Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Yes, a company that allows its drivers to operate without insurance or a proper licence and which has allowed dozens of people previously convicted of violent offences through its background check process is one that is interested in "ultimately benefiting the consumer". The city's concerns are very legitimate.
There are really two issues here. The first is the idea of Uber - which is to break up the taxi cartels and give consumers more options. Everyone but taxi drivers supports that.
The second is the entity of Uber, which is pretty damned evil. And while I believe the ultimate end of this scenario is a relaxation of protectionist rules for taxi companies, Uber is going to find itself embattled from all sides due to its complete disdain for all regulation - including those that exist to protect drivers and riders. And deservedly so.
|
And they are currently operating at a loss. This is about market share, people. That said, I do agree that taxi companies won't just go quietly into the night.