Looks to me like both of them earned the ratings they gave each other.

When someone asks, then tells you to leave their property, leave. Don't keep talking, don't keep asking questions, don't chastise, don't act like a fucking idiot, don't be a rude bitch, don't be a brain dead slug and sit there, just shut the fuck up and get out. If you have a problem with that, get your own damn property and stay there.
Tresspassers can be physically removed...she was trespassing after he asked her to leave his car. She was doing 100% of this intentionally after being an uber bitch, in an attempt to provoke him on camera to shame him later and/or set up a ridiculous lawsuit.
She's sitting in front of a HUGE sign that has an arrow pointing to her destination, topped with a giant HOSPITAL. She knows where to go. Get the fuck out.
I really feel for this guy. I can only imagine how she acted before turning on her camera to get him that irate. I seriously doubt this is his normal demeanor.

It is so sad how a manipulative person can take a sane person over the edge. She clearly is an expert troll and I have pity for any person who has to deal with her casually or professionally.

Can someone bring this to Bill Burr's attention. I can't wait to hear his commentary.

She's in his property because she's paying for a service. If she doesn't feel that he has fulfilled the service, she has every right to complain.

As for her "making him irate" what, does she have some sort of mind control powers?

The guy's a fucking asshole. He's not giving her a lift in his private property, he's working and she's a customer. I don't give a fuck how rude or condescending she is, you don't act like that towards a customer.

Fuck, you don't act like towards another human being unless they are threatening you or seriously ruining your life in some way.

I've dealt with people way worse than that and never lost my shit like he did.

He had the right idea straight away, which was to call the cops. Screaming like a demented moron helps no-one.

All that said, the customer does seem like an entitled arsehole. She was at the hospital, all she had to do was find out where the emergency room was and walk there.

Still doesn't excuse his behaviour.

She has the right to complain but he has the right to deny her service. Which he was doing when he repeatedly said "GET OUT OF MY CAR!"
She's one of those, I laugh at you getting mad and keep pushing your buttons type of people. I fucking hate them and hope she went into the ER and got an accidental enema with an over sized hose.
He is working and she doesn't have any right to piss him off and just because she is paying him.
And you SURE AS FUCK do act like that to a customer if they are pissing you off. Some other asshole can deal with them. You just have to deal with the fall out. Besides, if everybody acted nicely to each other what the hell would I watch on the Sift? Oh yeah, cat and Fail videos. Also anything with Bryan Cranston, a pretty lady, a robot, or some awesome music in it. OK, yeah we can all try to get along better, I'll live...

Except that he didn't deny her service. He'd already accepted her as a paying customer.

And no, you don't act like that to a customer.

First, as I said, just don't fucking act like that. Period.

Second, it's not a smart move. Instead of remaining calm and calling the cops, he went mental and made himself the arsehole instead of her.

You don't even have to be "nice", just not a screaming lunatic.

Yes, but that service was over. She was continuing to sit in his car, but was not going to pay more money for his time she was using. Even if he wasn't at her destination, once he said 'get out', it's over, she's trespassing, service or no. She has every right to complain, but not to remain.

Really? Someone needs mind control to get you irate? I guess we aren't being serious anymore.

If a customer is rude and abusing the service, and refuses a calm request to leave, things are going to escalate. She should be glad they didn't escalate physically, because while that would certainly be wrong of him, it would not be totally unexpected. Her demeanor was designed to provoke....I know it well, it was my mother's MO in any argument. Get you flustered, then poke you in a calm, soothing voice.

I agree, in a perfect world, people never piss other people off to that extent where they completely lose their shit like he did. This is FAR from a perfect world, and some people see it as their reason for existence, and a form of entertainment, to drive people over the edge. Others do it, then turn on their camera to film the results and claim they're the victim. I think that's more than likely the case here.

I've also dealt with people acting worse than he was (we have no idea how bad she was before she started filming his reaction and she started being oddly calm) and not lost it....and I've dealt with people acting as aggravatingly as possible, but calmly, and completely blown a fuse, like when my neighbor calmly climbed over my fence and cut my trees down.

Yes, calling the cops is the right idea, but not necessarily useful. In many places, they would never respond to that call and would tell him so....then what?

I would bet $5 that the video starting 5 minutes earlier WOULD excuse his behavior. I might lose that bet, but it only makes sense to me. He wouldn't be an Uber driver long if he acted that way normally....and he's probably not one now.

Are you insane? Being a dissatisfied customer doesn't give you the right to commandeer a place of business - that's some crazy level entitled bullshit. If she doesn't get the service she expects, she can down-rate him, she can ask for her money back, she can make a report to the BBB, and she can sue him / Uber for her money back and whatever damages she can prove. She doesn't get to hijack his place of business.

The implications of what you're saying would completely screw over any sane conflict resolution - if I don't like the movie I can stay in the theater until they show me a better one, if my drink was poorly mixed I get to stay in the bar past closing time, if the milk I bought was bad I get to demand that my complaint is resolved by duel in the Kroger dairy section... no. Just because you bought a service does not mean - even if you were screwed over - you get to decide that the place of business now becomes a place of arbitration for your dispute. Take that shit to the proper channels.

As for screaming at her - he terminated their professional relationship at that point, and it was just two private individuals in conflict. Maybe it's 'smart' to kiss up to assholes, but it seems absurd of you to Monday morning quarterback him given that when we didn't see the ride. If he'd used physical violence in any way that would be a completely different story, but you're allowed to scream at people while waiting for the cops or other help.

*length=3:00

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 3:00 - length declared by bareboards2.

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

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.

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.

True, everyone in service has difficulty with some customers and there are such incidents.

However, Uber drivers get paid shit, especially after taxes, fuel, maintenance, and vehicle costs. They have no training or support and there's no only minimal screening. Uber is a totally predatory model that capitalizes on drivers who are desperate or too stupid to know they're being abused. All the while there's no real reason Ubers shouldn't be legislated the same as cabs except the system is corrupt and allows the wealthy to come in and make their own rules.

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.

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 =

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.

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?

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.

Sure, the car might not be flash and maybe you have to wait longer to get a ride and you can't book one in advance (at least, not in my experience), but at the very least you can expect to get to where you paid to be taken to.

They're still operating as a taxi and should be subject to the same regulations. McDonalds might not be fine dining, but I still expect the food to be edible and not poison me.

I think we agree on most of this, tbh

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.

Yes, except for the book in advance part. I've never had a problem with that...in fact, with one exception, it's the only way I've ever used taxis.

I meant you can't book an Uber in advance.

That's how I normally use taxis too.

You can in Washington and a couple other places. It's a new service.

Oh and by the way, Uber claims this is "ride sharing" so he's NOT a businessman, his car is NOT a place of business. The woman has been "invited" to "share" the ride.

...or are you claiming Uber is lying about its services?

As the owner of the vehicle, he can turf her any time he pleases. In fact, in more than a few places, there is a concept called "assault by trespass". It's how people shoot an unarmed burglar and it's still considered self-defence. Also, inviting someone into your property is meaningless if you want them to leave. There's no "but he said I could be here a minute ago" right to stay. The only people who can't be removed from your property after you let them in are vampires.

That's exactly what I'm claiming.

Ride-sharing is when I'm going somewhere and I offer to take people with me. They then pay me, so I recoup some of the money.

If I'm driving around waiting for people to tell me where to go, that is a taxi.

Uber can call it whatever they want, but it's still a taxi.

I hear pepper spray works wonders for getting cockroaches out of your upholstery.

...or cranking the stereo and climate control, locking the windows up and stepping out of the car. Once she reaches into the driver's compartment AT ALL, you can claim she's trying to steal the car and get medieval on her ass.

I know why you're advocating for her, you are acting like her... =)

Seriously, you've trolled this thread pretty solidly so far, just like she trolled the uber angry guy. And everyone is just supposed to accept that the customer has all the rights and no responsibilities? *snort*

The customer is often an asshole. And the business has the right to refuse service. Get over it. ; )

Yes, disagreeing is trolling.

Fine, you win. FUCK YOU, GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY FUCKING THREAD, YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE.

What? That's acceptable behaviour when someone does something you don't like, right?

I think the argument is not that his behavior is stunning etiquette, but it is understandable and his frustration is relatable. Optimally he would've just sat in silence, or driven around to the other entrance, but all things considered, her behavior was more unacceptable. Or to put it another way - this was three minutes out of their respective days. There may be an infinite number of circumstances on either side that we don't see, that would swing our opinion either way. However, if we ignore their emotional states, and just look at the principle, she was dead wrong.

If a restaurant or movie theatre wants to kick you out in the middle of a meal, you can't stay. If a hotel wants to kick you out at 2 am (and lets you pack and take your stuff), you can't stay. That's why they can call the cops to get you out if you refuse to leave - because they have the presumptive right to decide who stays and goes. You have no right to call the cops and ask them to stop the owner from kicking you out, because you have no fundamental right to stay there.

I am not going to say that you're trolling, and your arguments are not unreasonable or dickish, but you're wrong. (In principle) you have a number of potential recourses that you can choose when a proprietor asks you to leave. (in principle) refusing to leave is not one of the options you have any right to exercise.

We can come up with scenarios where it could be argued that you should be allowed to refuse to leave:

1. You're staying at a ski lodge and you will die if you are kicked out into the cold. Then we're no longer talking consumer rights but emergency / health and safety rights.

2. If you leave the premises, you would lose all your other means of recourse, for example if you don't have contact or identifying information for the business you're at. In that case you can ask for that information, and then leave.

In principle, however, sticking around isn't an option, and there's no sane reason why it should be an option. If the business in question doesn't have a valid reason for kicking you out, you get to sue them afterwards.

Also, fuck the idea of calling the cops everytime you have a disagreement with someone.