A Real Pick-Me-Up

In the province of Ontario, 'carpool' is a legal term with legal ramifications. Introduced in the 1970s, carpools were an attempt to encourage working people to share rides to and from work, thereby reducing emissions and congestion, as well as encouraging all of the positive social benefits of people commuting together.

This issue has recently been brought to the forefront after a ruling by the Ontario Highway Transportation Board in favour of Trentway-Wagar Inc., against Ottawa-based website pickuppal.ca. The website is used to coordinate drivers who are offering rides with passengers who are looking for rides, thus again reducing emissions and traffic, as well as enabling drivers to share some of their fuel costs.

Trentway-Wagar, the company that owns the bus line Coach Canada, has a problem with this service. They (successfully) argued that carpooling only allows for people to commute to work, and PickupPal was therefore breaking the law. While I'm sure their primary concern was for the safety of people travelling with potentially bad drivers, PickupPal was also cutting into their profits by reducing the number of people riding the bus between large centres, primarily Toronto to Montreal. They argued that PickupPal was providing a transportation service, while at the same time not required to abide by the same regulations as the bus company, such as vehicle maintenance and driver capability. PickupPal was ordered to pay $2837.07 to the board and $8500.00 to Trentway-Wagar in fines.

In the end (as is often the case) it was a question of liability. It seems nobody is truly responsible for their own selves these days, and insurance companies repeatedly rear their ugly head. Dean Saul, a Partner with Gowlings transportation industry national group, says: "The big question that comes up is, what is the liability for the guy driving the vehicle in relation to the people in the vehicle? What insurance is he carrying for the people in the vehicle or is the insurance he is carrying valid if he has a collision and kills three people in another car?" The issue of insurance coverage in such a situation stems from the practice of people leasing vans and operating them as makeshift buses, turning a profit all under the guise of a carpool. What the legislation in combination with this ruling effectively means for people in Ontario, though, is that parents volunteering to pick up local kids for hockey practice or other such organized and non-work-related carpools may also be technically illegal.

It seems unlikely that parents will be pulled over on their way to hockey, and it should also be noted that the Ontario government is scrambling to update their legislation on the issue. However, the real issue at stake here is corporations, insurance companies, and government colluding to restrict 'unofficial' transportation and on a larger level interaction. Each person should have the freedom to accept rides with any other person, and accept any of the associated risks. However, any interaction between individuals without the influence of an official 'market' is seen as a threat to corporate hegemony.

This 'problem' has only been exacerbated by the Internet and other new communication technologies, and it is only growing. As people become less relient on centralized forms of communication, they are more able to interact on a private and personal level. The fact that anybody is even reading this is a testament to that fact. As this phenomenon continues and becomes more commonplace, legislation will slowly change to accept it, as has already begun with the carpool issue in Ontario. We can only hope this happens sooner rather than later.

Russel MacDonald