Slashdot Mirror


Online Carpooling Service Fined In Canada

TechDirt is reporting on a disappointing development out of Canada. An Ontario transportation board has fined PickupPal, a Web-based service for arranging carpools, because a local bus company complained of the competition. (TechCrunch apparently first broke the story.) "[The transportation board has] established a bunch of draconian rules that any user in Ontario must follow if it uses the service — including no crossing of municipal boundaries — meaning the service is only good within any particular city's limits. It's better than being shut down completely, and the service can still operate elsewhere around the world, but this is yet another case where we see regulations, that are supposedly put in place to improve things for consumers, do the exact opposite."

114 of 541 comments (clear)

  1. No sense... by FredFredrickson · · Score: 5, Insightful
    According to the Ontario Highway Transportation Board, there are many restrictions regarding carpooling...

    * You must travel from home to work only â" (Not Home to School, or Home to the Hospital or the Airport) * You cannot cross municipal boundaries â" (Live outside the city and drive in â" sorry you cannot share the ride with your neighbour) * You must ride with the same driver each day â" (Want to mix it up go with one person one day and another person another day â" no sorry cannot do that â" must be same person each day) * You must pay the driver no more frequently than weekly â" (Neighbour drives you to work better not pay her right away just in case she drives you later on in the week)

    Personally, I'm confused as to how they came to these regulations. It's built on a faulty foundation that they could define carpooling as a very strict set of conditions- and then disallow any activity that didn't meet those conditions.

    It just plainly doesn't make sense. If I want to share a ride with a complete stranger and split the gas, how is that any different from sharing a ride with a family member? According to these restrictions, I can't drive myself and my mom to the airport and split the gas cost?

    It's my car and I'd much prefer to do with it what I'd please- I see absolutely no reason the government has any say in this!!

    Other Canadian news:
    -In a surprising decision by the Ontario Sandwich Authority, You may no longer split the cost of a foot long sub with somebody else and then each eat half, as it doesn't boost profits to our local sub shops...

    --
    Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    1. Re:No sense... by FredFredrickson · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sorry, the link : http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/11/12/ill-never-let-canada-live-this-down/

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    2. Re:No sense... by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The really good part of democratic govenments is that you can actually change the rules to improve them. The really bad part is that it's mostly just a theory, and rules only get added, not fixed.

    3. Re:No sense... by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh, there we go again, conservatives crying about the need for deregulation. Poppycock, I say! I say the problem is a lack of regulation! Heap more regulations on top of the pile until it's all fixed, I say! It's a good thing PickupPal got stopped doing their illegal and immoral business practices. Someone has to stand up for the consumers, primarily those of the local bus company.

      It's my car and I'd much prefer to do with it what I'd please- I see absolutely no reason the government has any say in this!!

      Haven't you heard? Government = Democracy = We The People = We Can Tell You What To Do. Really, why do you conservative blowhards need to kick and scream every time Leviathan tells you, "No, You Can't, For The Greater Good?" You live in a complex society with complex interpersonal interactions, by living in our System you surrender your rights and dignity for the collective so you can live happily and freely. So what if the masses don't understand the implications and issues they vote upon the great deal of the time? At least we live in a marketplace of ideas, which I can tell you is a much better marketplace than the oppressive one with money and goods and slave wages.

    4. Re:No sense... by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Democracy works--in theory.

    5. Re:No sense... by buswolley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am sure you are a victim of your own confirmation bias. There are plenty of cases where government gets it right, plenty of cases where businesses get it wrong.

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    6. Re:No sense... by MadCow42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's protectionism... same as import duties. These rules support the continued operation of an otherwise unsustainable business model (or enhance the profitability of one).

      If this model is taking business from the bus company, then that says clearly that it's providing a service or cost-effectiveness that the bus company can't (or isn't willing to). What's a better model for capitalism than this, for driving change and improvement for the customer?

      Further, I doubt that a large percentage of the carpooling service would be bus customers anyways... I'd bet that most of them weigh it against the option of driving their own cars. That's good for the environment - fewer cars on the road, and maybe fewer cars altogether.

      The only reason this gets messy is because the drivers are taking money for the service, making them an unlicensed small business operator. There's gotta be a better way to address this than outlawing an otherwise good-for-everyone-but-the-bus-company service.

      MadCow.

      --
      I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
    7. Re:No sense... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As usual the situation is a little less ridiculous than the blogs make it out to be.

      The bus company has a valid point that if I wanted to start a bus service but I didn't want to bother with things like safety regulations or hiring drivers with the appropriate license, I could easy just use the carpool site. The carpool site themselves were (they're not anymore) charging a commission.

      The bus company says it's unfair competition because anyone with a car can set themselves up as a mini bus company without the expense of adhering to safety regulations. The transportation board's worry is that there will be a bunch of amateur, unregulated bus/cab drivers running around.

    8. Re:No sense... by apathy+maybe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And the sad thing is that there are actually people who think like this.

      Democracy (as the word is commonly used, i.e. to mean elected a bunch of pricks who rule over you, doing what they like until you get the chance to elect them (or another bunch of pricks) again) may well be better than the alternatives tried (it is better to be able to pick your ruler than not, at least that's the theory), but it still is a load of shit.

      Try anarchy, now with extra helpings of freedom, and fuck off corporations, state, capitalism and tyranny. We don't need you to tell us what to do.

      ---

      Slightly more on topic, this is absolutely fucking crazy. It doesn't compete with the bus service, because cars are inherently more mobile than a bus run. Cars can go from point A, to point D, without all that visiting points B and C in between.

      There are obviously two different markets, one, mass transport along fixed routes, two, point to point transport by small numbers of people.

      Not to mention, if as FredFred says, only being able to go to work? Fuck off with that.

      Me, I suggest that all interested person's in that province, ignore this fucking stupid law. If it should ever get to a jury trial, you would hope that they wouldn't convict. (Not a lawyer, not sure if this sort of thing is criminal or whatever.)

      --
      I wank in the shower.
    9. Re:No sense... by Strep · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This ain't democracy. Was there really a 51% majority that voted for this? Representative democracy works... in theory... if you don't elect idiots as the representatives.

    10. Re:No sense... by Xoron101 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In theory, communism works too! See where that got the animal farm. Some people are just a little more equal than others.

    11. Re:No sense... by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Deregulation has worked great for the US banking industry.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    12. Re:No sense... by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are plenty of cases where government gets it right, plenty of cases where businesses get it wrong.

      The difference is that I have a choice of which private enterprises I do business with. Short of armed revolt or emigration I don't have that same choice when it comes to Government.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    13. Re:No sense... by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      hey they all made millions, its only the taxpayers it didn't work for!

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    14. Re:No sense... by robertjw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are plenty of cases where government gets it right, plenty of cases where businesses get it wrong.

      Amazingly enough, no one seems to be able to come up with examples of when the 'government gets it right', just plenty of cases where they get it wrong.

    15. Re:No sense... by fishbowl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >If I want to share a ride with a complete stranger and split the gas, how is that any different from sharing a ride with a family
      >member?

      It's not different until you operate a service that allows drivers to share rides with complete strangers for a fare.
      Then you become a taxicab company, even if it's a non-profit one. You suddenly have the problems of personal versus public transportation insurance, accommodation for handicapped users, and tax liabilities. If you can somehow make an argument that YOUR service is DIFFERENT, the taxi and private bus companies are going to use those SAME arguments, and then *every* taxi becomes "a carpool rideshare service", and they use your loophole to avoid things like insurance, tax, licensing, and safety regulations.

      You can still privately arrange carpools however you want, and you can even negotiate compensation for gas and wear-and-tear on the vehicle and stuff. You just can't setup a taxicab company and call it a duck.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    16. Re:No sense... by nschubach · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not to mention lack of knowledge or care. I posted in another story how my parents pay land tax for local schools, yet someone in town who doesn't pay land tax (because they rent, etc.) will vote for a levy to gain school funds because it sounds like a good thing to them. It's not coming out of their pocket.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    17. Re:No sense... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sometimes the deregulation can get out of hand. In Miami, the independent Jitneys would cut in front of buses to pick up passengers at city bus stops for something like $0.10 per ride less than the city bus. Ha! Stick it to the man, you say? All was fun and games until three and four Jitneys would start competing on the same route, at the same time, not only looking ridiculous, but completely snarling traffic since they blocked all lanes trying to cut in front of each other to get to the bus stops first. I think they were shut down before any really dramatic safety problems came up...

    18. Re:No sense... by CannedTurkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have to agree. As much as I wanted to buy into the sensationalist headline, there really are some valid concerns. For me though, the real issue wasn't that the system could be used to set up such a 'business' but instead, was it? Picking up random people and driving them to work isn't carpooling, it's a taxi service, and as such it needs to be regulated for the same reasons. Safety, insurance, etc.

      --
      Ingredients: Turkey, Mechanically Separated Turkey, Water, Salt, Flavour.
    19. Re:No sense... by nschubach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It would have worked if the feds didn't bail out the idiots. They'd be out of business by now.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    20. Re:No sense... by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Talking about more or less regulation (as the word "deregulation" does), is useless. A regulated market needs two things: Policy that makes sense, and exactly that minimum set of regulations necessary to reasonably implement that policy.

      People who are for "deregulation" generally assume that we started with neither of those things, and so removing some regulation will make things less screwed up. Those against "deregulation" assume we started with a situation reasonably close to those things and removing some regulations will break everything. And you know what they say about assumptions...

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    21. Re:No sense... by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In the US, you can change government officials and policy.

      Tell that to all the people who voted for John McCain. Remember that Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.... not a bad deal if you are one of the wolves but kind of a tough break if you happen to be the sheep.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    22. Re:No sense... by blueg3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Democracy generally only requires plurality and not majority. (Though, I suppose, if there are only two choices, those are the same.)

      It strikes me that in representative democracy, the difficulty of not electing idiots increases as the democratic pool increases. Your ability to influence federal elections (even if they didn't favor whoever is pseudo-arbitrarily chosen by the Democratic and Republican parties) is enormously smaller than your ability to influence local elections. It seems this is the big benefit of small federal government -- in order to have a system that more strongly reflects your desires, you want more power in the hands of the part of government you're more capable of influencing.

    23. Re:No sense... by geekoid · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There is a saying:

      A company does a hundred things wrong, and 1 right you only here about the 1 decision. The government does 1000 things right and 1 wrong, you only hear about the wrong one.

      This is true.
      A company just needs to to tralk about it's failures, and very few people know. The government has a lot of people whose sole purpose is to tell everyone when smething goes wrong.

      I worked in the private sector for about 38 years, and now I work for a city government. I see aso many thing being done correctly, for the benefit of the citizen. I see projects that are completed on time and within budget all the time.
      I see a lot less waste. (you can confuirm that by going to the labrary and looking at the numbers)

      But a son as 1 thing goes wrong, it's headlines. Sometimes it
      s becasue of a stupid elected official, sometimes it's due to unforseen factors. Like the price of rock suddenly going through the roof, sometimes it looks like a mistake because of a lack of facts.

      Bear in mind even a moderately size City has 1000's of projects going on every day.
      I ahve been pleasantly surprised working for the government. I have also learned a lot about why things seem so expensive.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    24. Re:No sense... by cthulu_mt · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wrong.

      The landlord pays property tax and that cost is passed along to tenants as part of the rent.

      --
      Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
    25. Re:No sense... by Kohath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In the US, you can change government officials and policy.

      Only in the majority.

      Increasingly, minorities and individuals have absolutely no recourse. In a free country, a person in the minority would be free. But freedom is ending in the US. Majorities can take what they want, force people to do what they want, and prevent anyone from escaping their control.

    26. Re:No sense... by Rary · · Score: 4, Informative

      Personally, I'm confused as to how they came to these regulations. It's built on a faulty foundation that they could define carpooling as a very strict set of conditions- and then disallow any activity that didn't meet those conditions.

      They're not disallowing anything. They're simply defining a carpool. Something that doesn't fit into that definition isn't disallowed, it's just not officially a carpool.

      If I want to share a ride with a complete stranger and split the gas, how is that any different from sharing a ride with a family member?

      You're more than welcome to do that. The problem here isn't sharing a ride with a stranger. The problem here is a business facilitating that sharing. The decision is basically saying that they are not facilitating carpooling, by the legal definition of carpooling, and that therefore what they are doing is facilitating transportation of passengers in public vehicles. The problem is that operators of public transportation vehicles must be licensed to operate a public vehicle, which these drivers are not.

      It's my car and I'd much prefer to do with it what I'd please- I see absolutely no reason the government has any say in this!!

      They don't. Carry on transporting whoever you want. Even call it a carpool if you want. No one cares. But don't try to operate a business facilitating public transportation without the appropriate licenses.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    27. Re:No sense... by eddy+the+lip · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seriously? Off the top of my head things that the Canadian gov't "gets right" (and I won't quibble over what the hell that means):

      1) post office
      2) fire department
      3) law enforcement
      4) military
      5) liquor distribution

      That's just a handful, and for the sake of discussion I'm leaving off a few high profile, controversial services that we'll just end up arguing about.

      Here in Alberta, Canada, a couple that private corporations are busy screwing up:

      1) electricity. This was de-regulated here a few years back, and prices sky rocketed nearly overnight.

      2) liquor distribution. We handed it over to private enterprise and prices dropped. For a year. I just visited our neighbour, BC, where it is still government run, and they have as good availability (I was shocked to walk into a corner store at midnight and find that they had a fully stocked gov't liquor store open), and most items are a good 10% cheaper.

      I don't actually have a problem with liquor distribution being privately run. It's not an essential service; but if the benchmark is "serving the consumer better", it failed.

      I don't think having the government run everything would work out so well, but this canard that it's inherently inefficient and private enterprise always does it better has got to be put to bed.

      --

      This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.

    28. Re:No sense... by powerlord · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a slashdot signature I've seen recently said:

      "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding who to eat for dinner. Liberty is the sheep having a gun."

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    29. Re:No sense... by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Until the Government takes the gun away from the sheep for it's "protection"......

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    30. Re:No sense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I have mod points, but strangely, see no "-1 Possibly Drunk" option...

    31. Re:No sense... by Dravik · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most people who rent don't understand that. That is also why they tend to vote for "rent control" laws without understanding that it reduces to overall availability of apartments and they end up paying much more for "rent controlled" apartments on the secondary sublet market. See New York City for this example.

      --
      The purpose of language is communication, If the idea is clear the grammar ain't important
    32. Re:No sense... by johneee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is indeed protectionism, absolutely, but not necessarily in the way you think it is.

      The rules absolutely are draconian and absurd the way they're written, but I understand the intent. If there were no rules whatsoever, then we'd have a situation where someone could run an unlicenced taxi company or even a bus company. While I can't see that anybody is being harmed by ride sharing as intended by the carpooling website (and in fact there are considerable environmental and economic benefits) it might not be too much of a stretch for someone to use a site like that to pick up some extra money driving people around on the weekends, or people doing it full time even... And at that point, you have what could become a huge problem. In Toronto we have a highly regulated taxi system, and some of the vehicles and drivers they have working them sometimes scare me. I don't even want to think of what could happen if anybody could pay $1500 from the used car lot and legally start picking up passengers for a fee. Or, for that matter, arrange for rides every day from Hamilton to Toronto in a thirty year old school bus... (They seem to run around a thousand bucks on ebay)

      Now, of course, my examples are to a certain extent ridiculous... However, these are the kinds of things that are absolutely something the government must guard against and they are something that the current regulations guard against. The regulations, however, also guard against other things (intentionally or not) that they shouldn't.

      Conclusion: The regulations AS THEY ARE WRITTEN go too far and should be adjusted in some way that makes it possible for private citizens to take someone else with them when they go from city to city and get some help with gas money but absolutely does not allow for someone to operate an unregulated taxi, limo, or bus service. I don't know what the wording should be, but anyone on here (and I've read a few things like this) who suggest that stupid regulations like this should be simply abolished should just compare the health of Canada's tightly regulated banking system to the health of the United States' loosely regulated banking system and have a ponder on the possible similarities.

      --
      - ------- There are ten kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who... Huh?
    33. Re:No sense... by Fox_1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Historically there's been problems with this kind of car pooling service. A number of years ago a company (allo cars? or something) was doing the same type of service. Some of the drivers were using big old crappy vans with no seatbelts. That continued until one of the vans wiped out and the company was shutdown.

      The point is it's a great idea to car pool and to coordinate that with others on a website. It's a bad idea for people looking to make a buck to co-opt the website and run unlicensed, uninsured and unsafe private taxi/bus service. That is what was happening here.

      --
      The rock, the vulture, and the chain
    34. Re:No sense... by nschubach · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not direct. The renter only sees the check they pay. Not where it's going. Then when the landlord raises rent, they complain that they are greedy bastards.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    35. Re:No sense... by philspear · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The cold war is over, I don't think anyone would object if you used Soviet Russia itself as an example of what goes wrong with communism. It was a little more complicated than the animal farm's failure, for example, largely failing because it's not a good economic system, not because Gorbachev started walking on two feet instead of four.

    36. Re:No sense... by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Deregulation has worked great for the US banking industry.

      Actually, it was over-regulation that broke the US banking industry. When you force banks to give loans to people without any means of paying them back, the banks are going to fail. If you just leave the banks to decide who they loan money to, they tend to make sure that their customer is able to pay it back before giving out this year's Christmas bonuses.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    37. Re:No sense... by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I live in Canada. Ontario, actually.

      I have an appointment to see my MPP (Member of Provincial Parliament, for you non-Canadians) in a couple of weeks regarding another issue.

      I'll sure as hell be letting him know I'm very unimpressed with this, and grilling him as to how the government can control what people do with their private cars, as long as no road regulations are broken.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    38. Re:No sense... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We don't have a true democracy. We don't get to choose who we vote for, we get to choose from a short list of candidates approved by those with economic power. We don't get to vote on issues, but have to vote for a representative we wouldn't have picked for ourselves if we'd been able to choose anyone we wanted. And finally, we don't get to revoke our vote when it no longer reflects our views, but are forced to hand our political power off to someone for years at a time with no recourse should they abuse it.

      This democracy was designed to fail, by those who would lose power if it succeeded, and has been in the custody of those whose motives are contrary to true democracy ever since. Doesn't really matter what country you live it, this statement still holds true.

      Modern democracy is like a carrot in front of a donkey who will never get to eat it, but keeps chasing it anyways.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    39. Re:No sense... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, some countries take that approach. Ever taken a gypsy cab in one of them?

      Also remember, you are discussing something in a country that is not the US. Here in Canada we take a bit of a different approach. In the US, if something happened, the passenger or his family would just sue everyone they could think of. Here were like to take a bit more of a proactive approach and try to prevent tragedies.

    40. Re:No sense... by Alaska+Jack · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Informative though it may have been modded, this take on democracy is wrong, at least as far as the U.S. goes (it's not clear whether by "we" you mean the U.S., Canada, or the western world). The U.S. was not the world's first democracy. But it was the first large-scale attempt at it that tried to draw on the lessons of the past. Did you know that every surviving account of democracy (Athens, Italian city-states, etc) was harshly *critical* of it? Greek observers of the day, for example, wrote what were even by modern standards very sophisticated, insightful critiques of democracy and the way it eventually boiled down to simple mob rule. What was revolutionary about what the Americans did was the way they attempted (drawing on the previous work of French, English and Scottish enlightenment theorists) to develop and implement a *hybrid* system, one that blended aspects of authoritarianism and democracy in a way that emphasized the best aspects of each and ameliorated their weaknesses. So, for example, some people think that the reason they didn't implement direct democracy is because they didn't have the practical means to disseminate information, vote, etc. This is not true. The American founders didn't WANT direct democracy, because historically that had inevitably lead to a tyranny of the majority. They wanted educated, worldly men to make the decisions ... but they wanted the people to choose WHICH educated, worldly men made those decisions. - Alaska Jack

    41. Re:No sense... by Alaska+Jack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "2) liquor distribution. We handed it over to private enterprise and prices dropped. For a year. I just visited our neighbour, BC, where it is still government run, and they have as good availability (I was shocked to walk into a corner store at midnight and find that they had a fully stocked gov't liquor store open), and most items are a good 10% cheaper."

      This is breathtakingly naive. *You are paying* for the availability and the relative "cheapness" of the government-subsidized liquor store ... and so is everyone else, *even those who don't drink*. The funds you pay are called "taxes." Furthermore, you are almost *certainly* paying *more* than you would if it were not a government operation ... as has been shown thousands of times, governments simply do not have the same incentives to achieve the same high levels of efficiency that businesses competing against each other do.

          - Alaska Jack

    42. Re:No sense... by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Well, he you are going to go 'there' then why should those of us that are childless have to pay taxes to pay for schools?

      Now actually I don't mind paying that tax , that is infrastructure, but I DO have a problem with targeted tax breaks to people with kids! If they get a tax break for fucking and having a kid and I don't, then I am effectively subsidizing their choice to have kids. That is not fair! If anything parents should be charged more since they use more resources.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    43. Re:No sense... by retchdog · · Score: 3, Informative

      Bullshit. Every rent-controlled lease/sublease I've looked at, was a lot cheaper than an uncontrolled apt. What am I missing here? Rent control can't possibly slow down new apt. development, since new apts are not rent controlled.

      Note, I'm not saying that rent control is necessarily a good thing; I'm just saying that there doesn't seem to be evidence that it hurts me (a poor by NYC standards person looking for an apartment).

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    44. Re:No sense... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 3, Informative

      wrong. The "forcing" companies to make loans was only a few companies that were caught gaming the books. The feds choose to have them "help the poor" rather than levy appropriate fines. That said, they should have been harsh and shut down the FMs when they cooked the books years ago in spite of the harm because their cheating is what brought down the system. Mercy is what cause the banking crisis not regulations.

      A standard "poor" FHA loan allows 7-9.5% interest when going rate for mortgages was 5.5%. Trouble was that they started "betting against" the sub par loans.. then they started loaning people with "good" credit vastly over extended sums to put them into loans rated for "poor" people (hence the zero down, interest only loans... hint "poor" don't get those... ever) Until they saturated that market. Realize they "bet against" those same people multiple times over (5-20 times the value of the amount borrowed!) They structured these "bets" like insurance, but just enough different to require zero regulation... until the market was saturated then when a small number couldn't pay the thing crashed.

      In short, they took a punishment for not playing by the rules, pretended to do a "good thing", then continued to invent new ways to bend the rules on a massive scale while setting normal people up to fail.

    45. Re:No sense... by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding who to eat for dinner. Liberty is the sheep having a gun."

      So liberty means that the majority either starves or gets shot for the benefit of the minority. Not a bad analogy, actually...

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    46. Re:No sense... by grimarr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's been a while since I was actively flying, but as a private pilot, I was not allowed to carry passengers for hire or compensation (that required a commercial certificate at least). However, I was allowed to share the cost of a flight. That seems like an exactly analogous situation. If I recall correctly, one of the main factors in determining whether a passenger was paying for the ride or sharing the cost was whether the pilot would have made the flight without the passenger. If so, that's pretty good evidence that he's not a taxi. I think the same logic should apply here.

    47. Re:No sense... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Funny

      Democracy works--in theory.

      In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    48. Re:No sense... by Alaska+Jack · · Score: 3, Informative

      MADE THAT INTO TOTAL GIBBERISH for you

      Fixed that for you.

      The best description of all this I've ever read is the preface to Models of Democracy, a textbook by David Held. Held is a left-wing Brit whose politics I do not agree with at *all*. But his explanation of what the American founders were *trying to do*, and why, (setting aside the question of how well they succeeded) is second to none. For your sake, I strongly recommend picking this up from your local library and just reading the preface. You will actually learn something.

      - Alaska Jack

    49. Re:No sense... by eddy+the+lip · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, when Alberta sold of the ALCB, it was turning a profit. Thank you for playing.

      --

      This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.

    50. Re:No sense... by b0bby · · Score: 2, Informative

      He's planning to close gitmo, for one.

    51. Re:No sense... by deodiaus2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Surprisingly, about 70% of the people who called their elected representatives voiced their opinion AGAINST the bail out. However, as was evident on CNBC during an interview with one of our ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, our representatives chose to ignore our overwhelming opinion and decided to do what was in the best interests of the country (e.g. the lobbiest who put them in power). The interviewee said that he ignored the flood of calls and emails on this subject, even if it meant his losing his seat. Another interesting thing was that the Republicans voted against the second proposal [I guess so that they could claim that they opposed it], but Bush [the banker family] signed it into law. As long as we have the college electoral system in place, third parties cannot obtain a position in government nor grow. This was by design. The last time the two dominate parties changed was during the formation of the Republican party and Abe Lincoln. However, this was funded by a massive support of the railroad companies. The railroad companies couldn't care less if the South wanted slavery and the North didn't, but they were not going to stay idle and watch the Confederacy tax their business. The rallying cry was, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." Will someone point out that $120 Billion is a lot of money to bail out AIG? Oh yes, it is a loan. Well, first, what happens if that loan is never paid back because AIG fails anyway. Second, the terms on that loan are ridiculously low and do not reflect the fair market rates. Where can I get such a loan? Never the less, this $700B is going to bail out rich investors and a few middle class investors, but I doubt that it is going to avoid the Greater Depression in the following years to come. Why should I get stuck with the bill? http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10812 Thank god we have the best form of government MONEY can BUY!

    52. Re:No sense... by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Interesting

      wrong. The "forcing" companies to make loans was only a few companies that were caught gaming the books. The feds choose to have them "help the poor" rather than levy appropriate fines. That said, they should have been harsh and shut down the FMs when they cooked the books years ago in spite of the harm because their cheating is what brought down the system. Mercy is what cause the banking crisis not regulations.

      Uh, those few companies that you spoke are FannieMae and FreddieMac, who combined make up a vast majority of loans made in the US. They are pretty much in control of mortgages, student loans, auto loans, business loans, etc. So, by saying that it is "a few companies" is a bit of an understatement. But one point you don't dispute is that they were "forced" to give loans to people who couldn't pay them back, regardless of the rate.

      However, you could have (should have?) pointed out that much of the problem was this new idea of rolling up these bad loans and dumping them on the stock market. This was a bad idea that made a bad problem much worse as it hid the bad debt on Wall St, putting off the inevitable collapse, and spread the risk of these bad loans to the stock market and sticking ignorant investors with the bill.

      However, to get this back to the original point, this was something that should have been regulated to prevent the problem from affecting more than just banking.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    53. Re:No sense... by WuphonsReach · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sometimes the deregulation can get out of hand. In Miami, the independent Jitneys would cut in front of buses to pick up passengers at city bus stops for something like $0.10 per ride less than the city bus. Ha! Stick it to the man, you say? All was fun and games until three and four Jitneys would start competing on the same route, at the same time, not only looking ridiculous, but completely snarling traffic since they blocked all lanes trying to cut in front of each other to get to the bus stops first. I think they were shut down before any really dramatic safety problems came up...

      So they should have been fined based on breaking existing traffic laws.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    54. Re:No sense... by eddy+the+lip · · Score: 4, Informative

      My point was that the ALCB was not being subsidized by taxpayer dollars, as you seemed to be asserting:

      This is breathtakingly naive. *You are paying* for the availability and the relative "cheapness" of the government-subsidized liquor store ... and so is everyone else, *even those who don't drink*

      It wasn't just paying for itself, but contributing back to the budget, hence benefiting taxpayers.

      Thinking about it, there may have been efficiency gains in that they controlled the full distribution chain, meaning fewer middle men.

      Heck, I could even be wrong on this one - a fellow Albertan notes further down the chain that he thinks overall liquor has become cheaper. I still firmly stand by my assertion that government run is not inherently inefficient, and I'm rather tired of it being taken as an absolute truth, like gravity.

      --

      This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.

    55. Re:No sense... by Kohath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It doesn't work. Guns don't prevent any oppression until the oppression becomes so bad you'd sacrifice (or at least gravely risk) your life to end it.

      The oppressors know this, so they make sure to try to oppress just a little short of this threshold.

    56. Re:No sense... by Skater · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So our hypothetical renter is ignorant of the tax obligations of his landlord?

      Yes, along with all of the other expenses involved in owning and maintaining a property. Some renters do understand, but many more believe the landlord is taking the rent check and slipping it into their pocket every month and living like royalty while sitting around watching TV all day.

      When I was renting, I knew that wasn't true, but it wasn't until I bought a condo and, later, a house, that I really understood how expensive it is to own and maintain a piece of property.

    57. Re:No sense... by smoker2 · · Score: 4, Funny

      More like - yep, that's a government worker alright !

    58. Re:No sense... by canajin56 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1. Please show me where I said the ALCB wasn't making a profit.

      OK, here we go:

      *You are paying* for the availability and the relative "cheapness" of the government-subsidized liquor store ... and so is everyone else, *even those who don't drink*. The funds you pay are called "taxes."

      This isn't like an American company where it's turning a profit but only because of government bailouts and subsidies. They aren't a private entity at all. It's a branch of the government. There is no subsidy. If it turns a profit, that money isn't kept by the CEO. It goes into government coffers. If they turn a profit, it is a revenue source for the government. Therefore, the government can spend more and tax exactly the same. Thus, ALCB lowered taxes, or rather, allowed more government spending without raising taxes. There are cases of government run corporations that don't turn a profit. Back to BC again, BC ferries eats a loss. People want it privatized since it is using up tax dollars. The counter argument is that if it is privatized, the new corporate owners will terminate unprofitable runs. Therefore, the smaller BC islands will suddenly have no ferry service. This argument is not so cut and dry, as it's a pretty essential service to be able to get food in your grocery store! Remote towns need more roads to reach them, but the taxes they pay for those roads are the same as mine, even though my city needed less roads built to it to keep it connected.

      Anyway, the previous poster is wrong. LCBO in Ontario, and BC Liquor in BC are actually slightly more expensive than the private providers in Ontario and BC. And they sure aren't open later! BC Liquor in particular is a very governmental type business. I think it's what, 10AM-4PM most days. Open till 8PM on Friday nights only. In BC if you wanted wine with dinner and it wasn't Friday, you had to go to a private store, at least if you worked a 9-5. The LCBO in Ontario is a bit better, they all seem to be open later, but have a lot less selection than say, The Beer Store.

      In summary, you did pretend to have special knowledge by assuming that the province run stores were eating a loss and thus requiring government bailouts.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    59. Re:No sense... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree! The problem is, the website in question doesn't do anything to make sure it's not for profit. The one example in the newspaper article (which you can get to, eventually, by following the blog chain), is of someone paying $60 to go from Toronto to Montreal. Google maps says that's a 541 km drive. Having done it, it's mostly good freeway, i.e. highway driving.

      Now, the peak gas price in Toronto was $1.38/L. Let's use 12 L/km as a reasonable fuel consumption (this is achieved by even many pickup trucks). So you'd expect the gas for the trip to cost, at worst, around $62. So this guy wasn't just splitting the gas with his customer... er passenger, was he?

      Using my numbers he wasn't making a profit, but he certainly could have done so if he'd driven a compact or subcompact and didn't happen to buy gas at the highest price ever recorded. And that's the one case the newspaper happened to publish numbers for.

    60. Re:No sense... by arth1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Representative democracy works... in theory... if you don't elect idiots as the representatives.

      This could, of course, be a result of people tending to vote for someone they can identify with.

      There is an unfortunate trend of people seeing cleverness as arrogance, which they detest.

    61. Re:No sense... by zoney_ie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The hybrid idea is nice in theory, and I think actually probably quite a number of countries have aspects of it (e.g. members of the upper house not elected by the general public, or the EU commission elected by governments not the public). However, I think in practice, we mostly seem to get the balance wrong. Indeed I think often governments can at the same time be too authoritarian in some areas and not authoritarian enough in others.

      There's no doubt that though we haven't really found much alternative other than these hybrid aspects, democracy mostly seems to be not entirely satisfactory, and it is certainly not an absolute defence against a bunch of nutjobs getting into power. So it does get to me when particularly in the USA, people sing gushing praises of democracy. It's certainly preferable to the alternatives, but it is not some divine perfect form of government. Installing democracy is not really a valid argument for invading a country either.

      A final note - if less socially-orientated governments invested a lot more in education, then democracy in those countries would work better (in addition to just about everything else benefitting, including the ability of the country to make money).

      --
      -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
    62. Re:No sense... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It would have worked if the feds didn't bail out the idiots. They'd be out of business by now.

      And they would've taken the rest of the US economy with them. Brilliant! Free market economics wins again!

      Wait...

    63. Re:No sense... by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 2, Informative

      Often Canada's democracy works in theory and not in practice... except for the fact the government is elected.

      The party whips in parliament (and provincial parliaments and legislatures) are way too strong. If a member of a political party doesn't vote the way the leaders of that party (federal or provincial) want, the party leader will almost always kick the member out of the party and they have to sit as an independent. So if your party wins the election and you are an elected representative, the prime minister (federal party leader of the party in power) or premier (provincial) will always tell you how to vote on every legislative vote, and you vote that way or you are marginalized as an independent (since you are now kicked out of the party). Independents by rule get virtually no chance to speak or express their views in the house, and independent candidates, even if formerly elected as part of a party, are rarely if ever elected as they won't have the ear of a party leader. So basically, they are lame duck after this happens. (BTW, the prime minister or premier of a province acts similarly to the majority leader of the house or senate, except they also get to form a government and lead the cabinet.) What ends up happening then when a party wins a majority (> 50%) of the seats, and which happens quite often, is that whatever laws the prime minister wants for the country, or a premier wants for their province, is passed. i.e. as long as they are in power, the prime minister or premiers have a virtual dictatorship. They can do what they want this side of causing an uprising. Prime Minster Mulroney in the 80's came pretty close to that when he passed the NAFTA legislation. Elections don't have to be called for 5 years btw.

      The end result of this is that your locally elected representative never really represents you to parliament. They never fight for what is best for the constituents. They all kowtow to the leader (prime minister or premier). So in essence they represent parliament to their constituents; the exact opposite of what a good democracy will have. It sucks and needs to be fixed, but people who are vying to be prime minister will talk about change, but when they get a taste of power, they eat their words and nothing changes.

      Sometimes, like right now, a minority government is elected. This means that sometimes the party forming the government will have to work with other parties. But if the minority is just shy of a majority, they can do pretty much what they want since they can slant the legislation in a way that matches what at least one of the other 3 parties elected would like and it will pass (they put enough sugar on it to get one of the others to help). Often the ruling party will throw another really stupid wrench we have up here into the mix to help them do this: The non-confidence vote. They can make any vote a 'non-confidence vote' (a budget vote is always a non-confidence vote for some stupid reason). If a vote on a bill is declared by the prime minister to be a non-confidence vote, and the government loses the vote, parliament is dissolved by the Governor General and a new election called. Since all parties vote in monolithic blocks according to how their leader wants each member of their party to vote (remember, members will be kicked out of their party if they don't), the party(s) that sinks the government is easy to identify. As people get sick of too many elections, the party that had formed the government can point at them as the culprits and get a boost at the polls from people pissed off at those who forced 'yet another election' too soon (elections aren't forced to happen on fixed dates). So this is a way to try to force other parties to pass legislation even if you have a minority. And another instance of legislators not representing their electorate. By and large, a minority government in Canada is as close as we get to a democracy, but it is to quote a phrase I heard somewhere, like putting lipstick on a pig.

      Canadians by and large

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  2. You're Doing It Wrong by serutan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I thought the government was only supposed to provide services that the private sector can't or won't provide with reasonable cost and quality.

    1. Re:You're Doing It Wrong by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Depends on your type of government. The more you move toward socialism, the more the government is concerned with creating jobs through this sort of hackery.

      Once you start protecting industries purely because they employ people, you're in trouble.

      Right now in the US, it's the automakers. The traditional rationale for protecting them is because our national security requires the manufacturing base (in case we have to switch it over to tanks, for example).

      But when the government props an industry up, it becomes less efficient. Recessional trimming is necessary to keep businesses from institutional bloat; it forces them to explore alternatives, improve their products, and to trim their workforce. If they never have to do that, then they'll never be competitive with companies that do.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    2. Re:You're Doing It Wrong by metamechanical · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I thought the government was only supposed to provide services that the private sector can't or won't provide with reasonable cost and quality.

      Which is exactly what's happening here - I'm sure if there was a private sector company that provided services to the bus companies like imposing draconian regulations onto carpoolers, the bus companies would never have needed to turn to the government to provide these services!

      --
      If I had a nickel for every time I had a nickel, I'd be richcursive!
    3. Re:You're Doing It Wrong by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...everything is up for voting upon in a democracy, and people tend to view those that have more as not fairly sharing the wealth or not giving them what they deserve. Which is why I'm in favor of "Equal Access" legislation that requires supermodels to go on just as many dates with homely computer geeks as they do with handsome movie actors and pop stars. I'm calling it the "Cowboy Neal Dating Fairness Act of 2008". I hope you will all support me in insuring this bill becomes law!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  3. Re:Canadians carpool? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 4, Funny

    They ride moose up there. They're bigger.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  4. Outdated laws are being changed by IPCanuck · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is a bill already before the Ontario Legislative Assembly to update the regulations to explicitly allow this practice. It is disappointing that the OTB didn't wait until the bill had passed before passing judgement, but at least we can hope the situation won't last long. The same bill would outlaw some common driver distractions, such as television screens and handheld cell phones.

    http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=2099

    1. Re:Outdated laws are being changed by Dzimas · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hmm. There's a gaping hole in the new legislation when it comes to banning devices with screens. The new law prohibits me for using a laptop with a GPS receiver for navigation, because the device could be used for other functions. Same goes for the iPhone. I despise legislation like this because it's already outdated and riddled with holes before it goes into effect.

    2. Re:Outdated laws are being changed by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A misguided bill.
      There should be no law banning phones/TVs.
      Just a reckless driving law. Does it matter why they were driving recklessly? What next, a specific bill to ban putting on makeup? shaving? reading a news paper? eating?
      Getting that specific is needs, wasteful, leave loop holes, and harms any potential valid need to do thjose things.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Outdated laws are being changed by powerlord · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, there isn't a glaring hole. The law specifically says you CAN use those devices, so long as you are not holding them.

      If you can't use the device in a "hands-free" mode, then you probably shouldn't be the one trying to use it and drive. If you CAN (mount the laptop w/GPS somewhere you can see it, or rely on its "voice notifications"), then there isn't a problem. If you have to try holding a laptop w/GPS, and driving, then for safety's sake, you should probably just get a Car GPS like the rest of the Joe-Sixpacks, instead of insisting on making "one device do everything").

      This seems no different than the rash of similar "No cellphone while driving" laws that have popped up in the states.

      From the law:

      2. Part VI of the Act is amended by adding the following section:
      Hand-held devices prohibited
      Wireless communication devices

      78.1
      (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway while holding or using a hand-held wireless communication device or other prescribed device that is capable of receiving or transmitting telephone communications, electronic data, mail or text messages.
      Entertainment devices

      (2) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway while holding or using a hand-held electronic entertainment device or other prescribed device the primary use of which is unrelated to the safe operation of the motor vehicle.
      Hands-free mode allowed

      (3) Despite subsections (1) and (2), a person may drive a motor vehicle on a highway while using a device described in those subsections if the person is not holding the device.
      Exceptions

      (4) Subsection (1) does not apply to,
      (a) the driver of an ambulance, fire department vehicle or police department vehicle;
      (b) any other prescribed person or class of persons;
      (c) a person holding or using a device prescribed for the purpose of this subsection; or
      (d) a person engaged in a prescribed activity or in prescribed conditions or circumstances.
      Same

      (5) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of the use of a device to contact ambulance, police or fire department emergency services.
      Same

      (6) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if all of the following conditions are met:
      1. The motor vehicle is off the roadway or is lawfully parked on the roadway.
      2. The motor vehicle is not in motion.
      3. The motor vehicle is not impeding traffic.

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
  5. Re:Walking by Wells2k · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This sort of reminds me of a short story that Asimov wrote about a boy who decided he no longer wanted to use the transporters in every home in order to go to school. He preferred walking to school each day instead, much to the horror of his mother.

    It just... piqued my memory, I guess.

  6. Goooo Unions! by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because nothing says "Good System!" like using your lobbying clout to get the government to shut down your more efficient competition.

    If you can't compete, then you shouldn't be in the game.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    1. Re:Goooo Unions! by dcollins · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's nothing in either article mentioning unions even a single time regarding this story. You're a liar and a propagandist.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  7. Okay I was wrong.. by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I read the link figuring that there must be some good reason for this law. It may be an outdated reason but I figure there must still be some reason.
    I was wrong.
    Of course it reminds me of something that happened to me at work.
    My company sold software to a Canadian government agency. They pay a yearly fee for updates and support. On day I got a call from the Canadian tax department. They wanted to know how much the update disks we where shipping to the other agency where worth. This was before the Internet was available to mortals.
    Well six floppies so about six dollars. I told them the updates where free.
    They kept arguing with me to tell them how much the updates where worth. It seems that they needed to charge tax the people that where receiving the updates.... I told them that IT WAS THERE OWN GOVERNMENT!!!!
    The told me that it didn't matter. So I asked them this ,"You need to know how much to charge the government so you can give that money to the government?"
    They said yes, and didn't even laugh. In fact they where a little ticked that I couldn't see the logic in it.
    I told them that they had just invented Taxabation and they hung up on me.
    We talked to our clients and set up a bbs so they could download the updates from then on.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:Okay I was wrong.. by keithpreston · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is the most media fueled common misconceptions, please stop using it. Apple did not charge because Sarbanes Oxley, they charged because of additional patent/royalty costs. 802.11n has more patents then 802.11g so it costs more to license. It the same with MPEG, H264 cost more the H263 which cost more the base mpeg4 to license. When they originally sold you a router they only licensed it for 802.11G, who would pay more if they don't have to? You essentially were paying Apple's additional IP costs.

    2. Re:Okay I was wrong.. by geekoid · · Score: 2, Informative

      That does make sense. Clearly you ahve no economic and/or financial experience.

      There is no 'The Government' there are a series of agency and people and accountability.

      Your ignorance makes you look foolish.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Okay I was wrong.. by Chyeld · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's out there becaus that's what Apple said.

      Specificly

      Update 2: Another Apple representative has added details on the Sarbanes situation: it's about accounting. Because of the Act, the company believes that if it sells a product, then later adds a feature to that product, it can be held liable for improper accounting if it recognizes revenue from the product at the time of sale, given that it hasn't finished delivering the product at that point. Ridiculous.

      Update 3: Apple has confirmed today to CNet that it will be selling 802.11n unlock software for its Core 2 Duo Macs, and indeed cited accounting concerns as the reason for selling the feature rather than giving it away. If you're not buying the new 802.11n AirPort Extreme, the good news is that the software will be available for $1.99 through its web site - a truly token price for an improvement of this caliber - and in light of the comments below, I'll clarify two major points on this whole situation.

  8. Re:Walking by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Even more so Bastiat's story about the candle maker wanting to outlaw the sun for unfair competition.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candlemakers'_petition

  9. How do you enforce this? by glgraca · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are they going to randomly stop cars with more than one person and question everybody? Or maybe they'll have undercover police. We could even have a new CSI CPU (Carpool Unit).

    1. Re:How do you enforce this? by Giltron · · Score: 2, Informative

      That is the joke of this whole thing...they would never be able to enforce this. PickupPal is just a convenient location to arrange rides. There are millions of message boards on the internet, how are they going to monitor EVERY message board on the internet for these types of car pooling groups??

  10. Article Biased... by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 5, Informative

    The article is heavily biased, although this isn't terribly surprising.

    Pickup Pal is a service that allows individuals to arrange not only carpools. Specifically, it allows drivers and passengers to arrange compensation for trips.

    Does this remind you of anything else? Oh, yes, a taxi company (or bus company, take your pick) which is Trentway-Wagar's complaint.

    The bus company, which TW is, as an organization that arranges for buses to transport passengers for money, is bound by a series of provincial vehicle travel laws which require its drivers to be insured, to possess the correct licenses for their vehicles, and so on.

    There are, in fact, specific exceptions in the specified Acts for car-pooling, but it appears that Pickup Pal does not satisfy them for various reasons (which should actually be quite obvious, prima facie).

    The difficulty is that Pickup Pal is obviously not merely offering a carpool service. They are also obviously not offering a public taxi service or a bus service, either, but the carpool service has a defined exception in the law.

    The law, the board argues, exists to protect riders. Drivers are to be insured, carry the proper licenses for their vehicles, and so on. (Insurance issues, which is a major public interest in cases such as these, form a major part of the Board's concern. Insuring a public vehicle is very different from insuring a private car and the caps on insurance are often much higher.)

    As a result, Pickup Pal was ordered to immediately cease taking any actions that would put them in violation of the Public Vehicles Act.

    Pickup Pal argues that they have nothing to do with the service, that they merely arrange this. The Board does not agree, for good reason- a taxicab company could make an identical argument. Such an argument is unpersuasive. There is a compelling public policy argument to regulating public vehicles and carriers and so on. For abiding by these regulations, Trentway-Wagar incurs costs, and they found it unfair that another provider would be able to avoid the regulations and thereby avoid the costs- hence the charge of unfair competition.

    The summary writes that the regulations are making things worse for the consumer. I beg to disagree. Unsafe public transportation is worse than expensive public transportation, and there is a compelling public policy reason for regulating public transportation for safety's sake- regulations that Pickup Pal did not abide by.

    --
    "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    1. Re:Article Biased... by Vellmont · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I guess I'd be a lot more interested in the facts from which you derive your conclusions rather than the conclusions themselves. It sounds to me like PickupPal is simply an electronic "ride board", and little more.

      --
      AccountKiller
    2. Re:Article Biased... by superdave80 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Specifically, it allows drivers and passengers to arrange compensation for trips.

      Does this remind you of anything else? Oh, yes, a taxi company (or bus company, take your pick)...

      The difference being that the taxicab/bus company itself makes money on each ride. PickupPal does not receive any money from the passenger or driver. Are they going to fine the phone company when I call my friend up and we arrange a road trip where he agrees to pay for half the gas? What about the message boards at colleges where drivers and passengers arrange for long trips back home? Sue the college?

      Specifically, it allows drivers and passengers to arrange compensation for trips.

      Between the driver and passenger, which is a private transaction that has nothing to do with PickupPal. It is not a transaction between the driver, passenger, and 'arranging' entity (taxicab company). Now, if you want to go after a driver because he is accepting money for a ride without having a taxi license, then go ahead. But going after PickupPal is just absurd.

    3. Re:Article Biased... by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 4, Informative

      The difference being that the taxicab/bus company itself makes money on each ride. PickupPal does not receive any money from the passenger or driver. Are they going to fine the phone company when I call my friend up and we arrange a road trip where he agrees to pay for half the gas? What about the message boards at colleges where drivers and passengers arrange for long trips back home? Sue the college?

      Actually, part of the information in evidence was that, in fact, up until fairly recently PickupPal did make a 7% commission.

      However, I'm not sure that's necessary in this case. PickupPal is still making money off of this service of connecting riders to drivers (which, I'll point out is what a taxicab service does). PickupPal just has a different way of collecting that money now (via advertisements).

      Between the driver and passenger, which is a private transaction that has nothing to do with PickupPal. It is not a transaction between the driver, passenger, and 'arranging' entity (taxicab company). Now, if you want to go after a driver because he is accepting money for a ride without having a taxi license, then go ahead. But going after PickupPal is just absurd.

      Not at all. PickupPal is an instrumental entity in this transaction. It acts like a broker. Just because the contract is between two parties doesn't mean PickupPal isn't in the business of arranging public transportation.

      I refer you to section 2(2) of the Public Vehicles Act, which is cited in the Board's decision:

      "No person shall arrange or offer to arrange the transportation of passengers by means of a public vehicle operated by another person unless that other person is the holder of an operating license authorizing that other person to perform transportation."

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
  11. I Live in Ontario by DarthVain · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have never heard of these regulations. I doubt very much they are enforced at all. The fact that the got fined is only due to a complaint. If A) the public was aware, or B) the Premier was aware of those regulations, it would be dead in a week. This is actually very stupid move by the bus company if they are really worried about competition. I mean really, the province just started installing car pool only lanes on the 401, are they going to now say they are not committed to this sort of activity. Silly.

    If I were PickupPal I would not pay the fine and write two letters, one to our Premier, and one sent to the various mainstream media outlets also indicating a letter was sent to the Premier.

    This will kill the fine, kill the regs, and likely promote PickupPal, and car pooling in general. That's a quadruple win I think.

    1. Re:I Live in Ontario by compro01 · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is a case of old regulations last updated over a decade ago being applied in an unexpected and silly, though legally consistent, manner.

      There's already a bill in progress in the Ontario legislature to update this stuff, specifically, the changes to the public vehicle act about 2/3rds down the page.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  12. Re:Canadians carpool? by Aniyn · · Score: 3, Funny

    We call them "Mounties", in a delicious pun.

  13. This was on NPR a while back by langelgjm · · Score: 4, Informative

    I remember hearing about this story a few months ago on NPR (can't find a link, if someone else can it's worth it to listen to). IIRC, they had an executive from the competing company being interviewed.

    Basically, his complaint boiled down to the argument that it wasn't fair that the bus company had to comply with a bunch of expensive regulations, but that a carpooling service didn't.

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    1. Re:This was on NPR a while back by Fallingcow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As soon as the bus company is merely directing people to buses and not operating said buses, they have a valid complaint.

      In the mean time, there is no equivalence.

    2. Re:This was on NPR a while back by JoeMerchant · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A carpool is quite a bit different from a bus, provides an entirely different service in an entirely different manner.

      In and around Tampa, Florida, the state will GIVE you a van and buy your gas if you get 4 or more people to ride in it 5 days a week (I think they're looking for people with 40+ mile commutes each way). Turns out to be cheaper for the state to supply the vans than for them to increase capacity on the roads clogged with single riders.

    3. Re:This was on NPR a while back by C_L_Lk · · Score: 5, Informative

      For the record, I live in the same town ad the bus company that brought this all to a head (trentway-wager).

      They had a point in their initial concern, however the way the transportation board handled this was all wrong. There were van operators who were unlicenced and unregulated, who basically bought large 10-15 person vans, and were advertising on PickupPal for "intercity transportation" (e.g. rides to Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, etc.). They were abusing PickupPal to basically operate a Van and Taxi service. Unfortunately, instead of the transportation board finding out who those unlicenced operators were and cracking down and fining them, they decided to take their wrath out on the website and screw it up for everyone else who were following the "spirit" of the website.

    4. Re:This was on NPR a while back by hansamurai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unlicensed van drives? As in they didn't have a drivers license? Or they didn't have some arbitrary piece of paper that said they couldn't drive around a bunch of strangers?

    5. Re:This was on NPR a while back by fishbowl · · Score: 3, Informative

      >A carpool is quite a bit different from a bus

      The company in the article operates something that is not reasonably different enough from a taxi service, that taxi services could use their example to avoid paying taxes, commercial insurance, or requiring licensed drivers.

      There's still no law that would prevent you from having a carpool. You can even negotiate with your riders for compensation. What you can't do is operate a service that is essentially a taxicab, without following the local laws that regulate the taxi business. If you try to do that, the taxi businesses are going to cry foul, which is what happened here.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    6. Re:This was on NPR a while back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unlicensed van drives? As in they didn't have a drivers license? Or they didn't have some arbitrary piece of paper that said they couldn't drive around a bunch of strangers?

      Every jurisdiction that I know of requires special licensing for the driver and has restrictions on the vehicle (usually in the form of increased insurance coverage) for people or companies that conduct passengers in cars for money. They are called taxis|limosenes|buses.

      Are you implying that taxies shouldn't be regulated?

      It makes sense to limit carpooling so that operators are not calling themselves carpoolers to avoid regulations. That presumes that the taxi|bus regulations are rational in the first place.

      However, the restrictions that the Ontario Transportation Board (or whatever it calls itself) has put in place are idiotic.

    7. Re:This was on NPR a while back by smoker2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      So any old mass murderer can drive a taxi can they ? How about known paedophiles taking your kids to school ?
      Why are there so many pseudo 14 year olds on this site recently ?

      I would imagine that if you enquire into the issue and dig right back to the beginning of the regulation, you will find that the public demanded some oversight of these private companies. Now ill-educated fools who think they have the answer to life itself (because they are 14 years and nearly 6 months old) are complaining about things that "we, the people" asked for.
      If you're not 14 years old, start acting like it.

      Shut down the FAA, let the airlines self regulate. Shut down welfare, turn all the streets into a ghetto. Shut down medicare, let the disease spread. Shut down all these things because they cost me money. I don't see any benefit. Me me me me me !
      It really is the American disease. What gets me is the fact that you have no excuse for complaining. You actually have enough space to just say "fuck it" pack your shit together and live in the woods. But no, you'd rather run the country (badly) from your armchair while taking a large advantage from all the benefits bestowed by the things you want to get rid of. When you get that problem sorted out, you might find the politicians reflecting the people in a better light. Yes, you heard me. The reason Bush got in was because there are millions of people who think like he does. If you think that's good, I'm sorry for your descendants.

      I didn't mean to pick on Bush, he is in illustrious company. But let's face it, he is the poster boy for WTF ?

    8. Re:This was on NPR a while back by chill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, just prostitution. Oh, wait. That one was the U.S. Our turn to be stupid, I guess.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  14. Jurisdiction over the web by NastyNate · · Score: 3, Interesting

    seeing that PickupPal is a web based company, can't they just more their operations outside of the Ontario transportation board's jurisdiction and tell them where to shove their fine?

  15. Re:Walking by Andr+T. · · Score: 2, Informative

    Great one! I found one link to the translated petition: http://www.usm.maine.edu/~phillips/candle.html

    --

    Any life is made up of a single moment, the moment in which a man finds out, once and for all, who he is.

  16. Similar Case In Germany by arthurpaliden · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If I remember correctly there was a something similar in Germany. A cleaning company had a lot of workers who lived in an particular outlying town so the cleaning company got a passenger van to drive them back and forth. The local bus/train service then took them to court because of the lost business. I cannot remember how it all ended up but I seem to think that the cleaning company lost. (They got "taken to the cleaners" so to speak.)

  17. Re:Thats... by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 2, Funny

    How coïncidental, there's an open jobposition for the local gay-insult-man here in Canada.
    We're offering you this position, with a competitive wage.
    All expenses for your travel and stay are ofcourse compensated for.

    Eagerly anticipating your arrival...

    --
    I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
  18. That makes sense by tkrotchko · · Score: 4, Funny

    "The transportation board's worry is that there will be a bunch of amateur, unregulated bus/cab drivers running around."

    That makes sense. You wouldn't want the bus drivers to have to share the road with a bunch of untrained amateur drives on the road.

    Oh...wait....

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
    1. Re:That makes sense by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Licensed cabs are required to follow all sorts of rules regarding fares and what the passenger has a right to expect. If your licensed cab takes you for a joy ride and tries to rip you off on the fare you can take the driver's name (which must be prominently displayed) and complain. He's accountable. If a gypsy cab takes you for a ride you better just be grateful if he doesn't drop you off in the middle of nowhere and lets you keep your wallet.

  19. Simple solution that lets them say "GFY" by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    traceroute shows they're currently hosted on servers-etx.hgn.ca, which are located in Ontario, Canada.

    Just move the server to another country, and tell the Ontario Transport Ministry to "Go Fuck Yourself", same as businesses in Quebec host their sites outside of Quebec and tell the Office de la langue francais "Mange la merde." The OLF always backs down when push comes to shove over the question of regulating internet content, since they don't have jurisdiction - the internet is regulated exclusively by the feds via the CRTC.

    While they're at it, they should cite the CRTC regulations that make the internet solely federal jurisdiction, and again tell them to "Go Fuck Yourself - Twice."

  20. Ontario is breaking its own regulations by SleptThroughClass · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Ontario Ministry of Transportation, on its HOV lane page, promotes carpooling and links to SmartCommute.ca. This is an initiative of Metrolinx, an agency of the Government of Ontario. Metrolinx offers services to the "greater Toronto area". So the Ontario government is arranging carpooling across city limits, but forbidding another group from doing so.

  21. Not surprising by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "[The transportation board has] established a bunch of draconian rules that any user in Ontario must follow if it uses the service â" including no crossing of municipal boundaries â" meaning the service is only good within any particular city's limits. It's better than being shut down completely, and the service can still operate elsewhere around the world, but this is yet another case where we see regulations, that are supposedly put in place to improve things for consumers, do the exact opposite."

    Regulations ultimately act to benefit the regulated; not the public. The raise barriers to entry and protect incumbents. A Nobel Prize laureate in Economics pointed that out years ago.

    In general, regulated industries can sustain higher prices and have less competition than unregulated ones. That's not o say regulation does not have a place; but to think it results in lower prices to consumers is wrong.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    1. Re:Not surprising by Zan+Lynx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It isn't only price, it is freedom of choice. What could be more pro-choice, more about the freedom to control your own body than to pick who you choose to drive you around?

      There is always a trade-off between safety and freedom and we should always lean toward freedom. Freedom in this case is allow customers to choose, anywhere between cheap unregulated drivers in a rickshaw to bonded, insured highly trained gun toting bodyguard chauffeurs driving armored Suburbans.

      If the customer freely chooses to ride with the 16 year old male in a Pinto with a giant spoiler bolted to the back, and it blows up in a fireball of gasoline and NO2, scarring them for life, ITS THEIR OWN FAULT and NO, the government should NOT DO SOMETHING.

  22. Northern Virginia by PapaSmurph · · Score: 2, Informative

    These people would really have a cow in Northern Virginia. Slugging, or waiting for strangers to pick you up to take you to work, has been going on here since the early 1970's!

    Yes, it's odd, and you do exactly what your mother told you not to do: talk to strangers and get in their car. But there have been no serious crimes against "slugs" reported during the entire time.

    It just feels strange the first time you do it, and it never completely feels right!

  23. I'm always suprised... by Belial6 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I am always suprised at how many people will happily get in a car with someone they don't know just because it has been called a 'carpool' instead of 'hitchiking'. I have a pal who's wife was arguing (well, more a debate) that it was a good thing to go to the carpool sites in our county, and find someone that is going to the same place as you. This is an attractive 98 pound woman. She would never consider hitchiking, but could not grasp that getting into a strangers car alone from a carpool parking lot is no better than doing it from any random freeway on ramp.

    After getting no where with her, I pointed out to him what she had been saying. I have no doubt that they had a big argument about it because she now is adamantly against the idea of using the find a stranger in the parking lot method of carpooling. Some might think that I over stepped a line, but I really don't want to find out that she was found in a ditch raped an murdered. I know if I were a rapist, she would have easily been in the top 1% of target victim group because she is attractive, to small to put up a big fight, and was willing to get into a strangers car.

    Simply put: Carpooling with strangers IS hitchhiking.

    Each person needs to evaluate the risk/benefit of hitchhiking for themselves, but they should not delude themselves into thinking that they are not the same thing just because it now has a PC name and the government encourages it.

  24. The Carpooling Hustle by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Apparently driving is like sex in Canada.

    • You can go solo whenever you like.
    • Two consenting adults can go together so long as there's no money changing hands.
    • You're not allowed to just go with a stranger and pay them for their trouble.
    • However, officials will often not watch too closely if you're discreet about it.

    The bus is like a strip club. Everyone gets together for legally sanctioned transportation, but none of the customers get to drive, and it's not as much fun as a real car ride.

  25. Way more going on here... by Digital_Quartz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    TFA is a little one-sided.

    First, the regulations that exist are not there to stop carpooling, they're there to ensure bus and taxi services are safe. This isn't some theoretical problem, either, as a number of people were killed in an unlicensed and uninsured van in southern Ontario a few years back. (Would they have been alive if the service vehicle had been through a safety check, or if the operator of the vehicle was properly licensed? I don't have those details, and I can't find the article I was reading about it this morning). The problem is that the regulations are very broadly defined, and a lot of car pooling falls under them.

    The Ontario government has been actively working to fix the laws for a while now, so they don't apply to car pool services (http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/09/02/ot-carpool-080902.html). But, how to write a law which covers a taxi, and doesn't cover car pooling? Tough to get right, but they are working on it.

    Second, the site in question, PickupPal, was being used by a couple of companies in southern Ontario who were selling rides from Ottawa to Toronto, and the reverse direction (a 6 hour drive), putting multiple people into vans. So, essentially, running a bus service. This is a far cry from car pooling, and obviously these companies should fall under the bus regulations. Should the government be fining PickupPal, or fining these unlicensed bus services directly? Hard to say without knowing all the details involved.

    PickupPal, though, called the ruling a victory, so they're obviously happy with it.

  26. It SEEMS like it does not make sense by John+Jamieson · · Score: 4, Informative

    This issue is almost already dead. It is OLD news, and there are changes to legislation going through the provincial(state) parliment to fix this problem.

    The reason for these rules were to prevent UNLICENCED operators from running a bus or taxi service. Obviously the rules need to be changed, and they are.