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 don't know if it will help either, but it definitely seems like his frustration was that of someone who lacks a stable work place with rules for situations like this. If he had been working for a (good) taxi service there would have been a protocol in place for him to follow, but it's obvious from his frustration that he has no idea how to deal with her. That shouldn't be the situation in any well-regulated work place.

At the same time I agree - very few taxi services today are well regulated work places, so the entire business of private transport seems to be in a bad place when it comes to working environments.

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.

Yet another reason why Uber should be legislated out of business (AKA put them on a level playing field with taxi services).

Oh “American National Pride”… Just look where that’s gotten you…

Absolutely ca-razy about the material expansion at supersonic speeds though. And burning 2-tons of fuel just taxiing on the runway. Wow.

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.

He compares 13 minutes to 6 hours as some sort of huge difference in training. They are almost exactly identical in substance and meaning at those numbers.

Cheaper, more convenient, better coverage in our city, cleaner vehicles, more friendly drives, the list goes on and on. If the taxi cab companies could offer something similar then I might think of using them again. But they got beat to the punch and now they are going to lose their shirts. Too little, too late.

Uber and Lyft wouldn't exist if the Taxi system wasn't horrible beyond belief. Fix the medallion/license issues and they both go out of business. Otherwise, even if both ride sharing companies go out of business, people will still create some type of app to get around the shitty monopoly that is currently in place.

As far as trained professionals with background checks, yeah, a day's worth of training is amazing (sarcasm). Also, most taxi drivers go through a minimal (if any) amount of background checking. For instance, here in Austin, Tx, it was reported that fifty-three drivers who failed background checks to become Uber drivers had been issued chauffeur’s licenses by the City of Austin.

Bob you still haven't thought this idea through any further, its a terrible idea. I'll explain why but its probably going to be a bit long but bear with me and you'll understand why you are 'dead' wrong.

So "Bob's Law" is now in effect, Mr Bandito is in the back of a Taxi committing an armed robbery demanding the taxi driver hand over his money and valuables. Mr Bandito notices that the taxi driver has been getting looks at him in the rear view mirror. While the driver is nervously fumbling and trying to pull out the wallet he is sitting on in his back pocket, it crosses Mr Bandito's mind that "Bob's Law" is in effect and as soon as the driver hands him the wallet over Mr Bandito shoots and kills the taxi driver.

Mr Bandito did this because the punishment (death) is the same for robbing the driver as it is for murdering the driver. An alive taxi driver would make it easier for the police to catch him and Mr Bandito is of the same propensity as the folks that passed this law and so to him it now makes sense to kill all witnesses of an armed robbery as procedure, as the penalty is the same either way.

They won't have jobs because the automization of this country will leave them jobless. When Google makes truck drivers, taxi drivers, uber drivers obsolete, that's a few million jobs dead and gone forever. When every grocery store, fast food place, gas station and so forth are automated 100%, that's millions more. The ripple effect of 10 million + jobs gone in a few decades will cost millions more, the type that is higher paying.

So in other words @bobnight33 the economy is crashing under the free market 100%, so what is your solution?

What kind of douche drives a six-figure car and thinks it's a good idea to make a few bucks on the side stiffing hard-working taxi drivers out of their income?

I hope some drunk pukes all over his back seat.