It sounds like a really crappy situation for both drivers and riders, plus even more of the…

Based on how they reacted to the bylaws my city implemented, my guess is that they feel it’s too burdensome. Where i live there really weren’t any bylaws to deal with Uber type services, there were pretty much only taxis. Uber started operating in Edmonton and then in January city council reviewed the situation and implemented a bylaw that I thought was actually pretty reasonable and Uber claimed it cause undo burden on them. The primary rules were:

  • drivers had to have an appropriate licence to drive people around (Uber wanted a regular driver’s licence)
  • drivers had to get either commercial insurance or a newly developed form of insurance who used their vehicle part-time for uber use (this kind insurance didn’t really exist before so they worked with insurance providers to develop this option)
  • a criminal record check (not just the background check uber does)
  • annual vehicle inspection

Uber made a big stink about the licence requirement and that where they lost me a bit to be honest. Partly because it’s actually the law that if you are driving people for money, you have to have a different kind of licence. They were actually breaking the law when they started operating using drivers with regular licences and then claimed it was difficult burden because it takes longer to get the commercial licence, when they really should have been doing that in the first place. Uber stopped operating here when the bylaw passed, but I believe they are planning to re-launch fairly soon.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.