I do wonder if a background check would have turned up anything to prevent this guy from driving for Uber in the first place.
Durrani, of Streatham, south west London, claimed the sex was consensual and denied one count of rape and one of assault by penetration, but a jury found him guilty of both.
Defence lawyer Marie Spenwyn told the judge it was a “one off” and that his relatives in the UK and his native Pakistan had written letters supporting his character.
Transport for London announced last year that it would not be renewing Uber’s licence to operate in the capital, citing the firm’s approach to reporting serious criminal offences and background checks on drivers.
I think they should have won.
The killer is operating centre or other premises with a fixed address in London or elsewhere
I’d be happy to be able to call/message the driver direct if I could do it through the app. I’d be happy to be able to click to call a driver direct. I don’t see what actually speaking to somebody sitting in a call centre (especially as they’ve got no idea where or what is going on). It’s forcible intermediation for no benefit for the consumer.
That said the system they use at the moment in the UK seems very poor. Even missing a call and dialling back immediately doesn’t work. Sort out that and I’d prefer it.
What if you want to complain about the driver (or any other aspect of their service) to Uber? There’s stuff the driver doesn’t know either.
On what legal grounds do you think Uber should have won? It’s not a clear cut case, obviously, as the lower court found in Uber’s favour. But it’s far from obvious that it’s beyond TfL’s remit as a minicab regulator. Not least, as the appeal court noted, because the statute on the subject already requires an operating centre in London for bookings and record keeping (not explicitly complaints though).
I don’ t need a fixed contact centre for a voice call to deal with a complaint. I have the app if I want to use that and if I want to make more public I can use twitter. It’s a BS requirement built on an old model.
NOT A LAWYER but not beyond their remit but why do they require a voice call (who uses voice calls anyway). The demand is not that they allow complaints but they provide a voice channel. Would it be ok that they mandate that I can telex them? It’s the regulator forcing their view of the market and not moving at the speed of the market.
The argument about booking agents on taxis is interesting. I think it would be more effective to argue that Taxi drivers act as their own operator. At that point it becomes inequitable, they’ve not attempted to do that…they accept complaints about taxi drivers directly.
So legally I not qualified but as an interested consumer I think it’s a BS requirement by a regulator that is interesting in keeping the status quo.
This point is directly addressed in the judgment. Taxi drivers can indeed be their own operator.
Of course it’s the regulator forcing its view of the market. That’s what regulators do, otherwise they’d just be observers. The question here is whether they’re acting capriciously or beyond their powers.
You said they should have won. That’s a legal argument.
On the consumer point, it’s not massively relevant to the legal question (though again it is addressed in the judgement) but I personally don’t agree that it’s a BS requirement built on an old model. How often do you read about, or for that matter experience, people complaining that they can’t get through to a human, or that companies (in a QT3 I’m thinking Steam, for instance) are unresponsive to electronic communications. People do still want to talk to someone about the problems they’re having with a service, even if it is just someone in a call centre. And personally I find it an extremely bad thing that Twitter has become an unofficial customer support service. It’s bullshit that it gets better results than official support channels just because it’s public.
Some guy witnessed something so upsetting he had to enforce Uber policy and eject his riders. NYC is also upset, but for different reasons, so they suspended his taxi license.
If you see these people, be very careful about letting them into your car.
Uber lists community guidelines on its website, which specify that “you shouldn’t touch or flirt with other people in the car,” and that there’s “no sexual conduct with drivers or fellow riders, no matter what.”
But both Iovine and Pichl say they kissed once, and were not touching inappropriately.
Even if there was groping or touching, he’d have to kick out everyone who did that, not just the ones he likes. Again though, why would a driver even care about this? They mentioned feet on the seat… if i wanted my car to be pristine, one, I wouldn’t use it to transport the public, and two, I’d be happy it was feet and not urine or throw-up.
Not to be that guy, but did you see the video they filmed? I watched for a minute before i got bored and moved on, but saw enough.
It was in the middle of the day, and his reaction might have been because he seemed to have been, let’s say, someone from another country not used to the social mores in the US and where that would have been looked down on. Though that is just a guess and perhaps stereotyping the driver.
But… don’t take Uber if you can, because Uber is evil.
Well I don’t put my feet up in other people’s cars either, but when you deal with the public… I mean they had shows based on what Taxi drivers saw and heard for a reason.
Summary on NPR this morning - Uber lost $3Billion last year. A large majority of their business is in all of 5 cities. 15% of revenue is airport trips, which are what is under most direct attack from traditional cab interests.
Uber’s heavily subsidizing a lot of their rides, which I think is a big part of those losses.
Ultimately, losing money isn’t necessarily a bad thing in the long run. Amazon lost money for like a billion years before it finally emerged as the retail goliath that it is.
But at the same time… I don’t think I’d be putting money into Uber at this point.
