Comments on: Ontario Highway Transport Board’s Stupid Decision on PickupPal

By: Monsyne Dragon

Monsyne Dragon — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 03:50:31 +0000

Heh. And you folks are surprised at this? The practical effect of EVERY such licensing and regulation scheme is to protect established interests from competition.

By: Abandoned Stuff by Saskboy :: International Ride Service Gets Cold Shoulder in Ontario

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:28:41 +0000

[...] How backwards does this ruling make Ontario look? I thought the West was supposedly the part of the country with the reputation for being anti-environment? [...]

By: Dmitry

Dmitry — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:48:13 +0000

Where the hell those criteria came from????
The only definition of “carpooling” is in the Highway Traffic Act:
“car pool vehicle” means a motor vehicle
(a) with a seating capacity of not more than twelve persons,
(b) while it is operated transporting no more than twelve commuters including the driver, none of whom pay for the transportation more frequently than on a weekly basis,
(c) that is not used by any one driver to transport commuters for more than one round trip per day, and
(d) the owner, or if the vehicle is subject to a lease, the lessee, of which does not own or lease another car pool vehicle unless the owner or lessee is the employer of a majority of the commuters transported in the vehicles,
…
So?

By: Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:24:26 +0000

It’s a bit unfair to dump on the Board. They don’t have the authority to change or ignore the legislation — even if it is stupid. It doesn’t look like the Act was intended to ban car pooling, but the bus companies have figured out that it can be used that way. Let’s update the Act and take that option away from them. It shouldn’t be too tough to draft something that permits car pooling without providing a loophole that allows for pirate taxis and buses.

By: M

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:51:30 +0000

There should be no concern about watering it down. Look how explicit those restrictions are. Just change them to allow “real” car-pooling. This is a law that is completely out of touch with reality.

By: Randy

Randy — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 06:46:12 +0000

That’s a ludicrous solution, I’m sorry – what if I start with a full tank? What if someone is dropped off before we get to a gas station? Etc.

In a more general sense, the cost of disallowing carpooling / ridesharing is far greater (to the public) than the benefit of preventing unlicensed cabbies. Surely there are better, less draconian ways to distinguish between the two.

It truly defies belief that this law is even on the books in the first place – the crossing municipal boundaries part should have set off alarms in the head of anyone from Southern Ontario, loud enough to deafen them permanently.

By: michael

michael — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 06:18:34 +0000

Why do consumer’s need to be “protected” from unregulated cab companies? Ours are regulated to death and I need protection from _them_, because there’s only two they charge duopoly prices and have correspondingly terrible service.

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 05:37:32 +0000

It seems to me that the intent of this law is to protect the consumer against unregulated cab companies, and other transportation services. I don’t really see a way to water it down without allowing unscrupulous operators to circumvent the taxi and bus licensing regulations. Perhaps these web sites should just make it policy that no money can change hands as payment for the ride. If “gas money” is to be exchanged, it should be done when the car is being filled up.