Uber Ruled Lawful

[JoeJoeJoeJoe]

Yeah, at the end of the day, I don't give a shit if Uber aren't paying taxes when their fares are so cheap.

 

[Stevencc]

What if you need a taxi in the morning?

 

[Destruction]

As opposed to protecting the exclusivity of an outdated business model for no other reason than it was there first.

Hmm, always trying to screw the little guy aren't you?

Yesterday you were having a pop at Polish lads for washing cars so you "bought a power washer", and now it's taxi drivers.

Or is it just a vehicle thing with you?

 

[Pagnell]

I'm sure there are plenty of other people's cars you can wash.

 

[Destruction]

I bet you double dip your teabags too.

 

[Pagnell]

I've been known to make two teas from one bag, yes. But only if I don't like those I'm making it for.

 

[G.B]

Feel sorry for the cabbies and private hire drivers. Costs a fortune to run a taxi and you're looking at 60+ hours a week just to get by. The firms are geedy fuckers though, no sympathy for them. Will be interested to see how much Uber benefit the publics pocket if/when the taxi firms really start dying off though.

Also, not really sure it can truely be described as competition, certainly not fair competition anyway, given taxi firms and drivers play to an entirey different (and far more expensive) set of rules.

 

[Pagnell]

Hence why they should be arguing for a change to those rules to make for a more equal playing field.

 

[G.B]

The laws are fine and absolutely necessary. An industry that involves driving members of the public around should always be regulated.

 

[Pagnell]

Unfortunately for your point, I didn't suggest they shouldn't be regulated.

 

[G.B]

Defensive as ever, Pags.

So what is your point? You can't have an equal playing field without private hire being able to bypass the laws/regulations that Uber don't face. You're literally suggesting that very thing above My point is that the laws are more than reasonable and there for a reason, mainly to protect punters. The solution shouldn't be to change laws/reguations that are working as intended, rather that Uber should have to abide by the same set of rules as everyone else. That's how you ceate an equal playing field.

 

[Cheese & Biscuits]

May as well bang your head against a wall G.B
I tried saying all this yesterday.

 

[Pagnell]

Defensive as ever, Pags.

So what is your point? You can't have an equal playing field without private hire being able to bypass the laws/regulations that Uber don't face. You're literally suggesting that very thing above My point is that the laws are more than reasonable and there for a reason, mainly to protect punters. The solution shouldn't be to change laws/reguations that are working as intended, rather that Uber should have to abide by the same set of rules as everyone else. That's how you ceate an equal playing field.

Not defensive GB, simply telling you that it wasn't what I'd said. The regulations that black cabs work under are too inhibiting. So instead of lobbying for a fresh new business model to fall under them due to fear of change and at expense to the public, perhaps a better idea would be for both to compromise and meet in the middle. I think the vast majority of people would agree black cabs are too expensive, a fact the likes of Uber have taken advantage of. But instead of moving with the times, black cab drivers and those that represent them simply want Uber and app-based firms like them to either fall in line or disappear and never come back. That isn't going to happen.