Comment Re: Brilliant move.. (Score 1) 417
And then there is waze
I use Waze myself and while it is brilliant, I would still trust a black cab to get there quicker when it involves anything remotely near zone 1.
And then there is waze
I use Waze myself and while it is brilliant, I would still trust a black cab to get there quicker when it involves anything remotely near zone 1.
what advantage are uber drivers gaining? that they provide subpar service compared to black cab?
Actually, yes! They can provide a subpar service, without the customers knowing, or having any way of knowing that the service they are paying for, is rubbish and/or overpriced.
A short while back, we had a scandal in the UK, where a lot of beef was actually more horse than anything, consumers had no way of knowing they were being cheated, as flavourings and colours were used to disguise it.
A subpar product can easily be sold without customers knowing they are being cheated, this is why we have standards and regulations
Huh? Getting raped by a taxi is a serious issue.
Not saying it is not, I was referring to the cheating aspect of the argument.
(raped by a taxi
You can still get raped and cheated with London taxis.
And you can still get meat labelled as 100% beef where it is mostly horse/pig/goat/alien instead.
If the consumers cannot tell the difference (due to whatever flavourings they use to mask the taste) is that a reason to just allow it, "in the name of competition" ?
seems like black cabs should be providing excellent service
They are rated as some of the best in the world.
if black cabs service is so much better than ubers, people will surely choose to use black cabs over uber. where's the problem?
really, they just want to use government to stifle competition.
They welcome competition, on fair terms. Tourists (a rather large market in London) have no way of comparing the service provided by the Uber cabs, and the licensed cabs. They have no way of knowing if the Uber driver is actually selecting the best (and cheapest) route for the journey and as Uber have no requirements for drivers to know the area they operate in, there will be plenty of times when the customers will be ripped off, without even knowing it.
The question really is this: Should the government prohibit consumers from paying someone else for a ride?
If only this was the question.
The government is regulating the market at the moment, however Uber is trying to bypass the regulations the rest of the market have to adhere to.
Uber is doing this via providing an inferior, unregulated service, which may, or may not be competitive on price.
Most customers will not be able to tell the difference between the route selected by an Uber driver, and the route being selected by someone who is bound by a requirement to know what is the optimal route. In the end the customers will be the ones paying the price, without even knowing they were ripped off.
Want to book a cab via an app? Use the existing one for the licensed cabbies?
Want to compete in this market? Compete on even terms, get fully licensed drivers to sign up to Uber and let the proof be in the pudding.
Unix soit qui mal y pense [Unix to him who evil thinks?]