5 ms·

it's worth pointing out that Quebec has no trouble at all living life as an "outsider" with respect to Canadian and north american "norms" ... i.e. no matter ho

by plg 12y ago

it's worth pointing out that Quebec has no trouble at all living life as an "outsider" with respect to Canadian and north american "norms" ... i.e. no matter how "standard" uber becomes (or not) this will not be an argument in favour of adopting it. there are a metric ton of examples of how life in quebec is bizarre compared to neighbouring provinces in Canada (and compared to the US) this may be just another one

raquo 12y ago
Well, FWIW Vancouver is just as backwards as Montreal in this regard, we don't even have Uber.
SG- 12y ago
It's also one of the most corrupted with government officials.
- kelvin0 12y ago
  Yes, corruption directly correlates to Uber presence (or lack thereof).
jbob2000 12y ago
Can confirm. Rising tuition in Ontario? "Meh, part of inflation". Rising tuition in Quebec? "I DONT UNDERSTAND! WE NEED TO RIOT!"
foobarqux 12y ago
What are the arguments for a city to adopt Uber? Presumably there were reasons to implement taxi regulations and medallion caps and whatever those reasons were, if they made sense to the city 5 years ago, they probably still make sense today.
- raquo 12y ago
  5 years? More like 40-80. In Vancouver for example the 4 taxi companies comprising the taxi industry basically regulate themselves. Of course they will never approve another entrant. I wouldn't be surprised if Montreal is about the same.
  - foobarqux 12y ago
    I didn't say the reasons were created 5 years ago.
- philwelch 12y ago
  In most modern legal systems, the question is not what the law should allow but what the law should prohibit. So the question should really be, what are the arguments for a city to prohibit Uber?
  - foobarqux 12y ago
    That's irrelevant to the point, which is that whatever prohibits Uber today also prohibited Uber in the recent past before Uber existed. Did unregulated taxi service make sense to a city 5 years ago?
    - philwelch 12y ago
      Just because a law has been on the books doesn't mean the law continues to be in the public interest, especially when it was enacted before the technology to enable Uber was widespread enough to make Uber possible.
- greggyb 12y ago
  The reasons tend to be closer to a century old than 5 years, and similarly tend to have been the result of preferential regulation in favor of the taxi companies. A good history of the jitney transport industry[0]. I'll note that the statistics reported regarding length of service and demographics of jitney drivers indicate that UberX is a much more apt solution to the problem of matching riders with drivers than a "traditional" taxi service with full-time employees. [0]http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/724795?uid=3739976&uid=2134&uid=2488599363&uid=2488599353&uid=2&uid=70&uid=3&uid=3739256&uid=60&sid=21106185861931 http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/724795?uid=3739976&uid... - note article is available with a free registration.
  - foobarqux 12y ago
    I didn't say the reasons were created 5 years ago, only that if there were reasons 5 years ago they probably haven't changed. Of course you could make the argument that there weren't valid reasons 5 years ago but that doesn't seem compelling, I don't think a city would have de-regulated the taxi industry and let anyone pick people up for money 5 years ago.
    - raquo 12y ago
      There's a whole gamut of options between current regulations and no regulations. But the corrupt regulators don't want to change anything because they like how the current regulations bring in $800K per year per medallion to license holders who are also their friends, partners and/or campaign donors (actual Vancouver numbers). What kind of safety or convenience or other concerns require profits in excess of $800K per taxi cab per year? What's wrong with market pricing? Why should short rides subsidize long rides? Why can't one company offer no-frills service (at no-frills prices), and the other one premium service? Why can't taxis have optional ride pooling? Uber, Lyft & co have already proved that they can work great alongside existing cabs. There is no reason why they wouldn't work if the regulations are updated from 1930 to 2015 and from protecting incumbents' profits to protecting users' interests. But the cities are unwilling to do that because they like their profitable taxi cartels.
- bobcostas55 12y ago
  There is only one reason and it is very simple: taxi owners use their political influence to extract rents. It's a scheme to legally steal from people who use taxis.
pothibo 12y ago
> there are a metric ton of examples of how life in quebec is bizarre compared to neighbouring provinces in Canada (and compared to the US) Quite the prejudicial statement. While some things are different, living in Quebec is pretty similar to any other place except for the fact that we speak french. When LA or New York banned Uber, did you say how californian and New Yorkers were 'bizarre' and 'outsider'?
- elecengin 12y ago
  My understanding is that they also legally require French to be used in a variety of contexts (with "language police"). If so, that is significantly different than most other places - and may feel "bizarre". For example, you are free to run a restaurant with employees that do not speak English in the US, but you are not allowed to run a restaurant with only English speakers in Quebec.
  - pothibo 12y ago
    Let me just say this: Nothing you wrote is remotely true. Not. A. Single. Thing.
    - elecengin 12y ago
      I didn't mean to offend. This is merely how it was described to me. I have read a little, but I could be off. I have seen things like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Language_Act_%28Quebec%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Language_Act_%28Quebec... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois_de_la_langue_fran%C3%A7aise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois_de_l...
    - jellicle 12y ago
      Really? http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/quebec-language-police http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/quebec-language-pol... In Quebec, the law is that the public has an affirmative right to be served in French: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_French_Language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_French_Language and fines are issued for violators: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/french-still-under-threat-in-quebec-judge-finds-in-bill-101-case-1.2934573 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/french-still-under-th... I don't know if this counts as "bizarre" or not, but it's certainly unusual, since other provinces do not do this.
plehoux 12y ago
Making this a Quebec VS Canada issue is ridiculous. There are similar fines given across the country.
napopa 12y ago
If something does not conform to your "standards" and "norms", that does not make it automatically "bizarre" (whatever you mean by that). And as many pointed out already, uber is banned in many cities across Canada and US, which is maybe proof that those "norms" and "standars" you talk about do not actually exist. This is probably an example of your own prejudice actually.

by plg 12y ago

raquo 12y ago

Well, FWIW Vancouver is just as backwards as Montreal in this regard, we don't even have Uber.

SG- 12y ago

It's also one of the most corrupted with government officials.

kelvin0 12y ago
Yes, corruption directly correlates to Uber presence (or lack thereof).

jbob2000 12y ago

Can confirm. Rising tuition in Ontario? "Meh, part of inflation". Rising tuition in Quebec? "I DONT UNDERSTAND! WE NEED TO RIOT!"

foobarqux 12y ago

What are the arguments for a city to adopt Uber? Presumably there were reasons to implement taxi regulations and medallion caps and whatever those reasons were, if they made sense to the city 5 years ago, they probably still make sense today.

raquo 12y ago
5 years? More like 40-80. In Vancouver for example the 4 taxi companies comprising the taxi industry basically regulate themselves. Of course they will never approve another entrant. I wouldn't be surprised if Montreal is about the same.
- foobarqux 12y ago
  I didn't say the reasons were created 5 years ago.
philwelch 12y ago
In most modern legal systems, the question is not what the law should allow but what the law should prohibit. So the question should really be, what are the arguments for a city to prohibit Uber?
- foobarqux 12y ago
  That's irrelevant to the point, which is that whatever prohibits Uber today also prohibited Uber in the recent past before Uber existed. Did unregulated taxi service make sense to a city 5 years ago?
  - philwelch 12y ago
    Just because a law has been on the books doesn't mean the law continues to be in the public interest, especially when it was enacted before the technology to enable Uber was widespread enough to make Uber possible.
greggyb 12y ago
The reasons tend to be closer to a century old than 5 years, and similarly tend to have been the result of preferential regulation in favor of the taxi companies. A good history of the jitney transport industry[0]. I'll note that the statistics reported regarding length of service and demographics of jitney drivers indicate that UberX is a much more apt solution to the problem of matching riders with drivers than a "traditional" taxi service with full-time employees. [0]http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/724795?uid=3739976&uid=2134&uid=2488599363&uid=2488599353&uid=2&uid=70&uid=3&uid=3739256&uid=60&sid=21106185861931 http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/724795?uid=3739976&uid... - note article is available with a free registration.
- foobarqux 12y ago
  I didn't say the reasons were created 5 years ago, only that if there were reasons 5 years ago they probably haven't changed. Of course you could make the argument that there weren't valid reasons 5 years ago but that doesn't seem compelling, I don't think a city would have de-regulated the taxi industry and let anyone pick people up for money 5 years ago.
  - raquo 12y ago
    There's a whole gamut of options between current regulations and no regulations. But the corrupt regulators don't want to change anything because they like how the current regulations bring in $800K per year per medallion to license holders who are also their friends, partners and/or campaign donors (actual Vancouver numbers). What kind of safety or convenience or other concerns require profits in excess of $800K per taxi cab per year? What's wrong with market pricing? Why should short rides subsidize long rides? Why can't one company offer no-frills service (at no-frills prices), and the other one premium service? Why can't taxis have optional ride pooling? Uber, Lyft & co have already proved that they can work great alongside existing cabs. There is no reason why they wouldn't work if the regulations are updated from 1930 to 2015 and from protecting incumbents' profits to protecting users' interests. But the cities are unwilling to do that because they like their profitable taxi cartels.
bobcostas55 12y ago
There is only one reason and it is very simple: taxi owners use their political influence to extract rents. It's a scheme to legally steal from people who use taxis.

pothibo 12y ago

> there are a metric ton of examples of how life in quebec is bizarre compared to neighbouring provinces in Canada (and compared to the US) Quite the prejudicial statement. While some things are different, living in Quebec is pretty similar to any other place except for the fact that we speak french. When LA or New York banned Uber, did you say how californian and New Yorkers were 'bizarre' and 'outsider'?

elecengin 12y ago
My understanding is that they also legally require French to be used in a variety of contexts (with "language police"). If so, that is significantly different than most other places - and may feel "bizarre". For example, you are free to run a restaurant with employees that do not speak English in the US, but you are not allowed to run a restaurant with only English speakers in Quebec.
- pothibo 12y ago
  Let me just say this: Nothing you wrote is remotely true. Not. A. Single. Thing.
  - elecengin 12y ago
    I didn't mean to offend. This is merely how it was described to me. I have read a little, but I could be off. I have seen things like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Language_Act_%28Quebec%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Language_Act_%28Quebec... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois_de_la_langue_fran%C3%A7aise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois_de_l...
  - jellicle 12y ago
    Really? http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/quebec-language-police http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/quebec-language-pol... In Quebec, the law is that the public has an affirmative right to be served in French: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_French_Language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_French_Language and fines are issued for violators: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/french-still-under-threat-in-quebec-judge-finds-in-bill-101-case-1.2934573 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/french-still-under-th... I don't know if this counts as "bizarre" or not, but it's certainly unusual, since other provinces do not do this.

plehoux 12y ago

Making this a Quebec VS Canada issue is ridiculous. There are similar fines given across the country.

napopa 12y ago

If something does not conform to your "standards" and "norms", that does not make it automatically "bizarre" (whatever you mean by that). And as many pointed out already, uber is banned in many cities across Canada and US, which is maybe proof that those "norms" and "standars" you talk about do not actually exist. This is probably an example of your own prejudice actually.