London city councillors to vote Tuesday about Uber bylaw

Ifpress.com
Feb. 10, 2017
By Patrick Maloney

It was never going to be easy. But did it really need to be this difficult?

Eighteen months after Uber’s bylaw-busting arrival in London, city council is set - finally - to put the finishing touches - hopefully - on new regulations that would turn it and other ride-sharing services into legal entities.

But of course it’s not that simple. Uber doesn’t like the proposed rules. Traditional taxi drivers have been furious for months. And city council is divided over a decision that could enrage countless Uber riders here.

One city councillor - perhaps only half-jokingly - wonders if London’s complicated-by-council tradition has something to do with four-wheeled vehicles.

“I do think it could have gone more smoothly,” said Coun. Jesse Helmer, arguably council’s loudest voice in favour of finding Uber-fitting regulations.

“It reminds me of how the former council struggled to deal with food trucks. There was a lot of opposition to something new and once we figured it out, food trucks were fine.

“It reminds me of that, dealing with it over and over. I’m hoping we can sort it out (and do) the right thing (by) regulating these things fairly.”

Interesting word - fairly. Its definition can depend on your perspective.

As city council sought to finalize the revised vehicle-for-hire bylaw (after changing the fees proposed, to fit Uber’s demands) they added a last-second twist: making security cameras mandatory inside all Uber cars.

They’ve long been required in traditional taxis. Council voted 7-6 to make that change, setting up an unexpected complication at the 11th hour.

Leave it, Uber says, and they’ll leave London, abandoning their 960 drivers and countless customers in the latest example of their resistance to regulation.

Change it, traditional taxis said this week, and they’ll pull their services off city streets in protest. But the London Taxi Association relented Friday, saying taxis will continue to operate if city council decides not to require cameras in Uber cars.

So, in short: when city council votes Tuesday to finalize the Uber bylaw, which right now includes the security-camera requirement, it will complete a complicated process and set off a testy fallout, one way or the other.

Coun. Bill Armstrong is at the other end of the spectrum from Helmer, the loudest voice in favour of protecting traditional taxi drivers against the Uber revolution.

In an interview this week, he called out his council colleagues, many of whom have earned a reputation as “progressives,” for their handling of this issue.

“‘Progressive’ to me means someone who cares about the workers,” Armstrong said. “I do not understand these other councillors, why they’re supporting Uber. I cannot get my head around it.”

Brad Rice, vice-president of Voyageur Transportation and Checker Limousine, contacted The Free Press to clarify that his drivers “would never consider” pulling their vehicles off London streets, no matter council’s decision on Tuesday.

But he also weighed in on the pressure-packed final days leading to the vote, specifically Uber’s ultimatum to leave.

“The process is starting to resemble a hostage negotiation rather than clarifying the details of a bylaw,” he said.

City hall has long regulated London’s taxi industry for two reasons: to protect consumers and ensure the safety of drivers and riders. Uber’s arrival prompted an overhaul of the taxi bylaw.

A California-based tech giant, Uber is a ride-sharing colossus whose mobile app matches people who need rides with people who use their personal vehicles to drive them for a fee.