No sooner did I post this about the latest attack on Uber, then this hit my Twitter feed: "What is Uber Actually Doing to Keep Riders Safe?" Mother Jones and other anti-everything media outlets will have a field day on this Uber-gun combo regarding the Kalamazoo shooter. To quote:
During the ride: In the event of an emergency during an Uber ride, passengers have few options to keep themselves safe-one of the reasons the company has drawn criticism for numerous reports of crimes, including sexual violence, committed during rides over the past few years. Passengers can send details of their trip to contacts, but there is no obvious, built-in way to contact the company or law enforcement in the midst of a dangerous ride.
Are they kidding? And this is different from the government-enabled transportation monopoly -- how? When I have traveled to Chicago for business, I absolutely loathe and fear getting into one of those disgusting, dirty cabs with yet another crazed driver who cuts people off, tailgates everyone, and screams obscenities at others. When I stayed at the Hyatt Regency McCormick Place last year, I was completely shut out of an Uber option, as Chicago fights to keep its cabbie monopoly intact. I am unarmed while in Chicago, so it is a very tedious experience for me. At one point, after many bad cab experiences in one trip, I demanded that the hotel allow me to approve of a cabbie before I jumped in as merely "the next person in the cab line."
Since the guy a) was in fact an Uber driver, and b) was picking up Uber fares during the time he was shooting, how exactly is referring to him as an Uber driver incorrect?
“Do you notice how they keep defining the insane Kalamazoo shooter as an “Uber driver”? This association is for the exact purpose of tainting Uber.”
The San Bernardino shooter was a government employee so alrighty then!