Slashdot Mirror
'Legacy' London Car Hire Companies Lawyer Up Against Uber
An anonymous reader writes with The Stack's report that: The London Private Hire Car Association (LPHCA) has engaged a major firm of lawyers to present its case against Uber in the UK capital, citing lack of continuous insurance checks, Uber's tax avoidance practices and even 'loitering' Uber drivers as reasons to impose regulations which would eliminate Uber's competitive advantage in London. A lot of Londoners like to have that competition around, though.
"Uber wants to take a piece of the cake without following the rules everyone else has to abide."
Fact is two people should be able to enter into their own contract without a jealous third party getting shitty that the buyer isn't forced to buy from their shitty overpriced monopoly. You want to go classic taxi? You are free to do so. The rest of us should be able to do as we wish.
The excuse for the taxi monopoly is you get clean cabs and a higher level of safety. So explain to me why a taxi license costs $1M? http://blogs.reuters.com/felix... It's sheer greed by government workers either to feather their own nests and fat government pension plans.
It isn't a monopoly, since all the black cabs are not owned by one company. Try again.
Anyone can drive a black cab after taking the knowledge test, there is no monopoly unlike your sh*thole country. Oh, and you can also set up or drive for a private cab company at any time. Go stick your stupid medallion system up your ass, because it's irrelevant to the rest of the world.
Because you said so, right?
Since the courts have said so. Unless you're saying that you don't believe in the rule of law.
Uber provides additional insurance while carrying a fare, and insurance premiums are already assessed for mileage which accounts for the additional mileage between fares.
And that isn't legal in many places of the world. The vehicle itself has to have the insurance coverage directly on it. Which isn't happening.
A worthless thing which does none of the things it is claimed to do.
Except it has a higher level of testing, requires the person to know and understand local laws before passing, and it's a prerequisite in many cases for carriage insurance for taxis. And in many places is the requirement to waive liability in the case where a passenger refuses to use a seatbelt and so on.
It's easy to do people for taxes. But there's plenty of unjust fees and taxes.
Really? I guess that explains why uber drivers aren't paying their taxes as required by law. And why uber is refusing to pay taxes like a taxi company.
False. You're a liar.
Well, I suppose that makes you an idiot who doesn't understand law.
Om, nomnomnom...