Airnb, like Uber, needs to be run out of town

28 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
Airnb, like Uber, needs to be run out of town

Like Uber, Airnb needs to be run out of town

Airbnb in Canada: 10% of hosts account for most of revenue, McGill study finds

http://globalnews.ca/news/3655064/airbnb-canada-commercial-property-owners/

NorthReport

'They're basically running hotels': Property management companies Airbnb's biggest winners

San Francisco-based Sonder lists 168 Montreal properties, mostly in Plateau-Mont-Royal, Ville-Marie

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/airbnb-study-montreal-1.4237710

NorthReport

Large commercial operators a growing concern in the Airbnb market, study says

Airbnb hosts in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver earned $430 million last year with the top 1 per cent of hosts taking $51.7 million, report finds.

https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2017/08/04/large-commercial-opera...

NorthReport

Police investigate false Airbnb listing in Stouffville

 

http://www.680news.com/2017/08/06/police-investigate-false-airbnb-listin...

NorthReport

We have community standards so let's kick them out for ruining our rental housing stock and for lying to the public This is not the type of corporate citizen we want in Canada

https://www.biv.com/article/2017/8/airbnb-has-likely-removed-almost-4000...

NorthReport
NorthReport

Uber will unfortunately die a slow death in BC whereas a quick death would be better

 

http://www.news1130.com/2017/08/10/uber-launches-fleet-mapping-vehicles-...

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

Uber will unfortunately die a slow death in BC whereas a quick death would be better

 

http://www.news1130.com/2017/08/10/uber-launches-fleet-mapping-vehicles-...

Why and how?

I am not a supporter of Uber but its main argument is based on being cheaper. That is hard to beat. and people are generally not happy with taxi service as it is.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I am not a supporter of Uber but its main argument is based on being cheaper.

Conversely, I think the main argument against it is that it's a publicly traded company.  If Uber were a worker-owned co-op I think we'd hear more about how it's better to support independents than to line the pockets of the owners of Beck Taxi.  But as long as Uber also has owners, we hear how they're driving those long-suffering Beck drivers out of business by slashing costs and making a ride too convenient.

NorthReport

It has a extremely sick corporate culture and this driverless car nonsense is exactly that nonsense as we are not going to have driverless cars in our lifetimes More importantly what's wrong with taking public transit or a taxi which we have been doing for many years

lagatta4

Well, public transport is not adequate everywhere, as we all know.

I don't know whether it is an air b&b or just noisy neighbours but there is a place on the street behind mine (across the lane) where they seem to be partying late at night at least on the weekends and sometimes during the week. They woke me up, and my bedroom is more towards the front of the flat. I'm sure I'm not the only person pissed off about this.

I have friends in the Plateau, just south of here and they are infested with air b&bs.

Another problem is that the hospitality industry should adapt. There should be more hotel rooms with a kitchen nook at least; most people I know don't want to go out to restaurants 3 times a day. No, they aren't necessarily cooking; some are just opting for takeaway.

voice of the damned

NorthReport wrote:

It has a extremely sick corporate culture and this driverless car nonsense is exactly that nonsense as we are not going to have driverless cars in our lifetimes More importantly what's wrong with taking public transit or a taxi which we have been doing for many years

I'm skeptical that we're gonna be seeing mass usage of driverless cars anytime in the next few decades(you'd have to MAJORLY re-boot the transportation infrastructure, not to mention traffic laws and insurance rules, just for starters), but I'm not sure I'd describe the idea as "sick". 

We're cool with the idea that we don't need to actively steer an elevator to get from one floor of a building to another, so what's so awful about applying the same principle to cars?

 

NorthReport
Rev Pesky

From voice of the damned:

We're cool with the idea that we don't need to actively steer an elevator to get from one floor of a building to another, so what's so awful about applying the same principle to cars?

Normally there's only one elevator in an elevator shaft. Normally, the elevator has very restricted movements. That is, it goes up and down. It does not turn, go side to side, speed up or slow down for no apparent reason, etc.

If you had a road that was absolutely straight, only one car on the road, and a preset number of stops, it could operate as an elevator does. It would also be more or less useless.

voice of the damned

Rev Pesky wrote:

From voice of the damned:

We're cool with the idea that we don't need to actively steer an elevator to get from one floor of a building to another, so what's so awful about applying the same principle to cars?

Normally there's only one elevator in an elevator shaft. Normally, the elevator has very restricted movements. That is, it goes up and down. It does not turn, go side to side, speed up or slow down for no apparent reason, etc.

If you had a road that was absolutely straight, only one car on the road, and a preset number of stops, it could operate as an elevator does. It would also be more or less useless.

Right. I was assuming that, in the scenario of driverless cars becoming a reality, they would be more or less as safe as elevators(this is usually the claim made about them), or at least no more dangerous than cars are now. Obviously, if DCs are going to kill more people than currently die on the roads, it would indeed be sick to want them as the norm. But I'm not sure if that's what North Report meant by "sick".

North Report:

The article you linked to is fairly long. Would you be able to write up a short TL/DR explaining how it argues that driverless cars are the sign of a sick corporate culture?

 

Sean in Ottawa

The market and a fight between responsibility and a desire for lower prices are not going to resolve issues such as those raised by Uber. If we thought so we would probably trust the market and be right wing.

You fight these things with a combination of policies favourable to workers, environment, consumers, that work to achieve greater equality. The transportation specific policies have to do with restrictions on cars and support for public transit. No presumptions of the coming death of Uber can take the place of rational policies.

Uber is really a fairly rational response to a public failure to protect workers, the public, the environment and to support public transit. Cities ought to be redesigned to offer fewer advantages to having cars.

It is this realization that is needed. And no, I am not holding my breath.

 

NorthReport

Bingo!

You beat me to it!

Rev Pesky wrote:

From voice of the damned:

We're cool with the idea that we don't need to actively steer an elevator to get from one floor of a building to another, so what's so awful about applying the same principle to cars?

Normally there's only one elevator in an elevator shaft. Normally, the elevator has very restricted movements. That is, it goes up and down. It does not turn, go side to side, speed up or slow down for no apparent reason, etc.

If you had a road that was absolutely straight, only one car on the road, and a preset number of stops, it could operate as an elevator does. It would also be more or less useless.

voice of the damned

So then, driverless cars will lead to more accidents? 

Rev Pesky

voice of the damned wrote:

So then, driverless cars will lead to more accidents? 

Not if there's only driverless cars on the road. You can't mix the two.

Sean in Ottawa

Rev Pesky wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

So then, driverless cars will lead to more accidents? 

Not if there's only driverless cars on the road. You can't mix the two.

How will people interact with driverless cars? Will it reduce road rage to know that it is just a machine?

Perhpas driverless cars will be more predictable.

lagatta4

The Paris métro line 14 is fully-automated, and also has anti-suicide (and nowadays, anti-falling-in-while-texting) barriers that only open when a train arrives in the station: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_M%C3%A9tro_Line_14 While fairly straight by Paris métro line standards, it has a couple of turns. You will also note that several of the stations are farther apart than in older stations, but the stations have several other lines feeding into them.

I'd rather see the automation used for improving  public transport. I think it could also make some public transport service possible in smaller centres.

Rev Pesky

Driving out to do errands yesterday I was delayed somewhat by road construction. There were flagpersons there directing the traffic.

Tell me what software would respond to flagpersons, and to other 'not normal' road conditions.

Sean in Ottawa

Rev Pesky wrote:

Driving out to do errands yesterday I was delayed somewhat by road construction. There were flagpersons there directing the traffic.

Tell me what software would respond to flagpersons, and to other 'not normal' road conditions.

This is something that is not hard to imagine. They could even have transponders to interact with driverless cars. Driverless cars have cameras and sensors of course already. This is not a big obstacle.

I am more concerned about hacking but even that may be fixable.

Rev Pesky

From Sean in Ottawa:

This is something that is not hard to imagine.

Okay, then imagine it for me, because I do find it hard to imagine. A driverless car comes upon a site of road construction where there are multiple signs directing traffic, cars weaving in and out, flagpersons directing traffic while constantly observing the situation, and you're telling me they would fit them out with transponders so they could take time out of their other activities to direct driverless cars. Sorry, but that ain't going to happen. How would they even know a driverless car was on it's way?  What if there's more than one driverless car, travelling in different directions?

​Like I've said before, I don't have a problem with driverless cars, but you can't mix drivered and driverless cars on the same road. Even up in the sky, where there's a lot more room than there is on most urban roads, they do not mix the traffic. Air space is very tightly controlled, and if you want to find out how tightly, just fly your Cessna into any large airport. 

 

Sean in Ottawa

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Sean in Ottawa:

This is something that is not hard to imagine.

Okay, then imagine it for me, because I do find it hard to imagine. A driverless car comes upon a site of road construction where there are multiple signs directing traffic, cars weaving in and out, flagpersons directing traffic while constantly observing the situation, and you're telling me they would fit them out with transponders so they could take time out of their other activities to direct driverless cars. Sorry, but that ain't going to happen. How would they even know a driverless car was on it's way?  What if there's more than one driverless car, travelling in different directions?

​Like I've said before, I don't have a problem with driverless cars, but you can't mix drivered and driverless cars on the same road. Even up in the sky, where there's a lot more room than there is on most urban roads, they do not mix the traffic. Air space is very tightly controlled, and if you want to find out how tightly, just fly your Cessna into any large airport. 

 

For now these are supposed to be driver assisted. So a transponder at the scene could send a warning and disable the driverless function. There are ways to do this safely since driverless cars are able to pull over and park.

Second driverless cars can be outfitted with an ability to interact with a transponder on the person of each person on a construction site. The cost of these transponders is not that much and over time would leave them all safer. In fact all cars -- driverless or not -- could intereact with these including sending warnings, even reducing speed of cars.

The technology is there. The implenetation you are complaining about has not happened.

You are referring to an incompatibility that does not exist in theory and to technological constraints that do not exist. There is nothing here that cannot be done.

 

Then to make matters more silly you refer to this transponder as taking time out of their day. You clearly do not understand much about technology or road construction when you say this. There is a lot of set up and planning to these. The programming would be done in advance and the people would simply click on and pick it up.

There is no point in attacking a technology without the knowledge making borad statements that are not informed or factual.

 

We also are aware of driverless crash trucks being used to improve the safety of crews. Crews are interested in htheir safety and will embrace technology that offfers that.

You can start by simply reading up on the infrastructure and technology that is already a part of driverless cars before you make such pronouncements. Even the breathless warning articles admit that this is being worked on and that there are technological solutions. The design of construction zones is ongoing. You can, and many people do, point to obstacles such as security and complexity, but these are comparing the present with the future. Making broad statements like incompatibility is unhelpful. There are many situations where there has always been a broad range of automation and technologies introduced to accomodate this. It might be that all cars will have to have some sort of secure transponders and it is known that there are prerequisites to make something happen and it is okay to acknowledge that. But this does not make sweeping incompatibility arguments true.

"Pack a highway with broadcasting beacons, and you can tell a connected, autonomous car that a construction zone is up ahead, and maybe even how to get through it safely. The National Highway Safety Administration plans to mandate that all new cars come equipped with this "talking" tech by 2020."

"The good news is that because the first fleets of fully driverless cars will stick to constrained areas, you don't have to get the whole country on board before trying this out—just a municipality or two."

 

Rev Pesky

From Sean in Ottawa:

You clearly do not understand much about technology or road construction when you say this.

It may interest you to know that for a good part of my working life I was a professional driver, and for much of the rest of it a computer technician. Perhaps that's why I have no problem imagining what could go wrong.

F'rinstance, if you spend time on the road, you'll know that people exceed the speed limit on a regular basis. Sometimes they get caught, and are pulled over and ticketed.

Now imagine a driverless car tootling along at twenty km's over the speed limit, as it's software tells it to do, and getting caught in a radar trap. The officer with the radar gun steps out onto the road to flag down the car, and gets run over for his trouble. After all, the car can't stop every time someone waves at it. Now, as above, you might say the police could have an override to allow them to stop the car, but who's going to pay for that? Not me.

Another interesting thing is how long it will take drivered cars to realize they can control the movement of a driverless car by reacting with it on the road. I predict it will happen very quickly.

If you swerve in front of a driverless car, it will do what it can to avoid being hit. Would that all the drivers on the road did the same, but they don't, which prevents a lot of people from swerving around. I can hardly wait until they realize that the driverless car will react to any one of a number of different actions one can take on the road. And if you don't believe people would take advantage of that opportunity, all I can say is I've spent many happy hours on the road observing exactly what people will do. You'd be amazed.

People are fascinated with technology, and I don't blame them. Technology is very interesting, and does wonderful things. People are a lot less fascinated by non-technology likes eyes and ears, mostly because we live with them every day and for the most part dont' notice them.

I can tell you that an eyeball connected to a brain can run rings around a camera connected to a CPU in terms of interpreting events and reacting to them. Maybe when AI has made some great strides that will change...

What's more likely to happen is a system of roads with a central control, and which every vehicle has to 'log on' to at different points on their journey. At the very beginning of the journey the car would be driven as cars are now, by a human driver on local streets. As it reached a street that was more heavily travelled, it would have to log in, and then would be assigned a position in the stream of traffic. This is already done in many places. Entrances to freeways are monitored, and cars held back or given permission to proceed based on traffic conditions. The step from that to controlling the car after it enters the freeway is a short one.

So cars can be driverless, but I doubt they will ever be autonomous. The road system will likely look a lot like the air traffic system, varying levels of control based on preset criteria, a central system of control and constant monitoring. It works very well for air traffic, and will, if cars continue to be built, likely be the model for the road system.

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

Rev Pesky wrote:

Now imagine a driverless car tootling along at twenty km's over the speed limit, as it's software tells it to do, and getting caught in a radar trap. The officer with the radar gun steps out onto the road to flag down the car, and gets run over for his trouble. After all, the car can't stop every time someone waves at it. Now, as above, you might say the police could have an override to allow them to stop the car, but who's going to pay for that? Not me.

I would not presume that a technology suddenly goes into a present context without changes to that context. This is an evolving technology and I object to the sweeping statements of what is possible or not. I think that is the wrong approach. To point to a practical present challenge as a reason why something would never be possible is the kind of logic that would make no future technology possible. If the present challenges would already be finally be worked out then this would not be an emerging or future technology or development, it would be a present one.

There is no base incompatibility that you have pointed out -- only challenges based on existing practices and contexts.

As for the public cost of implementing enabling technologies there would have to be a rationale for it. And there may be. The technology could lead to better flow and fewer accidents along with greater social options for transportation.

Just as 120 years ago people may have objected to the idea of greater use of aircraft and the public expenditure on airports, there were public purposes in them.

It is unclear what the infrastructure will look like and how it will work but far too early to say that this is undoable and incompatible.

 

Rev Pesky

From Sean in Ottawa:

This is an evolving technology and I object to the sweeping statements of what is possible or not.

I'm only pointing out some of the problems that will be run into, and that autonomous driverless cars will not happen until those problems are solved.

There​'s plenty more that has nothing to do with the technology. Liability, for instance. Right now, the owner of a vehicle is required to purchase liability insurance against the possibility that they may cause an accident.

Now, let's think for a minute. If a driverless car causes an accident, who is the responsible party? It doesn't take much thinking to realize there would be lawsuits without end, trying to determine who was at fault. So the proper thing to do is to create a legal basis before the case arises. Unfortunately tech wizards are more or less useless when it comes to imagining things like that.

We have a similar situation with drone aircraft. What of the laws of privacy, of noise, of airspace, when you have a bunch of people flying their camera laden drones around? Someone probably should have thought of those things before the drones took to the air. But the legal problems around drones are nothing compared to the problems of driverless cars. 

So it is not just a problem of evolving technology, it is also a problem of evolving law. Whatever the state of the technogy (which is nowhere near being viable in the real world), the law is far, far, behind.