Flashbacks to Nepali taxi drivers. They'll dip out straight into oncoming traffic at full speed and then cut people off at the last second to get back into their lane. A local friend told me the traffic law is, don't hit anybody.

So, to paraphrase, Forget legality, forget definition, forget reality, I want to call it murder so I will.
What utter infantile nonsense.

Texas doesn't call it murder, so they can't execute anyone. In fact, if I read it right, they just fine you like a traffic ticket. The legal consequences prove you're alone in calling it murder, the fact that you don't think execution is the right outcome for every person involved from the doctors and nurses to the taxi drivers all the way to the mothers should be executed proves you don't think it's murder either, you just like to exaggerate.

The unborn are not human beings by definition or by law, not even by religious definition or law, so murder is impossible. That is by all definitions and by all laws. Get over it. You're simply wrong and have to fudge definitions, the law, religious teachings, and all logic and reason to make the arguments you're making.

It's clear you didn't read the article @noseeem linked for you. You really should.

I was riding the bus in Paris, and all the streets in Paris were designed for anorexic horses in the 17th century and fuck you for trying to fit your fat-ass 21st century car down them -- much less a huge city bus. So we're squeezing down this street and we come across a moving truck blocking the road. I, as an America, am awaiting horns, swearing and automatic weapon fire. Instead, the driver stops the bus, turns it off, hops off and goes and has a smoke. The people in the bus were being totally French about it: not a murmur of complaint.

Two years later, I was in Canada and some dude cut off a taxi at a light. Out hops the taxi driver to confront the driver of the other car. I start scanning for my exit once pop-pop-pop / muthafuckas drop gets underway. Instead of a spray of bullets, or at least an amusing fist fight, the taxi driver shakes his finger at the guy and gets back in his cab.

I live in mortal fear of getting shot on the road in America over some stupid bullshit (this actually happened to me once: some asshole in Cupertino cranked off three rounds at my car when I accidentally cut him off). It's so amazing to visit civilized countries and see people acting decent and calm to each other.

Your video, Russian Taxi Driver Blocks Ambulance on Duty, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 308 Badge!

I tested out crossing the border a couple of months ago into Nogales Sonora Mexico. It was as simple as walking through an outdoor hallway through a turnstile. No security, the only thing you see are taxi drivers calling to you and people trying to take you to the legit pharmacies where you can get all of the shitty prescription pharmaceuticals you have to pay an arm and a leg for in the US for next to nothing. Getting back in, you could give them an EXPIRED PASSPORT and nothing else if you wanted.

Also, went back to go to a dentist that cleaned my toofs better than any dentist in the US has at a fraction of the cost.

I'm more relating it to the Stand Alone Complex series, particularly the second season which is what the adaptation seems to be based on from the trailers.

It is clearly impossible for them to cram the content of that 26 episode series into a movie and I'm frankly not sure why they decided to adapt it rather than the original movie.

That had plenty of discussion about simulations, emergent phenomena and group think. Definitely bordered on pretentiousness (there was an episode which adapted Taxi Driver) but still very enjoyable.

Very interesting, but I have some questions about the efficacy of those rules/laws with regards to actually keeping the uncensored versions out of German hands.

Here in Thailand, since 2008 all GTA games are specifically banned (after a nutter who killed a taxi driver said he was influenced by GTA), along with any games with "excessive violence" or sexual content. In spite of that, the majority of male students in the High School where I teach have played GTA5 or other GTA games. There are no legit physical copies for sale in stores (I assume they are also removed from Steam for Thai users but I dunno), but like with all media here piracy is rampant and kids either torrent/download pirated copies of the games for themselves or buy a pirated copy of the game on DVD from vendors that can be found in markets in every city or village.

The rampant piracy also circumvents Thai censorship laws that require movies to blur out people smoking, drinking alcohol, or nudity / sexual content. Legit copies (which are rare) adhere to the rules, but most people end up with pirated copies that are more often than not sourced from uncensored versions and therefore don't follow the local rules.

Pretty weird situation. Makes me wonder if now in the internet age many German consumers might have no moral qualms with buying legit German-censored versions of things and then downloading pirated / cracked versions from the internet that circumvent the censorship.

Uber drivers ARE taxi drivers. By any reasonable definition of the term, there's simply no question of that. They just work for a particularly shit taxi service. There's also a question of whether they are Uber employees, but that's probably another discussion.

How many times do I have to acknowledge that wasn't the case here?

I was responding to the general point that @newtboy made about leaving someone's property if they ask you. It's not that black and white when you're paying for a service. Would you be ok with a hotel knocking on your door at 2am and telling you to get out on the street? Or a movie theatre or a restaurant kicking you out before you finished the movie/meal? They would need a legitimate reason to do so.

Again, I know that is not the case here.

I think you missed Drachen Jaeger's point - Uber drivers shouldn't be treated as taxi drivers; Uber should be legislated as though they were providing a taxi service. Until that's the case, you can either lower your expectations, or refuse on principle to use Uber.

As for your other rebuttal, Newt already covered it. You don't get to mix up "staying in the car as protest" with "staying in the car because you don't know where you are". The first scenario is unacceptable and shitty; the second could be excused except in this case it obviously isn't. She's at the right hospital, and the Emergency Admission is just a walk away from the car - and she's clearly not in a hurry. She's not in an 'unfamiliar place' and you know it - the driver references the hospital sign, and she readily accepts the hospital personnel saying that it's just a short walk away. That's the specific case we're dealing with - I wouldn't judge her half as harshly if she really was in an unfamiliar place... but why are you bringing it up, when it's not the case here?

She didn't stay in his car because she was legitimately confused about where she was, she stayed in his car to hold him hostage while she lodged her complaint about the service she received. That's not ok, regardless of whether it's Uber, McDonald's, or some super-friendly mom and pop store. You disengage (which he didn't have the luxury of doing) and you figure out how to get justice later.

1)Yes, but it's the recourse when your expectations aren't met that I'm discussing. Also, the base level of service is lower for Uber than a licensed taxi, no?

2)Yes, that's exactly what I mean...they aren't regulated taxis, they are basically operating illegally everywhere, but abused loopholes and used misrepresentation to gain a foothold, then grew too fast to control...or just were ignored until they took enough work from licensed taxi drivers, and now they're being considered 'too big to fail' and still allowed to operate in most places (not all). I would never use them for exactly that reason...as essentially black market taxis, I would expect little insurance against improper service or damage. It's not JUST the drivers, they also treat the rule of law with contempt. Why would one not expect them to treat customers with the same distain and carelessness?

Quoting and responding..

"Well, yes and no. If you're being dumped somewhere that there's no landmarks and/or no cell service, you might have an argument that getting out puts you in danger, but that's certainly not the case here. "

Already agreed this isn't the case here. Twice, in fact

"I think that's the risk you take when you decide to go with Uber. You pay less, you get a certain type of service, but you have less recourse if it goes bad. "

Sorry, but no. There's still a base level of service to be expected.

"I don't disagree that he reacted poorly."

That's really my main point. You can be 100% in the right and still act like an asshole. If he had remained calm and called the police this video would've gotten no traction at all.

"He is NOT a taxi driver, he's an Uber driver. I disagree, Uber does not =taxi. Taxi=taxi...Limo=>taxi ...Uber ="

This is probably worthy of a separate discussion, but since we're here...

I 100% disagree with this. Uber is a taxi service, just a really poorly run one. They've just started in my hometown and they are actually encouraging drivers to break the law. In NZ, you are legally required to have a passenger endorsement to carry passengers for profit, but Uber just told their drivers "eh, don't worry about it, you'll be sweet" and then left them twisting in the wind when the government went "er, no, we weren't fucking joking", and started clamping down.

Frankly, the more I learn about Uber, the less I am inclined to use their service. I like some of what they're doing, but it's complete bullshit they way they treat their drivers.

Most of all, I hate the way they claim to be a "ride-sharing" company. If someone was setting up a service of "I'm going to the airport, want to share fuel/parking costs?" that's ride sharing (I think Lyft do that??). But that's not the Uber model. The driver is going where you tell them. That's a taxi.

Sidenote: I really wish we could have the old quote system back. Replying to long quotes like this is a pain in the arse now.

Well, yes and no. If you're being dumped somewhere that there's no landmarks and/or no cell service, you might have an argument that getting out puts you in danger, but that's certainly not the case here. I would argue that, if you aren't being left somewhere dangerous, you have no right to remain in the car. Period. Being inconvenienced does not give one carte blanche to ignore the law or common sense. This IS the same as remaining in a theater in that she is continuing to use the service (actually worse, because he's precluded from serving other customers until she's gone) but she's not paying for it....but yes, there are also differences.

I think that's the risk you take when you decide to go with Uber. You pay less, you get a certain type of service, but you have less recourse if it goes bad. That's a choice, you don't get to ignore that if it doesn't go your way. She made that decision, she's stuck with it. She could have called a cab, she didn't.

I don't disagree that he reacted poorly.

He is NOT a taxi driver, he's an Uber driver. I disagree, Uber does not =taxi. Taxi=taxi...Limo=>taxi ...Uber =

There's a difference between "commandeering a place of business" and expecting a taxi driver to take you to the correct location. It's a pretty unique situation in that you are almost always in an unfamiliar place without transport. It's not the same as staying in a movie theatre.

If I was in a cab and they didn't drop me to where I had asked to go, I would probably get out and refuse to pay. But in an Uber, you've already paid, so staying in the cab is pretty much your only recourse, otherwise, you get dropped on the side of the road somewhere and you can, what... downvote them? Yeah, that's really helpful when you're stuck trying to get somewhere without transport.

That's as a general principle.

In this specific case, I already agreed that she was being an entitled arsehole. She was at the hospital, she should have just gotten out.

My issue isn't that he asked her to leave, my issue is the way he handled it.

You simply don't act like that. Period.

He was borderline violent. That fact that he DIDN'T resort to violence is the only thing keeping him from an assault charge. It's not something to be commended, it's basic civilised behaviour.

He's a taxi driver (Uber = taxi and @Drachen_Jager is right, they should be held to the same standards). His job is dealing with the public. If he can't deal with one annoying person without losing his shit, then maybe this job isn't for him.

I'm not sure how that will help....as if Taxi drivers never get rude and/or lose their shit?

That said...it is a service badly in need of regulation and licenses.

Another issue... Uber is a taxi dispatching service for unregulated "gypsy" taxi drivers. It is NOT a "ride sharing" service.

Why?

A ride sharing service would be the Uber driver broadcasting out "I'm downtown, and I'm heading to the airport, anyone need a ride?" and if no one takes him up on it, and he GOES THERE ANYWAY BECAUSE HE HAD TO, he's ride sharing.

If he's just sitting around, waiting for a passenger to broadcast "I'm downtown and need to get to the airport, come get me." then he's a taxi.

Uber doesn't need to be regulated, but they SHOULD only deal with properly licensed, insured, and legal transportation providers. Even if that's just a one-man, one-car business.