Oh, this is sweet.

A lottery for accessible taxi licenses, in a city which has just decimated the taxi industry by granting unlimited free taxi licenses to Uber... and what do we get?

Whomever is designing policy for the City of Hamilton has come up with this ridiculous idea of a lottery for accessible taxi licenses... that would require the applicant to spend about $45,000 for an accessible vehicle, in order to have access to a taxi market that has been utterly decimated by the stealth introduction of unlimited taxi licenses to the Uber cab company.

(Compare that to Uber's sweet deal. Instead of even spending the $45,000 to provide even ONE SINGLE accessible Uber cab, all Uber has to do is pay an annual $20,000 for an exemption to the AODA law. It's a nice law if you can buy it.)

My first guess is that most of the people on the taxicab priority list, who have been waiting for 25 to 30 years for a standard taxi license, thumbed their noses at the city's dastardly bait and switch offer for a taxi license, conditional upon the license being for an accessible taxi. In other words, for a license that is virtually worthless. (my guess is that almost 100% of those who DID accept this pathetic offer have already made informal arrangements to have someone else actually operate those vehicles.)

Let me spell it out for you in simple terms.

Even though the taxi market was restricted to a limited number of providers, Pre-Uber, the market was already saturated. The existing supply of licensed cabs remained idle 75% of the time.

When the city government decided to grant access to Uber to the Hamilton taxi market, the equivalent of taxi owner's licenses for micro-pennies on the dollar, the earnings per licensed taxicab were reduced by 30% to 50%.

And in the face of impending disaster for the non-exempt taxi operators in Hamilton, the City is casting a net in anticipation that there will be enough IDIOTS who will be lured into this "deal." They are calling it a "lottery" but the odds of winning are even worse than the "Cash for Life" scam. This is a lottery where the ticket buyer has absolutely zero chance of winning.

I know a guy who was victimized by the pre-Uber accessible license scam. Instead of being offered the standard taxi license he had been waiting for 28 or so years for, he was offered a conditional license. His license would only be granted if he spent $45 G's of his own money on an accessible vehicle. Right off the bat, that just isn't fair. But who cares about "fairness" when it comes down to politics?

And he fell for it. (In his defense, he didn't really have much choice. The loving government made him an offer he couldn't really refuse. It was either a wheelchair plate, or nothing. "Accessible transportation is a right, not a privilege." Therefore, the guy who waited 28 years for a license finds he has, no rights, no privileges, only obligations. By the way, that is the essence of liberalism.)

So now, he finds himself being singled out to drive unreasonable distances, because he is the only accessible cab "available" at certain times, for short, unprofitable trips, all because, under the AODA, disabled people have rights, and he has to pay for them.

Poor guy. He doesn't know what hit him. He probably even votes Liberal.

I derive no pleasure in seeing how badly this man has been screwed by the ideology he probably unwittingly votes for. In a way, I almost admire him for his ability to carry on, despite knowing that he is the victim of a grave injustice.

And now they want to sucker people into buying MORE accessible taxis, even as the market shrinks.

Never before has the IGNORANCE, or blatant sociopathy, of Hamilton's political decision-makers been so openly displayed.

I know some very resourceful and clever entrepreneurs in the Hamilton taxi business. Maybe one of them will come up with some kind of scam whereby they offer to lease those accessible licenses, under the table if necessary, in order to squeeze some marginal profit out of the enterprise.

But anyone who would accept one of these licenses, with the intention of incurring the massive expenses involved in buying and operating their own accessible taxicabs....

Is fucking nuts.

Accessible Taxicab Owner Licence

"The licenses were initially offered to individuals on the Taxicab Priority List and there are three remaining accessible taxicab owner plates available for 2017. As a result, an electronic lottery will be held for all individuals who are qualified to hold a taxicab owner licence."

Read it and puke.

---

Poor Uber Driver

Oh my. This is a sad story. Here is an Uber driver voicing his concerns in the Uber driver's forum about whether or not his "sharing economy" gig is paying off.

It's possible that this is not a genuine post from a genuine Uber driver. I see that. It's the kind of schlopp I would write if I were in a mischievous mood.

On the other hand, given what I already know about the Uber scam, and the people it exploits in order to get them to employ "assets they already own," in Tim Hudak's famous phrase, it's entirely reasonable to believe that this is a REAL Uber driver, who is just beginning to figure out who is making money, or should be making money, and who is getting royally boned. (See my story about the Uber driver who drove a football player from Chicago to Buffalo for minus $38.50.)

I knew it was a scam from the beginning. That is why, when people asked me why, instead of tolerating the City of Hamilton's demonstrably absurd taxi regulations, I didn't simply switch to Uber, i already knew that I would never drive a cab for Uber. It was an obvious sucker job. They match riders with drivers and, instead of merely charging a "booking fee," they claim an additional 25% of what the rider pays, at zero cost to Uber! Talk about the Marxist objection to capital exploiting labour, the Uber concept has suckered hundreds of thousands of people into using their own capital to exploit themselves.

Pardon me for my use of profanity here, but that is FUCKING INGENIOUS!

And when people finally begin to understand the magnitude of the con, I hope they don't forget how quickly and easily their political representatives adopted Uber's seductive jargon by trying to be "trendy" and by pretending that Uber's angle was technological rather than simply exploiting innumerate drivers and, and by pressuring weak, opportunistic, dishonest, and cowardly politicians into turning long established taxi regulations upside-down in order to provide Uber with the opportunity to extract a significant percentage of the gross taxi revenues in the targeted jurisdictions.

And I hope they don't forget that I pointed it all out to them from the start.

"I have taken my car for lease till 40,000 km. Now I am crossing extra km company will charge me .18 cent per km. Now I am worried how will I drive uber. I normally drive 700 km in week and earn 500 dolar. It mean $125 I have to pay company $80 for Gas forget about my car premium, insurance ,car service cell phone bill and wear and tear I will go negative. Ptesently In 30 hours I am making $ 305. Which is $10 per hour. Today I got a ride for bolton return no ride I drove 50 km return. I face same problem in airport return no ride. Any advice guys I do not want to drive 200 km extra but if I wait in one place then no request I need to come to main road and happening places. Or else I just have to work 50 hours and It will very low dollar per hour. One more thing I want to mention when ever sucharges going to start like friday and satuday 1.30 am to 3.00 am uber give me a ride which is 10 km away from surcharges. If I am in border of surcharges then I get request of no surcharges. Some days were good I made $65 per hour. But that happen once in blue moon."

Source.

More Uber News

---

Here is an interesting interview from Canada's government propaganda network's Anna Maria Tremonti, and Uber executive, Adam Lashinsky. I sent a message to Anna asking to invite me onto her show to provide a different perspective on the Uber taxi phenomenon. I will let you know if I get a response. I'm not holding my breath.

---

Here are a few of the videos I sent to various political decision makers, none of which received a single response:

---

Also of Interest

San Francisco Is Investigating Whether Uber And Lyft Are Public Nuisances.

Yeah, "Safety is a priority for Uber."

A top Uber executive, who obtained the medical records of a customer who was a rape victim, has been fired.

You know, when I read these reports, the first question I ask myself is, have the politicians in my city, well, all of Ontario, for that matter, really done their homework before deciding to comply with Uber's mandates, rather than stand up to them?

From my point of view, the answer is clearly, "No." And I will go further. They don't know, and they don't care."

"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
George Orwell

Hamilton Mayor, Fred Eisenberger, lies about city's deal with Uber having the "backing of the taxi industry."

He later confessed that he was referencing a "stakeholder team," consisting of, as far as I have been able to determine, three taxi brokers and a taxi school official that worked with Licensing in writing the bylaw that screwed the other, approximately, 1,196 taxi industry stakeholders who were not consulted. He admitted it to me in an email by stating,

"I realize that not all drivers, yourself included, are fans of the compromise that was ratified and put into place."

It should be noted, that the taxi brokerages, and the taxi school, have interests that are often diametrically opposite the interests of the other 1,196 drivers, operators, and license owners.

So much for unanimity.

"Contrary to the fanatical belief of its advocates, compromise [on basic principles] does not satisfy, but dissatisfies everybody; it does not lead to general fulfillment, but to general frustration; those who try to be all things to all men, end up by not being anything to anyone. And more: the partial victory of an unjust claim, encourages the claimant to try further; the partial defeat of a just claim, discourages and paralyzes the victim."
-- Ayn Rand

Final Entry: Uber Driver gets Ripped off on Trip from Chicago to Buffalo

This driver was was saved by the tip.

Using the AAA as a source, and assuming the Uber driver was driving a small sedan, it would have cost this driver somewhere in the ballpark of 1,100 mi. X $.464 $/Mi = $510 to run this trip.

The rider was charged $632 for the trip. The Uber corporation would extract $2.50 + .25 X $632 = $160.50 in brokerage fees (what I call the Uber Income Tax,) leaving the driver with a payout of $632 - ($160.50 + $510) = $632 - $670.5 = *negative* $38.50.

It's lucky for this Uber lackey that the rider tipped him $300. That helped cover the $38.50 loss this driver incurred leaving him with net earnings of $261.50 for the 16 hour round trip, or about $16.35 per hour.

So, if all Uber passengers were to tip their drivers 47.5%, it would be a decent job.

That rarely happens, though.

By contrast, here is an example of how Uber drivers calculate their "earnings," from UberPeople.net:

"$632 - $2.50 = $629.50 × 75% = $472.13 plus $300 = $772.13 - $100 gas = $672.13 over 16 hours is $42 per hour is worth the drive."

So now you know part of the reason Uber is able to miraculously charge so much less than taxis.

See the new item here.

Or.... you could just call a taxi.....

For some time now, I have been trying to draw the attention of politicians in some Ontario jurisdictions to certain dangers attending their suspicious embrace of the Uber taxi company. In addition to Uber's obvious disregard for the law, and dubious insurance coverage there are also issues of passenger safety.

So far, I have not received a single reply from a single politician, or hired bureaucrat, addressing the obvious and predictable safety concerns I have attempted to warn them about. (Toronto mayor, John Tory, has even blocked me on Twitter.)

Given their often repeated claims that one of their core values in deciding whether to award Uber an unlimited number of taxi licenses is safety, I might have expected at least one response.

Not a single response.

Dead silence.

I have tried to point out the dangers associated with the use of distractive devices for taxi dispatch. The reply was,

Zip, zero, zilch.

And I have tried to point out the dangers associated with using unmarked vehicles as taxis because the practice provides ample opportunities for criminals and stalkers. As I've said many times, Paul Bernardo would have loved Uber.

Not a single reply, challenge, question, or rebuttal.

From what I have seen, the politicians and bureaucrats who have complied with Uber's demands that their bylaws be amended to comply with the Uber business model have given nothing but empty lip service to their claim that safety is one of their "core values." The evidence suggests that safety is barely an afterthought when it conflicts with corporate privilege.

The evidence keeps rolling in. I keep sending it to the politicians and, predictably, there is no response.

Clearly, the professed fealty to public safety is nothing but vacuous virtue signaling, or as Rush Limbaugh used to say, "symbolism over substance."

The reports are rolling in almost daily about the rat's nest the politicians have opened up with their knee-jerk obeisance to the Uber cab company. This one just came in,

Man Assaulted, Stabbed After Getting Into Car He Thought Was Uber or Taxi

For a list of Uber incidents, click here.

---

Here are a few of the videos I sent to various political decision makers, none of which received a single response:

---

Also of Interest

San Francisco Is Investigating Whether Uber And Lyft Are Public Nuisances.

Yeah, "Safety is a priority for Uber."

A top Uber executive, who obtained the medical records of a customer who was a rape victim, has been fired.

You know, when I read these reports, the first question I ask myself is, have the politicians in my city, well, all of Ontario, for that matter, really done their homework before deciding to comply with Uber's mandates, rather than stand up to them?

From my point of view, the answer is clearly, "No." And I will go further. They don't know, and they don't care."

"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
George Orwell

Hamilton Mayor, Fred Eisenberger, lies about city's deal with Uber having the "backing of the taxi industry."

He later confessed that he was referencing a "stakeholder team," consisting of, as far as I have been able to determine, three taxi brokers and a taxi school official that worked with Licensing in writing the bylaw that screwed the other, approximately, 1,196 taxi industry stakeholders who were not consulted. He admitted it to me in an email by stating,

"I realize that not all drivers, yourself included, are fans of the compromise that was ratified and put into place."

It should be noted, that the taxi brokerages, and the taxi school, have interests that are often diametrically opposite the interests of the other 1,196 drivers, operators, and license owners.

So much for unanimity.

"Contrary to the fanatical belief of its advocates, compromise [on basic principles] does not satisfy, but dissatisfies everybody; it does not lead to general fulfillment, but to general frustration; those who try to be all things to all men, end up by not being anything to anyone. And more: the partial victory of an unjust claim, encourages the claimant to try further; the partial defeat of a just claim, discourages and paralyzes the victim."
-- Ayn Rand

Final Entry: Uber Driver gets Ripped off on Trip from Chicago to Buffalo

This driver was was saved by the tip.

Using the AAA as a source, and assuming the Uber driver was driving a small sedan, it would have cost this driver somewhere in the ballpark of 1,100 mi. X $.464 $/Mi = $510 to run this trip.

The rider was charged $632 for the trip. The Uber corporation would extract $2.50 + .25 X $632 = $160.50 in brokerage fees (what I call the Uber Income Tax,) leaving the driver with a payout of $632 - ($160.50 + $510) = $632 - $670.5 = *negative* $38.50.

It's lucky for this Uber lackey that the rider tipped him $300. That helped cover the $38.50 loss this driver incurred leaving him with net earnings of $261.50 for the 16 hour round trip, or about $16.35 per hour.

So, if all Uber passengers were to tip their drivers 47.5%, it would be a decent job.

That rarely happens, though.

By contrast, here is an example of how Uber drivers calculate their "earnings," from UberPeople.net:

"$632 - $2.50 = $629.50 × 75% = $472.13 plus $300 = $772.13 - $100 gas = $672.13 over 16 hours is $42 per hour is worth the drive."

So now you know part of the reason Uber is able to miraculously charge so much less than taxis.

See the new item here.