Uber in Waterloo Region

[ookpik]

Uber is willing to share the data with insurance companies

And yet as I understand it when Aviva does its post-claim underwriting they'll go to Uber to obtain the evidence that the driver violated the terms of the policy, e.g. drove more than 10 hours/week but had only <10 hr/wk coverage. So they must have some arrangement with Uber to get this data, at least on a special case basis.

Consider as well Uber's position. They want...
• insurers to cover their drivers in order to take the onus off Uber to provide a blanket policy (of questionable value to drivers) as they do now.
• to get legislators (and taxi companies) off their backs for the similar reasons.
• the cost of this insurance to be as low as possible in order to facilitate attracting drivers.
• they also want low insurance costs in order to stay competitive with taxis who pay higher commercial rates.

Uber has all sorts of incentives to cooperate with insurers. My inference is that it's the insurers (at least Aviva) who are too timid to innovate and/or all too willing to pass costs on to drivers. There's ample evidence of the latter in the auto insurance industry in general. 

Anyway it's most definitely good news that Uber drivers now have a way to get properly insured. My lament isn't with that but rather with the lost opportunity to leverage on Uber's technology.

[SammyOES]

I doubt it's timidity that's keeping Aviva from doing what you're talking about. It takes money to implement and it likely hurts their bottom line. Right now they're free rolling a bunch of people paying insurance that they won't have to pay out.

If the Government stepped in and said that insurance companies had to pay out any paying customer you'd probably see them investing in technology like this might quickly.

[tomh009]

Anyway it's most definitely good news that Uber drivers now have a way to get properly insured. My lament isn't with that but rather with the lost opportunity to leverage on Uber's technology.

Not lost, there is nothing that prevents them from doing this later, after they get some experience insuring Uber drivers and confirm that the business case is there for automating this.

[ookpik]

More than 100 taxis are blocking traffic in downtown Budapest, demanding a ban on Uber and other ride-hailing apps




How well is that going for them? Number of recent Uber app downloads:

[jgsz]

Yeah, but who wouldn't want to avoid riding in a Budapest cab?

[Section ThirtyOne]

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada...ndly-bylaw

I have to imagine that we'll see more bylaws such as these across Canada, hopefully here in Waterloo Region as well.

[Markster]

Waterloo Region is indeed working on one:
Draft Bylaw (July 2015)

They were receiving public input in the fall:
http://www.therecord.com/news-story/6062...om-public/

I believe that I've heard that things are currently going slowly, as they try to bring the taxi companies around on the issue.

[mpd618]

I believe that I've heard that things are currently going slowly, as they try to bring the taxi companies around on the issue.

Well, there seemed to be some movement on Hudak's "sharing economy" bill, and the Region would prefer a solution at the provincial level. But if it's not coming around then they'll implement their own updated rules. I think there's a report that should be coming back in the spring with revised implementation timelines.

[tomh009]

New bylaw on the way:
http://www.therecord.com/news-story/6716...law-means/

[MidTowner]

From the CBC: Uber, other ride-sharing services bylaw approved by Waterloo region

"All drivers must be able to provide a vehicle that is accessible and carry the proper insurance as laid out in the new bylaw."

Can anyone explain what accessibility entails?

[tomh009]

From the CBC: Uber, other ride-sharing services bylaw approved by Waterloo region

"All drivers must be able to provide a vehicle that is accessible and carry the proper insurance as laid out in the new bylaw."

Can anyone explain what accessibility entails?

The bylaw isn't online yet, but I believe what it actually requires is that all service provide accessible vehicles (ie wheelchair-capable vans), not that every vehicle must be accessible.

[Canard]

I don't t understand. Those two statements seem to contradict one another. I drive a small car without a wheelchair ramp - so it is not accessible to someone in a wheelchair. So I can't drive for uber? (Hypothetical)

[MidTowner]

We'll see when we can read the text of the bylaw. The article said all "drivers" must have an accessible vehicle, and I assumed the same- that that meant people with small cars (depending on how "accessible" is defined) couldn't drive for a ride-sharing service. But I bet tomh009 is right that it's probably similar to now, where each company has at least a few accessible vehicles available upon request.

[Canard]

But uber as a company relies on "volunteers" - there's no way to guaretee that there will be at least one person who is driving a ramp-equipped megavan.

[Elmira Guy]

If in fact it does mean all drivers must have vehicles that are accessible to people with wheelchairs, then I think that should also apply to cab companies. I say that not because I'm pro ride-share companies or anti cab company (I'm neither), but to mandate that only one business should be required to meet this standard is somewhat equivalent to the arguments of unfairness put forward by the cab companies toward the ride-sharing companies.
What's more, why shouldn't all cabs be at that standard? There are some pretty small vehicles being used by the cab companies. I can also imagine that if you are a person who requires a cab that is capable of handling a wheelchair, there must be times where the wait for such a vehicle could be significant.

Only my opinion.