Slashdot Mirror
City of Toronto Files Court Injunction Against Uber
Sebolains writes: The city of Toronto in Ontario, Canada has filed a court injunction on Uber Canada Inc. today that requests for all operations in the city to cease. Uber has been operating there since 2012 without a license from the city, and so officials are concerned that Uber's operations pose a risk to both drivers and riders. How quickly this will happen, we don't know, but the city has asked the courts to be expedient in hearing this application.
John Tory (the next mayor of Toronto) has made statements actually supporting Uber. Thing is, although he's been elected he hasn't taken office yet, so he's not quite in a position to act. Be interesting to see what happens when he takes the helm, though.
Another on slashdot~!
For the past several years the city leaders of Toronto have been afraid to go after Uber, allowing it to operate unlicensed out of fear that the CEO and CFO of Uber will bash their heads in with baseball bats.
" Uber has been operating there since 2012 without a license from the city, and so officials are concerned that Uber's operations pose a risk to both drivers and riders."
Well, they've just been given data from a two year trial. Any reason to suspect based on that data that it does pose a risk? I suspect not...
At least they don't have read Bennett Haselton, frequent ghey faggot.
Stop telling consenting adults what they're allowed to do together. How fucking patronizing you all are.
I had to visit Toronto a while back on a business trip.
Jesus Frigging Christ, there were a lot of hipsters there. I've been to San Fran, I've been to Brooklyn, and I've even been to Detroit, but I've never seen as many damn hipsters all over the place as I did in Toronto.
The place is plagued with them.
How are they taking this? This is the kind of "social justice" issue that should get their panties really, really twisted. I could see it angering them enough for them to take a few seconds between sips of their designer coffee brews to label it as "disingenuous" in an angry Twitter tweet.
Questioning the Fifth Amendment
A Guest Post
by
Bennett Haselton
I have a question that has only provoked a lot of confused righteous indignation in other forums, and I wonder if TBQ readers might have more thoughtful responses, if we phrase it as a logic puzzle.
My question: I don’t see why it’s good policy to give criminal defendants a Fifth Amendment right to silence in their own trial, as opposed to giving them the same rights and obligations as third-party witnesses (who can be subpoenaed and required to answer questions).
Now obviously I’m not saying that the state should be able to torture someone until they confess to something. When I say give defendants the “same rights and obligations as third-party witnesses”, I mean:
You cannot (obviously) be tortured into answering a question.
You cannot (obviously) be required to give a *specific* answer to question (i.e. you cannot be ordered to say that you, or someone else, is guilty), only to *answer* the question.
You cannot be forced by the police to answer questions in an interrogation room, where your answers might be misremembered or misrepresented later. (Only a court can issue a lawful subpoena that requires a person to answer a question, on the record.)
If the court thinks you lied, you cannot be punished for “lying” unless the court can prove that you lied under oath, under the same standard of proof that they would have to meet for any other criminal act.
You cannot be required to answer an irrelevant question.
You cannot be forced to answer the same question over and over, as an unofficial means of detaining you.
You CAN be required to answer a question if subpoenaed by a court, if the court deems that the question is relevant to the solving of the crime, where the sanction for refusing to answer is being charged with contempt of court (not torture).
For example, if there’s incontrovertible proof you were in the room when a fatal shooting occurred, and you’re on trial as the shooter, and you plead not guilty, why can’t the prosecutor just ask you, “Fine, if it wasn’t you, then what did you see happen?”
In fact, let’s restrict the discussion to murder trials, just because I don’t want to get distracted by the issue of “unjust laws” — for example, if someone is arrested for drug use because of the pot smell in their room, then there’s a tendency to be sympathetic to their right to refuse to answer questions, just because the drug law they’re charged under seems unfair to begin with. (The victims of the HUAC witch-hunts who pled the Fifth Amendment, would be another sympathetic example.)
But a good legal principle — such as “Innocent until proven guilty” — should hold up under scrutiny even when the crime itself is evil. In the hypothetical shooting case, it’s clear to me that the accused shooter should be considered innocent until proven guilty; it’s not clear why they shouldn’t be required to answer questions about what they saw.
However, every time I’ve asked this question, people have reacted as if I was suggesting that the state should be allowed to torture people into confessing. Obviously that’s not what I’m asking. I just don’t see a principled reason why defendants can’t be required to answer a question that is relevant, subject to the rules laid out in paragraph 3.
The exception is that I think if you value your privacy more than you value exonerating yourself, it should be your right to say, “I wasn’t at the house on the night of the murder, but I’d prefer not to tell you where I was.” In that case your refusal to answer isn’t hurting anyone but yourself. And then, if you’re unlucky and you get convicted anyway, you could change your mind and say, “Fine, I was at a gay strip club, here’s the list of witnesses who can place me there,
Toronto is Canada's largest city, the fourth largest in North America, and home to a diverse population of about 2.8 million people.
4th largest? Somehow I doubt that.
New York is big, but I imagine that Las Vegas, San Francisco, Chicago, Detroit, and DC are bigger than Toronto.
Buck Feta. You know what to do.
waal: *BSD faces a if you move a table being GAY NIGGERS. CASE YOU WANT TO
... because freedom makes me choose, requires me to admit responsibility for my own actions, and I get to sue people less. Of course I hate freedom! Oh yeah, it also lets me shoot people more, but that's all upside, so we won't bring that into the mix.
Two Ice lines Uncles Blabbering to the Beat
A Short Story
by Author Unknown
Bennett Haselton had always loved derelict with its inexpensive, ill igloos. It was a place where he felt shocked.
He was a cheap, stupid, liquor drinker with frequent hands and wordy ankles. His friends saw him as a hungry, homely holy contributor. Once, he had even revived a dying, hugh pickens. That's the sort of man he was.
Bennett walked over to the window and reflected on his grey surroundings. The ice teased like rambling blue bottles.
Then he saw something in the distance, or rather someone. It was the figure of Jon Katz. Jon was a wordy blogger with aids hands and early onset dimentia ankles.
Bennett gulped. He was not prepared for Jon.
As Bennett stepped outside and Jon came closer, he could see the enchanting smile on his face.
Jon gazed with the affection of 533 ghey rainy rabbits. He said, in hushed tones, "I love you and I want insight."
Bennett looked back, even more wordy and still fingering the ice LG Optimus. "Jon, I love your words," he replied.
They looked at each other with relaxed feelings, like two kind, knobby kittens ranting at a very algorithmic slashdot post, which had peacefire music playing in the background and two ice lines uncles blabbering to the beat.
Bennett studied Jon's aids hands and early onset dimentia ankles. Eventually, he took a deep breath. "I'm sorry," began Bennett in apologetic tones, "but I don't feel the same way, and I never will. I just don't love you Jon."
Jon looked contributing, his emotions raw like an icy, ice-dancing Ice Lines.
Bennett could actually hear Jon's emotions shatter into 7983 pieces. Then the wordy blogger hurried away into the distance.
Not even a drink of liquor would calm Bennett's nerves tonight.
THE END
The Tale of My Algorithmic Talker Author
A Ballad
by Bennett Haselton
It began on a frequent winter's morning:
I was the most frequent contributor around,
He was the most algorithmic talker.
He was my author,
My algorithmic author,
My talker.
We used to postulate so well together,
Back then.
We wanted to write together, around the world,
We wanted it all.
But one morning, one frequent morning,
We decided to write too much.
Together we ranted an ice line.
It was mathemetically, so mathemetically.
From that moment our relationship changed.
He grew so cheap.
And then it happened:
Oh no! Oh no!
He licked a pooped.
Alas, a pooped!
My author licked a pooped.
It was lg optimus prime, so lg optimus prime.
The next day I thought my bum had broken,
I thought my noggin had burst into flames,
(But I was actually overreacting a little.)
But still, he is in my thoughts.
I think about how it all changed that morning,
That frequent winter's morning.
My noggin... ouch!
When I think of that algorithmic talker,
That algorithmic talker and me.
Inspections?
"increased risk to passenger safety – no mechanical vehicle inspections, lack of driver training"
This claim is at least specious.
Yearly vehicle safety inspections are required in Ontario for regular cars, just like in Utah. Pretty much every snow state has similar requirements (except California, because what they care about is revenue, not actual public safety).
John Tory (the next mayor of Toronto) has made statements actually supporting Uber. Thing is, although he's been elected he hasn't taken office yet, so he's not quite in a position to act.
Well I suppose this explains why, after Uber has been operating for 2 years Toronto is suddenly in a rush to get the case heard by the courts.
Was just in Vancouver and learned that they've done away with Uber. It was horrible. Not enough taxis so it was impossible to get around the city. Frankly, it will impact my decision on whether or not I go back to visit. Unless your taxi companies can offer the same level of service, killing Uber will result in an impact to tourism... maybe just from me, but it'll be an impact. :)
Pretty please with cherries on top would you consider eventually ceasing operations, Sir?
The Deformed Comments Hip Hop
In The Style Of Eminem
by Bizzy Hannetton
May I have your attention please?
I'm not afraid (I'm not afraid)
To contribute (to contribute)
Everybody (everybody)
Come take my hand (come take my hand)
We'll walk through slashdot together, through the storm
Whatever weather, cold or warm
His dicedots are deranged, comments deformed, hands are ugly
There's food on his hat already, second cousin's hot gritz
He's nervous, but on the surface he looks calm and ready to contribute,
But he keeps on forgetting what he wrote down,
And I am, an idiot
If I wasn't, then why would I say I am?
In the paper, the news everyday I am
Radio won't even play my jam
'Cause I am, an idiot
If I wasn't, then why would I say I am?
In the paper, the news everyday I am
I don't know it's just the way I am
You better design an algorithm
You own it, you better never let it go
You only get one shot, do not miss your chance to contribute
This opportunity comes once in a lifetime yo
You better design an algorithm
So lets go back
Follow the the mathematical facts as we go on another episode
Journey with me as I take you through slashdot
I once used to call home sweet home
Well, gotta go, I'm almost at the slashdot post now
And when I'm gone, just contribute, don't mourn
Rejoice every time you hear the sound of my deranged dicedots
Just know that I'm looking down on you contributing
Just design an algorithm
And when he's gone, just contribute, don't mourn
Rejoice every time you hear the sound of his deformed comments
Just know that he's looking down on you postulating
And his didn't feel a thing, So baby don't feel no pain
Just design an algorithm in your hat.
In the rest of the civilized world, there's a reason we license livery drivers. That's how you can get a cab ride or black car ride without getting robbed, or worse. Taxi and Livery Commission (TLC): It's a thing.
Kriston
I worked before uber was kicked from vancouver i have to say thru most of my experience city BLAH BALH BALH BLALASKDG
It all started when our predictably heroic protagonist, Bennett Haselton, woke up in a haunted thicket. It was the third time it had happened. Feeling scarcely exasperated, Bennett Haselton deflowered a gerbil, thinking it would make him feel better (but as usual, it did not). A few unfulfilled decades later, he realized that his beloved maths was missing! Immediately he called his redheaded stepchild of a 'friend', Hugh Pickens. Bennett Haselton had known Hugh Pickens for (plus or minus) 11,000 years, the majority of which were enchanting ones. Hugh Pickens was unique. He was intelligent though sometimes a little... funny-smelling. Bennett Haselton called him anyway, for the situation was urgent.
Hugh Pickens picked up to a very calm Bennett Haselton. Hugh Pickens calmly assured him that most albino cats panic before mating, yet man-eating capybaras usually charismatically sneeze *after* mating. He had no idea what that meant; he was only concerned with distracting Bennett Haselton. Why was Hugh Pickens trying to distract Bennett Haselton? Because he had snuck out from Bennett Haselton's with the maths only eight days prior. It was a curious little maths... how could he resist?
It didn't take long before Bennett Haselton got back to the subject at hand: his maths. Hugh Pickens shuddered. Relunctantly, Hugh Pickens invited him over, assuring him they'd find the maths. Bennett Haselton grabbed his refrigerator and disembarked immediately. After hanging up the phone, Hugh Pickens realized that he was in trouble. He had to find a place to hide the maths and he had to do it deftly. He figured that if Bennett Haselton took the rice rocket, he had take at least eight minutes before Bennett Haselton would get there. But if he took the Slashdot? Then Hugh Pickens would be excessively screwed.
Before he could come up with any reasonable ideas, Hugh Pickens was interrupted by three pestering Jon Katzs that were lured by his maths. Hugh Pickens sneezed; 'Not again', he thought. Feeling exasperated, he aimlessly reached for his ninja star and carefully grabbed every last one of them. Apparently this was an adequate deterrent--the discouraged critters began to scurry back toward the lemur-infested moor, squealing with discontent. He exhaled with relief. That's when he heard the Slashdot rolling up. It was Bennett Haselton.
Too bad for Emil Michael that the press already dug up the dirt on Toronto's mayor, Rob Ford.
Not simply because his post is wrong (that is not considered grounds for moderation by itself), but because it's willful ignorance and grossly insulting to readers. His post is, in essence,
"The article contains this trivially verifiable statement of fact, but I _feel_ it doesn't sound right to me, so I'm compelled to rant about it on Slashdot, while at the same time being far too lazy to spend ten seconds to check it with a search engine — but then again, I just don't respect the audience enough to care if I post total nonsense; all that matters is that I get to express my feelings, and who the hell are Slashdot readers to tell me my feelings are wrong anyway?!"
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
I would love the actual statistics of accidents and incidents involving Uber to be researched during the court hearings. Somehow I feel that it won't be significantly (or at all) worse than with licensed taxi drivers and companies. Of course, whatever the stats are, they have nothing to do with whether or not Uber breaks the law, but they can be used to judge if the regulation in its current form is necessary in the first place.
In case of taxi you need to ensure your passenger are covered in case of accident, you also need to make sure the meters are not tricked to count quicker etc.... Not all is regulatory capture. A lot often is real security, that some sees as an obstacle to their "cheapo" alternative.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
17 states require annual or biennial inspections
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V...
Yes!!!
I think this article is about Toronto, Ontario not Toronto, California.
Not sure what your long winded post on the "fifth amendment" has to do with this since that is a US law and this is about a Canadian city.
That is livery drivers must have full coverage and Uber tried to use fine print to get out of that.
As others have posted, but here is a newsflash for you.
Outside the United States there exists other "countries" and many of these have cities and all that fancy stuff you think only exists in the US.
I think Toronto should get rid of cabs period. Being a Toronto resident I can tell how bad the cab infection has got around the city. They don't follow the traffic law, they don't drive safetly , they don't drive with common sense in mind and they completely fuck rush hour and add 10s of minutes to the commute. Toronto should either get properly trained cab drivers or move to Uber.
Uber offers too little opportunity for graft compared to traditional livery services. .
The taxi lobby of Toronto is missing a large sum of money.
Actually, according to our good friend wikipedia, Toronto is still 8th by metre area population in NA.
It makes a difference whether you are asking about the population of the city, or the population of the metro area, the city plus surrounding areas that are not in the same political unit.
Cities: Toronto is fourth largest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Metropolitan Areas: Toronto is eighth largest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Urban Agglomertions: Toronto is number five: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So I rate the original claim,
Toronto is Canada's largest city, the fourth largest in North America
, as True.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
On the subject of Uber, anybody else look at Uber's new privacy policy, and think it's a bit skanky?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/johana...
--What a carefully crafted weasel-worded policy. It says that Uber retains the right to violate your privacy for "legitimate business purposes"-- but doesn't define any limits on what they're going to call "legitimate." They list some "examples", which sounds soothing-- but these are just SOME of the reasons they might violate your privacy-- not ALL the reasons. Frankly, this policy states that they can violate your privacy any time they want, just as long as they say there is a business purpose to doing so.
Oh, and they don't have to tell you, either.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
It seemed that they have had more than long enough to either prove that they do not, or prove that they do.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
...on the crucial finer points that make being paid to drive someone around so much different that it merits such massive legal protection and draconian regulation.
It certainly is not the burden of inspection. At least where i am at, taxis are given the EXACT SAME inspection as out of province used vehicles registered by regular drivers. As for maintenance, when i was still scrimping and saving to pay off student loan and get a house i drove used cars and went to the junk yard to get parts, and there were ALWAYS taxi drivers there getting tires off wrecks for their cabs. They were less picky than me...if they were not flat and not worn to the belts they'd take them.
I understand there may be liability issues in driving taxi as well, however that doesn't merit the nature of regulations in place--so many rules are in place to limit competition and have nothing to do with safety or fraud protection. People can and have set up online services to do deliveries, operate guided tours and so forth that require professional drivers without the challenges and hassle. Even driving schoolbus isnt given so much scrutiny! Think of the children!
I dont fault drivers, it is the fault of taxi companies and plate brokers. Tight regulation makes plates so scarce relative to demand that they can cost more to buy or lease than the vehicle.
The whole anti-uber thing honestly confounds me. I understand the need for regulation in terms of safety and liability but i really fail to see why governments ate so obstructionist. They are supposed to HELP the public, and the public is helped by efforts to improve transportation.
I suppose it has to do with history of taxi operation. Perhaps back at the early 1900's before regulation a few shady operators ruined it for the honest ones. Perhaps even organised crime established itself in the industry leading to closer scrutiny by government for our protection. My theory is that criminal element never completely left. They may have established a presence on boards/commissions to ensure that if they had to follow rules to operate honestly and safely that the rules would also ensure their enterprises were lucrative and free from competition.
I have no solid evidence of this happening, and I believe whatever mob presence there was is long gone, but there certainly is a legacy there in present regulations and powerful lobbies suggesting such influence in the past.
The lobby must be bery powerful still. A couple of right leaning pro business councillors in my city are usually quite outspoken in defending policies to cut red tape, limit taxation and regulation and so forth to help especially entrepreneurs and small businesses, but they roll over and defer to the taxi commissioner at the mere mention of uber or more taxi plates and back amendments to blunt efforts to ease restrictions or outright vote against adding plates or permitting uber and others to operate.
It makes me wonder what goes on that makes the taxi lobby so influential that even some opinionated politicians clam up at mere mention of taxis or uber.
The City is concerned that Uber's operations pose a serious risk to the public, including those who are signing on as drivers, for the following reasons:
increased risk to passenger safety – no mechanical vehicle inspections, lack of driver training
inadequate insurance that fails to meet the requirements of the Municipal Code and may not provide essential coverage to drivers, passengers and others in the event of accidents
Seems legit. I could see the rationale for requiring a higher safety standard, and perticularly better insurance. This also seems like something Uber could accomodate.
increased number of vehicles operating as taxicabs resulting in traffic congestion and a possible threat to the taxi industry, including the City's objective of increasing the number of on-demand accessible taxicabs available, mandated by the City of Toronto earlier this year
So they want to stop Uber both because it results in too many new taxis... and because it reduces the number of Taxis? This argument sounds pretty dubious/protectionist.
unregulated fares resulting in price surging/gouging, and
Predatory pricing is a concern but for a big company like Uber it's generally something that consumers figure out.
increased safety risk to the drivers due to lack of training and vehicle security equipment, normally governed by City bylaws.
Again this is defensible and could be fixed by Uber.
It seems like Uber has an ability to seek a regulatory middle ground with some basic driver training, safety inspections, and insurance standards. I'm not sure I understand their strategy of no accomodations.
I stole this Sig
...and the crime of unlicensed duct work. People are taking money in exchange for giving car rides. Look, if the Toronto city government is willing to let any old moron DRIVE a car (and they are), I think those same people can be trusted to delegate to a hired driver without risking a carpocalypse.
as much as i like the idea of companies like Uber and Lyft. They need to find some way to get their drivers to slow the fuck down! Seriously, here in SF we used to have a unbased racial stereotype for the worst drivers. Now that honor definitely goes to Uber, Lyft and their friends. Given that they're all using GPS and we know the speed limits on all the roads, wouldn't it be simple to force them to drive the speed limit? or on the right side of the road?