There is no legitimate reason for ride sharing to be illegal. It is illegal because it threatens entrenched interests, both private and public. I consider that a point in Uber's favor. Their customers and drivers seem to like it quite a bit. I have to root for anyone subjected to that much hit piece "reporting", especially when the publisher doing the hitting is invested in an Uber competitor.
I see you're completely unfamiliar with Uber, the conduct of their executives, their business practices, and how they treat their drivers, customers, and competition.
Catch up, then maybe come back and try that again?
Also where they fraudulently book fake Lyft rides so that Lyft drivers aren't available for real fares, they attack journalists personally for reporting on them, they threaten to reveal the personal information of any unsatisfied customer, they abuse customer information in violation of privacy for personal jollies, they change rates suddenly and without notice, oh and they don't vet or do background checks on drivers so there's been at least one case of a rapist driver getting a job as a cabbie, getting a woman into his car, driving her somewhere secluded, and raping her.
There's nothing inherently wrong with the idea of an Uber-like service. Uber itself, however, is completely terrible and is, I reiterate, an object lesson in how to not run a company.
(I'm typing on my phone, thanks for doing the rundown, theweaselking.)
Not opposed to ride-sharing in general (I'm from DC, where the commuter "slug line" is a tradition), I'm opposed to Uber for being UTTERLY unethical in their business practices.
Uber == "Hey, let's make a startup based on gypsy taxis."
There are good reasons for it to be illegal. There are also good reasons to bust up taxi monopolies. Uber is not only not the right way to do it, but it's doing it in the worst possible manner.
then who actually should be carrying the liability insurance for uber enrolled vehicles and drivers? uber insists that the drivers do, yet without an entirely different insurance policy allowing for commercial hire, which requires a commercial license, this is not going to happen. this means that either a) uber is telling its drivers to commit fraud and take their chances, or b) uber is telling its customers caveat emptor 'cause in case of any untoward incident or accident the customer is sol, except of course uber is not even providing that information to its customers. this is highly unethical.
and this doesn't even begin to address the inappropriate uses of uber patron's personal information.
My wife was initially thinking about trying this, but after the article in which Uber does nothing but cause grief for a female driver who was harassed by riders, and then they threatened to doxx a reporter she lost interest. When a chief officer of the company makes a complete ass of himself by shoving his foot so far up his mouth it sticks out his ass there's a problem. Who wants to support arrogant jerks who can't be bothered with things like client/driver safety?
Thank you for making it so clear that being criticized is enough to make you feel you "have to root for" the company that does all these things! You are such a time-saver.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-10 07:33 pm (UTC)And then intermittently I find myself aghast when they do!
A couple thoughts
Date: 2014-12-11 01:19 am (UTC)Their customers and drivers seem to like it quite a bit.
I have to root for anyone subjected to that much hit piece "reporting", especially when the publisher doing the hitting is invested in an Uber competitor.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-11 01:43 am (UTC)Catch up, then maybe come back and try that again?
(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-11 01:47 am (UTC)Catch up, then maybe come back and try that again?
(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-11 01:51 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-11 01:59 am (UTC)There's nothing inherently wrong with the idea of an Uber-like service. Uber itself, however, is completely terrible and is, I reiterate, an object lesson in how to not run a company.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-11 02:07 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-11 02:24 am (UTC)(I'm typing on my phone, thanks for doing the rundown,
Not opposed to ride-sharing in general (I'm from DC, where the commuter "slug line" is a tradition), I'm opposed to Uber for being UTTERLY unethical in their business practices.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-11 05:40 am (UTC)There are good reasons for it to be illegal. There are also good reasons to bust up taxi monopolies. Uber is not only not the right way to do it, but it's doing it in the worst possible manner.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-11 12:50 pm (UTC)and this doesn't even begin to address the inappropriate uses of uber patron's personal information.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-11 03:49 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-11 11:06 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-12 05:48 am (UTC)Why do you feel this way?
(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-12 05:51 am (UTC)