It may be relevant to this discussion - the Region of Waterloo has released a
draft taxi by-law for public and stakeholder consideration. It currently would require essentially the same things for taxis and "auxiliary taxis" in terms of vehicle and driver requirements, but with no cap on the number of "auxiliary taxi" licenses - which can do most everything except street hails.
Excellent.
Finally -- sensible sounding bylaw from first impression (with only minor adjustment needed). This includes making
Uber drivers to get a mandatory in-car camera (just get a cheap $50 dashcam and an all-day-recording 32GB MicroSD card) and to make
Uber drivers to always show proof of purchased commercial insurance shown if police stops a Uber, or passenger asks.
Other than that, no silly stuff like plates/medallions, fleet limits, fare meters, etc (phones are fare meters instead, and you can refuse the price, and remember: some ridehails including Uber already allows one-button cancellation if you don't like the pricing, driver, or car) -- good. Taxi drivers still keep many bones thrown at them -- Uber drivers are banned from doing streetside hailing or taxi drivers. Incidentally, this would force companies like Uber to quickly help these drivers easily purchase local commercial driving insurance (part-time and full-time). Other than this, it will still be fairly easy for a very good qualified driver with a flawless driving record -- still fine with me, risk-wise.
-- Commercial insurance companies now can provide proper coverage more easily --
In addition, this forms the necessary climate for insurance companies to assess risk of app-hail duty (e.g. Uber), and offer lower rates for good drivers who only do occasional part-time app-hail duty (e.g. Uber). Insurance companies can look at Uber log to charge a variable rate based on amount of Uber airtime -- so a part-time Uber driver doing it as a 2nd job -- shall pay a rate much more proportionate to the amount of driving. (Like taxi-drivers that own their plate/cab but only run it part-time -- some insurance companies in some jurisdictions already make that provision).
-- This is independent of any bad 'Uber corporate' tactics; a legitimate concern --
This isn't about Uber or their business tactics, but city law books must incorporate the push button app-hail economy (bikeshare, carshare, Uber, Lyft, future private or public-transit clones of 1970s GO Transit DIAL-A-BUS, and eventually hailable self-driving cars in our kid's lifetime, etc).
-- Force taxi companies to permit their drivers to enrol in third party taxi hail apps --
I do suggest an amendment that taxi companies should be forced to let taxi drivers to choose to be a member of third party taxi app hailing (e.g. Hailo, UberTaxi, etc). It is important to note that
remember UberTaxi is not UberX and this does not give taxi drivers auxilary rights. Taxi drivers enrolled in UberTaxi would be subject to full taxi requirements, except I could hail as a deafie easily. Yes, it means I have to pay a hailing fee to Uber for UberTaxi, but the taxi company and taxi driver gets the full original faremeter fare, where they could otherwise be turned away because I consciously instead chose to take the insurance risk with UberX. This makes them more accessible and deaf-friendly, as many including deaf people like myself -- would like the "no-talk no-write zero-speech enter-and-exit cab ride" experience with all rides, taxi or auxilary taxi.
-- Deaf accessibility is absolutely critical. AB-SEEE-OL-UTE-LEEY. --
Often, many taxi drivers do not require their taxi drivers to be able to effectively communicate with deaf and speech-impaired people of all kinds (some can speak, some can't, some can't write either, etc). App hailing allow the "pre-paid pre-routed zero-driver-communication no-payment-fiddling exit-immediate-at-end" experience for deafies like me and others. In theory, I could sue to make this illegal under deaf accessibility law (AODA), as this is a very simple way to make all taxis fully compliant with our existing AODA law, from a deafie and speech-impaired perspective.
-- Taxi drivers are commonly in violation of AODA in regards to deaf people. --
I have a lawyer friend who has pointed a very clear low-lying apple in the AODA legislation, that during a lawsuit, can suddenly force taxi companies to permit their drivers to enrol in third-party app-hailing (ones that fit the taxi law like UberTaxi, not the auxilary taxi law like UberX -- two different things). However, I don't feel like spending the time nor money on any lawsuits because I fortunately see Uber legalizing. You know, I also know a deaf guy who is also dyslexic, so he's got both speech & written difficulties, making taxi communications even harder than for me! He does not have the resources to do a lawsuit, even if I feel like helping him out. Either way The point is --
Taxi companies should not fire taxi drivers who enrol in Hailo or UberTaxi, full stop (again, UberTaxi is different from UberX) -- to enable full taxi accessibility to deafies like me. Able-bodied deaf / communication-impaired people are a different AODA law beast than wheelchairs that has been overlooked by many city councillors and taxi drivers. This enables the zero-driver-communication taxi ride, which is not otherwise possible except when using app hailing.
-- Compromise law suggestion for making taxis AODA-compliant for deaf people --
A possible compromise law for Taxi companies for deaf accessibility could be roughly similiar to this mandatory suggestion:
(A) Either must provide a hailing app that permits passengers to complete their ride with zero driver communications for the entire ride. This complies with the AODA for the able-bodied who are deaf, dyslexic, speech impaired, or otherwise communications impaired;
***or***
(B) Must fully permit their taxi drivers subscribe to third-party taxi app hailing services that complies with AODA legislation pertaining to otherwise able bodied people who are deaf, dyslexic, speech impaired, or otherwise communications impaired. Example apps include UberTaxi or Hailo. Said taxi drivers shall not be fired for subscribing to third party taxi hailing (e.g. UberTaxi or Hailo) as long as they are not subscribing to
auxilary taxi-hailing apps (e.g. UberX).
-- Plates affecting babies (good taxi drivers) with the bathwater (bad taxi drivers) --
For cities with overpriced taxi plate/medallion systems, a phased transition might be necessary needed, as among the bad taxi drivers, are nice ones too, that may be thrown out of work suddenly as babies (good taxi drivers) with the bathwater (of bad taxi drivers). It's a messy transition, but we have to do it now before we are able to hail self-driving cars, either our own, or from a carshared/rented/rideshared/hailable fleet (after a few generational cycles of very secure and safe Category 4 automated car improvements -- to the point that they're safety trustworthy empty in a snowstorm on a dodgy street.).
-- App hailing is a convenience revolution for the deaf who missed their last bus --
As a deaf guy who has been kicked out of taxis for being communications-impaired, UberX is a revolution that makes the amazing invention of the "zero-driver-communications ride" fully possible. No deaf people has ever been kicked out of a UberX vehicle for being communications-impaired as the Uber driver already has 100% of all the information necessary (pre-routed, pre-paid, etc), even before heading to the pickup location. Ironically, as a computer programmer in the booming mobile app developer industry, I earn far more than the average taxi driver. Unusually, I could otherwise be a good poster boy for launching an AODA lawsuit against taxi companies. But it's not necessary considering Waterloo & the open-mindedness of Tory. Deaf people can't always call taxi companies. Deaf people can't always hail taxi streetside successfully. There are often no good taxi options for the deaf soured by bad experiences. Hailo/UberTaxi/UberX/etc fixed that. It should now be enshrined in law.
-- The Jacquard Loom Moment & Taxi Protests --
App-hailed rides is the start of a taxi-disruptive transition. Unfortunately, driverless cars would later complete this disruptive transition. It would almost certainly make the majority of taxi driver positions redundant within a few decades. We need to prevent the Jacquard Loom textile automation moment. Already, today, we have major taxi protests. 200 years ago textile workers were thrown out of employment from the early automatic looms. Today we have Paris taxi protests, with violence and arson, from the sudden emergence of Uber. To prevent social tensions like arson burning in Paris by very angry taxi drivers, a transition period is socially necessary (e.g. half a generation? a generation?). This allows taxi plates/licenses to slowly devalue to a more natural equilibrium without social catastrophes occuring.
___
Big Kudos to Waterloo. Thank you.
(Coincidentially, I'm a University of Waterloo alumni -- though got hired quickly into the dot-com boom a bit early)
The proposed Waterloo bylaw seems to be a good compromise that gives taxis some rights and ridehail vehicles other rights -- while forcing non-onerous changes to drivers who sign up to earn money on ridehail (e.g. Uber drivers). It also throttles the social changes (e.g. taxi drivers doing arson in Paris) while continuing to allow taxis and Uber to operate -- over a transitional period -- until the era of hailable self-driving cars within our kid's lifetimes.
Toronto need to follow suit. Ditto for other municipalities.
If the City pulls that off. Done deal.