Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Canada The Almighty Buck Transportation

Uber Faces $410 Million Canadian Class Action Suit 247

Posted by samzenpus from the don't-take-the-law-into-your-own-hands dept.
farrellj writes: A class action suit has been filed by the Taxi and Limo drivers and owners in the Province of Ontario in Canada against Uber, demanding CAN$400 million in compensatory damages, $10 million in punitive damages. They claim Uber is violating the Ontario Highway Traffic Act that covers taxis and limos, and has caused them to lose money. They also seek an injunction against Uber operating in Ontario. "This protectionist suit is without merit," Uber said in a statement. "As we saw from a recent court ruling in Ontario, Uber is operating legally and is a business model distinct from traditional taxi services."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Uber Faces $410 Million Canadian Class Action Suit More

Uber Faces $410 Million Canadian Class Action Suit

Comments Filter:

  • We're a tech company... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Daemonik ( 171801 ) on Thursday July 23, 2015 @05:56PM (#50171179) Homepage
    ..we don't have to obey those pesky laws! Our founders are all Libertarians/Randian Objectivists, laws are for poor people! Haven't you read Fountainhead?? Arblegarblewarble!!!

    • laws are for poor people

      I can't understand why I'm sensing an element of sarcasm with respect to something that is clearly accurate.

      • bUber (Score:5, Funny)

        by goombah99 ( 560566 ) on Friday July 24, 2015 @12:27AM (#50172819)

        Perhaps that explains why my company bUber (pronounced Boob Urge) has bee so tied up in the courts. The concept is simple our company iPimp arranges meetings of escorts in hotel rooms. The contractors are all independent contractors, making a little money, but really they are their to give their single serving friends, we call them rides, a hand. This is completely different from normal prostitution, it's a different bussiness model even though it fills the same niche. In places where whore houses are well regulated, inspected and liscenced one can see that we don't need to meet such requirements since our service producers are independent contractors. Our rates are lower since were just making connections between people who might not be full time whores. They just notify us when they are available and we make use of what would otherwise would have been wasted time. We have surge pricing for conventions and with that can get more providers on the street when they are needed.

        Recently Uber approached us because it fits well with there model. Our providers need delivery to addresses, and their drivers can act as sales agents for us as well. But they are reluctant to merge with us until we can shake these ridiculous legal problems. We certainly are not a traditional whore house.

    • Re:We're a tech company... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by TsuruchiBrian ( 2731979 ) on Thursday July 23, 2015 @06:18PM (#50171309)
      There was a time when it was illegal for black people to drink from the same drinking fountains as white people. I am not equating these 2 laws. I am only pointing out that sometimes laws are not justified, and disobeying laws isn't always immoral or harmful. In fact it can occasionally be helpful in driving progressive changes to poorly thought out and/or obeselete and/or unfair laws. Surely you do not completely discount civil disobedience as a tactic with no redeeming social value, even if you are not specifically a proponent of Uber.

      • Re:We're a tech company... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by bloodhawk ( 813939 ) on Thursday July 23, 2015 @06:28PM (#50171365)
        Uber is not a black person. A company should NEVER get to determine what is a good law and what is a bad law. Civil Disobedience is for individuals not companies, the last thing this world needs is companies getting to decide which laws are good and which are bad, especially when the execs making such decisions can be internationally based and out of reach of the consequences.

        • Re:We're a tech company... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by h33t l4x0r ( 4107715 ) on Thursday July 23, 2015 @06:47PM (#50171459)
          If corporations are people and money is speech, then Uber could be a modern day Martin Luther King.
          • Uber is actually the modern day Rosa Parks. I think refusing to go to the back of the bus (e.g. refusing to obey an unjust law) is a better analogy. I'm sure Martin Luther King also engaged in civil disobedience, but he is known for more than just that, which clouds the analogy.

        • And uber is not determining which laws are good and bad. The elected representatives and courts are deciding that. Uber may spur a discussion through some dubious actions, but ultimately it is the people who decide what laws they want.

          If you think marijuana laws are bad, one thing you can do is openly smoke a bunch of marijuana and show everyone that nothing bad happens. Uber is definitely within it's rights to try to sway public opinion. The courts will decide if they have broken any laws, and the vote

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Mashiki ( 184564 )

            When Uber decides that it's xyz instead of abc, but uses existing laws to apply to abc, and ignore other laws like chauffeurs licenses and minimum mandatory insurance requirements they are indeed trying to determine which laws are good and bad.

            I suppose it's a good thing in Canada we generally follow the rule of law. You guys in the US really have begun to swing to mob rule, and demanding laws based on feelings.

            • Except that it's not uber deciding. Is uber signing bills into law? Is uber the judge at the trial? There is a difference between deciding for yourself if a law is good or bad (which every person and corporation is free to do), and deciding for everyone whether a law is good or bad (i.e. doing the job of the government).

              Uber can break whatever laws it wants, and it must take the legal responsibility whatever that turns out to be as determined by a court.

              • Uber can break whatever laws it wants, and it must take the legal responsibility whatever that turns out to be as determined by a court.

                This is true, and if they end up in a court of law and in front of a jury of 12 people, those 12 people can decide whatever they want, such as "not guilty".

                That is the 4th pillar of our legal system. No matter what the government says, at the end of the day, we're judged by a jury of our peers, not the government.

                • It depends on the type of trial. We have jury trials. We also have trials that are decided by judges. The government is made up of people. When people are acting as jurors, they are acting as an extension of the government, just like police officers and judges are people acting as extensions of the government.

                  • Yes, but in the US, if you're being charged with a criminal offense, you have the right to ask for a jury trial.

                    The jury has the right to make any decision it wants, regardless of what the law says.

                    That is the ultimate safeguard of an overpowered government, a jury that rules the way they believe in, regardless of the law.

                    • And we also have civil trials, as well as supreme court cases decided by judges.

                      The jury has the right to make any decision it wants, regardless of what the law says.

                      It depends on the state. Some states (I believe my own state California is one of them), it is actually illegal to make a decision as a juror that ignores the law. Obviously nobody can really know what your motives are and you can lie about them. But if you openly disobey the judges orders to make decisions based on what the law is (rather than what you think the law should be), you can be held in contempt of court and jailed

                    • https://www.law.cornell.edu/we... [cornell.edu]

                      There is a LONG history of this, some situations have been more for or against it...

                      While you are right that a Judge can hold you in comtempt, and you'd be foolish to openly flout the judge, the reality is this:

                      "However, jury verdicts of acquittal are unassailable even where the verdict is inconsistent with the weight of the evidence and instruction of the law."

                      Once acquitted, you're done, never to be tried again. The lack of double jeopardy is a key part of the US justice

          • Uber has a right to sway public opinion, they even have a right to openly challenge the laws in court. they DO NOT have a right to openly ignore the law and this is what they are doing in many many regions of the world.
            • NO they don't have the *right* to disobey the law, as per the definitions of rights and laws. What they *can* do is decide to break the law and deal with whatever consequences arise out of it.

      • Re:We're a tech company... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Daemonik ( 171801 ) on Thursday July 23, 2015 @06:52PM (#50171483) Homepage

        We also have laws against just randomly shooting your neighbors. Either you respect that some laws exist for good reasons or you chuck them all and live in anarchy. A corporation is not a person. A corporation only wants laws relaxed so they can maximize profits, not because of any moral reason.

        The truth is that the laws over taxi services have been built over decades to try to balance the needs of businesses with protection of the customer. Uber only wants to skirt those laws because meeting them would cut into their profits, not because of some great liberation of the people.

        I swear, some of you capitalism apologists won't be happy until corporations are back to selling toys with razor sharp edges that catch fire as soon as they're unpacked, food "bulked up" with rat droppings and rope, whatever it takes as long as profits aren't harmed.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

          We also have laws against just randomly shooting your neighbors. Either you respect that some laws exist for good reasons or you chuck them all and live in anarchy.

          Your logical fallacy is the False Dichotomy. You can also understand that laws against fraud, violence, and theft (the only real crimes) are valid, victimless crimes which are designed to produce revenue and which don't achieve their stated goals are evil (they themselves are a form of fraud, enacted to justify theft and/or violence) and laws which restrict economic activity in a society in which it is a crime to not have money (which is effectively true everywhere in the modern world) are slavery.

          • Your logical fallacy is the False Compromise. When someone wants to cut off someone else's arm the second person is not being unreasonable when they refuse to settle on having their arm cut off at the elbow instead, nor are they making a false dichotomy by pointing out the non-evil choice is not cutting off people's arms.

          • Uber's victims are all the honest, hard working, drivers and companies that choose to obey the law.

        • Hopefully there is more preventing you from randomly shoot your neighbors than the fact that it is illegal. (i.e. the reason for why randomly shooting your neighbors is bad, is not *because* it is illegal).

          And yes, uber wants to maximize profits. To say that any law that prevents maximal profits is good, because anyone who wants to maximize profits is automatically wrong, is kind of silly.

          We could make a law that says "Doctors must never be compensated, and must live in poverty". If the doctor lobby trie

          • The laws that artificially limit the supply of taxis start to look quite reasonable when you realise after they are gone all the previous generation taxi drivers are basically destitute, those guys that actually know the city and have done the job long enough that we know they have the temperament for it and do a half decent job.

        • A corporation only wants laws relaxed so they can maximize profits, not because of any moral reason.

          You fail to realise that sometimes a common target can be shared by two different groups with two different beliefs and two different motives. Taking the emotional attachment to uber out of it would you be criticizing a corporation who was lobbying for removal of discriminatory laws against blacks, gays, etc because they stood to make a buck despite the fact that you may personally believe the laws were bad?

          Uber are a bunch of arrogant fucks.
          But they are a bunch of arrogant fucks unraveling (in many cases)

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by Daemonik ( 171801 )

            You claim it's an absurd monopoly, but offer nothing to prove monopoly (most cities have more than one taxi service) nor why it's absurd. The laws regulating taxi services didn't come out of nowhere for no reason. At one time taxi's were unencumbered with regulations and as people were cheated, swindled, injured, griped to their local representatives, bit by bit regulations were forced onto the industry to keep things reasonably fair and responsible. That's the problem with people who don't understand hi

      • Re:We're a tech company... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Dragonslicer ( 991472 ) on Thursday July 23, 2015 @09:10PM (#50172137)

        Surely you do not completely discount civil disobedience as a tactic with no redeeming social value, even if you are not specifically a proponent of Uber.

        It seems like a lot of people use the argument that a person (or in this case, company) shouldn't be punished for their act of civil disobedience. That argument is ridiculous. 50 years ago, activists committed acts of civil disobedience knowing full well that they would be punished for them. The whole point of civil disobedience was to use the punishment to draw attention to their cause.

        Claiming that your actions are civil disobedience and then trying to escape punishment doesn't make you a hero. It makes you a coward.

  • "Uber is violation the Ontario Highway Traffic Act"

    "caused them to lost money"

    • Re:how is babby formed (Score:5, Funny)

      by Joe Gillian ( 3683399 ) on Thursday July 23, 2015 @06:10PM (#50171273)

      In AD 2015, Uber is violation the Ontario Highway Traffic Act!!

      Uber Executive: "What Happen??"
      Uber Executive: "Somebody set up us the lawsuit!!"

      The Taxi and Limo Drivers And Owners in the Province of Ontario, Canada: "HOW ARE YOU GENTLEMEN"
      Ttladoitpooc: "YOU HAVE CAUSED US TO LOST MONEY AND ARE VIOLATION OF THE ONTARIO HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT"
      Ttladoitpooc: "WE MAKE LAWSUE FOR FOUR HUNDRED MILLION CANADIAN DOLLARS OF CANADA"
      Ttladoitpooc: "YOU HAVE NO RECOUP CHANCE FOR LEGAL FEES MAKE YOUR TIME"

      Uber Executives: "TAKE OFF EVERY ATTORNEY, FOR GREAT JUSTICE!!"

  • Stop slacking and do your job

  • Handy article on the Globe and Mail (Score:5, Insightful)

    by debrain ( 29228 ) on Thursday July 23, 2015 @06:29PM (#50171371) Journal

    This is one of the more insightful bits of investigative journalism I've read in a long time:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com... [theglobeandmail.com]

    Some quotes:

    [...] one of the most compelling investigative projects ... in the Toronto taxicabs that I rode in so often on my way to assignments. I discovered that almost none of Torontoâ(TM)s city-issued taxi licenses â" known as âoeplatesâ â" were in the hands of working cab drivers. Instead, they were held by people who made others pay to use them.

    [Taxi] plate holders included an airline pilot, a dentist, investors who lived in Florida and Israel, and estates that had inherited the licenses after the holder died. The problems created by the plate system were mind-boggling. At least 30 per cent of the industryâ(TM)s revenues went to people who did nothing but milk income from their licenses.

    So the Toronto Taxi system is a cesspool of entitled leeches, and Uber â" which nonetheless seems to have a shady side to it â" seems to be doing some overdue jostling. Hence the ridiculous class action.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dmt0 ( 1295725 )
      I like the part where the taxi driver being interviewed actually admits that he himself takes Uber orders sometimes. From the article it seems that being an Uber driver is actually more profitable than being a taxi driver. If those driver guys are actually not profiting from holding the plates, why would they all not switch over? Who cares that it took you so much effort to get the taxi license. As per this article you get four times more cash by working for Uber.

    • Re:Handy article on the Globe and Mail (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dskoll ( 99328 ) on Thursday July 23, 2015 @08:47PM (#50172059) Homepage

      Same thing in Ottawa. Taxi plates are artificially scarce, which drives up the cost of obtaining them to stratospheric levels. Taxi drivers rent the plates from investors and they have to work like hell to make very little money because their expenses are so high, even though cab fares are high too.

      The correct thing to do would be to eliminate the artificial scarcity. Let anyone who is willing and able to comply with the safety, insurance and knowledge regulations drive a cab. That will bring market forces back into play and taxi fares will settle down to something reasonable and sustainable, and Uber would no longer be necessary.

      Unfortunately, the people lobbying against Uber are the plate-holding investors who would take a huge loss if the taxi industry were allowed to run like any normal industry, so they spend tons of bucks to protect their investments.

      • How would one fairly transition from one system to the other? (i.e. not screw over the taxi cabs, without caring about 'investors', and bring uber under reasonable control)

      • Parking spaces are artificially scarce too! I could fit my car onto the pavement easily there is it weren't for all this government restriction of my parking rights,

    • Corporation declines to pay local mob protection money, mob upset. News at 11.

    • [Taxi] plate holders included an airline pilot, a dentist, investors who lived in Florida and Israel, and estates that had inherited the licenses after the holder died. The problems created by the plate system were mind-boggling. At least 30 per cent of the industryâ(TM)s revenues went to people who did nothing but milk income from their licenses.

      What's quite funny is that is probably a lot less than goes to income milkers in other industries.

  • The judge on the previous ruling said that there was "no evidence" that Uber was operating a Taxi broker service. So all they have to do is supply the evidence. They clearly are. The information can be gleaned from phones or Uber's own records.
    Also, you don't just get to claim that your business model is distinct from traditional taxi services. That is up to the government to decide.
    Beck Taxi [becktaxi.com] has an app which allows you to hail cab in the same manner as Uber, and yet they have a valid license. because the

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AK Marc ( 707885 )

      [becktaxi.com] has an app which allows you to hail cab in the same manner as Uber,

      Uber does not allow "hail". You must pre-book and request a private car pickup. This is not a hail. A hail is a street-side pickup from real-time signal based on the hailer seeing a taxi and signaling a stop.

      For that reason, Uber is explicitly not a taxi in most jurisdictions (though, many don't separate taxi rules from private car/limo rules that Uber should be following). I don't know Canada law enough to say for there. But Uber manages to win some and lose some, so it's not as clear-cut as you asse

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ruir ( 2709173 )
        So as soon as regulation is updated to keep up with the times, and you can do a hail in a mobile app instead of with an hand...suddenly Uber is now a taxi. Great comment you made.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AK Marc ( 707885 )
          Still not a hail. The regulated Taxi I got added a "booking fee" when I called in, and held the line while the taxi came, which is almost exactly what you described. When the Taxi companies state such an action isn't a hail, why can't Uber agree with them?

    • Why not have one category of minimum level of insurance that covers $X of damage, etc, for everyone, and let the insurance companies decide how much to charge for this service based on factors like hours driven per month, whether the driving is done for work, whether it's a moped or a 18 wheeler, etc.

      This way we don't need different kinds of insurance from a legal standpoint. The only requirement is "Must be covered to the minimum level", and it is the same for everyone (although it may not cost the same f

      • I'm constantly surprised that insurance in certain other countries has a liability limit - you pay $X to have $Y coverage, where $Y coverage is a payout limit.

        In the UK you pay $X for Y coverage, where Y is not a pay out limit but a type of insurance - so fully comprehensive (you cause the damage, your car is fully covered as well as all liability for any damage to third parties), third party (only liability for any damage to third parties is covered) and a range in between (eg third party, fire and theft w

  • Good (Score:2, Interesting)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 )
    Que Grumpy Cat Meme. Uber is a major part of the global race to the bottom all us wage slaves are caught up in. In every way possible their "drivers" are employees. They can't work for competitors, they have to carry the Uber phone and if they turn down too many rides they get fired (what the hell else would you call it?). The only little difference is they don't pay benefits, reimburse expenses, pay unemployment insurance or any of the other things regular employers do. In a society where your entire quali

    • Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)

      by aberglas ( 991072 ) on Thursday July 23, 2015 @08:06PM (#50171871)

      Here in Oz, taxi drivers raced to the bottom long ago. It is the taxi plate OWNERS, not the drivers that hold the monopoly licenses, and cream 55% of the fares from the drivers.

      Unless the Canadian situation is very different, then Uber is only a force for a bit of good.

      • Wouldn't the solution to the problem (Score:4, Interesting)

        by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday July 23, 2015 @11:36PM (#50172659)
        to enforce the existing laws for _everyone_? Instead of just saying "Well, the plat owners are violating the law so it's OK if Uber does it too"?

        Oh, and while I'm on the subject, Uber's choice of prey is slightly different. Uber requires a pretty nice car. The sort that you're run of the mill cabbie doesn't have. That's why cabbies get stuck renting their cars. Uber drivers are mostly desperate folks who just lost their job with a decent car from when they had one. The cab companies prey on recent immigrants. Uber preys on the recently unemployed.

        Both practices are abhorrent. Let's shut 'em both down.

    • they also loop for loop holes when a kid is killed and driver auto insurance says that the diver is in working for uber at the time so they are not covered and the uber used the loop hole saying that the driver was not on a call at the time but was open and waiting for one.

    • So far all the Uber drivers I've talked to seem to like it. They like the freedom of working when they want. It didn't seem like any of them would be fired. They had other jobs and went to school, etc. All in all they seemed pretty happy with Uber. I'm sure they would like health insurance and a 401K, but they usually entails working full time and not having a flexible schedule.

      On a related note, I can't hire a nanny without paying him/her benefits and paid time off, etc. I'm not a corporation. I'm

  • so Uber's already got a judgement in favour, in Canada no less, and these dolts are like, what? The way I'm reading it, this would be like Microsoft suing Apple for taking PCOS marketshare.

    Makes no fucking sense. I hope this suit is thrown out with costs.

  • Canada: land of retrying a case until you win

    ---Round one:
    City of Toronto: "Uber is a Taxi service!"
    Canadian Judge: "No, it's not."

    ---Round two (this one):
    Taxi driver: "Uber is a taxi service!"
    Canadian Judge: (hope they get the same one) -- case in progress

    ---Round three:
    Place your bets now!

  • Why this again? (Score:3)

    by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 ) on Thursday July 23, 2015 @09:08PM (#50172129) Homepage
    Taxi drivers are upset that they finally have competition and for once they have to compete in a fair market place. If I need to get from point A to point B and my choices are a Taxi, or Uber, I'll always pick Uber because it's a better car, a better car ride, driven by someone who is actually qualified to drive me and someone who cares about more then earning a dollar. Taxi drivers are unsafe, unstable, wreckless, road navigators that ignore safety and rules all to make a dollar, It's time they learn that the public shouldn't have to put up with it.

    • Re:Why this again? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by bloodhawk ( 813939 ) on Thursday July 23, 2015 @09:19PM (#50172181)

      Taxi drivers are upset that they finally have competition and for once they have to compete in a fair market place. If I need to get from point A to point B and my choices are a Taxi, or Uber, I'll always pick Uber because it's a better car, a better car ride, driven by someone who is actually qualified to drive me and someone who cares about more then earning a dollar. Taxi drivers are unsafe, unstable, wreckless, road navigators that ignore safety and rules all to make a dollar, It's time they learn that the public shouldn't have to put up with it.

      I don't like the taxi industry, but the whole point is that Uber AREN'T competing in a fair marketplace, they are intentionally avoiding competing fairly by claiming they don't have to pay the same fees or abide by the same regulations as Taxi's and hence are able to undercut them.

      • Because they don't! If my friend offers me a ride and only wants gas money, then so be it, which is all Uber is. If Uber can't operate then it starts to open up regulations where friends can't drive friends or where public transits needs addition fees and etc.....

        The real solution is for Taxi's to charge reasonable rates and to stop trying to nickle and dime each customer to the point that it makes no sense.

        • If you want to cook for your friends and they give you money for the ingredients and consumables, that is fine.

          If you want to cook for the general public, whether there is remuneration involved or not, there are laws and regulations you have to follow.

          If you can't spot the difference, then you are a fucking retard.

        • Uber isn't your friend, and they aren't only charging you gas money.

  • Uber: We're nothing like taxis (Score:4, Interesting)

    by GoodNewsJimDotCom ( 2244874 ) on Thursday July 23, 2015 @09:27PM (#50172203)
    Ebay: We're nothing like auctions.
    Paypal: We're nothing like a bank.

    If you're a tech company, claim you're nothing like has ever come before as to be immune to as many laws as possible.
  • They have an interesting take on it.
    The Globe and Mail's angle is quite a bit different: How Uber is ending the dirty dealings behind Toronto's cab business [theglobeandmail.com]

  • Think taxes, not taxis (Score:4, Insightful)

    by holophrastic ( 221104 ) on Thursday July 23, 2015 @09:59PM (#50172339)

    Uber isn't paying Ontario taxes. Their entire "distinct business model" will quickly fall apart the moment they become forced to pay things like sales taxes.

    It's not just the taxes themselves. Around here, paying taxes means you're regulated, and being regulated means that the government is responsible for the public safety surrounding you.

    So the moment Uber gets forced to pay sales taxes, is the moment that they are forced to control their drivers, is the moment their drivers become employees, is the moment they get to pay employment taxes, is the moment they get to safety-certify the vehicles, is the moment their "distinct business model" needs to raise prices to cover all of the added expense.

    That will take them half-way to taxi fares. What people don't know is that the big expensive taxi licence isn't simply a money-grab. It's specifically to reduce the number of taxis. Around here, we regulate in order to reduce competition. With a tenth the population of the USA, and even lower population density, there simply isn't enough business out there to support the number of taxis that would set out to try.

    Unlike in the USA, where too much competition would eventually result in a natural balance, around here it results in an entire industry going belly-up -- i.e. no taxis at all.

    So, the moment that Uber is large enough to compete in the full market, that market won't be big enough to support Uber, taxis, and the next new Uber-like competitor that would be able to destroy Uber instantly simply because they will be newer. And as a result of that market-is-too-small-to-support-the-low-cost-of-entry, we artificially raise the cost-of-entry with a nice expensive licence.

    But hey, electric cars are cheaper because they don't pay gas prices...which are most road taxes. Do you honestly think that in a world of everyone-drives-an-electric-vehicle that there won't be road taxes?

    Welcome to new "distinct business models". They work only while they are new. That's the distinct part.

  • Which portions of the Highway Traffic Act are they alleged to actually be in violation of?

    If they were no more specific in their actual allegation than the article was, Uber can win this one easily.

  • Once automated cars are in place, companies can simply become dispatching services for privately owned cars. Don't want to pay for parking in the city after your car drops you off at work? Let it drive around town and make money for you, then pick you up at the end of the day to drive you home. Then, it can pickup your neighbors as they leave the local bar at night, and it is ready for you, charged up in the morning.

    The taxi industry has at most 5-10 years left in it. They should be petitioning that dis

    • The taxi industry has at most 5-10 years left in it.

      Are these robot taxis going to pick up people's baggage from the curb and put it in the trunk? Will they be able to walk into a building to pick up a package to be delivered? Will they be able to resolve a dispute between two riders? Is it legal for an unattended child to ride in a vehicle with no adults in it?

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by ADRA ( 37398 )

        Do we have horses and buggies to this day? Yes. Are they used for transportation? yes. Are they in any way relevant to modern day communiting and transportation needs? No.

        Are these robot taxis going to pick up people's baggage from the curb and put it in the trunk?
        No, hire a limo or a 'real driver' for double / triple the cost for that honor. Why not, since you're flying your private jet around exclusively for your needs as well. Hell, just load a car on that jet and you're done!

        Will they be able to walk in

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ruir ( 2709173 )
          They won't and in nanny states like the UK it would be enough for the child to be taken from you.
  • Uber are micro travel agents. They use new tech to help people who want to travel to make arrangements with providers of travel services. Because the new tech makes it really quick, easy and cheap to book a voyage, it is economically viable to include short-distance car journeys in the range of products that they offer. Declare the Uber business model illegal today, and you will find yourself on a course that eliminates the entire travel agency business tomorrow.

    If we really want retro services we sho

    • Uber are micro travel agents.

      You can call them a travel agent or a floor wax or a dessert topping or whatever you want to, but your stupid vocabulary tricks are meaningless. The law says what it says.

Slashdot Top Deals

Do molecular biologists wear designer genes?

Close