wrote in message ...
On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 15:30:04 +0100
Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 24/08/2016 14:51, d wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 13:55:08 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
- Third reason: you have to have a smart phone, with a signal/wi-fi
access (which is why very few blind people will have an Uber account).
The blind people I know actually find a smart phone more useful than a
dumb phone.
Oh really? And how exactly do they operate a touchscreen, press it
randomly
and hope for the best?
- Fourth reason: you have to have an Uber account before you can use
it, and Uber's app installed on your smart phone.
Well duh. And how long does it take to install and set up? Not very
long
at all. It certainly takes less time than it does to find a local
minicab office if you don't know the area.
The question is - why are you supporting this silicon valley shark
instead of
local businesses? Do you have any sort of conscience?
Because, as each driver is a self-employed contractor I am supporting
local businesses!
Hardly. Thats like saying buying a coffee at Starbucks is the same as
buying
it from your local cafe. One pays corporation tax, one doesn't.
If you're talking about the profit margin, then if some of the rumours
about the alleged owners of some of the local minicab firms are in any
way true, I'd far prefer my money to go to Uber than them.
There will always be dodgy companies in any sector. That doesn't mean
they're
all bent. Why TfL allowed Uber to operate here with its hailing model is
anyones guess.
because TfL doesn't get to decide. Ultimately the courts do.
and so far, when asked to rule whether Uber complies with the (London mini
cab) rules, the courts decided yes.
Albeit on a narrow point, and TfL could have continued on a wider point, but
they considered it a lost cause.
tim