(01-20-2015, 05:48 PM)Drake Wrote: Just off the hop, I can say when I renew my auto insurance I am asked if I use the car for business purposes eg do I make money with this car? If the answer is no, and I am an uber driver and get into a wreck, I am thinking I will be snookered there. If my passengers are hurt, I am thinking I will be responsible, etc etc... If I say yes, well then I am a taxi and I need a licence and I will pay more for auto insurance.Our posts crossed.
The insurance issue can be addressed by requiring Uber to obtain an insurance certificate from each prospective driver's insurer that certifies the driver and their vehicle are insured to a specified mandated minimum when driving for Uber.
Quote:I am not seeing the upside of this other than the neat-o app.The app also provides for rating the quality of service provided so that it's accessible to other prospective customers. Customers can then choose not to patronize drivers with bad ratings. This gives customers power to influence the quality of Uber's service that they don't have with the current taxi system.
There are other benefits such as pricing fares according to demand so as to encourage more off-peak usage.
Quote:I would rather see a better carshare/bike share and the LRT get runningAgreed. But this should be complementary, not mutually-exclusive, with improved "taxi" service.
Quote:Uber is not the future. They can be a driving force behind taxi reform, but other than that, I think they are opportunists that will bring nothing to our communities.Uber like any other business should be exposed to competition from even better models. If like the current taxi industry they can't adapt and change, then let them be supplanted by those better models.