* - I think this term needs to get accepted as no longer referring to "just sharing my ride, bro" and is a decent shorthand for "automated app-based livery service utilizing private contractors driving their personal vehicles."
No, we need to call Uber what they are: a livery service. Doesn't matter what their underlying model is, they are a livery service.
* - I think this term needs to get accepted as no longer referring to "just sharing my ride, bro" and is a decent shorthand for "automated app-based livery service utilizing private contractors driving their personal vehicles."
No, we need to call Uber what they are: a livery service. Doesn't matter what their underlying model is, they are a livery service.
A fair point, my main issues being that a) livery is a ridiculous term, and b) I've found far too many people have no concept of the fact that there is anything between "taxis" and "just some dude hooking you up with a ride." It's not a well-understood distinction in many areas.
* - I think this term needs to get accepted as no longer referring to "just sharing my ride, bro" and is a decent shorthand for "automated app-based livery service utilizing private contractors driving their personal vehicles."
No, we need to call Uber what they are: a livery service. Doesn't matter what their underlying model is, they are a livery service.
A fair point, my main issues being that a) livery is a ridiculous term, and b) I've found far too many people have no concept of the fact that there is anything between "taxis" and "just some dude hooking you up with a ride." It's not a well-understood distinction in many areas.
But that's the thing - there really isn't. Uber is a livery service - it takes requests from clients and dispatches cars to handle them. Their underlying business model doesn't change what business they're in, just the details of operation.
* - I think this term needs to get accepted as no longer referring to "just sharing my ride, bro" and is a decent shorthand for "automated app-based livery service utilizing private contractors driving their personal vehicles."
No, we need to call Uber what they are: a livery service. Doesn't matter what their underlying model is, they are a livery service.
A fair point, my main issues being that a) livery is a ridiculous term, and b) I've found far too many people have no concept of the fact that there is anything between "taxis" and "just some dude hooking you up with a ride." It's not a well-understood distinction in many areas.
But that's the thing - there really isn't. Uber is a livery service - it takes requests from clients and dispatches cars to handle them. Their underlying business model doesn't change what business they're in, just the details of operation.
You missed my point.
The thing between "taxis" and "just a dude giving you a ride" is a livery service. A dispatched car operating commercially to provide transportation. A term, and regulatory definition, that most people don't understand exists.
+1
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
Honest question here.
I agree fully that Uber isn't to blame for this and the fact that he's an Uber driver isn't really relevant to it.
BUT...
Was he carrying the weapon used in the shootings on his person while driving for Uber, and had he been doing so, and was this reported by a passenger? I'm asking because I don't know, and it may still not be relevant, but I know Uber stopped allowing drivers to carry firearms in the wake of one of the shootings last year (I don't know if this is still the case though, I just remember three people at work with CCPs stopped driving for Uber when this came down from above)
I only bring it up because IF it turns out someone gave him a 1 star review and noted he was carrying a firearm OR reported it to Uber or they had sent him a notice about it, it may end up falling back on them with our fucked up civil court system in some bullshit lawsuit.
Still don't think Uber is responsible, I just wonder if that will be a loophole.
* - I think this term needs to get accepted as no longer referring to "just sharing my ride, bro" and is a decent shorthand for "automated app-based livery service utilizing private contractors driving their personal vehicles."
No, we need to call Uber what they are: a livery service. Doesn't matter what their underlying model is, they are a livery service.
A fair point, my main issues being that a) livery is a ridiculous term, and b) I've found far too many people have no concept of the fact that there is anything between "taxis" and "just some dude hooking you up with a ride." It's not a well-understood distinction in many areas.
But that's the thing - there really isn't. Uber is a livery service - it takes requests from clients and dispatches cars to handle them. Their underlying business model doesn't change what business they're in, just the details of operation.
You missed my point.
The thing between "taxis" and "just a dude giving you a ride" is a livery service. A dispatched car operating commercially to provide transportation. A term, and regulatory definition, that most people don't understand exists.
Fair point. That said, I think that's more because they roll the concept up with taxis - hence why the regulatory body is usually called the Taxicab and Livery Commission. (This is probably because in most markets outside of urban cores, "taxi" and "livery" are more or less synonymous.)
* - I think this term needs to get accepted as no longer referring to "just sharing my ride, bro" and is a decent shorthand for "automated app-based livery service utilizing private contractors driving their personal vehicles."
No, we need to call Uber what they are: a livery service. Doesn't matter what their underlying model is, they are a livery service.
A fair point, my main issues being that a) livery is a ridiculous term, and b) I've found far too many people have no concept of the fact that there is anything between "taxis" and "just some dude hooking you up with a ride." It's not a well-understood distinction in many areas.
But that's the thing - there really isn't. Uber is a livery service - it takes requests from clients and dispatches cars to handle them. Their underlying business model doesn't change what business they're in, just the details of operation.
You missed my point.
The thing between "taxis" and "just a dude giving you a ride" is a livery service. A dispatched car operating commercially to provide transportation. A term, and regulatory definition, that most people don't understand exists.
Fair point. That said, I think that's more because they roll the concept up with taxis - hence why the regulatory body is usually called the Taxicab and Livery Commission. (This is probably because in most markets outside of urban cores, "taxi" and "livery" are more or less synonymous.)
That's another part of the problem with getting rid of the rideshareing notation. They don't want to be classified with a group who's super shitty reputation is their sole reason they exist in the first place.
* - I think this term needs to get accepted as no longer referring to "just sharing my ride, bro" and is a decent shorthand for "automated app-based livery service utilizing private contractors driving their personal vehicles."
No, we need to call Uber what they are: a livery service. Doesn't matter what their underlying model is, they are a livery service.
A fair point, my main issues being that a) livery is a ridiculous term, and b) I've found far too many people have no concept of the fact that there is anything between "taxis" and "just some dude hooking you up with a ride." It's not a well-understood distinction in many areas.
But that's the thing - there really isn't. Uber is a livery service - it takes requests from clients and dispatches cars to handle them. Their underlying business model doesn't change what business they're in, just the details of operation.
You missed my point.
The thing between "taxis" and "just a dude giving you a ride" is a livery service. A dispatched car operating commercially to provide transportation. A term, and regulatory definition, that most people don't understand exists.
Fair point. That said, I think that's more because they roll the concept up with taxis - hence why the regulatory body is usually called the Taxicab and Livery Commission. (This is probably because in most markets outside of urban cores, "taxi" and "livery" are more or less synonymous.)
That's another part of the problem with getting rid of the rideshareing notation. They don't want to be classified with a group who's super shitty reputation is their sole reason they exist in the first place.
And? "We're livery but less shitty (at least in the front facing parts which is all that our users care about)" isn't a reason we should give in. They want to make a better livery service, great! But let's not hide what they're doing.
"Ride-hailing" seems to be the preferred term among transportation planning people right now.
0
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
Yeah I love Uber and have completely replaced my use of cabs with it for the time being but I don't consider it to be separate from the taxi service. It's the same thing, just someone figured out how to make it not quite as shitty.
I mean it's still got it's ups and downs. There's been some weird ass uber drivers I've regretted getting, but that's like 1/10 rides versus the 5/10 cab rides where I feel uncomfortable after.
* - I think this term needs to get accepted as no longer referring to "just sharing my ride, bro" and is a decent shorthand for "automated app-based livery service utilizing private contractors driving their personal vehicles."
No, we need to call Uber what they are: a livery service. Doesn't matter what their underlying model is, they are a livery service.
A fair point, my main issues being that a) livery is a ridiculous term, and b) I've found far too many people have no concept of the fact that there is anything between "taxis" and "just some dude hooking you up with a ride." It's not a well-understood distinction in many areas.
But that's the thing - there really isn't. Uber is a livery service - it takes requests from clients and dispatches cars to handle them. Their underlying business model doesn't change what business they're in, just the details of operation.
You missed my point.
The thing between "taxis" and "just a dude giving you a ride" is a livery service. A dispatched car operating commercially to provide transportation. A term, and regulatory definition, that most people don't understand exists.
Fair point. That said, I think that's more because they roll the concept up with taxis - hence why the regulatory body is usually called the Taxicab and Livery Commission. (This is probably because in most markets outside of urban cores, "taxi" and "livery" are more or less synonymous.)
That's another part of the problem with getting rid of the rideshareing notation. They don't want to be classified with a group who's super shitty reputation is their sole reason they exist in the first place.
And? "We're livery but less shitty (at least in the front facing parts which is all that our users care about)" isn't a reason we should give in. They want to make a better livery service, great! But let's not hide what they're doing.
I really don't get who this we is you are talking for. As this thread as demonstrated time and again, most people who use Uber do so because it is a vastly better experience than the draconian, feather nesting, scummy taxi services they are competing with.
People aren't giving in, they are going "I don't care if the skirt some city licensing tax, because this thing is so much better than what we had to start before", which the Taxicab and Livery Commission or who ever was in charge of the regulations let get to that state in the first place.
Not to go all neo-con on this, but it is very much a I'm from the government and I'm here to help situation. Yay Calgary doesn't get Uber now, who the fuck is helped by that?
* - I think this term needs to get accepted as no longer referring to "just sharing my ride, bro" and is a decent shorthand for "automated app-based livery service utilizing private contractors driving their personal vehicles."
No, we need to call Uber what they are: a livery service. Doesn't matter what their underlying model is, they are a livery service.
A fair point, my main issues being that a) livery is a ridiculous term, and b) I've found far too many people have no concept of the fact that there is anything between "taxis" and "just some dude hooking you up with a ride." It's not a well-understood distinction in many areas.
But that's the thing - there really isn't. Uber is a livery service - it takes requests from clients and dispatches cars to handle them. Their underlying business model doesn't change what business they're in, just the details of operation.
You missed my point.
The thing between "taxis" and "just a dude giving you a ride" is a livery service. A dispatched car operating commercially to provide transportation. A term, and regulatory definition, that most people don't understand exists.
Fair point. That said, I think that's more because they roll the concept up with taxis - hence why the regulatory body is usually called the Taxicab and Livery Commission. (This is probably because in most markets outside of urban cores, "taxi" and "livery" are more or less synonymous.)
That's another part of the problem with getting rid of the rideshareing notation. They don't want to be classified with a group who's super shitty reputation is their sole reason they exist in the first place.
And? "We're livery but less shitty (at least in the front facing parts which is all that our users care about)" isn't a reason we should give in. They want to make a better livery service, great! But let's not hide what they're doing.
I really don't get who this we is you are talking for. As this thread as demonstrated time and again, most people who use Uber do so because it is a vastly better experience than the draconian, feather nesting, scummy taxi services they are competing with.
People aren't giving in, they are going "I don't care if the skirt some city licensing tax, because this thing is so much better than what we had to start before", which the Taxicab and Livery Commission or who ever was in charge of the regulations let get to that state in the first place.
Not to go all neo-con on this, but it is very much a I'm from the government and I'm here to help situation. Yay Calgary doesn't get Uber now, who the fuck is helped by that?
Traditional livery and taxie services, and those who are in charge of regulating them.
$200+ annually is steep, especially it sounds like that's on top of inspection fees. That kinda kills it as a part-time thing.
If it were one-time (per vehicle), it might make sense.
I am tempted to ask how much @NotoriusBEN , @Knuckle Dragger and/or @Elvenshae had to pay in terms of licensing & training to be able to drive their big trucks around. Of course, those are big trucks with the potential for doing more damage than a regular car... but the fees & licensing are also probably appropriately higher.
I see this as a test that Uber has failed. 'You may operate as a livery service but must adhere to a framework that allows us to hold drivers accountable for when things don't go so smoothly. Will you agree to such a framework?' 'No. In fact it would be impossible for our business model to accept licensing fee requirements that the city has control over.'
Sorry, but in that case I'm happy to wait for someone who does want to work within a paradigm of licensing & accountability. Some of the red tape is bullshit, but a lot of it isn't (even if seems annoying because it only applies after a worst case scenario... but then, that's exactly why it's in place!), and people ultimately voted for the city council's policies during the last municipal election, not Uber's.
It's a shame because I think ride sharing is clearly the way forward when it comes to taxis. It clearly just has so many advantages over the traditional model, and potentially is fairer both to the drivers and riders.
Training can be several thousand dollars, though some companies offer free training in exchange for an employment contract with the company for a few years (they can sue you for the cost if you leave). Licensing in CA is $73 for a new license, $43 for a renewal, retest or to add endorsements to an existing license. There are additional fees for Hazmat (fingerprinting, etc.). You also have to get a physical every year or two, but the company usually covers the cost. There is also 6-8 weeks of training after you get your license, but I'm not sure about the cost to pay you and the trainer, vs. what the company makes from the loads you deliver.
With Werner, the company deposits a bit from every paycheck into an account, until it reaches a certain amount. They draw from that to cover your fuckups, replenish it as needed and refund the balance when you leave.
I'll say with my experience in trucking, I went with a school Swift had. 4weeks training, should have been 6, honestly. $5000 dollars in a non interest loan. Just pay it back over the course of a year.
After I got my license (like $50 bucks for putting the class a tag on it in Washington. Price will be really expensive for the 4year renewal)
Then I did about 200hours with a mentor. That took about 6 weeks. I got paid minimum wage for that.
As a company driver I don't pay for anything extra. I am keeping food reciepts and such since I'm an Over the road driver and I live in a truck.
I've since switched to JB Hunt because they had better home time and better miles. I still owe swift for the rest of my schooling, but I'm actually making money now, and have a chance to go local and be home every night in another month.
So, $30 "Calgary Police Services criminal history and an annual vehicle inspection fee" which is reasonable and has a coherent cost / benefit basis, and $220 for "fuck you, we want our cut" fee?
Livery services should not have any meaningful licensing regime. It's driving a car. So long as they have adequate insurance, which inherently guards against almost all mistakes, and aren't some rapist trolling for victims*, there isn't a problem.
* Disclaiming that this actually is the government's fault, as they shouldn't be releasing unreformed criminals, and thus criminal background checks are largely a reflection on their abject failures in the criminal justice system.
Why not?
You already said a criminal history and vehicle inspection fee was reasonable and that's just a type of licensing regime. Or a part of a larger one.
Shit, I'm pretty sure your insurance company would be very interested in the fact that you are using your vehicle to transport people around for commercial purposes, so I doubt it's already covered on that end.
A deliberately minimalist, shall issue model that checks for the very basics, but keeps prices as low as possible is both economically and morally different than trying to extort cash from low skilled workers so they can have a livelihood.
Hell, even the same amount of government payment, taken as a percentage tax of fairs, would be more reasonable, as it would allow people to not have a high up front cost, so, if, for example, they started with $500 in their bank account and got into an accident on their first fare, they wouldn't be fucked with $250 in their account and $400 in repairs, waiting for an insurance check, and now with no job. It would still suck if they had $470 and were facing the same issue, but it would be substantially easier for them.
A licensing regime is a good way to ensure a safe service provided to the consumer. Everything I've seen with modern corporate culture, is that you never take their word for something being up to par because they'll cut corners for profits and lie to your face about it. It's also a great way of minimizing abuses by bad actors. Plus, it has the upside of actually giving those contractors some much needed leverage over an exploitative employers like Uber. If I was a livery driver, I'd rather have a license that my employer couldn't pull for shitty and petty reasons, which I could use to get a job with some other livery service company, as long as it's still valid, should I feel that my current employer was giving me a bad deal.
I'm also going to point out that services like Uber are a shitty way to address our transportation issues. What we really need in many areas is mass transit and to get dumbass developers to do more mixed development, so that people have some options on food, if they need to go anywhere.
"Safe service" is a crock. It's people, who have already been licensed to perform that very action they have extensive experience in, using equipment they have extensive time on, which is an everyday activity, and not "juggling tigers on top of a cliff" or anything like that.
And any moral panic about crime is just that, as someone is far more likely to get harmed at their destination than by the driver. And even fraud is especially difficult due to the fare mechanism and ability of customers to effectively exile their driver with only a small number of bad reviews.
And honestly, a shall issue license model, no long term contract, and using their own equipment makes Uber drives maximally mobile. Now, it avoids outright protectionism of deliberately clamping down on supply by arbitrarily limiting entry into the market, but I'd argue that's mostly a good thing (except at a national off-shoring / overuse of immigration to push down wages level).
Tinwhiskers has a good summary of this, really. Licensing is a sometimes useful tool, but it can also be rank protectionism and nanny statism that entrenches bad industries, such as many of them ones Uber competes with.
Without some sort of oversight, how can I as a consumer be sure that my livery driver still has his license? How can I be sure that the vehicle that driver is using meets safety standards? Not crime has fuck all to with that and spare me the bullshit line that I should take the driver and/or company's word that everything checks out. We tend to have regulations in place because it doesn't require fuckery from everyone involved, it just requires from a few bad actors to be a serious problem.
$200+ annually is steep, especially it sounds like that's on top of inspection fees. That kinda kills it as a part-time thing.
If it were one-time (per vehicle), it might make sense.
I am tempted to ask how much @NotoriusBEN , @Knuckle Dragger and/or @Elvenshae had to pay in terms of licensing & training to be able to drive their big trucks around. Of course, those are big trucks with the potential for doing more damage than a regular car... but the fees & licensing are also probably appropriately higher.
I see this as a test that Uber has failed. 'You may operate as a livery service but must adhere to a framework that allows us to hold drivers accountable for when things don't go so smoothly. Will you agree to such a framework?' 'No. In fact it would be impossible for our business model to accept licensing fee requirements that the city has control over.'
Sorry, but in that case I'm happy to wait for someone who does want to work within a paradigm of licensing & accountability. Some of the red tape is bullshit, but a lot of it isn't (even if seems annoying because it only applies after a worst case scenario... but then, that's exactly why it's in place!), and people ultimately voted for the city council's policies during the last municipal election, not Uber's.
It's a shame because I think ride sharing is clearly the way forward when it comes to taxis. It clearly just has so many advantages over the traditional model, and potentially is fairer both to the drivers and riders.
Training can be several thousand dollars, though some companies offer free training in exchange for an employment contract with the company for a few years (they can sue you for the cost if you leave). Licensing in CA is $73 for a new license, $43 for a renewal, retest or to add endorsements to an existing license. There are additional fees for Hazmat (fingerprinting, etc.). You also have to get a physical every year or two, but the company usually covers the cost. There is also 6-8 weeks of training after you get your license, but I'm not sure about the cost to pay you and the trainer, vs. what the company makes from the loads you deliver.
With Werner, the company deposits a bit from every paycheck into an account, until it reaches a certain amount. They draw from that to cover your fuckups, replenish it as needed and refund the balance when you leave.
I'll say with my experience in trucking, I went with a school Swift had. 4weeks training, should have been 6, honestly. $5000 dollars in a non interest loan. Just pay it back over the course of a year.
After I got my license (like $50 bucks for putting the class a tag on it in Washington. Price will be really expensive for the 4year renewal)
Then I did about 200hours with a mentor. That took about 6 weeks. I got paid minimum wage for that.
As a company driver I don't pay for anything extra. I am keeping food reciepts and such since I'm an Over the road driver and I live in a truck.
I've since switched to JB Hunt because they had better home time and better miles. I still owe swift for the rest of my schooling, but I'm actually making money now, and have a chance to go local and be home every night in another month.
Good to hear regarding Hunt. They are a solid company, and one of the few I never heard drivers complain about driving for. Do they still have all the loads coming out of the Target yard in Pacific?
Also, if you are not on a per diem reimbursement program through the company, Ask about the Standard Meal Allowance with whoever does your taxes. OTR drivers are allowed a standard deduction for every day they are away from their home terminal. It's their way of not having to deal with 750 receipts for Subway, Carl's and Denny's from every driver out there. Much easier to deal with, and probably more than you are actually spending on food.
Well you don't, but even if they paid the fees you still don't know if they've lost their license or had mechanical issues in the last year, if they're even required to show proof of it to customers
Without some sort of oversight, how can I as a consumer be sure that my livery driver still has his license? How can I be sure that the vehicle that driver is using meets safety standards? Not crime has fuck all to with that and spare me the bullshit line that I should take the driver and/or company's word that everything checks out. We tend to have regulations in place because it doesn't require fuckery from everyone involved, it just requires from a few bad actors to be a serious problem.
I don't know about livery drivers, but Uber just cancels your access to the app, which means they can't come pick you up since they don't know where you are.
So, $30 "Calgary Police Services criminal history and an annual vehicle inspection fee" which is reasonable and has a coherent cost / benefit basis, and $220 for "fuck you, we want our cut" fee?
Livery services should not have any meaningful licensing regime. It's driving a car. So long as they have adequate insurance, which inherently guards against almost all mistakes, and aren't some rapist trolling for victims*, there isn't a problem.
* Disclaiming that this actually is the government's fault, as they shouldn't be releasing unreformed criminals, and thus criminal background checks are largely a reflection on their abject failures in the criminal justice system.
Why not?
You already said a criminal history and vehicle inspection fee was reasonable and that's just a type of licensing regime. Or a part of a larger one.
Shit, I'm pretty sure your insurance company would be very interested in the fact that you are using your vehicle to transport people around for commercial purposes, so I doubt it's already covered on that end.
A deliberately minimalist, shall issue model that checks for the very basics, but keeps prices as low as possible is both economically and morally different than trying to extort cash from low skilled workers so they can have a livelihood.
Hell, even the same amount of government payment, taken as a percentage tax of fairs, would be more reasonable, as it would allow people to not have a high up front cost, so, if, for example, they started with $500 in their bank account and got into an accident on their first fare, they wouldn't be fucked with $250 in their account and $400 in repairs, waiting for an insurance check, and now with no job. It would still suck if they had $470 and were facing the same issue, but it would be substantially easier for them.
Sorry, I don't even know which one of these two examples you bring up in your first paragraph you think applies to anything we are talking about. Cause neither fits.
The point of a licensing regime is to make people pay money up front for a thing that says "I am allowed to do X". And then, when they fuck up and break the rules, you take it away so they can no longer do X. It's that simple. There are safety checks and such before hand too but those are all related to that fact that the point of a licence is that not everyone has one and it can be taken away. Fees are attached to pay for administering the system and just as a general deterrent against fucking around with the system.
You see this in, say, your standard driving license.
So, $30 "Calgary Police Services criminal history and an annual vehicle inspection fee" which is reasonable and has a coherent cost / benefit basis, and $220 for "fuck you, we want our cut" fee?
Livery services should not have any meaningful licensing regime. It's driving a car. So long as they have adequate insurance, which inherently guards against almost all mistakes, and aren't some rapist trolling for victims*, there isn't a problem.
* Disclaiming that this actually is the government's fault, as they shouldn't be releasing unreformed criminals, and thus criminal background checks are largely a reflection on their abject failures in the criminal justice system.
Why not?
You already said a criminal history and vehicle inspection fee was reasonable and that's just a type of licensing regime. Or a part of a larger one.
Shit, I'm pretty sure your insurance company would be very interested in the fact that you are using your vehicle to transport people around for commercial purposes, so I doubt it's already covered on that end.
A deliberately minimalist, shall issue model that checks for the very basics, but keeps prices as low as possible is both economically and morally different than trying to extort cash from low skilled workers so they can have a livelihood.
Hell, even the same amount of government payment, taken as a percentage tax of fairs, would be more reasonable, as it would allow people to not have a high up front cost, so, if, for example, they started with $500 in their bank account and got into an accident on their first fare, they wouldn't be fucked with $250 in their account and $400 in repairs, waiting for an insurance check, and now with no job. It would still suck if they had $470 and were facing the same issue, but it would be substantially easier for them.
Sorry, I don't even know which one of these two examples you bring up in your first paragraph you think applies to anything we are talking about. Cause neither fits.
The point of a licensing regime is to make people pay money up front for a thing that says "I am allowed to do X". And then, when they fuck up and break the rules, you take it away so they can no longer do X. It's that simple. There are safety checks and such before hand too but those are all related to that fact that the point of a licence is that not everyone has one and it can be taken away. Fees are attached to pay for administering the system and just as a general deterrent against fucking around with the system.
You see this in, say, your standard driving license.
Alternatively, you can give away licenses to any qualified person, and fine them for $250 (or worse, if it some heinous shit) if they fuck up, which has the added benefit of not putting the boot heel of cash outlays on the throats of the poor, nor fucks up the marketplace, but still has an identical penalty for wrongdoing.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
edited February 2016
you could use a transaction tax like they do in other markets. A large upfront licensing fee is basically the most regressive way to go about it
I don't think many government fees are about being reasonable, many seem to be about having taxation without being a tax. See speeding tickets for an example, $250 for going 3 mph over the speed limit. Or the bullshit that Louisiana is currently pulling with auto insurance and garnishing of state taxes.
Either the consumer / utilizer of the service pays upfront and recoups their costs over time, or the provider pays everything up front and recoups costs over time.
I personally, prefer to know that when I get in a commercially operated vehicle that it is going to be safe, and not have bald tires and barely existent brake pads etc. So I want every vehicles I'm paying to ride in to have been inspected by a neutral and qualified 3rd party.
Its going to suck for the guy that wants to just give a couple rides a week, that this is going to price him out of the marketplace. But I prefer to err on the side of road and passenger safety, and having the government have to pay to inspect these vehicles that will be accumulating less than 5 hours a week of road time would be placing a huge financial burden on the municipality that they would not be recouping through a transaction tax. (Or else the transaction tax would have to be larger on the full time drivers to cover the part time ones, which is ridiculous, as those are the ones trying to make a living).
Much like someone who wants to sell some food out of their kitchen a couple of times a week would be priced out of that by all the inspections and licensing that is required for restauranteurs and how that is much more strenuous than someones private and personal kitchen used for feeding themselves / their family.
Either the consumer / utilizer of the service pays upfront and recoups their costs over time, or the provider pays everything up front and recoups costs over time.
Your false dichotomy is false. A 1% surcharge, as an example, would be an upfront cost for no parties involved, and delivered as a single yearly payment, would minimize transaction costs.
I personally, prefer to know that when I get in a commercially operated vehicle that it is going to be safe, and not have bald tires and barely existent brake pads etc. So I want every vehicles I'm paying to ride in to have been inspected by a neutral and qualified 3rd party.
Its going to suck for the guy that wants to just give a couple rides a week, that this is going to price him out of the marketplace. But I prefer to err on the side of road and passenger safety, and having the government have to pay to inspect these vehicles that will be accumulating less than 5 hours a week of road time would be placing a huge financial burden on the municipality that they would not be recouping through a transaction tax. (Or else the transaction tax would have to be larger on the full time drivers to cover the part time ones, which is ridiculous, as those are the ones trying to make a living).
Much like someone who wants to sell some food out of their kitchen a couple of times a week would be priced out of that by all the inspections and licensing that is required for restauranteurs and how that is much more strenuous than someones private and personal kitchen used for feeding themselves / their family.
Most states already both have inspection regimes for vehicles, and theoretically have police who perform traffic related safety stops. We're not talking about some state of nature bullshit.
+1
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
I personally, prefer to know that when I get in a commercially operated vehicle that it is going to be safe, and not have bald tires and barely existent brake pads etc. So I want every vehicles I'm paying to ride in to have been inspected by a neutral and qualified 3rd party.
Firstly, every uber I have ever been in has been cleaner, looked and sounded far better maintained than every car from the bad old days when I had to call Joe's Dispatch.
Second, you dont have to shit on the working class driver to enforce safety and maintenance standards.
I thought we were talking about Uber & Calgary, where the only vehicle inspections are done when ownership is transferred. So a vehicle that has remained within a family or with the same owner for 10+ years will not have been inspected (unless the owner feels like getting it inspected) for that same duration. So without someone paying to have the vehicle inspected, there is no guarantee that the tires aren't bald and that the brake pads have any life left on them.
It isn't a false dichotomy, either the government pays the outlay for the inspections to be done, and the driver reimburses them immediately (drivers pay upfront), or the government pays the outlay and the drivers repay it over time (your transaction tax as an example).
Gnome-Interruptus on
MWO: Adamski
+1
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
I thought we were talking about Uber & Calgary, where the only vehicle inspections are done when ownership is transferred. So a vehicle that has remained within a family or with the same owner for 10+ years will not have been inspected (unless the owner feels like getting it inspected) for that same duration. So without someone paying to have the vehicle inspected, there is no guarantee that the tires aren't bald and that the brake pads have any life left on them.
It isn't a false dichotomy, either the government pays the outlay for the inspections to be done, and the driver reimburses them immediately (drivers pay upfront), or the government pays the outlay and the drivers repay it over time (your transaction tax as an example).
Wait. Wut?
So, let me get this straight. 99% of the cars on the road in Calgary could have bald tires and worn out rotors because the city has decided that it's fine that they go ten years without an inspection, but you're safety concerns are focused on uber?
Also, not only are they requiring annual inspections, they're requiring 134 point inspections, which are pretty expensive. They're requiring this in a city where it's totally cool not to have your personal vehicle inspected for a decade.
Jesus. The regulatory capture is real.
I thought we were talking about Uber & Calgary, where the only vehicle inspections are done when ownership is transferred. So a vehicle that has remained within a family or with the same owner for 10+ years will not have been inspected (unless the owner feels like getting it inspected) for that same duration. So without someone paying to have the vehicle inspected, there is no guarantee that the tires aren't bald and that the brake pads have any life left on them.
It isn't a false dichotomy, either the government pays the outlay for the inspections to be done, and the driver reimburses them immediately (drivers pay upfront), or the government pays the outlay and the drivers repay it over time (your transaction tax as an example).
haha what
Canada doesn't require yearly inspection and registration for personal vehicles? Wow.
+5
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
I thought we were talking about Uber & Calgary, where the only vehicle inspections are done when ownership is transferred. So a vehicle that has remained within a family or with the same owner for 10+ years will not have been inspected (unless the owner feels like getting it inspected) for that same duration. So without someone paying to have the vehicle inspected, there is no guarantee that the tires aren't bald and that the brake pads have any life left on them.
It isn't a false dichotomy, either the government pays the outlay for the inspections to be done, and the driver reimburses them immediately (drivers pay upfront), or the government pays the outlay and the drivers repay it over time (your transaction tax as an example).
Wait. Wut?
So, let me get this straight. 99% of the cars on the road in Calgary could have bald tires and worn out rotors because the city has decided that it's fine that they go ten years without an inspection, but you're safety concerns are focused on uber?
Also, not only are they requiring annual inspections, they're requiring 134 point inspections, which are pretty expensive. They're requiring this in a city where it's totally cool not to have your personal vehicle inspected for a decade.
Jesus. The regulatory capture is real.
again with false dichotomies. Personal use /= business use.
so yes, i would expect a vehicle used for a business purpose to be held to a stricter standard than one used for personal use.
I thought we were talking about Uber & Calgary, where the only vehicle inspections are done when ownership is transferred. So a vehicle that has remained within a family or with the same owner for 10+ years will not have been inspected (unless the owner feels like getting it inspected) for that same duration. So without someone paying to have the vehicle inspected, there is no guarantee that the tires aren't bald and that the brake pads have any life left on them.
It isn't a false dichotomy, either the government pays the outlay for the inspections to be done, and the driver reimburses them immediately (drivers pay upfront), or the government pays the outlay and the drivers repay it over time (your transaction tax as an example).
haha what
Canada doesn't require yearly inspection and registration for personal vehicles? Wow.
We're socialists, don't'cha'know.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
I thought we were talking about Uber & Calgary, where the only vehicle inspections are done when ownership is transferred. So a vehicle that has remained within a family or with the same owner for 10+ years will not have been inspected (unless the owner feels like getting it inspected) for that same duration. So without someone paying to have the vehicle inspected, there is no guarantee that the tires aren't bald and that the brake pads have any life left on them.
It isn't a false dichotomy, either the government pays the outlay for the inspections to be done, and the driver reimburses them immediately (drivers pay upfront), or the government pays the outlay and the drivers repay it over time (your transaction tax as an example).
Wait. Wut?
So, let me get this straight. 99% of the cars on the road in Calgary could have bald tires and worn out rotors because the city has decided that it's fine that they go ten years without an inspection, but you're safety concerns are focused on uber?
Also, not only are they requiring annual inspections, they're requiring 134 point inspections, which are pretty expensive. They're requiring this in a city where it's totally cool not to have your personal vehicle inspected for a decade.
Jesus. The regulatory capture is real.
again with false dichotomies. Personal use /= business use.
Setting aside the fact that calling out a logical fallacy is a poor substitute for an argument. You dont appear to understand what a dichotomy is, let alone a false one.
so yes, i would expect a vehicle used for a business purpose to be held to a stricter standard than one used for personal use.
No one is disagreeing with this. However when there are cars on the road that haven't been inspected since the Bush administration, it's pretty silly to require livery to shell out close to $200 a year to make sure that the fader on the radio works. It costs me about $30 to get my annual inspection. Here are all the things they check for.
I thought we were talking about Uber & Calgary, where the only vehicle inspections are done when ownership is transferred. So a vehicle that has remained within a family or with the same owner for 10+ years will not have been inspected (unless the owner feels like getting it inspected) for that same duration. So without someone paying to have the vehicle inspected, there is no guarantee that the tires aren't bald and that the brake pads have any life left on them.
It isn't a false dichotomy, either the government pays the outlay for the inspections to be done, and the driver reimburses them immediately (drivers pay upfront), or the government pays the outlay and the drivers repay it over time (your transaction tax as an example).
Wait. Wut?
So, let me get this straight. 99% of the cars on the road in Calgary could have bald tires and worn out rotors because the city has decided that it's fine that they go ten years without an inspection, but you're safety concerns are focused on uber?
Also, not only are they requiring annual inspections, they're requiring 134 point inspections, which are pretty expensive. They're requiring this in a city where it's totally cool not to have your personal vehicle inspected for a decade.
Jesus. The regulatory capture is real.
again with false dichotomies. Personal use /= business use.
so yes, i would expect a vehicle used for a business purpose to be held to a stricter standard than one used for personal use.
That's ridiculous. Do you think the hand of God will gently nudge the vehicle of a guy who paid for their DD's drinks back onto the road, when their bald tires would have otherwise failed them, but the crass, commercial nature of a man or woman trying to feed their family will be a blight in the eyes of the Lord, and He will condemn them to a woeful fate?
If you want to make this argument about 18 wheelers carrying hazmat, that would be one thing, but the commercial distinction is exceedingly arbitrary, particularly when the government makes not even the most token attempt to protect people from themselves when they are the driver, or when a friend or relative is, but all of a sudden when they pay a fiver for the privilege, nothing but a king's carriage, slaved over by a dozen engineers for a dozen months, is sufficient.
Call me a daredevil, but I'm willing to live in an unregulated hellscape of inspected late model cars driven by licensed, insured drivers, that haven't be pre-approved by government busybodies. You may say, "What if Uber drops the requirements to be a licensed, insured, driver with an inspected vehicle!" and I say that while that idea could potentially be worrying, should our legislators be instituting regulations for the world as it is, or fevered dystopian imaginings?
I thought we were talking about Uber & Calgary, where the only vehicle inspections are done when ownership is transferred. So a vehicle that has remained within a family or with the same owner for 10+ years will not have been inspected (unless the owner feels like getting it inspected) for that same duration. So without someone paying to have the vehicle inspected, there is no guarantee that the tires aren't bald and that the brake pads have any life left on them.
It isn't a false dichotomy, either the government pays the outlay for the inspections to be done, and the driver reimburses them immediately (drivers pay upfront), or the government pays the outlay and the drivers repay it over time (your transaction tax as an example).
Wait. Wut?
So, let me get this straight. 99% of the cars on the road in Calgary could have bald tires and worn out rotors because the city has decided that it's fine that they go ten years without an inspection, but you're safety concerns are focused on uber?
Also, not only are they requiring annual inspections, they're requiring 134 point inspections, which are pretty expensive. They're requiring this in a city where it's totally cool not to have your personal vehicle inspected for a decade.
Jesus. The regulatory capture is real.
again with false dichotomies. Personal use /= business use.
Setting aside the fact that calling out a logical fallacy is a poor substitute for an argument. You dont appear to understand what a dichotomy is, let alone a false one.
so yes, i would expect a vehicle used for a business purpose to be held to a stricter standard than one used for personal use.
No one is disagreeing with this. However when there are cars on the road that haven't been inspected since the Bush administration, it's pretty silly to require livery to shell out close to $200 a year to make sure that the fader on the radio works. It costs me about $30 to get my annual inspection. Here are all the things they check for.
The vehicle inspection has to be performed by a mechanic(not a technician) I'm not sure of the difference but I'm guessing a licensing thing. Here's the kicker they are all performed at private shops. With a 'recommended' price of $140 to $180. Also it needs to be done every 6 months or 50,000 km(or 29,400 freedom cubits), which doesn't seem like much if you are driving a vehicle full time.
So I was curious, what is in this critical 134 point inspection. I figured it'd be like 24 points just for all the various lights/indicators etc. So I found the website
Where you can download the inspection standards for cars/light trucks and also for motorcycles. Scrolled down to commercial vehicles and
** Note**: Facility and Commercial Vehicle Manuals are not available for download. See “Purchasing Inspection Manuals” below for more information.
So just finding out what the inspection is will cost you $33.
So just to sum it all up:
$30 back ground check fee
$25 fee if finger printing is required
$220 municipal 'licensing fee'
$180 vehicle inspection fee-payable to 3rd party(at least twice annually)
So 635 annually.
And if you want to know how to check your vehicle yourself to avoid having to repeat a failed inspection, thats another $33 for a print book because fuck you that's why.
I thought we were talking about Uber & Calgary, where the only vehicle inspections are done when ownership is transferred. So a vehicle that has remained within a family or with the same owner for 10+ years will not have been inspected (unless the owner feels like getting it inspected) for that same duration. So without someone paying to have the vehicle inspected, there is no guarantee that the tires aren't bald and that the brake pads have any life left on them.
It isn't a false dichotomy, either the government pays the outlay for the inspections to be done, and the driver reimburses them immediately (drivers pay upfront), or the government pays the outlay and the drivers repay it over time (your transaction tax as an example).
haha what
Canada doesn't require yearly inspection and registration for personal vehicles? Wow.
Like in the US it's left up to each province to oversee their own licensing/inspection
Here's the kicker they are all performed at private shops.
I really haven't been following the conversation, but this struck me as odd...Why is that the kicker? Do they have public mechanic shops where you live? I mean with trucks, technically you can get inspected at the scale houses, but if there is a violation that puts the vehicle out of service, the driver is looking at a sizable fine and can't drive the vehicle someplace to get it fixed; they have to get a mechanic to drive out or get the vehicle towed.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
Firstly, every uber I have ever been in has been cleaner, looked and sounded far better maintained than every car from the bad old days when I had to call Joe's Dispatch.
Second, you dont have to shit on the working class driver to enforce safety and maintenance standards.
Yes, but this should hardly be surprising given that we are in the early days of Uber. We haven't exactly stress tested the service yet, and regulations are for the worst case scenarios, not the best case ones. It's tautological to say, "Well, what's the point in regulations when everything is just fine & dandy?"
No one is disagreeing with this. However when there are cars on the road that haven't been inspected since the Bush administration, it's pretty silly to require livery to shell out close to $200 a year to make sure that the fader on the radio works. It costs me about $30 to get my annual inspection. Here are all the things they check for.
Do you honestly think there about another 100 items that need to be checked annually at a cost of >$100 more?
While that's fair enough, part of the reason for lax inspection in Alberta has been a decades long stint with a dysfunctional provincial government (the same one that completely cratered that province's economy, and the value of the Canadian dollar alongside it). Calgary is trying to get back up to speed with the modern world in that sense (and not every piece of red tape has been the right move, but it's a bit absurd to say that a proposed new taxi service should be moving backward in terms of inspections because apparently terribly lax regulations ought to be grandfathered in?).
The costs are not quite directly comparable because of the relative weakness of CAD as compared to USD (we pay a premium on most services here in comparison to equivalent services in the U.S.).
Canada doesn't require yearly inspection and registration for personal vehicles? Wow.
The Toronto area (and most populated areas on the Eastern side of the country) have more or less identical laws to Washington D.C. & NYC when it comes to housing & vehicle insurance, inspections, etc.
Alberta is a Very Special Little Snowflake as a result of years of non stop conservative governance. It's sort of amusing to listen to it being described as 'Big Brother'; most of the province's agencies were parceled off to private interests a long time ago (this is why you have to go to private mechanics to have your vehicle inspected, for example).
I thought we were talking about Uber & Calgary, where the only vehicle inspections are done when ownership is transferred. So a vehicle that has remained within a family or with the same owner for 10+ years will not have been inspected (unless the owner feels like getting it inspected) for that same duration. So without someone paying to have the vehicle inspected, there is no guarantee that the tires aren't bald and that the brake pads have any life left on them.
It isn't a false dichotomy, either the government pays the outlay for the inspections to be done, and the driver reimburses them immediately (drivers pay upfront), or the government pays the outlay and the drivers repay it over time (your transaction tax as an example).
haha what
Canada doesn't require yearly inspection and registration for personal vehicles? Wow.
Canada doesn't require yearly inspection and registration for personal vehicles? Wow.
The Toronto area (and most populated areas on the Eastern side of the country) have more or less identical laws to Washington D.C. & NYC when it comes to housing & vehicle insurance, inspections, etc.
Alberta is a Very Special Little Snowflake as a result of years of non stop conservative governance. It's sort of amusing to listen to it being described as 'Big Brother'; most of the province's agencies were parceled off to private interests a long time ago (this is why you have to go to private mechanics to have your vehicle inspected, for example).
Whaaaa? We don't have ((regular) mandatory vehicle inspections in Toronto, not for personal vehicles. Personal vehicles over 7 years old need to undergo a DriveClean test every 2 years to ensure their emissions are acceptable ($30, at private garages). We do need to register our vehicles by buying a sticker every two years ($108 per year), but there's no inspection involved; you can literally do it online. And there are mandatory vehicle inspections when a (used) car is being sold, but that sounds exactly like how @Gnome-Interruptus described Calgary's regime.
Posts
No, we need to call Uber what they are: a livery service. Doesn't matter what their underlying model is, they are a livery service.
A fair point, my main issues being that a) livery is a ridiculous term, and b) I've found far too many people have no concept of the fact that there is anything between "taxis" and "just some dude hooking you up with a ride." It's not a well-understood distinction in many areas.
But that's the thing - there really isn't. Uber is a livery service - it takes requests from clients and dispatches cars to handle them. Their underlying business model doesn't change what business they're in, just the details of operation.
You missed my point.
The thing between "taxis" and "just a dude giving you a ride" is a livery service. A dispatched car operating commercially to provide transportation. A term, and regulatory definition, that most people don't understand exists.
I agree fully that Uber isn't to blame for this and the fact that he's an Uber driver isn't really relevant to it.
BUT...
Was he carrying the weapon used in the shootings on his person while driving for Uber, and had he been doing so, and was this reported by a passenger? I'm asking because I don't know, and it may still not be relevant, but I know Uber stopped allowing drivers to carry firearms in the wake of one of the shootings last year (I don't know if this is still the case though, I just remember three people at work with CCPs stopped driving for Uber when this came down from above)
I only bring it up because IF it turns out someone gave him a 1 star review and noted he was carrying a firearm OR reported it to Uber or they had sent him a notice about it, it may end up falling back on them with our fucked up civil court system in some bullshit lawsuit.
Still don't think Uber is responsible, I just wonder if that will be a loophole.
Fair point. That said, I think that's more because they roll the concept up with taxis - hence why the regulatory body is usually called the Taxicab and Livery Commission. (This is probably because in most markets outside of urban cores, "taxi" and "livery" are more or less synonymous.)
That's another part of the problem with getting rid of the rideshareing notation. They don't want to be classified with a group who's super shitty reputation is their sole reason they exist in the first place.
And? "We're livery but less shitty (at least in the front facing parts which is all that our users care about)" isn't a reason we should give in. They want to make a better livery service, great! But let's not hide what they're doing.
I mean it's still got it's ups and downs. There's been some weird ass uber drivers I've regretted getting, but that's like 1/10 rides versus the 5/10 cab rides where I feel uncomfortable after.
I really don't get who this we is you are talking for. As this thread as demonstrated time and again, most people who use Uber do so because it is a vastly better experience than the draconian, feather nesting, scummy taxi services they are competing with.
People aren't giving in, they are going "I don't care if the skirt some city licensing tax, because this thing is so much better than what we had to start before", which the Taxicab and Livery Commission or who ever was in charge of the regulations let get to that state in the first place.
Not to go all neo-con on this, but it is very much a I'm from the government and I'm here to help situation. Yay Calgary doesn't get Uber now, who the fuck is helped by that?
Traditional livery and taxie services, and those who are in charge of regulating them.
I'll say with my experience in trucking, I went with a school Swift had. 4weeks training, should have been 6, honestly. $5000 dollars in a non interest loan. Just pay it back over the course of a year.
After I got my license (like $50 bucks for putting the class a tag on it in Washington. Price will be really expensive for the 4year renewal)
Then I did about 200hours with a mentor. That took about 6 weeks. I got paid minimum wage for that.
As a company driver I don't pay for anything extra. I am keeping food reciepts and such since I'm an Over the road driver and I live in a truck.
I've since switched to JB Hunt because they had better home time and better miles. I still owe swift for the rest of my schooling, but I'm actually making money now, and have a chance to go local and be home every night in another month.
Steam - NotoriusBEN | Uplay - notoriusben | Xbox,Windows Live - ThatBEN
A deliberately minimalist, shall issue model that checks for the very basics, but keeps prices as low as possible is both economically and morally different than trying to extort cash from low skilled workers so they can have a livelihood.
Hell, even the same amount of government payment, taken as a percentage tax of fairs, would be more reasonable, as it would allow people to not have a high up front cost, so, if, for example, they started with $500 in their bank account and got into an accident on their first fare, they wouldn't be fucked with $250 in their account and $400 in repairs, waiting for an insurance check, and now with no job. It would still suck if they had $470 and were facing the same issue, but it would be substantially easier for them.
"Safe service" is a crock. It's people, who have already been licensed to perform that very action they have extensive experience in, using equipment they have extensive time on, which is an everyday activity, and not "juggling tigers on top of a cliff" or anything like that.
And any moral panic about crime is just that, as someone is far more likely to get harmed at their destination than by the driver. And even fraud is especially difficult due to the fare mechanism and ability of customers to effectively exile their driver with only a small number of bad reviews.
And honestly, a shall issue license model, no long term contract, and using their own equipment makes Uber drives maximally mobile. Now, it avoids outright protectionism of deliberately clamping down on supply by arbitrarily limiting entry into the market, but I'd argue that's mostly a good thing (except at a national off-shoring / overuse of immigration to push down wages level).
Tinwhiskers has a good summary of this, really. Licensing is a sometimes useful tool, but it can also be rank protectionism and nanny statism that entrenches bad industries, such as many of them ones Uber competes with.
Good to hear regarding Hunt. They are a solid company, and one of the few I never heard drivers complain about driving for. Do they still have all the loads coming out of the Target yard in Pacific?
Also, if you are not on a per diem reimbursement program through the company, Ask about the Standard Meal Allowance with whoever does your taxes. OTR drivers are allowed a standard deduction for every day they are away from their home terminal. It's their way of not having to deal with 750 receipts for Subway, Carl's and Denny's from every driver out there. Much easier to deal with, and probably more than you are actually spending on food.
@NotoriusBEN
- John Stuart Mill
I don't know about livery drivers, but Uber just cancels your access to the app, which means they can't come pick you up since they don't know where you are.
Sorry, I don't even know which one of these two examples you bring up in your first paragraph you think applies to anything we are talking about. Cause neither fits.
The point of a licensing regime is to make people pay money up front for a thing that says "I am allowed to do X". And then, when they fuck up and break the rules, you take it away so they can no longer do X. It's that simple. There are safety checks and such before hand too but those are all related to that fact that the point of a licence is that not everyone has one and it can be taken away. Fees are attached to pay for administering the system and just as a general deterrent against fucking around with the system.
You see this in, say, your standard driving license.
Alternatively, you can give away licenses to any qualified person, and fine them for $250 (or worse, if it some heinous shit) if they fuck up, which has the added benefit of not putting the boot heel of cash outlays on the throats of the poor, nor fucks up the marketplace, but still has an identical penalty for wrongdoing.
I personally, prefer to know that when I get in a commercially operated vehicle that it is going to be safe, and not have bald tires and barely existent brake pads etc. So I want every vehicles I'm paying to ride in to have been inspected by a neutral and qualified 3rd party.
Its going to suck for the guy that wants to just give a couple rides a week, that this is going to price him out of the marketplace. But I prefer to err on the side of road and passenger safety, and having the government have to pay to inspect these vehicles that will be accumulating less than 5 hours a week of road time would be placing a huge financial burden on the municipality that they would not be recouping through a transaction tax. (Or else the transaction tax would have to be larger on the full time drivers to cover the part time ones, which is ridiculous, as those are the ones trying to make a living).
Much like someone who wants to sell some food out of their kitchen a couple of times a week would be priced out of that by all the inspections and licensing that is required for restauranteurs and how that is much more strenuous than someones private and personal kitchen used for feeding themselves / their family.
MWO: Adamski
Your false dichotomy is false. A 1% surcharge, as an example, would be an upfront cost for no parties involved, and delivered as a single yearly payment, would minimize transaction costs.
Most states already both have inspection regimes for vehicles, and theoretically have police who perform traffic related safety stops. We're not talking about some state of nature bullshit.
Firstly, every uber I have ever been in has been cleaner, looked and sounded far better maintained than every car from the bad old days when I had to call Joe's Dispatch.
Second, you dont have to shit on the working class driver to enforce safety and maintenance standards.
It isn't a false dichotomy, either the government pays the outlay for the inspections to be done, and the driver reimburses them immediately (drivers pay upfront), or the government pays the outlay and the drivers repay it over time (your transaction tax as an example).
MWO: Adamski
Wait. Wut?
So, let me get this straight. 99% of the cars on the road in Calgary could have bald tires and worn out rotors because the city has decided that it's fine that they go ten years without an inspection, but you're safety concerns are focused on uber?
Also, not only are they requiring annual inspections, they're requiring 134 point inspections, which are pretty expensive. They're requiring this in a city where it's totally cool not to have your personal vehicle inspected for a decade.
Jesus. The regulatory capture is real.
haha what
Canada doesn't require yearly inspection and registration for personal vehicles? Wow.
again with false dichotomies. Personal use /= business use.
so yes, i would expect a vehicle used for a business purpose to be held to a stricter standard than one used for personal use.
We're socialists, don't'cha'know.
Setting aside the fact that calling out a logical fallacy is a poor substitute for an argument. You dont appear to understand what a dichotomy is, let alone a false one.
No one is disagreeing with this. However when there are cars on the road that haven't been inspected since the Bush administration, it's pretty silly to require livery to shell out close to $200 a year to make sure that the fader on the radio works. It costs me about $30 to get my annual inspection. Here are all the things they check for.
http://dmv.ny.gov/brochure/new-york-state-vehicle-safetyemissions-inspection-program
Do you honestly think there about another 100 items that need to be checked annually at a cost of >$100 more?
That's ridiculous. Do you think the hand of God will gently nudge the vehicle of a guy who paid for their DD's drinks back onto the road, when their bald tires would have otherwise failed them, but the crass, commercial nature of a man or woman trying to feed their family will be a blight in the eyes of the Lord, and He will condemn them to a woeful fate?
If you want to make this argument about 18 wheelers carrying hazmat, that would be one thing, but the commercial distinction is exceedingly arbitrary, particularly when the government makes not even the most token attempt to protect people from themselves when they are the driver, or when a friend or relative is, but all of a sudden when they pay a fiver for the privilege, nothing but a king's carriage, slaved over by a dozen engineers for a dozen months, is sufficient.
Call me a daredevil, but I'm willing to live in an unregulated hellscape of inspected late model cars driven by licensed, insured drivers, that haven't be pre-approved by government busybodies. You may say, "What if Uber drops the requirements to be a licensed, insured, driver with an inspected vehicle!" and I say that while that idea could potentially be worrying, should our legislators be instituting regulations for the world as it is, or fevered dystopian imaginings?
In Calgary it costs $120 for a salvage inspection, and up to $350 for an inspection that includes checking alignment. $220 a year seems reasonable.
MWO: Adamski
The vehicle inspection has to be performed by a mechanic(not a technician) I'm not sure of the difference but I'm guessing a licensing thing. Here's the kicker they are all performed at private shops. With a 'recommended' price of $140 to $180. Also it needs to be done every 6 months or 50,000 km(or 29,400 freedom cubits), which doesn't seem like much if you are driving a vehicle full time.
So I was curious, what is in this critical 134 point inspection. I figured it'd be like 24 points just for all the various lights/indicators etc. So I found the website
http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/3748.htm
Where you can download the inspection standards for cars/light trucks and also for motorcycles. Scrolled down to commercial vehicles and
** Note**: Facility and Commercial Vehicle Manuals are not available for download. See “Purchasing Inspection Manuals” below for more information.
So just finding out what the inspection is will cost you $33.
So just to sum it all up:
$30 back ground check fee
$25 fee if finger printing is required
$220 municipal 'licensing fee'
$180 vehicle inspection fee-payable to 3rd party(at least twice annually)
So 635 annually.
And if you want to know how to check your vehicle yourself to avoid having to repeat a failed inspection, thats another $33 for a print book because fuck you that's why.
Ohh and then this doozy
http://www.calgary.ca/citycouncil/ward-1/Pages/News/Uber.aspx
Hello big brother.
Like in the US it's left up to each province to oversee their own licensing/inspection
I really haven't been following the conversation, but this struck me as odd...Why is that the kicker? Do they have public mechanic shops where you live? I mean with trucks, technically you can get inspected at the scale houses, but if there is a violation that puts the vehicle out of service, the driver is looking at a sizable fine and can't drive the vehicle someplace to get it fixed; they have to get a mechanic to drive out or get the vehicle towed.
- John Stuart Mill
Yes, but this should hardly be surprising given that we are in the early days of Uber. We haven't exactly stress tested the service yet, and regulations are for the worst case scenarios, not the best case ones. It's tautological to say, "Well, what's the point in regulations when everything is just fine & dandy?"
While that's fair enough, part of the reason for lax inspection in Alberta has been a decades long stint with a dysfunctional provincial government (the same one that completely cratered that province's economy, and the value of the Canadian dollar alongside it). Calgary is trying to get back up to speed with the modern world in that sense (and not every piece of red tape has been the right move, but it's a bit absurd to say that a proposed new taxi service should be moving backward in terms of inspections because apparently terribly lax regulations ought to be grandfathered in?).
The costs are not quite directly comparable because of the relative weakness of CAD as compared to USD (we pay a premium on most services here in comparison to equivalent services in the U.S.).
The Toronto area (and most populated areas on the Eastern side of the country) have more or less identical laws to Washington D.C. & NYC when it comes to housing & vehicle insurance, inspections, etc.
Alberta is a Very Special Little Snowflake as a result of years of non stop conservative governance. It's sort of amusing to listen to it being described as 'Big Brother'; most of the province's agencies were parceled off to private interests a long time ago (this is why you have to go to private mechanics to have your vehicle inspected, for example).
Nor does the vast majority of states in the US
Whaaaa? We don't have ((regular) mandatory vehicle inspections in Toronto, not for personal vehicles. Personal vehicles over 7 years old need to undergo a DriveClean test every 2 years to ensure their emissions are acceptable ($30, at private garages). We do need to register our vehicles by buying a sticker every two years ($108 per year), but there's no inspection involved; you can literally do it online. And there are mandatory vehicle inspections when a (used) car is being sold, but that sounds exactly like how @Gnome-Interruptus described Calgary's regime.