cplchanb
Senior Member
And this was the same guy who from a link on the last page of this thread compared uber to isis.....
|
|
|
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Napoleon
Active Member
I think driving off is a reasonable response...I would have been afraid for my safety. The guy was banging rather hard on the window and trying to open the door. In fact, if the driver was in an accident while trying to escape, I would have held the idiot trying to get in responsible. Really just idiotic behaviour.
the lemur
Senior Member
Seems to be a thing in the taxi industry. It wasn't too long ago that someone from the London Taxi Drivers Association compared cyclists to ISIS ...
the lemur
Senior Member
Driving off if the guy is not on the car already is reasonable. This driver actually seems to have stopped a few seconds after the guy grabbed on.
nfitz
Superstar
Indeed; it's not like he accelerated and then swerved to shake the guy off.
And then the guy tries to grab on again!!
junior43
Active Member
Now this clown admits to working for Uber black or whatever it is.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/taxi-driver-worked-at-uber-1.3358864
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/taxi-driver-worked-at-uber-1.3358864
My solution for this (just my opinion):
1) Initiate a buy-back program for existing taxi plates, set at X% of market value. That value can be decreased if the taxi cartels refuse to agree to the other parts of the deal.
2) Institute a $50 (or $100, something reasonable) driver and vehicle licensing fee for ALL ride-for-pay services, including Uber. This gives each driver and each car being used a unique identifier number for tracking, reporting, and complaints purposes. Like with right now for taxis, those two licenses must be displayed somewhere in the vehicle.
3) Establish minimum standards for vehicles. Uber already has them, but many cab companies are pretty loose with them. If the City wants an extra cash grab, they can institute a mandatory yearly inspection, for a fee of course.
4) Abolish minimum rates.
This would in essence make all drivers "independent contractors". They would have the choice of either providing their own vehicle, or working for a taxi company which would provide the vehicle for them. The number of drivers, and the fares they charge, would largely be determined by supply and demand. There's no reason why the ride-for-pay industry should be immune to basic market forces. If there are too many sub shops within too close of a distance, one of them is bound to close. C'est la vie.
The buy-back may be a contentious issue, but I see it as a relatively small price to pay in order to get comprehensive reform. For many drivers, the plate thing is a big deal, since they've invested a lot into getting it. If they're paid out at least part of what it's worth, I think they'd be a lot more open to change. Without that, their position would purely be about protecting their investment.
The licensing fee would also be a way to keep track of how many drivers there actually are out there, and provide the ability to revoke licenses. The fee however should not be so high that it's a barrier to entry into the industry. Otherwise you get the same kind of extortion that's happening now with the limited supply of plates.
1) Initiate a buy-back program for existing taxi plates, set at X% of market value. That value can be decreased if the taxi cartels refuse to agree to the other parts of the deal.
2) Institute a $50 (or $100, something reasonable) driver and vehicle licensing fee for ALL ride-for-pay services, including Uber. This gives each driver and each car being used a unique identifier number for tracking, reporting, and complaints purposes. Like with right now for taxis, those two licenses must be displayed somewhere in the vehicle.
3) Establish minimum standards for vehicles. Uber already has them, but many cab companies are pretty loose with them. If the City wants an extra cash grab, they can institute a mandatory yearly inspection, for a fee of course.
4) Abolish minimum rates.
This would in essence make all drivers "independent contractors". They would have the choice of either providing their own vehicle, or working for a taxi company which would provide the vehicle for them. The number of drivers, and the fares they charge, would largely be determined by supply and demand. There's no reason why the ride-for-pay industry should be immune to basic market forces. If there are too many sub shops within too close of a distance, one of them is bound to close. C'est la vie.
The buy-back may be a contentious issue, but I see it as a relatively small price to pay in order to get comprehensive reform. For many drivers, the plate thing is a big deal, since they've invested a lot into getting it. If they're paid out at least part of what it's worth, I think they'd be a lot more open to change. Without that, their position would purely be about protecting their investment.
The licensing fee would also be a way to keep track of how many drivers there actually are out there, and provide the ability to revoke licenses. The fee however should not be so high that it's a barrier to entry into the industry. Otherwise you get the same kind of extortion that's happening now with the limited supply of plates.
the lemur
Senior Member
Whaaat. I can understand that he gave Uber in some capacity a try, but ...
The driver, who said he's been working in the business for 22 years, said every day he spots about 100 vehicles working for Uber — which are often easy to spot by a glowing smartphone mounted to the dash and a passenger riding in the back seat.
I would think that describes a lot of cars downtown that aren't Uber cabs ...
"I thought the gentleman was going to stop. I tried to talk to him politely."
'Politely' doesn't really square with pounding on the window.
junior43
Active Member
Yup, he's somehow managing to make himself look worse.
I'm also not sure how you 'politely' hang onto someone's windshield wipers. It's not like he said please prior.
Maybe he should take a look at the video
Napoleon
Active Member
I just watched the video again...wow. He starts by attempting to yank open the door immediately by pounding with his fist on the window. They really should charge this guy with something.
picard102
Senior Member
At this point, I'm not even sure they should be given that. They invested in something, and the value of that investment collapsed. Tough luck, time to get another job doing something else and rebuild.
ksun
Senior Member
Don't understand the need to buy back... if we don't buy back, what will they do, more strikes?
I don't know why their particular "investment" should be protected. How is it different from one investing in a company or a house and losing money due to market change?
Filip
Senior Member
I agree - the plates were never meant to be sold like a commodity.
If the market tanks and my condo loses 30% of its value, will the city reimburse me? Nobody should be in the business of subsidizing poor investment decisions. I hate welfare of any kind (corporate or personal).