Ride-hailing in Metro Vancouver: Uber, Lyft, Sidecar - emerging technologies

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Not just Kitsilano, much of the CoV. Admittedly, things are probably different in Port Coq and other 'burbs.

Point I'm trying to make is that our take-out industry isn't going to affect traffic the same way ride hailing does.

I go to KFC in Coquitlam once in a while and everytime I am in there there is a constant stream of drivers from three different companies, KFC's own delivery, Uber eats and Skip the dishes. They do a brisk business out there.

[flipper316]

More bitching and moaning. This time from the Okanagan.https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-263819-1-.htm#263819

[libtard]

Originally Posted by flipper316

More bitching and moaning. This time from the Okanagan.https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-263819-1-.htm#263819

BC will never allow Uber drivers to operate with just a class 5. For the same reason we are the only province that has an L and N program for new drivers.

[WestCoastEcho]

Originally Posted by libtard

BC will never allow Uber drivers to operate with just a class 5. For the same reason we are the only province that has an L and N program for new drivers.

You mean a graduated license program? Practically every province has such a program.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by WestCoastEcho

You mean a graduated license program? Practically every province has such a program.

I mean displaying an L or N on your car. No other province or state for that matter requires you to do such a thing. But I understand why it’s necessary. We have exceptionally bad drivers here in the lower mainland. Therefore a class 5 is just not enough for ride hailing.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by libtard

I mean displaying an L or N on your car. No other province or state for that matter requires you to do such a thing. But I understand why it’s necessary. We have exceptionally bad drivers here in the lower mainland. Therefore a class 5 is just not enough for ride hailing.

Other than the police criminal check what does class 4 exactly make them a better ride hailing driver. From all the taxi drivers I've seen they aren't much better than someone with a class 5.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Other than the police criminal check what does class 4 exactly make them a better ride hailing driver. From all the taxi drivers I've seen they aren't much better than someone with a class 5.

I was against the Class 4 requirement, but it's something we should all be able to live with. I'd say these are all reasonable and valuable requirements for anybody driving others around for money:

1. At least two years of driving experience with a Class 5 or 6 licence or out-of-province equivalent
2. Driving record with fewer than four penalty points in the past two years
3. No motor vehicle-related Criminal Code convictions in the past three years
4. Meet medical standards and pass a driver’s medical exam
5. Pass a road test with a vehicle suited to the Class 4 licence
6. Payment of all fines or debts owing to ICBC

[osirisboy]

Class 4 requirement makes no sense.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Class 4 requirement makes no sense.

It really doesn't. It hasn't been shown to improve driving quality and it was included to appease the taxi lobby.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

It really doesn't. It hasn't been shown to improve driving quality and it was included to appease the taxi lobby.

I don’t think it was only included to appease the taxi lobby though. If we’re going to let ride hailing drivers operate with just a class 5 then what is the point of displaying an L or N. I think a lot of it had to do with safety. I agree the Class 4 thing makes no sense but then so do displaying an L and N. You can’t be strict on one thin and lax on the other.

[WarrenC12]

No limits on the number of vehicles in operation to start. Taxi companies are pissed at Horgan. PTB can of course change that in the future, which is ok by me.

[jlousa]

Kudos, they got this one right. No quotas nor cities restriction. Have no issue with the class 4 requirement and think we are going to see additional jurisdictions follow suit. Fairly certain that the current restriction prohibiting them from picking up at Canada place will eventually be lifted.
There was talk about limiting hours so that this could only be done as a part time job, will see if they're revisit that as they are asking for the driver data, would not be surprised to see some tweaking in a year or so.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Kudos, they got this one right. No quotas nor cities restriction. Have no issue with the class 4 requirement and think we are going to see additional jurisdictions follow suit. Fairly certain that the current restriction prohibiting them from picking up at Canada place will eventually be lifted.
There was talk about limiting hours so that this could only be done as a part time job, will see if they're revisit that as they are asking for the driver data, would not be surprised to see some tweaking in a year or so.

Taxi companies are pissed at the lack of quotas or city restrictions. Ride-hailing companies are pissed at the class 4 requirement.

I guess pissing off both sides means the NDP got this one right.

[SFUVancouver]

The requirement that ride-hailing cannot undercut taxi fares is really quite frustrating to me, especially considering the exorbitant cost of taxis is largely driven by the broken cartel economics of taxi medallions, but the convenience of ride-hailing and far better customer experience is still going to be welcome.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by flipper316

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c...ling-vancouver-before-end-year-1.5243849
Wasn't this the same company crying and moaning and saying they're not gonna come here because they didn't like all the rules ie class 4 etc. Bunch of hypocrites. Really wish ride-hailing would just go away.

That's what these companies do, they threaten to get lax rules, but will continue to operate regardless. When Quebec brought in restrictions and tougher requirements, Uber vowed to pull out by a certain date. Then that day came and Uber continued to operate, it still does today. This was 2 years ago...

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

The requirement that ride-hailing cannot undercut taxi fares is really quite frustrating to me, especially considering the exorbitant cost of taxis is largely driven by the broken cartel economics of taxi medallions, but the convenience of ride-hailing and far better customer experience is still going to be welcome.

Taxis really aren't that expensive based on the rules they have to follow. The companies are making money, but they aren't like these fat cat oligopolies overcharging people (ie: Robellus).

The problems with the current system are:

1. Lack of cars when and where you need them
2. Lack of driver accountability/customer service
3. Stone age rules around territories, where cabs can pick up, drop off, etc.

Ride hailing deals with all 3 of those.

The reason that Uber is cheaper in some cities is because the company and its investors are massively subsidizing the rides, and the drivers are being paid shit, even below minimum wage when their costs are factored in. The first is unsustainable, the second is unwelcome.

[NewfBC]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

The requirement that ride-hailing cannot undercut taxi fares is really quite frustrating to me, especially considering the exorbitant cost of taxis is largely driven by the broken cartel economics of taxi medallions, but the convenience of ride-hailing and far better customer experience is still going to be welcome.

I read that the base (starting) fare cannot be lower than taxis.. but I think additional charges can be whatever they want to charge.

Ron.

[cairnstone]

There will be several gray market ride share companies that show up. I have already been emailed regarding there services. And as I recall the one that said should have drivers by September was about 25% across the board cheaper

[twoNeurons]

On the other side of the coin... this is an interesting article on how Uber and AirBnB effectively relied on flaunting all manner of laws to become what they are: https://www.disruptingjapan.com/dj-selects-the-real-reason-uber-is-failing-in-japan/

Putting aside all the feel-good fluff of the absurdly named “sharing economy”. Both Uber and Airbnb’s business models revolve around a kind of legal arbitrage.

Don’t get me wrong, I think both Uber and Airbnb are great services and I’ve used both of them. However, the only reason they can offer their services at the prices they do. They only reason they have such a powerful price advantage at all is because they choose to ignore a great many laws and regulations.

Airbnb hosts routinely ignore zoning laws, hotel taxes, safety regulations and insurance requirements. Uber does not require its drivers to have taxi or chauffeur licenses, obtain commercial insurance, pass commercial safely inspections or abide by dozens of other laws and regulations.

Now, many of these laws and regulations might be outdated and unnecessary, or even harmful, to the economy as a whole. That’s not what I’m here to talk about today.

No, they key point is understanding (without any kind of moral judgment) that the bulk of their competitive advantage comes from the fact that their competition must spend a great deal of money to obey laws and regulations that Uber and Airbnb ignore. In fact, when you sign up for Uber and click on their EULA, you explicitly agree and accept that Uber drivers may not be in full compliance with local laws and regulations.

And this brings us to another, exceptionally clever, part of their model. The bulk of the rule breaking is not actually done by the companies themselves, but by the Uber drivers and the Airbnb hosts. These people are not employees, so Uber and Airbnb are not legally responsible for their actions. Legally speaking, Uber and Airbnb are just platforms and hosts and drivers are operating independently and on their own volition.

From a common sense point of view, that’s obviously nonsense, but this legal fiction provides both business models with an effective legal shield. The authorities can’t easily come after the companies because they are not directly in violation of the law, and targeting individual drivers or hosts for enforcement is disastrous politically. Early on, several cities did make a few high-profile arrests of Uber drivers, and the backlash was swift and severe. Uber was seen as an innovator and the government was seen as both anti-progress and anti-citizen by arresting regular middle-class citizens just trying to make ends meet.

And as to why it's failing in Japan:

Mistrust of the government is pretty much universal, and that’s a good thing. Everyone complains that companies with ties to politicians are unfairly awarded contracts. Almost everyone agrees, in the abstract, that regulations are too complex and that taxes are too high. No one really trusts their government. Outside of the US, however, people trust private industry even less.

Americans seem uniquely credulous when companies claim that they are the real champions of the consumer and that regulations exist primarily to benefit politicians and their cronies. Many take Uber’s and Airbnb’s claims of standing up to stifling government regulations at face value. In the rest of the world, however, when Uber drives into town claiming to be the white night that will fight the government regulators in order to provide more jobs and lower cost services. People simply don’t believe them.

Nor should they. It’s a laughable position to take.

The US playbook assumes that consumers will come down on the side of the disruptor, but that doesn’t automatically happen in Japan.

When companies claim that labor protections, environmental laws, tax laws, insurance regulations, and licensing requirements all need to be changed in order for them to do business, those companies are viewed with extreme suspicion – particularly foreign companies. Such claims are not met with cheers, but with they question “What makes you such a special snowflake?” Just declaring that regulations are bad for innovation in general or your business, in particular, is not enough.

Remember folks... Uber is not some white knight coming in to rescue us from the taxi lobby. They are a large business that makes a LOT of money and breaks laws and wages PR campaigns against the government to change laws to become more favorable to them. While this is pretty much an SOP for business in the west, it's not like there aren't side effects when you go against the rule of law. Look at what AirBnB has done to places where it has entered. It's made these places cheaper for travelers, but much more expensive and aggravating for residents.

[WarrenC12]

That is all true, but "disruption bro!!!!".

I check both Airbnb and hotels when traveling. I'm finding that hotels have adapted, and/or the cheapest Airbnb providers have learned it isn't worthwhile, so there's good competition out there and lately I've been booking hotels for almost everything.

On the Uber side, yes they are terrible from a business perspective. And make no mistake, they aren't making money, they are bleeding Billions per year subsidizing cheap rides. They are taking advantage of the drivers who aren't very financially savvy. On the regulation side, it's clear that taxicabs have been flaunting everything from local bylaws to vehicle safety checks forever. They are both bad here, Uber isn't worse.