為咗譚惠珠嘅私人商業利益,香港人無uber坐

政府突然高調打擊uber,先拉五個uber司機,再上uber辦事處搜查。

港賊 譚惠珠
港賊 譚惠珠

警察要做嘢,點解唔拉暗角七警,點解唔拉中國電話騙徒,點解唔拉冚旗的士,拉uber?

知道邊班契弟支持689,就明點解。香港最多的士牌乜嘢人, 港賊 譚惠珠 ,以及支持689果啲的士商會,仲有中國高幹炒牌資本。所以689寧願香港人無的士坐,都要打擊uber。

由今日起,小弟唔會搭的士,一蚊都唔會俾你班hihi落袋。叫uber就係公民抗命。




捐款:
Citibank Hong Kong: 14830515
恆生銀行:395-158777-882

月捐計劃





想用Google App,經呢度加入:https://goo.gl/PBroUD
捐款者可以索取八折coupon code,慳更多!

3 thoughts on “為咗譚惠珠嘅私人商業利益,香港人無uber坐

  1. 首先聲明:絕對無意挑機,亦無意為所謂的士”業界”講說話

    我不喜歡的士司機惡劣的服務,也支持修例讓 UBER 合法經營
    (租車牌照只有百幾個極不合理)

    但言猶在耳,早前黃兄說 UBER 房車服務的司機都是合法租車,現在豈不是自打嘴巴?
    (當然有報導說是 UBER 客貨車司機載人不載貨因而被捕)

    抗命還抗命,坐車無第三保出事無得賠,比”非法”集會案底或者坐監幾星期要嚴重得多
    (唔係次次都撞正陳x橋卦?)

    呼籲之前係咪應該講清楚後果?

  2. 最後一句:無牌載客就係無牌載客
    全世界都係用呢個理由打UBER
    點解唯獨是香港唔可以?

  3. @飛蚊導彈

    Uber brands itself as “ride sharing” service instead of “car for hire” service so it is debatable whether it is 無牌載客.

    Loosely speaking, it is no different than you picking up your friend from the airport with a car and your frieng treating you to dinner & drink afterwards. You do in fact receive material benefits from your friend by offering a ride. Under the strictest interpretation of the law, it is thus illegal. But no one with a sane mind would consider picking up a friend from the airport illegal. Thus the very definition of grey area.

    Also, the risk of the loss of liability insurance coverage in case of accidents is overblown. True, normal personal auto insurance policy won’t cover commercial activities, but Uber has been very upfront about providing end-to-end liability coverage themselves. Insurance is nothing but a financial guarantee with a ceiling. Uber has enough financial means to self-insure their “drivers”. If Uber can thrive in the litigation-happy culture of the U.S. (especially in large cities like NY, LA, Chicago and SF), they can self-insure their “drivers” anywhere.

發表迴響

你的電子郵件位址並不會被公開。 必要欄位標記為 *