# Ride Sharing Insurance snitch site



## BKNY75 (Oct 25, 2014)

I saw this Link posted on reddit. It's a site that posts license plate numbers of suspected cars that are working for Uber/Lyft etc. It looks
Like it's mostly in the DC area. 
www.rideforhire.com


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

BKNY75 said:


> I saw this Link posted on reddit. It's a site that posts license plate numbers of suspected cars that are working for Uber/Lyft etc. It looks
> Like it's mostly in the DC area.
> www.rideforhire.com


Unfortunately with the motivations of survival it will be inevitable to pick off the weakest links in any way possible. Yeah, it sucks to be a potential target for our minimum wage yobs.

Desperation is a wicked thing. But it IS a reality of our American life(?)


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

From this site,

"Upon this publication, insurance carriers are hereby notified that failure to investigate and/or take remedial action, as appropriate, may negate their right to refuse coverage in the event of an accident."

Whoever wrote that, what a pompous, presumtious idiot. Riiigght, you have the authority to force insurance companies to pay claims if they don't look at your little website, follow your instructions and heed your warning. ROFL!


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Rideforhire.com is registered to Dona Burney, a 30 year taxi driver who has a history of complaining to public commissions about Uber. The full details of the registration of her website are:

Registrant Name: Dona Burney
Registrant Organization: NA
Registrant Street: 3629 Sentara Way
Registrant City: Virginia Beach
Registrant State/Province: VA
Registrant Postal Code: 23452
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone: +1.7574166627

Note that the address above seems to be a web host's, not her address.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Cab drivers have every right available to put Uber drivers out of business imho. Especially where there is cause or weaknesses.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> Cab drivers have every right available to put Uber drivers out of business imho. Especially where there is cause or weaknesses.


Disagree. If someone or a company is doing something illegal then it's up to the relevant public authority to act. It's not down to disgruntled private citizens like Dona to put up potentially slanderous websites accusing members of the public.

Dona could expand her website with a section on "suspected child molesters" and post the license plates of anyone she feels like. Posting accusations publicly online with data such as plates, which could identify individuals, without backing it up with _any evidence whatsoever_ is sailing very close to the wind. Dona may find herself getting sued quite soon.

Overall though, I think she just needs to get a life.


----------



## SoBeUBER (Aug 27, 2014)

Holy shit....that ***** has ALOT of free time on her hands!!


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

I have posted about that site before. The latest was this morning:
https://uberpeople.net/threads/uber-symbol-necessary.6426/#post-78149

The site, and Donna Burney, were discussed in detail in here:
https://uberpeople.net/threads/look-out-az-uber-drivers.4362/


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

elelegido said:


> Disagree. If someone or a company is doing something illegal then it's up to the relevant public authority to act. It's not down to disgruntled private citizens like Dona to put up potentially slanderous websites accusing members of the public.


Wherever there is a law, any law, take your pic. It comes with automatic snitches. And they have every right to do so. It is the obligation of every citizen to uphold the law. It is NOT relegated only to the authorities.

Snitching is entirely legal and should be fully expected.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

SoBeUBER said:


> Holy shit....that ***** has ALOT of free time on her hands!!


I know; it's not as if there's nothing to do in DC. There's the Lincoln Memorial, with its oversized statue of the ex-president. Then there's the White House. Is the Smithsonian there too? She could go and look at vintage airplanes. Lots to do.


----------



## DjTim (Oct 18, 2014)

elelegido said:


> Rideforhire.com is registered to Dona Burney, a 30 year taxi driver who has a history of complaining to public commissions about Uber. .


I mean I give them props for putting their name out there, but expect backlash for shitting down everyone's throat that gets reported. They could easily hide their registration, but I guess they want to get shit on as well.

I've also figured out that most people who do stuff - like this website - are disgruntled, suck at their chosen profession and just want to shit on everyone else "If I can't do a good job, well I'm going to make sure you can't do yours".

Or am I way off base?


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

I worked for decades in the construction trades as a G.C. When OSHA demanded certain safety features, I complied FULLY. There was COST to me to do that. IF my competition did not incur those same costs and I saw them publicly violating the law and competing with me, OSHA got a phone call from me and they WERE caught, paid fines and then had to comply. That only served to equal the ground for me and mine.

I have to pay my bills under the rules. So does everyone else.


----------



## Jay2dresq (Oct 1, 2014)

I find it interesting that she registered the domain on an Australian site. I wonder if she has it hosted offshore too.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Jay2dresq said:


> I find it interesting that she registered the domain on an Australian site. I wonder if she has it hosted offshore too.


I think it's good to be cognizant that large corps also try to assassinate each others, only at a much more vicious level than our minor ground leveling activities.

Large corps often have professionals to exercise their dirty work, legally. Marginal on their parts? Yep. Very often. And sometimes they get caught doing it too. But as we know they pay very well to marginalize the law for themselves to the detriment of others.

Welcome to Amerika!


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

DjTim said:


> I've also figured out that most people who do stuff - like this website - are disgruntled, suck at their chosen profession and just want to shit on everyone else "If I can't do a good job, well I'm going to make sure you can't do yours".


You must have studied this a lot. You say that most people who do stuff like this website are disgruntled, suck, and want to shit etc. Most means more than 50%, so over half of the people on this site are disgruntled, suck etc according to your research. In order to reach this figure you must know (a) how many people use this website in total and (b) how many you judged to be disgruntled, to suck etc. Can you share those numbers please? I would be interested to see them, as I don't necessarily believe that the disgruntled / suck share is over 50%.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> Wherever there is a law, any law, take your pic. It comes with automatic snitches. And they have every right to do so. It is the obligation of every citizen to uphold the law. It is NOT relegated only to the authorities.
> 
> Snitching is entirely legal and should be fully expected.


Please send me your licence plate number; I'll forward it to Dona so she can upload it onto her site.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

elelegido said:


> Please send me your licence plate number; I'll forward it to Dona so she can upload it onto her site.


My hands are clean and I fully expect every available blood sucker to try to marginalize me.

I think most of you are simply unprepared for that kind of scrutiny.


----------



## DjTim (Oct 18, 2014)

elelegido said:


> You must have studied this a lot. You say that most people who do stuff like this website are disgruntled, suck, and want to shit etc. Most means more than 50%, so over half of the people on this site are disgruntled, suck etc according to your research. In order to reach this figure you must know (a) how many people use this website in total and (b) how many you judged to be disgruntled, to suck etc. Can you share those numbers please? I would be interested to see them, as I don't necessarily believe that the disgruntled / suck share is over 50%.


Opinions are like assholes - everyone has one. This is just my opinion. I made a general statement. Look at any industry and look at people who were "wronged" in someway.

Let me put this into context with a story. You have Johnny. Johnny has been around the industry for 30+ years. When Johnny started out 30 years ago, he was a professional person. He was the best of the best - The top 1% of his chosen profession. Johnny also earned at the top 1% of his profession - raking in the cash. As time went by, Johnny started slipping because there are more and more professionals, he isn't the best anymore. At year 25, he is now in top 50%, but he starts to hate life, he sees that he can't earn unless he works 60-70 hours a week. Now at year 30, he can't even do his profession anymore. There are too many people. The job he was a professional at - any unskilled, untrained person can start and make minimum wage. He gets disgruntled. Johnny now gets a website. Johnny wants to be vocal - he wants his job to be the way it was 30 years ago. He now casts a large wide net, because if he can't do his job and get paid anymore - no one can. He now wants to throw everyone in his "profession" under the bus.

Replace the word "Profession" with any job - Driving, IT, Machine shop, Cutting Lawns, Mechanic. Now look at the internet where any asshole with $40 dollars a month can say anything they want - right or wrong.


----------



## Piotrowski (Sep 9, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> Wherever there is a law, any law, take your pic. It comes with automatic snitches. And they have every right to do so. It is the obligation of every citizen to uphold the law. It is NOT relegated only to the authorities.
> 
> Snitching is entirely legal and should be fully expected.


So next time if lets say, I see you post that you celebrated someone birthday at your home, I'll report you to ASCAP saying that "maybe" you violated the law as you might have sung happy birthday in violation of copyright law? I've said this before, it's nearly impossible to live in the US and to go a week without breaking a law, so by your standards we'd all be real busy ratting each other out.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Piotrowski said:


> So next time if lets say, I see you post that you celebrated someone birthday at your home, I'll report you to ASCAP saying that "maybe" you violated the law as you might have sung happy birthday in violation of copyright law? I've said this before, it's nearly impossible to live in the US and to go a week without breaking a law, so by your standards we'd all be real busy ratting each other out.


"Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Don't teach a man to fish&#8230;and feed yourself. He's a grown man. And fishing's not that hard." (RS)


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> "Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Don't teach a man to fish&#8230;and feed yourself. He's a grown man. And fishing's not that hard." (RS)


Local ordinance where I come from prevents fishing without a licence.


----------



## Courageous (Sep 18, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> "Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Don't teach a man to fish&#8230;and feed yourself. He's a grown man. And fishing's not that hard." (RS)


What does "Don't teach a man to fish...and feed yourself.", actually mean ?


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

It's social commentary that could be good or bad, designed to reflect the reader rather than the comment itself.


----------



## KeJorn (Oct 3, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> Wherever there is a law, any law, take your pic. It comes with automatic snitches. And they have every right to do so. It is the obligation of every citizen to uphold the law. It is NOT relegated only to the authorities.
> Snitching is entirely legal and should be fully expected.


Snitching is a street mentality of a flawed concept that undermines healthy community safety and security measures. 
It suggests that you are doing something SOLELY with the intent of getting someone in trouble (even if it is not true or the full truth, just to save your own hide), which often leads to revenge (usually of the violent nature) for said snitching.

Reporting, which I think is what you are really suggesting, is a different mentality and fits your statement about citizen's obligation.

If there are laws in that city that require a *ride-sharing* driver to have commercial insurance in order to operate, than she may in fact be reporting.
However, one factor to consider, is the distinction that Uber has managed to uphold and set as a new precedence (due to the term ride-sharing and not being labeled as a transportation company) that has allowed them and their contracted drivers to operate outside the standard "commercial transportation" requirements for different cities. In that case, the issue is between Uber and the city to resolve if there is still a dispute.
In addition, government organizations are historically slow to creating new policies that govern new technology that vastly changes the landscape. This is certainly one of those cases and thus gives Uber additional leeway while the government decides what measures Uber and their drivers must do to be compliant.

Dona comes across as a bitter person, focusing on the drivers (instead of Uber) which may result in her getting sued for slander / libel.
The fault is on the city, not the drivers.


----------



## Optimus Uber (Oct 7, 2014)

elelegido said:


> Rideforhire.com is registered to Dona Burney, a 30 year taxi driver who has a history of complaining to public commissions about Uber. The full details of the registration of her website are:
> 
> Registrant Name: Dona Burney
> Registrant Organization: NA
> ...


she's so ignorant she didn't even know how to make the registrar private. Guess clicking the check box from the hosting company was difficult.


----------



## uberdc/Virginia (Sep 14, 2014)

I didn't know there were so many uber drivers. She probably only has one percent of the drivers in DC on there.


----------



## Optimus Uber (Oct 7, 2014)

uberdc/Virginia said:


> I didn't know there were so many uber drivers. She probably only has one percent of the drivers in DC on there.


she has too much time on her hands. She needs to shut up and drive. Go earn son money so she can buy a car and uber.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

How would any of YOU react to having to compete with $.90 a mile if YOU were a cab driver trying to make living?

I hope that is sufficient comment if you trade places.


----------



## Piotrowski (Sep 9, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> How would any of YOU react to having to compete with $.90 a mile if YOU were a cab driver trying to make living?
> 
> I hope that is sufficient comment if you trade places.


The same way I had to compete with a Shitway (knows to others as a Subway) that was across the street from my restaurant. But according to the cabby supporters, just think, if there were laws limiting your choice of place to eat to only to McDs and Subway how much better off we'd all be!! We wouldn't have to deal with those occasional indy places and their dangerous and unregulated way (yes they are less regulated than the big chains, as the big chains regulate, inspect and discipline their local places, in addition to governments. Trust me I know as I was once one of those too). The difference in this world would be like if there were only those two choices for years and suddenly a place like mine could have opened. We would have had lines out the door for 20 hours a day! Which is why Uber has taken off the way it has. Anyone who doesn't get that has zero understanding of market choice and people. Competition is always a win for consumers, and monopolies, or duopolies (meaning choice limited to maybe to or three players) always results in less innovation, higher cost, lower rates of satisfaction. It's why energy rates are dropping in the dozen or so states that are deregulated now (that''s one of the other things I do) vs the ones that haven't. It's why you can buy lunch for practically nothing, why you can buy a super advanced phone for a days pay, and on the other side, it's why education and medical costs have gone through the roof.

But to answer your question, to man up is the answer. Their day is over. Nothing can stop what Uber has started in this space, any more than Blockbuster could have stopped Netflix (and yes they also claimed what they were doing was illegal too).

Let me Edit that: It was Redbox that they claimed was illegal, as they started out just buying the DVD over the counter, as consumers. But they also sued Netflix trying to stop them.


----------



## UberLuxbod (Sep 2, 2014)

Optimus Uber said:


> she has too much time on her hands. She needs to shut up and drive. Go earn son money so she can buy a car and uber.


She may prefer to be correctly insured.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

If Subway wasn't paying sales tax or license fees your analysis would be more accurate AND you'd snitch with the best of 'em.



Piotrowski said:


> The same way I had to compete with a Shitway (knows to others as a Subway) that was across the street from my restaurant. But according to the cabby supporters, just think, if there were laws limiting your choice of place to eat to only to McDs and Subway how much better off we'd all be!! We wouldn't have to deal with those occasional indy places and their dangerous and unregulated way (yes they are less regulated than the big chains, as the big chains regulate, inspect and discipline their local places, in addition to governments. Trust me I know as I was once one of those too). The difference in this world would be like if there were only those two choices for years and suddenly a place like mine could have opened. We would have had lines out the door for 20 hours a day! Which is why Uber has taken off the way it has. Anyone who doesn't get that has zero understanding of market choice and people. Competition is always a win for consumers, and monopolies, or duopolies (meaning choice limited to maybe to or three players) always results in less innovation, higher cost, lower rates of satisfaction. It's why energy rates are dropping in the dozen or so states that are deregulated now (that''s one of the other things I do) vs the ones that haven't. It's why you can buy lunch for practically nothing, why you can buy a super advanced phone for a days pay, and on the other side, it's why education and medical costs have gone through the roof.
> 
> But to answer your question, to man up is the answer. Their day is over. Nothing can stop what Uber has started in this space, any more than Blockbuster could have stopped Netflix (and yes they also claimed what they were doing was illegal too).
> 
> Let me Edit that: It was Redbox that they claimed was illegal, as they started out just buying the DVD over the counter, as consumers. But they also sued Netflix trying to stop them.


----------



## Piotrowski (Sep 9, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> If Subway wasn't paying sales tax or license fees your analysis would be more accurate AND you'd snitch with the best of 'em.


No I wouldn't. If they claimed they were illegal, and a restraint of trade, I'd join them and not pay them.

Its simple, I believe in free markets... period! Having principle means I don't use force (the government) to get what I want. People who do that are slime and I will go out of my way to use a competitor that is fighting those types of ethically challenged companies. Now if you think Uber is in that category, what do you call companies that use the power of government to kill off or hinder their competition? No one at Uber is using a gun to force anyone to drive for them or use their service, but cabbies have use the power of the gun held to people's heads saying, you use us or nobody! Uber is not a great company, but it's 100% what this industry needed to break this stranglehold that that has existed for far too long. Once that is broken, I fully expect that either better companies will come along or Uber will evolved into one or else it will be beaten at the free market game that will come to exist in this space.


----------



## uberdc/Virginia (Sep 14, 2014)

"Slavery, protection, and monopoly find defenders, not only in those who profit by them, but in those who suffer by them." 
― Frédéric Bastiat

"The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his _acquired rights_. He will claim that the state is obligated to protected and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.

http://mises.org/content/bastiat200.asp


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

I love Bastiat. But again it isn't relevant to our new improved forms of corruption. We are light years beyond Fred on the .gov corruption.

It remains every feeder for themselves. If the fat pigs at the top git too out of hand we'll simply eat THEM out of need.



uberdc/Virginia said:


> "Slavery, protection, and monopoly find defenders, not only in those who profit by them, but in those who suffer by them."
> ― Frédéric Bastiat
> 
> "The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his _acquired rights_. He will claim that the state is obligated to protected and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.
> ...


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> If Subway wasn't paying sales tax or license fees your analysis would be more accurate AND you'd snitch with the best of 'em.





Piotrowski said:


> No I wouldn't. If they claimed they were illegal, and a restraint of trade, I'd join them and not pay them.


Okay! 
Paying Sales Tax, procuring necessary licensure is illegal and a restraint of trade!



Piotrowski said:


> I will go out of my way to use a competitor that is fighting those types of ethically challenged companies.


Uber is the most ethically challenged company since Enron, WorldCom & Tyco scandals...remember them?

Yet you never cease in your full throated support of Uber in name of "Free Markets, Free Markets"!

@peterthiel repeats "Uber is the most ethically challenged company in the Silicon Valley" http://t.co/M74nO9eSgS @CNNMoney


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> How would any of YOU react to having to compete with $.90 a mile if YOU were a cab driver trying to make living?
> 
> I hope that is sufficient comment if you trade places.


As much as I loathe most of the methods of the taxi cabal here in Austin, I have to be fair and admit that they are required to pickup where our limo company (as well as the TNC drivers for Uber/Lyft) won't likely go, and while people complain about their "broken" credit card processing, we should also remember that they are also required to take cash. They also have to put a butt load of money down to operate a cab. Therefore, I have to give them a little room to protest. Just take a little time to read through social forums - read how many Uber/Lyft drivers complain about p.i.t.a. passengers, especially cheap ones. I read drivers reporting how they cancelled for the most petty reasons - see, most of you guys and gals don't want to put yourselves on the streets for crappy pay either. Well, when a competitor comes to town and gets to skip all the regulations, fees, permits, etc (and ours in Austin pale in comparison to the larger cities) AND they get to cherry pick their passengers - it leaves cabbies with an even higher percentage of undesirable pickups, chopping in to their livelihoods.

At the root of this, IMO is a permanent social program (mandatory transportation) which will NEVER - EVER be unraveled. That is what everyone has to deal with. Now, in order to provide these cheap, capped, mandatory rides, a decent wage must be earned, and quality must be maintained. Break that by removing profitable rides, wages go down, as does quality. You all witness the same within the X world, right? ( Add too many driver.... no surge, no profit) Cab drivers cannot even "surge" price, so they depend on some profitable runs to make it worth the times it really blows.

Cheese and crackers - WHEN did I turn in to a taxiApologist ? LOL!!!

But in all seriousness, when you have done what you were told to do, followed rules, paid the fees, at the expense of your own company's growth, it DOES become personal, especially to small operators who have invested their personal lives and assets. I can barely describe the RAGE I have felt against some city council members here, after fighting them for YEARS to stop with the excessive regulations, (like forcing us to own stretch limousines, or forbidding us to take on-demand requests). It is beyond maddening to hear the very people who cut us off at 3 minutes in many presentations say " we need different rules for TNCs", when most of us have been TNCs all along through affiliate networks, yet have been forbidden to utilize the technology. The attitude of city officials here is "if you have a permit, we will inspect you and fine you for non-compliance, but if you are not permitted, we don't touch you".

To add to the ire, I encounter UberArrogant drivers who say "tough s*!#" - get over it, adapt or evolve" , accusing us of being anti-technology, obsolete, etc. when most of us have TRIED to adapt but have been blocked by the very people who just gave THEM a free pass but kept us in the slow lane. Once we present that evidence to those a-holes, they scoff "we won, get over it". To be honest if it were not for the many intelligent, respectful discussions I've had with drivers in this forum, I'd probably be joining that ArrestingUber guy by now out of sheer madness.


----------



## Woober (Oct 12, 2014)

SoBeUBER said:


> Holy shit....that ***** has ALOT of free time on her hands!!


Yea, since Uber came to town. Bahaha!!!


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> Okay!
> Paying Sales Tax, procuring necessary licensure is illegal and a restraint of trade!
> 
> Uber is the most ethically challenged company since Enron, WorldCom & Tyco scandals...remember them?
> ...


Personally, I applaud those who support "free markets" by rolling up and offering reduced rates via square card during ridiculous surge periods. They are acting as true INDEPENDENT entrepreneurs. I wonder how Travis feels about THAT innovative disruption? Lmao!!!!


----------



## UberLuxbod (Sep 2, 2014)

Woober said:


> Yea, since Uber came to town. Bahaha!!!


What a *****.


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

elelegido said:


> Local ordinance where I come from prevents fishing without a licence.


As a means to prevent depleting streams and rivers, right? I'm fairly right wing by most standards (barring social issues), prefer less govt. but, I also accept certain levels of public interest regulations since I realize the public can be selfish, shortsighted, and damaging to the environment or the livelihood of everyone around them. I subscribe to the "do as you will, harm none" ideology. How do I align that with my acceptance of regulations in the transportation industry? Very simple: When you are dealing with finite resources which, if depleted (fish, road space) wreak havoc on others, some central control is needed. When the actions of one put another at risk through no fault/choice of their own (app on insurance gap) , some regulations are in order. Long ago, cities reached far past the "do as you will, harm none" ideals which I support, and guaranteed cheap transportation to the masses, effectively leaving the terms of "harmful" up for grabs. (see my previous post regarding the resulting need for market caps).

Today, if you opt to move downtown, or visit downtown, you are guaranteed quick, easy, cheap transportation by the city, thus any change to the pricing, or availability can and will be harmful to either a driver, and operator, or a passenger. This is a circular argument, which continues to expand as our government guarantees services which they have no business guaranteeing.
What "right" do any of us have to host back to back festivals in a city which does not have the holding capacity, let alone roadways to accommodate ? What "right" to easy access do I have as a tourist, when I pick a city known to be congested as my destination spot? If the event holders took more responsibility for the events which they profit from, transportation needs would not be seen as a government responsibility.

As for fishing, unless you own the stock pond, the fish in the stream in your backyard are also the fish in my backyard, thus I have the same right to access the same number of fish. Now for my cab analogy: If the government mandates that I always have 10 fish of a particular size in the stream on my property, I then have a right to control how many fish you catch upstream, and must be able to prevent you from allowing bears on your property.


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

Piotrowski said:


> The same way I had to compete with a Shitway (knows to others as a Subway) that was across the street from my restaurant. But according to the cabby supporters, just think, if there were laws limiting your choice of place to eat to only to McDs and Subway how much better off we'd all be!! We wouldn't have to deal with those occasional indy places and their dangerous and unregulated way (yes they are less regulated than the big chains, as the big chains regulate, inspect and discipline their local places, in addition to governments. Trust me I know as I was once one of those too). The difference in this world would be like if there were only those two choices for years and suddenly a place like mine could have opened. We would have had lines out the door for 20 hours a day! Which is why Uber has taken off the way it has. Anyone who doesn't get that has zero understanding of market choice and people. Competition is always a win for consumers, and monopolies, or duopolies (meaning choice limited to maybe to or three players) always results in less innovation, higher cost, lower rates of satisfaction. It's why energy rates are dropping in the dozen or so states that are deregulated now (that''s one of the other things I do) vs the ones that haven't. It's why you can buy lunch for practically nothing, why you can buy a super advanced phone for a days pay, and on the other side, it's why education and medical costs have gone through the roof.
> 
> But to answer your question, to man up is the answer. Their day is over. Nothing can stop what Uber has started in this space, any more than Blockbuster could have stopped Netflix (and yes they also claimed what they were doing was illegal too).
> 
> Let me Edit that: It was Redbox that they claimed was illegal, as they started out just buying the DVD over the counter, as consumers. But they also sued Netflix trying to stop them.


MAJOR difference: no city has required a restaurant to be opened 24x7 with capped prices for a meal , while paying living wages, workers comp, unemployment taxes, payroll taxes, and healthcare and liability insurance.


----------



## Piotrowski (Sep 9, 2014)

Tx rides said:


> MAJOR difference: no city has required a restaurant to be opened 24x7 with capped prices for a meal , while paying living wages, workers comp, unemployment taxes, payroll taxes, and healthcare and liability insurance.


Yeah, and that was EXACTLY the argument that was made by the phone companies and then more recently the power companies when they argued that their monopolies should not change. Does any one thing that the breaking up up ATT that lead the the "messy" free market of sales calls offering long distance, when we saw (guys my age will remember this) the ads pitching the "1010" number for an incredible 15 cents per minute instead of 25 cent rates, wasn't a good thing now looking back? Yeah that 15 cents went to 5 cents, then to 1 cent. Now when was the last time someone asked you if a call was long distance? Sure some of you say there is no way that can happen here in this space. That's why visionaries become millionaires and billionaires. I have a personal friend that made millions back in the early 90's from marking on of those long distance services. The masses never saw what was coming but he did. That's why I'm working with him on my main project now (totally different than this).

As for this space the first thing that has to happen is for a company like Uber to force this major breakup of the stranglehold that the government have over it. Anyone can see how that is coming and won't be stopped. The real question is what innovation can come next. Sure we can all say self driving cars, and that's inevitable over time. But it's silly to say that's the only thing. The winners will be the innovators once this game changes which it will.


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

Piotrowski said:


> Yeah, and that was EXACTLY the argument that was made by the phone companies and then more recently the power companies when they argued that their monopolies should not change. Does any one thing that the breaking up up ATT that lead the the "messy" free market of sales calls offering long distance, when we saw (guys my age will remember this) the ads pitching the "1010" number for an incredible 15 cents per minute instead of 25 cent rates, wasn't a good thing now looking back? Yeah that 15 cents went to 5 cents, then to 1 cent. Now when was the last time someone asked you if a call was long distance? Sure some of you say there is no way that can happen here in this space. That's why visionaries become millionaires and billionaires. I have a personal friend that made millions back in the early 90's from marking on of those long distance services. The masses never saw what was coming but he did. That's why I'm working with him on my main project now (totally different than this).
> 
> As for this space the first thing that has to happen is for a company like Uber to force this major breakup of the stranglehold that the government have over it. Anyone can see how that is coming and won't be stopped. The real question is what innovation can come next. Sure we can all say self driving cars, and that's inevitable over time. But it's silly to say that's the only thing. The winners will be the innovators once this game changes which it will.


You know, I am all for the break up of government monopolies, unfortunately, the public is not. The public has voted for increased minimum wage, mandatory healthcare coverage, etc. 
they have stripped generations of true entrepreneurial spirit. These TNC drivers can all call themselves independent contractors, entrepreneurs, etc. but how many of them are on Obamacare through subsidies? How many of them have genuine coverage in the event of an accident? How many of them will turn to welfare services when their runs dry up? And please do not tell me the runs will not dry up. Who pays for their loss? 
Every fully insured independent business owner/operator. That is who pays for it. If we did not have a system which mandated my paying for those losses, I would welcome the risks being taken, but that is not the environment in which we live, and you know this.


----------



## Piotrowski (Sep 9, 2014)

Tx rides said:


> You know, I am all for the break up of government monopolies, unfortunately, the public is not. The public has voted for increased minimum wage, mandatory healthcare coverage, etc.
> they have stripped generations of true entrepreneurial spirit. These TNC drivers can all call themselves independent contractors, entrepreneurs, etc. but how many of them are on Obamacare through subsidies? How many of them have genuine coverage in the event of an accident? How many of them will turn to welfare services when their runs dry up? And please do not tell me the runs will not dry up. Who pays for their loss?
> Every fully insured independent business owner/operator. That is who pays for it. If we did not have a system which mandated my paying for those losses, I would welcome the risks being taken, but that is not the environment in which we live, and you know this.


Oh wow this goes beyond what we can chat about easily on here. Next time I'm in Texas, which should be within the next few months, we'll have to meet for a beer or three and we can discuss this as it could go on for a couple of hours! lol Hey may I'll come down there for SXSW


----------



## Sean O'Gorman (Apr 17, 2014)

This is hysterically stupid. Someone please add my car to the list. Black 2014 Mazda 3, Ohio plate GBW1731.


----------



## Piotrowski (Sep 9, 2014)

This was just posted on one of the Philly threads. The Philly Inquirer has been running a series of articles for the past week on Uber, and this was their latest one: 
http://www.philly.com/philly/busine...r_ride-share_firm_s_insurance_protection.html

The key quote: 
"Marshall, of the insurance federation, has warned that private drivers could lose their insurance if they carry passengers for hire.

But insurance-industry officials said they aren't aware of any drivers having policies canceled because of driving for Uber or another ride-sharing company. That includes the companies that insured the UberX drivers nabbed by the Philadelphia Parking Authority for operating illegal taxis last month: State Farm, Allstate, Nationwide, and Liberty Mutual."


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

Piotrowski said:


> Oh wow this goes beyond what we can chat about easily on here. Next time I'm in Texas, which should be within the next few months, we'll have to meet for a beer or three and we can discuss this as it could go on for a couple of hours! lol Hey may I'll come down there for SXSW


I'm taking vacation from my day job to run the phones. What a rush is SXSW!!!! Lol


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

Piotrowski said:


> This was just posted on one of the Philly threads. The Philly Inquirer has been running a series of articles for the past week on Uber, and this was their latest one:
> http://www.philly.com/philly/busine...r_ride-share_firm_s_insurance_protection.html
> 
> The key quote:
> ...


I know I've read driver accounts of being dropped , and didn't Esurance say they have dropped drivers? Or maybe just denied claims, cant remember specifics, but most major companies have been clear about livery exclusions


----------



## drivernotfound (Nov 5, 2014)

Piotrowski said:


> So next time if lets say, I see you post that you celebrated someone birthday at your home, I'll report you to ASCAP saying that "maybe" you violated the law as you might have sung happy birthday in violation of copyright law? I've said this before, it's nearly impossible to live in the US and to go a week without breaking a law, so by your standards we'd all be real busy ratting each other out.


You're thinking too small. We should have the NSA turn all cell phones into listening devices to pick up the song "Happy Birthday" and send out cease and desist letters.
Fascism can be automated.


----------



## Jeeves (Apr 10, 2014)

I don't want to wait in vain...


----------



## josolo (Sep 27, 2014)

Jay2dresq said:


> I find it interesting that she registered the domain on an Australian site. I wonder if she has it hosted offshore too.


You can't get an aussie domain if you or somebody you know doesn't live in Australia, last time I checked.


----------



## Jay2dresq (Oct 1, 2014)

The domain itself isn't Australian, it was just purchased through an Australian site.


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

KeJorn said:


> Snitching is a street mentality of a flawed concept that undermines healthy community safety and security measures.
> It suggests that you are doing something SOLELY with the intent of getting someone in trouble (even if it is not true or the full truth, just to save your own hide), which often leads to revenge (usually of the violent nature) for said snitching.
> 
> Reporting, which I think is what you are really suggesting, is a different mentality and fits your statement about citizen's obligation.
> ...


Sorry Kejorn-I have to disagree. The fault IS on the drivers. They are the ones violating ordinances and laws around the world.

If Uber bought 100000 school busses, and said "were taking over public school transportation" and just hired 100000 truck drivers to start hauling kids, folks would HOWL because those drivers need pax endorsement, school approved training, etc. Vice versa -they'd crap at the idea of school bus drivers hauling tankers.

My point being: different trades/businesses have different requirements, rules, regulations, and zoning, etc. per city or state.

My company did everything required to start our operation (black car/limo)
We permitted and fully insured every vehicle, and chauffeur. Our Chauffeurs were expected to learn the rules and regulations of the city, and register for their permit (cheap and fairly simple). These requirements existed for anyone who wanted to start a car service in Austin, cab rules were different, but they existed. The rules existed for Uber, they just did not wish to follow them. Phone apps and auto dispatch capabilities were not new in this space. The only thing new was it was funded out of California this allowing it to spread all over it one time thus more effectively defang authorities.

Believe me, we have fought at several of their stupid regulations for years, and continue to do so , but we have always done it legally . Everyone driving for Uber in Austin,Texas knew damned good and well they were not legally permitted as commercial ground transportation providers, they thumbed their noses and zipped past those already on the books with city who were left paying the fees, taking the tests, providing the full commercial insurance. It seems they've done this in most cities. As the saying goes... "You reap what you sow", and they have sown a lot of bitterness.

I think most cities have been clear that Uber/Lyft are not "RIDESHARING" . Nearly every ordinance I have seen has evolved to clearly define ridesharing as not for profit, at the request of numerous real Ridesharing organizations. The only way they continued to operate in most cities has been the lack of police/enforcement agents on the ground to do anything about it when they brought hundreds to town. A lot of "Triple Dog Daring" over the last two years - and a TON of $$$$ 

Side note, I have been editing this post on phone as I multitasked, hope I didn't shift gears and get too sideways !!


----------



## Driver8 (Jul 29, 2014)

DjTim said:


> Now look at the internet where any asshole with $40 dollars a month can say anything they want - right or wrong.


Including people who have snuck their way into a game where players have upheld certain rules for years, and everyone was coming out ahead, brought different equipment with them and declared themselves exempt from any and all of the game 's rules.


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

Driver8 said:


> Including people who have snuck their way into a game where players have upheld certain rules for years, and everyone was coming out ahead, brought different equipment with them and declared themselves exempt from any and all of the game 's rules.


Good analogy!


----------



## DjTim (Oct 18, 2014)

josolo said:


> You can't get an aussie domain if you or somebody you know doesn't live in Australia, last time I checked.


This only pertains to the TLD - top level domain (the .com or .net after the domain name). There are ways around this. You can purchase a domain through a company that has an LLC and acts on your behalf. Ireland, Japan and a few other countries are like this. It's not as hard as you think, it just takes more money then opening a simple GoDaddy account.


----------



## DjTim (Oct 18, 2014)

Driver8 said:


> Including people who have snuck their way into a game where players have upheld certain rules for years, and everyone was coming out ahead, brought different equipment with them and declared themselves exempt from any and all of the game 's rules.


You are correct, but what happens is that space, that market ends up changing the regulations. Look at stock trading. Simply put, up into the late 80's and early 90's trading was ONLY available to licensed brokers. If I wanted to trade stocks, I would have to walk into a office (or call) and have a person make trades. I could not personally walk into a stock exchange, and make a trade. In the late 90's people wanted to start trading themselfs (day trading). Regulations changed and now you can (to a degree) trade anytime without using a "personal broker". You may still need to go through a brokerage house, but you don't need to talk to a person, or have to fill out forms, etc...

BTW - I over simplified the stock trading analogy. It still follows the same principle, regulations needed to be changed and things did change.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

DjTim said:


> You are correct, but what happens is that space, that market ends up changing the regulations. Look at stock trading. Simply put, up into the late 80's and early 90's trading was ONLY available to licensed brokers. If I wanted to trade stocks, I would have to walk into a office (or call) and have a person make trades. I could not personally walk into a stock exchange, and make a trade. In the late 90's people wanted to start trading themselfs (day trading). Regulations changed and now you can (to a degree) trade anytime without using a "personal broker". You may still need to go through a brokerage house, but you don't need to talk to a person, or have to fill out forms, etc...
> 
> BTW - I over simplified the stock trading analogy. It still follows the same principle, regulations needed to be changed and things did change.


You also understand that with trading most brokerages have minimum/adequate net worth household income to trade. Poor people remain rightfully out of the space because they will more than likely get raped anyway, just like driving UberX and poor people/drivers except with Ubering there is no protection available to the dumb.


----------



## DjTim (Oct 18, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> You also understand that with trading most brokerages have minimum/adequate net worth household income to trade. Poor people remain rightfully out of the space because they will more than likely get raped anyway, just like driving UberX and poor people/drivers except with Ubering there is no protection available to the dumb.


Actually that's not true. You can open an account with $20 bucks. It doesn't mean you can trade much, but you can trade. I was looking more at the regulation side, the licensing. Right now for any individual to get into the Taxi/Limo/passenger market it takes a significant investment. A vehicle is one thing but all the cost for licensing, permits, decals, medallions etc... are so high it's insane. The question becomes, does that high cost mean a better, safer environment for a rider? We actually don't know this (yet). We know that the high cost does benefit someone, it benefits the regulators at the moment, not the small businesses or driver that wants to enter that market. It puts cash in the city/locals coffers.

I also know there is significant risk, meaning that your taking riders lives and the public in general "lifes" into consideration. That's why there is (for now) a high cost to enter into this space.

I personally think that the costs related to insurance should be high because the risk is high to the driver and to the public, but the regulatory costs (city permits, etc..) should be lowered.

I have said many times here - that I'm a part time driver, but I've been around the transportation industry for many years. I'm sure I'll be corrected here in some way, but unless you have at least 500k, your not starting your own limo company.


----------



## Piotrowski (Sep 9, 2014)

There are lies and there are damn lies as the old saying goes, and a damn lie that gets thrown out there over and over is that this regulation is about safety. Hell in Florida, you need to get permission (AKA get licenced) to become a interior decorator. Now does anyone thing for one billionth of a second that that's about safety? Oh no wait... one unregulated one is going to pick out a color scheme that will effect your health!! Of course, how could I now know that! 

Regulation like this is 100% about money and control... period!!!!


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

DjTim said:


> Actually that's not true. You can open an account with $20 bucks. It doesn't mean you can trade much, but you can trade. I was looking more at the regulation side, the licensing. Right now for any individual to get into the Taxi/Limo/passenger market it takes a significant investment. A vehicle is one thing but all the cost for licensing, permits, decals, medallions etc... are so high it's insane. The question becomes, does that high cost mean a better, safer environment for a rider? We actually don't know this (yet). We know that the high cost does benefit someone, it benefits the regulators at the moment, not the small businesses or driver that wants to enter that market. It puts cash in the city/locals coffers.
> 
> I also know there is significant risk, meaning that your taking riders lives and the public in general "lifes" into consideration. That's why there is (for now) a high cost to enter into this space.
> 
> ...


One benefit of permitting is to discourage over saturation, out of town "poachers", etc. as many of the drivers in this form can attest to, when a company has no dog in the fight, they flood the streets to generate quick revenue, and this works, for a while. But the drivers lose income, ultimately dropping out of the game, then there is shortage, and this impacts more than just the transportation company, it impacts all venues in town. Now, is that a noble benefit? I think that depends on who you ask. But it is definitely a benefit to many.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Piotrowski said:


> There are lies and there are damn lies as the old saying goes, and a damn lie that gets thrown out there over and over is that this regulation is about safety. Hell in Florida, you need to get permission (AKA get licenced) to become a interior decorator. Now does anyone thing for one billionth of a second that that's about safety? Oh no wait... one unregulated one is going to pick out a color scheme that will effect your health!! Of course, how could I now know that!
> 
> Regulation like this is 100% about money and control... period!!!!


And a alot of times regulation is used to protect the public and manipulation of dumb asses, in this particular case people who don't know what proper insurance requirements are for what they are actually doing.

In your opinion insurance is only an option and if a free will sovereign individual DIDN'T want ANY insurance, that would be OK with you.

Unfortunately for your view that usually doesn't pan out to well for the general public as the general public ends up paying for the ignorant sovereign individual who doesn't have a pot to piss in and they cause others to lose because of their irresponsibility.


----------



## Piotrowski (Sep 9, 2014)

Tx rides said:


> One benefit of permitting is to discourage over saturation, out of town "poachers", etc. as many of the drivers in this form can attest to, when a company has no dog in the fight, they flood the streets to generate quick revenue, and this works, for a while. But the drivers lose income, ultimately dropping out of the game, then there is shortage, and this impacts more than just the transportation company, it impacts all venues in town. Now, is that a noble benefit? I think that depends on who you ask. But it is definitely a benefit to many.


You either like the free market or you don't. I'll take freedom over Government control any hour of any day in any week. I trust people, not Government. I trust making my own choices over someone else making it for me. I'm willing to pay my own price for making wrong ones, as that's the price you pay for freedom. You might feel differently, but don't kid yourself about what you believe.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Piotrowski said:


> You either like the free market or you don't. I'll take freedom over Government control any hour of any day in any week. I trust people, not Government. I trust making my own choices over someone else making it for me. I'm willing to pay my own price for making wrong ones, as that's the price you pay for freedom. You might feel differently, but don't kid yourself about what you believe.


And people should be able to drive whatever speed they want on the freeways.

Come on Piot. Lawlessness is not an option.

I agree that laws create a multitude of problems, but they ARE necessary. We are a nation of laws not of men, remember.

If lawlessness was the rule, all of my opponents would simply be DEAD. Get it?

How it breaks down from there is another matter. But ultimately law is a decision of the masses. (yeah, don't get me started.)

I'm sure many of us grew up in the day when insurance was strictly optional. It's just not that way anymore.


----------



## Piotrowski (Sep 9, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> And a alot of times regulation is used to protect the public and manipulation of dumb asses, in this particular case people who don't know what proper insurance requirements are for what they are actually doing.
> 
> In your opinion insurance is only an option and if a free will sovereign individual DIDN'T want ANY insurance, that would be OK with you.
> 
> Unfortunately for your view that usually doesn't pan out to well for the general public as the general public ends up paying for the ignorant sovereign individual who doesn't have a pot to piss in and they cause others to lose because of their irresponsibility.


Not at all. I have all the insurance I need. I also have underinsured protection (which is now mandated I believe, but I had it before it was). The state (I'm talking about Government in general not any one state) creates these false beliefs, how what they do is in the name of keeping us safe. Your comment is 100% proof of that. You'd think we'd all die broke if it were not for them. The fact is, if we lived in a world were there were no mandated insurance, and no one to bail us out if we screwed up, the free market would address it for those of us that were smart and acted like adults. For those not, well that's how they learn. Going broke teaches you that. When you have zero price to pay for being irresponsible, you learn nothing when you act that way and have no reason to not be that way.

As for your insurance argument as it relates to Uber, you keep spreading your endless FUD over it, no matter how many times people prove you wrong. So I won't get it that part of it as it's pointless. It makes more sense to have a debate with my cat.


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

Piotrowski said:


> You either like the free market or you don't. I'll take freedom over Government control any hour of any day in any week. I trust people, not Government. I trust making my own choices over someone else making it for me. I'm willing to pay my own price for making wrong ones, as that's the price you pay for freedom. You might feel differently, but don't kid yourself about what you believe.


Like it or not, particularly in large cities, transportation providers are part of city planning. It is not a free market/no government operation. We all clog the city streets, and airport parking lots. Travelers require point to point ci Large event planning includes government transportation planners.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Piotrowski said:


> Not at all. I have all the insurance I need. I also have underinsured protection (which is now mandated I believe, but I had it before it was). The state (I'm talking about Government in general not any one state) creates these false beliefs, how what they do is in the name of keeping us safe. Your comment is 100% proof of that. *You'd think we'd all die broke if it were not for them. *


There is no 'us and them.' Laws are typically held in local domain i.e. states and counties. It's not about the them. It's about who represents and what "YOU" do, as a group of individuals.



> The fact is, if we lived in a world were there were no mandated insurance, and no one to bail us out if we screwed up, the free market would address it


That proved not to be the case. If you recall it was drunk driving and a lot of death that prompted insurance to begin with because of people who were not 'responsible' with their driving. Insurance is a method to spread that risk among the populace and to weed out the bad apples, JUST like the FREE MARKET does.

*People can still drive without licenses and insurance. Just don't get caught.*



> for those of us that were smart and acted like adults. For those not, well that's how they learn. *Going broke teaches you that. *When you have zero price to pay for being irresponsible, you learn nothing when you act that way and have no reason to not be that way.


*Yeah, usually at the expense of someone else.*



> As for your insurance argument as it relates to Uber, you keep spreading your endless FUD over it, no matter how many times people prove you wrong. So I won't get it that part of it as it's pointless. It makes more sense to have a debate with my cat.


*You can jack yer jaw all day long. The bottom line is that personal auto insurance does NOT comply with TNC driving.

All the drivel imaginations of drivers who don't think this is TRUE is irrelevant to the FACTS.*


----------



## Piotrowski (Sep 9, 2014)

Tx rides said:


> Like it or not, particularly in large cities, transportation providers are part of city planning. It is not a free market/no government operation. We all clog the city streets, and airport parking lots. Travelers require point to point ci Large event planning includes government transportation planners.


Oh the joys of central planners, always think they know best. Next lets talk about how great eminent domain is, as you can't have central planning without it. Always remember, those creep in power know best.


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

Piotrowski said:


> Oh the joys of central planners, always think they know best. Next lets talk about how great eminent domain is, as you can't have central planning without it. Always remember, those creep in power know best.


I'm going to assume you don't have much background in event management. Really no point in discussing this with you in that case. Have a nice day


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Tx rides said:


> I'm going to assume you don't have much background in event management. Really no point in discussing this with you in that case. Have a nice day


The joe six pack free shooter attitude with improperly insured drivers is the common standard with ride share drivers. They don't give a damn about putting their necks in a noose and it's probably how they ended up driving ride share anyway.

*Either that or they are just flat out willfully ignorant about how vicious the system can be to an individual when the wheels come off.*


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> The joe six pack free shooter attitude with improperly insured drivers is the common standard with ride share drivers. They don't give a damn about putting their necks in a noose and it's probably how they ended up driving ride share anyway.
> 
> *Either that or they are just flat out willfully ignorant about how vicious the system can be to an individual when the wheels come off.*


Pity, really. A lot of good money can be made, safely and efficiently.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Tx rides said:


> Pity, really. A lot of good money can be made, safely and efficiently.


The notion of 'don't get caught' and 'take undue risks' and 'hope I don't have an accident because I'm gonna get screwed' to do this gig are just NOT worth it. Seriously. If you can't make a buck legally, then just don't do it.


----------



## Sean O'Gorman (Apr 17, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> And people should be able to drive whatever speed they want on the freeways.


I believe they should be allowed to. Drunk, too, if you want. You should be allowed to do whatever you want as long as you're not harming someone. The second you injure someone while going 110 MPH, boom, 25 years in jail. That'll keep speeding in line.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Sean O'Gorman said:


> I believe they should be allowed to. Drunk, too, if you want. You should be allowed to do whatever you want as long as you're not harming someone. The second you injure someone while going 110 MPH, boom, 25 years in jail. That'll keep speeding in line.


A reasonable assessment. I think we can all safely say that any at fault accident on our part screws us into the ground in short order beyond any doubt.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Sean O'Gorman said:


> I believe they should be allowed to. Drunk, too, if you want. You should be allowed to do whatever you want as long as you're not harming someone.


Do you ever hear of this thing called "Public Policy"? Who will make up for the losses of families who's loved ones are killed by reckless speeding drivers. 
Speed Limit & DUI Laws Work.


Sean O'Gorman said:


> The second you injure someone while going 110 MPH, boom, 25 years in jail. That'll keep speeding in line.


I guess the people who are in favor of elimination of these common sense laws should be made to bear the cost of incarceration.


----------



## Driver8 (Jul 29, 2014)

Piotrowski said:


> You either like the free market or you don't. I'll take freedom over Government control any hour of any day in any week.


When a company sets out to control both the supply AND demand sides of the chain, that's not free market.

If you drive for Uber, you are under something worse than gov't control, you're under corporate control. And don't forget those stars, baby. Even the government - even with a BIG G - has, on average, the ability to give more direct answers than the typical Uber spokesperson. Have a problem with something a local politician is doing, you are free to run against them or donate to someone else who is stepping up to the plate. You can't do that with Uber unless you are an investor. Just remember: you're not an employee, even though you jump through Uber hoops.



Piotrowski said:


> I trust people, not Government. I trust making my own choices over someone else making it for me.


_"Even as a teen, Kalanick was exceptionally self-assured. He always had "his game face on" a former classmate recalls. "The fact that Travis is a good salesman - I think originally he let that be the entirety of his personality, both to his friends and within work."

This person described Kalanick as a chronic hustler. "There was definitely a feeling for me that he was always trying to sell something to me, like a used car salesman. You know it's their job, but it doesn't make it any less annoying."_

If that's who you want to trust, have at it. Me? I just got off the phone with an UberX driver who's realizing he and other X drivers are being lied to by the local office. I've seen too many Black drivers promised all these incentives if they'll stay out for 7 hours at night Uber expects to be "off the wall!!" business, only to find demand is DEAD and they received next to nada for giving up time that could have been spent with friends and family.



Piotrowski said:


> I'm willing to pay my own price for making wrong ones, as that's the price you pay for freedom. You might feel differently, but don't kid yourself about what you believe.


Go ahead and pay your price for your bad decisions. But when attitude is allowed to prevail, you're subjecting others to your bad decisions, as well. How much personal responsibility will you take when your bad choice blows up in someone else's face?


----------



## Piotrowski (Sep 9, 2014)

Wow, you really are not getting it at all. Let's say I decide two things today:
1) that Uber stinks and I don't want to be involved with it anymore
2) that Social Security stinks, and I don't want to be involved with it anymore

Which one can I do? 

Please tell me how I quit the second one. Please please please!!! Being you say I can.

In return I'll tell you how to quit Uber. Here is is, wait for it.... You stop doing it. Perhaps you just don't know this but they will not send armed people to your house to force you to do it. They will not put you in jail either. It's ok, so now quit, but first tell me how I quit from SS, Obamacare, and on and on and on.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Piotrowski said:


> Wow, you really are not getting it at all. Let's say I decide two things today:
> 1) that Uber stinks and I don't want to be involved with it anymore
> 2) that Social Security stinks, and I don't want to be involved with it anymore
> 
> ...


Nobody cares if you're speeding either til the trooper pulls you over. Your notion is the common one. It's OK if you you you want to drive insurance bareback. NOBODY cares. If and when (it's only a question of when) you have an issue you are right.

It's only YOUR OWN DUMB ASS.

*That's why the state legislatures need laws. To make people legally insure themselves because they are too damn stupid and financially desperate to do it themselves.*


----------



## Driver8 (Jul 29, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> That's why the state legislatures need laws. To make people legally insure themselves because they are too damn stupid and financially desperate to do it themselves.


And it's all well and good as long as the only thing they're going to wrap theirselves around is a tree. When you hit another driver, though, it's a different matter.

That's my issue with so much of the tech-driven generation - refusal to take any responsibility when shit blows up.


----------



## Driver8 (Jul 29, 2014)

Piotrowski said:


> Wow, you really are not getting it at all. Let's say I decide two things today:
> 1) that Uber stinks and I don't want to be involved with it anymore
> 2) that Social Security stinks, and I don't want to be involved with it anymore


What part of _"IF you drive for Uber_" do you not understand?


----------

