Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Vancouver Doesn't Have Uber

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 41 posts

Re: Vancouver Doesn't Have Uber

#11

Post by wvenable »

dsaum wrote: post #4
RodericDay wrote: post #2

Vancouver has an excellent SkyTrain + bus network, as well as a thriving biking scene. Suprised to not see any of that mentioned in the article. Although, the note the article ends in, it's pretty clear that it's an ad.

The best source they could find for the article is someone who spent $1000 for a private driver for two days... I visit Vancouver twice a year to spend time with family. Downtown core is walkable. SkyTrain and express buses are often significantly faster than driving when you factor in parking and traffic... An extensive and affordable bike share system would be a great addition but the same forces (incumbent lobbyin…

I don't understand the point of anecdotes like this. Simply because we have reasonable transit (daytime hours only) and bike lines (if you have bike) that we don't need any more options? That's not much of an argument. I'm not biking home at 2:00am in December from a Christmas party.

Re: Vancouver Doesn't Have Uber

#12

Post by wvenable »

xemoka wrote: post #10

Vancouver has called Uber exactly what it is: a limousine service. There is no ifs, ands, or buts. The fact that they are able to masquerade in other regions as they please because of the perceived benefit to consumers does not negate the fact of what they really are. This co-opting of the 'sharing economy' to mean unregulated subcontractors is ridiculous. It removes the risk from Uber as a company and places it on t…

They are limousine service because the law defines them that way, it's circular logic. And the regulations on limousines exist to keep the taxi monopoly running.

These regulations are not commandments from God, they can be changed. And it's not immoral to try and change them. The current rules are terrible for consumers.

Re: Vancouver Doesn't Have Uber

#13

Post by madiator »

The article sounds one-sided in favor of Uber, but as a tourist who visited the place recently, it would have been much easier for me if Uber/Lyft operated.

The public transit may be nice, but as a tourist, I didn't bother with the bus timings and such: it was way easier to get a cab. Under such circumstances, Uber/Lyft may have made it much easier, especially since, at times we felt flagging down a cab was impossible.

Re: Vancouver Doesn't Have Uber

#14

Post by madiator »

wvenable wrote: post #12
xemoka wrote: post #10

Vancouver has called Uber exactly what it is: a limousine service. There is no ifs, ands, or buts. The fact that they are able to masquerade in other regions as they please because of the perceived benefit to consumers does not negate the fact of what they really are. This co-opting of the 'sharing economy' to mean unregulated subcontractors is ridiculous. It removes the risk from Uber as a company and places it on t…

They are limousine service because the law defines them that way, it's circular logic. And the regulations on limousines exist to keep the taxi monopoly running. These regulations are not commandments from God, they can be changed. And it's not immoral to try and change them. The current rules are terrible for consumers.

I agree. These laws are not set in stone. Times change, and so the regulations need to change. The government must do what is good for the people, and in this case, it may be letting Uber run (or may be not).

Re: Vancouver Doesn't Have Uber

#15

Post by RodericDay »

wvenable wrote: post #12
xemoka wrote: post #10

Vancouver has called Uber exactly what it is: a limousine service. There is no ifs, ands, or buts. The fact that they are able to masquerade in other regions as they please because of the perceived benefit to consumers does not negate the fact of what they really are. This co-opting of the 'sharing economy' to mean unregulated subcontractors is ridiculous. It removes the risk from Uber as a company and places it on t…

They are limousine service because the law defines them that way, it's circular logic. And the regulations on limousines exist to keep the taxi monopoly running. These regulations are not commandments from God, they can be changed. And it's not immoral to try and change them. The current rules are terrible for consumers.

"This zoning is residential because the law defines it that way" is only "circular" if you dismiss all the history that led to that classification in the first place.

The idea that literally all zoning and transport regulation came as a result of the hotel/taxi lobby is ridiculous.

Re: Vancouver Doesn't Have Uber

#16

Post by RodericDay »

caiob wrote: post #3

Spotty public transit? Vancouver has one of the best public transportation systems in North America. Honestly, Vancouverites aren't at all bothered by the fact that Uber doesn't exist out there. The author clearly has never been to other cities in Canada such as Toronto and/or Ottawa where commute is a nightmare.

You're getting a lot of replies saying "it bugs me", so I guess I'll counter-balance them by stating that, while I was working there, nobody used cabs regularly enough for it to matter, and when we did, it was no issue.

Broad age range, from 18 year-old coop interns to 35 year old parents and 50 year old senior execs.

Re: Vancouver Doesn't Have Uber

#17

Post by RodericDay »

madiator wrote: post #13

The article sounds one-sided in favor of Uber, but as a tourist who visited the place recently, it would have been much easier for me if Uber/Lyft operated. The public transit may be nice, but as a tourist, I didn't bother with the bus timings and such: it was way easier to get a cab. Under such circumstances, Uber/Lyft may have made it much easier, especially since, at times we felt flagging down a cab was impossibl…

If you're not used to public transport in your home city, you probably wouldn't know how to use it in a different city. For example, you can send a text to any bus-stop, and immediately get a list of upcoming bus times. They were also fully integrated to Map apps.

This is the sorest spot of "Uber culture" for me: wealthy and educated people who would put skills and pressure into keeping public transit sharp and usable for themselves (and therefore everybody else), instead "opt out" for their own private needs and leave public transit to rot.

Re: Vancouver Doesn't Have Uber

#18

Post by doublerebel »

Public transportation is fine in Vancouver, but getting a taxi is still as bad as ever. Many taxis simply choose not to show up, claim they have arrived when they have not, and dispatch is mostly indifferent.

The Vancouver taxi app suffers from the same problems. No rating system, so your driver can just abandon you or take a weird route.

These are the reasons Uber became so popular in other cities. If you are a businessperson in Vancouver with an urgent need to get somewhere you basically need a private driver.

Car2go and Evo car sharing services are good, but in competitively high demand. (I have found myself literally racing others on foot for the available ones.) Locals are desperate for driving solutions that don't involve long-term parking. And that still leaves visitors out of luck.

Re: Vancouver Doesn't Have Uber

#19

Post by wvenable »

RodericDay wrote: post #15
wvenable wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are limousine service because the law defines them that way, it's circular logic. And the regulations on limousines exist to keep the taxi monopoly running. These regulations are not commandments from God, they can be changed. And it's not immoral to try and change them. The current rules are terrible for consumers.

"This zoning is residential because the law defines it that way" is only "circular" if you dismiss all the history that led to that classification in the first place. The idea that literally all zoning and transport regulation came as a result of the hotel/taxi lobby is ridiculous.

"The idea that literally all..." is a straw man. Nobody has said that here. But if they did, I agree it would be ridiculous.

Re: Vancouver Doesn't Have Uber

#20

Post by kerkeslager »

I got a popup with a countdown forcing me to leave it open for at least 5 seconds before I could close the popup, with the following text:

> We noticed that you're using an ad blocker, which may adversely affect the performance and content on Bloomberg.com. For the best experience, please whitelist the site.

I've stated before[1] here how I feel about anti-adblock popups. If you don't want me to view your content because I refuse to view ads, I'll respect your wishes and move on.

However, I don't like being lied to.

Sure, in an indirect economic sense, viewing Bloomberg's content without viewing ads will use their server cycles without providing them income, which in the long run could cause them to run low on funds and have to cut spending on servers, which could adversely affect the performance and content on the site, if Bloomberg continues to choose to operate on this business model. So technically yes, going on the website with an ad blocker is one factor (of many, and not the primary factor) which could hurt site performance and content.

But the wording here is very ambiguous. Nontechnical users reading this text would likely believe from reading this that there is some technical reason that ad blockers directly slow down website performance and content. And this is not the case; the direct impact of ad blockers is to improve the performance of websites and improve the viewing of content. Unless we are to believe that Bloomberg is technically ignorant, this ambiguity is intended to deceive.

I'll add this to the list of unethical behaviors encouraged by advertising.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11901684

Post reply on HN