I would be in favour of this if the mechanical condition of cars was a significant contributing factor in a good number of accidents. But as far as I know, it's not. Whatever money would be spent on an initiative like this is probably better spent on education and enforcement to try to deal with all of the human foibles that cause most of the accidents.

[WarrenC12]

Uber in Vancouver will require 2006 or newer vehicles. Not sure if this is specific to Vancouver or just their current standard for new markets.