Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Canada The Courts Transportation Technology

City of Toronto Files Court Injunction Against Uber 169

Posted by Soulskill from the a-very-polite-injunction dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

City of Toronto Files Court Injunction Against Uber More

City of Toronto Files Court Injunction Against Uber

Comments Filter:

  • Toronto Municipal Gov't divided (Score:5, Informative)

    by Amnenth ( 698898 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2014 @11:35PM (#48414837)

    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.

    • Re:Toronto Municipal Gov't divided (Score:5, Funny)

      by Shakrai ( 717556 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2014 @12:03AM (#48414965) Journal

      The current Mayor doesn't support it? You'd think he'd be in favor of anything that would get him home safely from a hard night of drinking and smoking crack cocaine....

      There's Uber's motto: Hey, we've gotta be safer than driving under the influence.

      • Re:Toronto Municipal Gov't divided (Score:4, Funny)

        by ArcadeMan ( 2766669 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2014 @12:14AM (#48415015)

        There's Uber's motto: Hey, we've gotta be safer than driving under the influence.

        Canadian version: We've gotta be safer than driving under the influence, eh?

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Shakrai ( 717556 )

          Touche. :)

        • Re:Toronto Municipal Gov't divided (Score:5, Insightful)

          by thej1nx ( 763573 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2014 @02:20AM (#48415513)

          Funny.

          But not as funny as pretending that somehow the drivers do NOT have valid driving licenses, or that there are some special inspection requirements that are not required for family cars, but should apply here. This is why lobbying is pure evil.

          What is next? Ban car pooling? Because it is only a matter of time till someone comes up with a popular "couchsurfing/airbnb" version of car pooling, and just generating revenue via registration & background verification fees and advertising.

          • Re:Toronto Municipal Gov't divided (Score:5, Insightful)

            by dave420 ( 699308 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2014 @04:52AM (#48415925)

            There is a difference between sharing a journey which would happen anyway (and being compensated for fuel used, etc.) and someone actively earning a living from driving people around. If you can't see that maybe you should familiarise yourself with this subject before commenting? I know taxis suck in the US (I have no idea about Canada), but elsewhere they are good, and this Uber nonsense threatens to lower the quality massively, as well as put people at risk.

            There already *are* popular ride-sharing apps & websites out there, and they're perfectly legal, as they are organising ride-sharing, not people pretending to be professional taxis.

            • ...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

            • O, for crying out load! Why do types like you insist on regulation people's choices? If I want to use Uber, then I and the driver should be able to negotiate a deal. If I don't want to go with the dude when he arrives, then I say no. If I like him and his car, I go. The government, city or anyone else has nothing to say or to do with this. As long as the driver is sober and has proven he can drive (has a license), then stop meddling! It due do all this "we'll think for you" mentality that people are

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by jsepeta ( 412566 )

            a valid drivers license for personal use, or a valid drivers license for business use? in the states we have a special test and license procedure for this practice called a CDL (commercial drivers license) which is required if you're carrying cargo or passengers for a fee.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AK Marc ( 707885 )

              [...] a CDL [...]is required if you're carrying cargo or passengers for a fee.

              Can undercover cops go hitchhiking, and offer you a $20 for gas at the end of the trip, and if you take it, arrest you for driving without a valid license?

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by MarkvW ( 1037596 )

            We have taxicab regulation because unregulated cab drivers rip off consumers.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AK Marc ( 707885 )
              Now, the regulated cab drivers rip off consumers, and the unregulated ones are more fair and provide better service.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by floodo1 ( 246910 )
            All forms of commercial driving require special licensing, except this gray area that companies like Uber and Lyft have created/exploited. The simple fact is commercial drivers are on the road far more and special considerations need to be made to account for that.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gl4ss ( 559668 )

        just wondering a little bit about uber in general,

        How much Operations they have in the city?

        I mean, they don't need to have an office in the city, they don't drive the cars. they don't need to have anything in the city. Has Iran asked Facebook to stop operations in Iran?

        Sure the city can start fining Uber drivers and app users if they want and that would probably be bad for popularity of Uber in Toronto, but what has the service to do with where it's used from?

        • Re:Toronto Municipal Gov't divided (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Shakrai ( 717556 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2014 @12:30AM (#48415087) Journal

          It's called regulatory capture. Government initially regulated transportation for hire for legitimate safety reasons; over decades the regulatory agencies set up for this purpose were captured by the status quo. A balance ensued wherein the safety needs are mostly met and the established players don't have to worry about competition. Now there's a disruptive new player that doesn't want to play by the old rules; this annoys the established players along with the self-important bureaucrats that regulate them. Along the way we've lost sight of the legitimate concerns about safety. In the ideal world we would blow up the existing regulatory apparatus and replace it with a leaner version that would focus on the core mission of ensuring safety without interfering with the natural development of the market.

          The same story plays out in a multitude of different markets. George Will writes about it and other examples of crony capitalism/regulatory capture quite frequently. One day a politician will emerge that can actually explain this concept to the masses; this will be a rude surprise for people on both sides of the political aisle who are invested in the status quo. Think of a modern day version of Teddy Roosevelt's trust busting.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Is this about automobile safety? Because my car has to pass smog and safety inspection every year just like the cabbies.

            • Is your car driven by someone with CPR training?
              Is your car driven by someone who has passed a criminal background check?
              Is your car required to have snow tires?
              ...

              It's about more than mere automobile safety.
          • 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.

            • Not all is regulatory capture. A lot often is real security, that some sees as an obstacle to their "cheapo" alternative.

              Oftentimes a company complaining about regulation sounds similar to the government complaining about obeying the constitution.

              Company: "We want to do it this (much cheaper but much less safe) way but the annoying Government keeps requiring us to abide by basic safety rules!"
              Government: "We want to catch the bad guys, but the annoying Constitution keeps requiring us to get these stupid war

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Anonymous Coward

            " A balance ensued wherein the safety needs are mostly met and the established players don't have to worry about competition." " replace it with a leaner version that would focus on the core mission of ensuring safety without interfering with the natural development of the market."

            Safety is not the core reason for these laws, the main reason taxi regulation started occurring in major cities: congestion control. Even now, only 2% of cars in NYC are taxis, but during peak hours/congestion, more than half of t

      • There's Uber's motto: Hey, we've gotta be safer than driving under the influence.

        Problem is that doesn't hold up in Toronto - we have designated driver services for them. I have to say, this is one particular case where I have to side with the city. The reasons they give are reasonable and justified with the exception of the protectionist crap for taxis. The insurance aspect is particularly important - I would not want to be in an accident with someone who only has a million dollars liability that has to cover themselves, the other driver, you, and anyone else injured.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Mashiki ( 184564 )

      Pretty much, and everyone already knows why they're trying to expedite it right? Because the city council doesn't want it, but the previous mayor and incoming mayor are in favor of it. For people that don't know, or don't pay attention to the council meetings this should be an eye opener. I don't live in the centre of the universe, but I still get pulled into their gravitational well(130km away).

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jonwil ( 467024 )

        Is it the City Council who dont want it? Or is it the Toronto taxi companies lobbying behind the scenes?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Mashiki ( 184564 )

          The city council itself mainly doesn't want it. There are some behind the scenes crap without a doubt, but by and far the councilors themselves.

    • John Tory (the next mayor of Toronto) has made statements actually supporting Uber.

      But Toronto doesn't have a "strong mayor" like many American cities. What it has is a city manager and a council can go its own way if it chooses.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rossdee ( 243626 )

        "But Toronto doesn't have a "strong mayor" like many American cities."

        But it did have one just as corrupt as any american big city mayor...\

    • 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.

  • Since 2012 (Score:4, Funny)

    by Spy Handler ( 822350 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2014 @11:38PM (#48414853) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • Two years free data... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    " 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...

  • 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. :)

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You were doing it wrong [wikipedia.org].

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Prune ( 557140 )
        And when he gets discouraged by how our buses are never on time, or how the Skytrain (Vancouver's light rail) has its tracks under maintenance far too often during active hours, maybe he can instead make use of recently-reelected-Mayor-Moonbeam's pet project bicycle lanes — I mean, he'd be meaningfully increasing bike ridership statistics and maybe I'll feel a teensy bit better about the traffic disruption the bike lanes have caused downtown and in other communities in a city that is becoming ever mor

    • 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. :)

      Toronto has poor to adequate taxi service. Vancouver has NO taxi service. It is not a taxi town, everyone drives cars. Taxis, when you can get them (airport or phone in) cost real money. Public transit is perfectly fine for the young and poor. Vancouver also has the worst traffic in North America, according to Wikipedia.

      • Toronto doesn't have poor taxi service, just crazy expensive. Vancouver was also rated as one of the easiest cities to get around in thanks to public transit.

      • Vancouver has NO taxi service. It is not a taxi town, everyone drives cars. Taxis, when you can get them (airport or phone in) cost real money. Public transit is perfectly fine for the young and poor. Vancouver also has the worst traffic in North America, according to Wikipedia.

        I live in Vancouver, and none of this is true.

  • 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.

    • Because goodness knows, nobody's [ctvnews.ca] been [seattlepi.com] assaulted [nbcwashington.com] by a licensed [wcax.com] taxi driver [www.cbc.ca].

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dave420 ( 699308 )
        So that means we should get rid of all regulation of taxis? Surely the more sane approach would be to fix the system, not remove it entirely and increase these attacks?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by kriston ( 7886 )

        Nice anecdotes you have there. Win many debates much?

        • Considering your original post commits a rather blatant logical fallacy of its own (begs the question by presupposing that not having registration leads to getting robbed, etc. and that having registration prevents it.) I'd have to ask you the same.

          Also, considering all of this is done through an app that contains feedback and such ratings, it seems unlikely that such assaults are any more likely to occur when using Uber or some similar service as opposed to a regular cab driver. One could argue that a p

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AK Marc ( 707885 )
          You implied that licensing eliminated assaults. He proved you wrong. If you want to claim they reduce them, rather than eliminate them, we'll demand to see your proof.

    • If we want to make cabs safer, I have a better idea: How about we background check the passengers to make sure they don't assault the driver?

      Seriously, who's more likely to be a criminal? A guy with a job to keep or a random stranger hopping in a car?

    • That is livery drivers must have full coverage and Uber tried to use fine print to get out of that.

  • Where will Uber dig? (Score:3)

    by ZipK ( 1051658 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2014 @01:07AM (#48415261)
    Too bad for Emil Michael that the press already dug up the dirt on Toronto's mayor, Rob Ford.
    • Rob Ford? Wasn't he the dirty little coward who shot Mr. Howard and laid poor Jesse in his grave?
      • Good one! I have heard Rob Ford accused of a lot of things, but not being THE Robert Ford who killed Jesse James (aka Mr. Howard). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J... [wikipedia.org] "Robert Ford, who killed Jesse, was James' gang member. Mr. Howard was the alias that James lived under in Saint Joseph, Missouri at the time of his killing." Of course I never knew anything about this until I Googled it just now.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2014 @03:53AM (#48415723)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Yes!!!
  • 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.

  • 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... [buzzfeed.com]

    --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, th

  • It seemed that they have had more than long enough to either prove that they do not, or prove that they do.

  • Looking at the injunction/article (Score:3)

    by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2014 @12:34PM (#48418261)

    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.

  • ...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.

Slashdot Top Deals

"No matter where you go, there you are..." -- Buckaroo Banzai

Close