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.
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.
It's the 4th largest by city proper population after mexico city, new York, and LA, but 13th largest by metro area.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
1. Mexico City (pop. 8.5 million)
2 New York (8.4 million)
3 Los Angeles (3.8 million).
4 Toronto (2.8 million)
Chicago is 5th,
San Francisco at 36th and Detroit at 53rd, both fall behind Canadian cities Montreal (9th), Calgary (22nd), Ottawa (32nd), Edmonton (33rd)
Mississauga (49th), and just ahead of Winnipeg (55th) beat out Washington (60th), which is just ahead of Vancouver (63rd)
Las Vegas, with a population of 583,736, doesn't make the list.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Too bad for Emil Michael that the press already dug up the dirt on Toronto's mayor, Rob Ford.
England had yearly safety inspections (the MOT) but in Ontario they do not exist and a safety test is only required when the vehicle registration is transferred i.e. when ever a second hand car is sold to a new owner. I don't think the safety check is required when transferring the ownership to a family member but I wouldn't swear to that.
I've been utterly shocked at the state of many cars on the road here with no sills left and nothing but rust in other structurally essential parts of the car. I think the OPP can stop cars that they deem unsafe but there certainly is no annual safety inspection and the only required test is a bi-annual emissions check.
So, I'll flat out say to you: bullshit. Bullshit bullshit bullshit.
As in, you're spewing bullshit. You're spewing so much bullshit it isn't even funny. Are you even aware that what you say is bullshit? You clearly do not own a motor vehicle in Ontario.
There is no such thing as annual safety inspections of private, non-commercial motor vehicles in Ontario.
I have owned a motor vehicle in Ontario for almost 20 years. You periodically have to do an emissions test. When you buy and sell it needs an inspection.
But you do not, and have not for at least the last 20 years, have to do an annual motor vehicle inspection in Ontario.
There are some classes of commercial vehicles which do get inspected annually.
So these Uber guys? They're driving in their own personal vehicles with neither a commercial license, insurance, nor mandatory vehicle inspections.
In other words, Uber as a service is pretty much ignoring the law and claiming that it doesn't apply to them.
Basically, Uber is a bootleg taxi service, and the laws being applied have applied to all commercial car services for a very long time.
This isn't some powerful taxi lobby pulling strings behind the scenes. This is cities deciding that Uber is required to follow the same laws as everybody else.
Uber aren't the victims here. They're the idiots claiming they can decide the law doesn't apply to them and their drivers, and going ahead and doing it anyway.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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.
So, I'll flat out say to you: bullshit. Bullshit bullshit bullshit.
I was mistaken; it's been a long time since I was up there. It appears that the laws have been relaxed in most Canadian provinces, other than New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, which still have hard requirements on safety inspections because they care about their citizens safety. I'm sorry your government in Ontario no longer cares.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V...
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
That's only if you look at CMAs - in reality the GTA or GTHA would be #5 or $6 with 6 to 6.5 million people
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