Ah, yes. "Capitalism"
Uber was and is an interesting and clever idea, with a long list of "buts". It's defenders, who tend to be of the loud, demonstrative, sign-carrying cohort (laudable in the face of injustice, laughable in the face of lining the pockets of the already wealthy), have been on display in my backyard, recently (Toronto), where the new-ish mayor has declared that Uber should have a place within the transportation system. The fuss concerns the fight with Big Taxi. Toronto has a byzantine licencing system for taxis, where one essentially has to be born into the business to have the licence handed down, or independently wealthy to buy into the program, which is hardly a thing with which we associate hacks. It's much easier to sign up with Uber, who then offer greater convenience and affordability for passengers.
The subject that Uber glosses over, even with present and pending litigation, is that of liability (as well as the whole, "Uber the company are making out like robber barons at the expense of their drivers, but we won't mention that part"). If there's an accident or incident involving a taxi, as a driver, a passenger, or anything else, you're basically covered within the limits of the justice and insurance systems. With Uber, the rules are nebulous at best, despite their arguments to the contrary. One could well say that it isn't worth the risk, perhaps especially for drivers.
If the liability questions can be resolved and some element of fair play brought to the table with the heavily taxed (in terms of fees and insurance) taxi system, great. Otherwise, it's a risky business. Plus, you know, billionaires laughing at you is irritating.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
