That is the setting that CBC gave me today and it angers me. For the most any situation that sets danger to children angers me. I reckon that is within all of us. Our first care is to a child, any child and that takes precedence over almost anything else.
The CBC (at https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/uber-drives-off-with-child-1.7513379) is giving us ‘An Uber drove away with her kid. Then Uber wouldn’t connect her or police with the driver’ with the subtext “Uber representatives refused to help them or Toronto police contact the driver” a blatant setting that optionally will endanger a child. Lets be clear, there could be a setting that a person is not to be connected to a driver, but the police? The Toronto metropolitan police force towards the protection of a child? As I personally see it, all Uber activities will stop immediately until this setting is resolved. No matter what the impact is, to optionally endanger a child is something you don’t get back from.
So when we get “An officer called Uber to get contact information for the driver but Julia says a representative for the ride-sharing company refused to provide it — stating the police needed to fill out a form” your blood should be boiling, as did mine. So, I do get part of this, still the operator could have contacted the driver and take it from there. The driver could then have called, the operator could have logged the event and within 1-2 minutes there would have been clarity. Now, the child was left in danger, as such I have no value for the statement “Toronto police found her child about an hour and a half later, without the company’s help” or the ‘official’ excuse “An Uber spokesperson said in a statement the safety of everyone who uses the platform is the company’s top priority”, well that setting is a downright lie, because the setting of the operator calling was seemingly overlooked. And the setting that a child was without her mothers care for 90 minutes should wake up every mother in Canada ignoring Uber as a solution for them for some time (or ever again), the latter setting is not to be ignored. Especially against “We immediately began reviewing the details of this incident internally to identify opportunities to improve our processes and support systems.” In under a minute I found a solution that ANY call centre operator could have considered in seconds. But it was to no avail, Uber fell short everywhere (Überall in German) and it goes from bad to worse from there. You see the setting of “The company says its support team followed Uber’s standard protocols, which are designed to protect the privacy and safety of all users” is a debatable one, I reckon that Uber set that setting to protect themselves and optionally illegals that might get some cash by becoming an Uber driver. You see, in villages like New York they have the setting “Under New York’s Vehicle and Traffic Law, ride-share companies such as Uber and Lyft are regulated as “transportation network companies” (“TNC”). To become a TNC driver, a worker must be at least nineteen years old and hold a valid New York State driver’s license issued by the DMV.” I reckon that this rule applies in many American cities, as such, as Uber needs drivers, they need to get space to keep their illegals ‘somewhat’ safe. And this setting with the child, a freak, one in a million events got in the way from what I personally see, the ‘protection’ of illegals. Now it is fair to say that I am wrong, but consider the simplicity of a call centre operator contacting the driver, optionally handing the data to a police officer against the escalation that the CBC is handing us implies that my version is likely correct. Just the setting that Uber refuses to aid the police department to resolve this situation gives it a much nastier turn and as such there is a larger setting that actions against Uber becomes essential, if only to guarantee that children get a much better safety net under this unsafe premise. And for those who state that I am wrong. Consider the following scenario. The child fell asleep, the mother was moving the three children and when she returns the cab is gone. So far, so good. Now the taxi driver rides off, hits a bump or pit in the road, as mother is no longer there, the child is thrown in the cab optionally causing damage to neck or other body part. This could have been not noticed (because mother is gone) and she falls out of sight and the taxi driver might be unaware. This is a possible setting and calling the driver could have stopped this from happening within minutes, and the child was ‘found’’ 90 minutes later, so for over an hour she remained in optional danger.
As we get the last insult with “Julia’s boyfriend later received a $10 credit from Uber, which she considers “a massive slap in the face.””, as I see it, make Uber not an option for 10 months in Canada, a dollar a day so to say.
Yes, I am going for the larger danger, but as I see it, there is a clear need for this. In this I also oppose the setting that Carmi Levy, a technology analyst give with “traditional elements of customer service have been lost in today’s gig economy”, I oppose it, because as I see it the proper setting that seems to apply is “traditional elements of customer service have been lost in today’s gig economy for the larger need of profit, margins of profit and the pleasing of shares and stake holders” Yes, you forgot that, didn’t you? Uber works for profit slashing as many of the margins that they can to remain profitable and the funny part is that the phone call of the operator to the driver would not have impacted it.
I will let you decide what the proper form of action is, consider that Uber gives us “Whether you’re in the back seat or behind the wheel, your safety is essential. We are committed to doing our part, and technology is at the heart of our approach. We partner with safety advocates and develop new technologies and systems to help improve safety and help make it easier for everyone to get around”, yet the website give us no information on where they are. So where do Canadians send their complaint letter to? For that matter, the line “technology is at the heart of our approach”, really? So is a phone call to the driver not technology? As such technology is not in any heart of approach and as I see it, a clear reason to block Uber from operating In Canada (optionally for 10 months), how does that go over with the share and stake holders?
Just a small merry thought, so you all have a lovely day and if you are Canadian consider City Taxi Toronto, 130 Westmore Drive, Suite 219, Toronto (reachable at (416) 740-2222)and keep yourself and your children safe, a random taxi service in Toronto was chosen. I personally do not know how good they are, but as I see it, optionally better than Uber.
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 