Comment Re:Competition Sucks (Score 1) 507
Wait, why would Uber have a lower license cost than the cabbies who know the town?
Wait, why would Uber have a lower license cost than the cabbies who know the town?
How is me driving with a stranger more likely to result in an accident than me driving with a friend?
Just one ride? It won't. However, someone who's doing this is likely going to be driving far more than your average driver. Which is where the more likely to result in an accident thing comes from.
Also, the "higher risk" is mostly due to commercial drivers driving ALL the time while "normal" drivers will only do so when they need the car, i.e. the higher risk is due to them being on the road far more often and far longer.
Exactly.
That's not the case with commercial car sharing because they only get to tag along.
No. That's not at all how these services work.
If the iPhone app doesn't match the legal description of a taximeter, then that would be a strike against Uber, as they're not using one.
So you're saying that the only Uber drivers I'll find are those with commercial licenses? Given how it operates here in the states, I find that notion completely laughable.
Ummm, no? They very much can do that, and it is not entrapment. Because the person was doing it anyway, they were not coerced by the cop.
Uh, no. That's not at all how it works. That's like a drug dealer saying he wouldn't have sold the drugs if he knew the person was a cop.
How in the bloody hell is that entrapment?
If a cop calls you, asks you to perform an illegal action, and then arrests/tickets you for performing said illegal action: entrapment.
No, that definition is completely incorrect. If they coerce you into performing an action that you otherwise would not have done, that is entrapment. It would be almost impossible for someone who is signed up as an Uber/Lyft driver to argue this, as they very clearly would have done the action without the police around.
Otherwise, I do have a question: why the demand for "commercial insurance" in the first place?
Because they are operating in a commercial manner. And considering that they are doing that, and driving much more than the average person, they are more likely to get into an accident.
Also, most auto insurance setups actually do cover the passengers in your vehicle should they get injured, so, well - what's the beef?
Most auto insurance setups will expressly NOT cover a crash or injury if it was determined that you were using your vehicle in a commercial manner, which is what this would be.
One caveat, though: if the rider signed a waiver online that lists the risks, and requires him to acknowledge and agree to them before ordering a ride, he very well wouldn't have much of a case unless the driver were drunk or high or etc.
I would posit that any such waiver be invalid.
The problem is that the insider who hold the licenses (usually gained with great effort) want to keep the outsiders out.
Presumably because they paid quite a bit for them. It's not at all fair that someone else comes in to try and take your customers who hasn't had to do that.
If Uber was lobbying for getting rid of the cabbie license, or was requiring cabbie licenses, then you'd have a point. But they're not, so you don't.
Because "meeting the business needs" usually means "having it done yesterday" and having it done cheaper.
That's definitely not true.
Just like it would make more sense to not use platforms who's policies you don't agree with than complain about it?
And yet, no one is forcing you to use Apple products.
And really, if Google did any of the stuff you're talking about, they'd have the FTC on their ass even harder than they did.
You're not required to use Apple. The game is fully available on Android.
The hardest part of climbing the ladder of success is getting through the crowd at the bottom.
