Also, it sounds like Uber would be better off targeting public outrage towards the mayor. Any thoughts on why they went after TfL and not where the power actually resides?
[1] https://www.google.ca/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/uber...
>Uber drivers are accused of sexually assaulting or raping customers almost three times a month, according to new figures which have outraged rape campaigners.
I could point out that accusation is not proof of guilt, but that's not what's bothering me the most. My problem with this article is that no referential is provided : frequency of accusations of others cab services providers (we have a count, no frequency) ? total number of fares at Uber vs other cabs (is it more than a fifth ?) ? Or alleged sexual assaults in London for a month ?
Sometimes this bad journalism looks so deliberate...
Someone else asked how Uber assaults compare to the general population and I honestly can't find much apples-to-apples information.
[1] https://www.change.org/p/save-your-uber-in-london-saveyourub...
Uber are fully supporting the livelihood of 40k drivers? Doesn't seem likely. They're depressing the market price whilst simultaneously creaming off more of that price for themselves, that surely leaves drivers over all worse off.
What sort of pension are Uber's employees getting, the one's whose livelihood Uber are taking care of? What sort of holiday pay do they get? Do they get perks above the lowest legal level?
How does that compare to the regular population?
(What is it with the rampant "whataboutism" defending Uber?")
If you get a parking ticket for going 5 over the limit, but sheriff's friend gets away free while going 30 over and drunk, is it "whataboutism"?
They're not the only ones.
There are around 2,400 private hire operator licences in issue currently, so about 40 are renewed per month.[0]
Whether laws and other regulations are enforced uniformly or selectively is a matter of concern to all of us.
[0] https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/licensing...
Have I read the situation wrong in this respect?
I'm not sure how anything I've written could be interpreted in that way. Perhaps you replied to the wrong comment?
My point is that stats about Uber are only useful when put into context, i.e. compared with stats about other holders of operator licences. Someone said that's irrelevant because Uber are the [only] ones applying for a licence. I pointed out that there are around 40 operator licences granted per month.
Given there are such direct comparisons possible, why are those stating the numbers continuing to do so without sufficient context to make them useful?
Even worse is the implicit dismissal of sexual assault!
So for instance in the US the average traffic fatality rate is about 1.5 per hundred million miles. With Uber servicing 40 million rides per month, you'd expect to see numerous Uber passengers/drivers killed in traffic accidents each and every month. It can lead to yellow journalism like "Dozens were killed in accidents with unsafe Uber drivers last year. How can we fix this?" The quantity of values is in no way evidence that there's anything to fix nor does it justify calling the drivers unsafe. You need context and relative comparison. It could well be that you get your sensationalistic headline even when the drivers are well above the average in terms of safety - just thanks to the scale of their operation.
Arguments should be decided on logic, not emotion. And that is impossible when you present numbers without any context.
"The letter concluded by pointing out that these weren’t the only incidents the Metropolitan Police had become aware of. In total, Uber had failed to report six sexual assaults, two public order offences and one assault to the police. This had lead to delays of up to 7 months before they were investigated. Particularly damning, with the public order offences this meant that in both cases the prosecution time limit had passed before the police became aware of them."