On 07/10/2015 20:07, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 06/10/2015 18:12, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 21:01, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 20:28, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 17:26, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 15:11:53 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 15:45:22 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
the pavement outside the venue in the pouring rain, or perhaps
five
minutes earlier when they are inside in the warm and can more
comfortably use their phone to order a car to arrive in five
minute's
time?

Since thats exactly how people used to order minicabs I'm
wondering what
exactly is the killer selling point of Uber. Other than it
means
Aspergers
types don't actually have to talk to a person and get all
stressed.

You don't have to know the names and phone numbers of local mini
cab firms,

Google.

Obviously you like making things more difficult than they need to
be.


nor explain the address to someone who may not have a shared
language.

Right, because Uber drivers are always natives.

Of course not, but you seem not to know how Uber works.


Either or both parties may be in a noisy environment.

What's more, Uber probably gets you a car more quickly, you
don't
need to
pay cash (a particular advantage when abroad, if you don't have
local
currency), and it's typically cheaper.

Of course its cheaper - unvetted drivers whose only
qualification is
owning
a car and smartphone.

Wrong again.

That is precisely the point; no-one has been (so far) able to say
with
certainty that Uber drivers *are* vetted and licensed.

The fact that Uber themselves claim to do the vetting" is alarming.

I don't believe that they do

they claim that they have checked the driver has been vetted (the
rest
is just lost in lazy journalism)

Every "private hire" operator has to do that.

so what were you complaining about then?

The current situation is completely unclear.

In particular, it is far from clear that Uber's sub-contractor drivers
*are* licensed, even as "private hire" drivers.

Uber themselves claim to do the vetting

as I said befo

that is likely to be just lazy jurno speak for "the driver gets the
authorities to do the necessary vetting and Uber check that they (the
driver) has done this"

"likely".

The law requires certainty.

It has already been explained to you that when questioned first hand
Uber explain that they do comply with the law.

And a large proportion of persons arrested for crime assure the police
that they're innocent.

So any discussion abut what is reported third hand does not require such
certainty

Can you see a flaw in that?