8 ms·

Uber Knowingly Leased Unsafe Cars to Drivers

196 points by coloneltcb 9y ago

zitterbewegung 9y ago
Uber looks like they are becoming the Comcast of ride sharing. The largest player in the space with some competition. But, instead of bad customer service its questionable morals. Also, a small vocal group will hate it.
- pinewurst 9y ago
  I think at this point, Comcast is the injured party here, given recent customer service quality that they've given me.
  - dawnerd 9y ago
    When I was buying a house and researching what isps were available they were really nice to deal with. Ultimately had to go with Frontier... which has been... interesting.
    - ojbyrne 9y ago
      So you live in a place where there is actual competition.
      - dawnerd 9y ago
        Not really. I can have fiber that's not utilized (Frontier) or cable with awful data caps and poor upload speeds (Comcast). Nearby there are a lot more options but since I'm in between two cities, I kinda get screwed. Good news though, Frontier will sell me gigabit for the low price of 299 if I'll take only 100mbps upload.
- joekrill 9y ago
  Comcast has pretty questionable morals, if you ask me.
cryptoz 9y ago
This is their MO. Growth at any cause. Passengers get raped? Oh well. Tell them it was fake! There was that story where they hired a known convicted rapist in India, who then raped a passenger, and then Uber executives tried to discredit the victim and say it didn't happen. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/15/uber-india-woman-rape-lawsuit https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/15/uber-indi... Unable to read the article linked, but this is Classic Uber and the reason that capitalism needs more regulations. Cars catch fire? Oopsies! Companies like Uber should not be allowed to operate at this insane "growth at any cost". It's not functional. It's not human. They can't be bothered to do background checks on drivers or safety checks on cars. They shouldn't be allowed to operate.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
  > Tell them it was fake! There was that story where they hired a known convicted rapist in India, who then raped a passenger, and then Uber executives tried to discredit the victim. No they did not. They tried to procure her medical records to verify whether the rape claim was true. They never actively discredited the victim. There's plenty of stuff to hate Uber for without you making up outrage.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - watwut 9y ago
    Honest attempt at verification would involve medical expert. What happened is that Uber employees wawed the records to each other and yelled "see, she is making it up".
  - cryptoz 9y ago
    > They tried to procure her medical records to verify whether the rape claim was true No they didn't. They illegally gained access to the records. If they were trying to verify the situation's accuracy they would not have used illegal methods to do so and should not be given a pass since they did.
DiabloD3 9y ago
I'm not a lawyer, but... isn't this attempted manslaughter at the very least? They knowingly put lives in danger for personal profit and gain, so clearly the motive is there.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- advisedwang 9y ago
  Sounds more like (gross) negligence as they weren't actually /trying/ to hurt someone, just didn't do what they should have to prevent it.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - discodave 9y ago
    Unintentionally killing somebody is manslaughter. I guess there is no such thing as 'attempted manslaughter', unlike murder. If somebody had died it could have been manslaughter.
    - DannyBee 9y ago
      The law school answer is "there is no attempted manslaughter", but in some states, it really does exist due to statute. Example: https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/603.html https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/603.html
    - briandear 9y ago
      There would have to be a reasonable expectation that one’s actions would cause death. Whether we think that their actions would reasonably cause death or not wouldn’t matter, what matters is what could be proven. There would have to be evidence that Uber knew that there was a “reasonable” chance of death. That’s would be a very tough bar to reach in a courtroom. A “chance” of death wouldn’t be good enough, but the “likeliness” of death. Under US law there is no real case. Even on the civil side, there wasn’t anybody injured and financial damages to the victim would be minimal, so it would be a case that would go nowhere.
chris_wot 9y ago
Seriously, this company is just plain evil. Can't we just be rid of them already?
- mrkrabo 9y ago
  Of course. Anything or anybody else you want us to get rid of, Mr. Chris?
jeremynixon 9y ago
Pass the paywall: https://t.co/fU9VRQUpiw https://t.co/fU9VRQUpiw
- aceperry 9y ago
  Thanks for that. I couldn't figure out how to get around the paywall.
deft 9y ago
Once Uber runs out of money to burn they will be no better than your average taxi, and probably more expensive. As more stories like this come out, it's becoming apparent they will be worse.
pfarnsworth 9y ago
Do rental car companies take cars off the road that have recall notices on them? I think there are always recall notices going out, but I don't know what the legal responsibilities are for car rental companies to take cars off the road for every single recall issue, especially in a foreign country like Singapore.
- mikeash 9y ago
  Interesting question. I poked around a bit and found this: http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/01/news/companies/rental-car-recalls/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/01/news/companies/rental-car-re... To summarize: in the US, rental companies had no particular responsibilities on recalls until about a year ago. Now they are required by law to have recalled cars repaired before continuing to rent them out.
- bri3d 9y ago
  In the US, it is illegal to rent out cars with active recalls, but only since June 2016 [1]. The bill was named for some of the only people I can find who were injured or killed by a recalled rental car - two sisters who died in 2004 when the PT Cruiser they rented caught fire. (if you want to read an infuriating story about rental car corporations, this really is one). [2] 1: https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/effective-today-new-federal-law-recalled-rental-cars-protects-consumers-vehicle https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/effective-today-new-fed... 2: http://www.carconsumers.org/saferentalcaract.htm http://www.carconsumers.org/saferentalcaract.htm
  - FireBeyond 9y ago
    > (if you want to read an infuriating story about rental car corporations, this really is one) Notwithstanding that it shouldn't take legislation to "don't rent out cars under active recall for profit until repaired", even the linked article hardly sounds "infuriating" about rental providers: "In a commendable move, the rental car industry, including Enterprise, Hertz, Avis, Dollar- thrifty, Alamo, National, and the American Car Rental Association, as well as many smaller rental car companies, helped persuade lawmakers to vote for the Act, and worked alongside Cally Houck, Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, and other supporters for passage of the new law. General Motors and Honda broke ranks with other auto manufacturers and also supported the bill"
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
randyrand 9y ago
Reminds me of this video from the 70s/80s about Ford knowingly distributing an unsafe car - "Milton Friedman on Ford not recalling the ford pinto" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jltnBOrCB7I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jltnBOrCB7I
ineedasername 9y ago
More & more, Uber's conduct reads like a case study in when the culture of "it's better to ask forgiveness" goes too far, and begins inculcating a culture of "it's not wrong if you don't get caught"
- thearn4 9y ago
  Which really makes me hope that the Uber Elevate concept is smoke and mirrors, and they aren't going to try and disrupt their way through aviation regulations.
  - sokoloff 9y ago
    The paper is optimistic (to say the least), but it does appear they intend to fly under part 135 (on-demand charter), which is the "following the FAA rules" way to approach it. I think they're dreaming if they expect to get part 135 pilot requirements waived/lessened because of their augmentation systems. Not for a long, long time.
mylons 9y ago
regulators and law makers need to step in and shut it down
i_heart_robots 9y ago
What we need is our rights!!! We need to get the unions on the line and in the room immediately!!! Else we will end up in a reckless society like China, or having the Chinese immigrants take our jobs for a piddance of our wage!!

196 points by coloneltcb 9y ago

Uber looks like they are becoming the Comcast of ride sharing. The largest player in the space with some competition. But, instead of bad customer service its questionable morals. Also, a small vocal group will hate it.

pinewurst 9y ago
I think at this point, Comcast is the injured party here, given recent customer service quality that they've given me.
- dawnerd 9y ago
  When I was buying a house and researching what isps were available they were really nice to deal with. Ultimately had to go with Frontier... which has been... interesting.
  - ojbyrne 9y ago
    So you live in a place where there is actual competition.
    - dawnerd 9y ago
      Not really. I can have fiber that's not utilized (Frontier) or cable with awful data caps and poor upload speeds (Comcast). Nearby there are a lot more options but since I'm in between two cities, I kinda get screwed. Good news though, Frontier will sell me gigabit for the low price of 299 if I'll take only 100mbps upload.
joekrill 9y ago
Comcast has pretty questionable morals, if you ask me.

cryptoz 9y ago

This is their MO. Growth at any cause. Passengers get raped? Oh well. Tell them it was fake! There was that story where they hired a known convicted rapist in India, who then raped a passenger, and then Uber executives tried to discredit the victim and say it didn't happen. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/15/uber-india-woman-rape-lawsuit https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/15/uber-indi... Unable to read the article linked, but this is Classic Uber and the reason that capitalism needs more regulations. Cars catch fire? Oopsies! Companies like Uber should not be allowed to operate at this insane "growth at any cost". It's not functional. It's not human. They can't be bothered to do background checks on drivers or safety checks on cars. They shouldn't be allowed to operate.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
> Tell them it was fake! There was that story where they hired a known convicted rapist in India, who then raped a passenger, and then Uber executives tried to discredit the victim. No they did not. They tried to procure her medical records to verify whether the rape claim was true. They never actively discredited the victim. There's plenty of stuff to hate Uber for without you making up outrage.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- watwut 9y ago
  Honest attempt at verification would involve medical expert. What happened is that Uber employees wawed the records to each other and yelled "see, she is making it up".
- cryptoz 9y ago
  > They tried to procure her medical records to verify whether the rape claim was true No they didn't. They illegally gained access to the records. If they were trying to verify the situation's accuracy they would not have used illegal methods to do so and should not be given a pass since they did.

DiabloD3 9y ago

I'm not a lawyer, but... isn't this attempted manslaughter at the very least? They knowingly put lives in danger for personal profit and gain, so clearly the motive is there.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
advisedwang 9y ago
Sounds more like (gross) negligence as they weren't actually /trying/ to hurt someone, just didn't do what they should have to prevent it.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- discodave 9y ago
  Unintentionally killing somebody is manslaughter. I guess there is no such thing as 'attempted manslaughter', unlike murder. If somebody had died it could have been manslaughter.
  - DannyBee 9y ago
    The law school answer is "there is no attempted manslaughter", but in some states, it really does exist due to statute. Example: https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/603.html https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/603.html
  - briandear 9y ago
    There would have to be a reasonable expectation that one’s actions would cause death. Whether we think that their actions would reasonably cause death or not wouldn’t matter, what matters is what could be proven. There would have to be evidence that Uber knew that there was a “reasonable” chance of death. That’s would be a very tough bar to reach in a courtroom. A “chance” of death wouldn’t be good enough, but the “likeliness” of death. Under US law there is no real case. Even on the civil side, there wasn’t anybody injured and financial damages to the victim would be minimal, so it would be a case that would go nowhere.

chris_wot 9y ago

Seriously, this company is just plain evil. Can't we just be rid of them already?

mrkrabo 9y ago
Of course. Anything or anybody else you want us to get rid of, Mr. Chris?

jeremynixon 9y ago

Pass the paywall: https://t.co/fU9VRQUpiw https://t.co/fU9VRQUpiw

aceperry 9y ago
Thanks for that. I couldn't figure out how to get around the paywall.

deft 9y ago

Once Uber runs out of money to burn they will be no better than your average taxi, and probably more expensive. As more stories like this come out, it's becoming apparent they will be worse.

pfarnsworth 9y ago

Do rental car companies take cars off the road that have recall notices on them? I think there are always recall notices going out, but I don't know what the legal responsibilities are for car rental companies to take cars off the road for every single recall issue, especially in a foreign country like Singapore.

mikeash 9y ago
Interesting question. I poked around a bit and found this: http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/01/news/companies/rental-car-recalls/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/01/news/companies/rental-car-re... To summarize: in the US, rental companies had no particular responsibilities on recalls until about a year ago. Now they are required by law to have recalled cars repaired before continuing to rent them out.
bri3d 9y ago
In the US, it is illegal to rent out cars with active recalls, but only since June 2016 [1]. The bill was named for some of the only people I can find who were injured or killed by a recalled rental car - two sisters who died in 2004 when the PT Cruiser they rented caught fire. (if you want to read an infuriating story about rental car corporations, this really is one). [2] 1: https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/effective-today-new-federal-law-recalled-rental-cars-protects-consumers-vehicle https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/effective-today-new-fed... 2: http://www.carconsumers.org/saferentalcaract.htm http://www.carconsumers.org/saferentalcaract.htm
- FireBeyond 9y ago
  > (if you want to read an infuriating story about rental car corporations, this really is one) Notwithstanding that it shouldn't take legislation to "don't rent out cars under active recall for profit until repaired", even the linked article hardly sounds "infuriating" about rental providers: "In a commendable move, the rental car industry, including Enterprise, Hertz, Avis, Dollar- thrifty, Alamo, National, and the American Car Rental Association, as well as many smaller rental car companies, helped persuade lawmakers to vote for the Act, and worked alongside Cally Houck, Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, and other supporters for passage of the new law. General Motors and Honda broke ranks with other auto manufacturers and also supported the bill"

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

randyrand 9y ago

Reminds me of this video from the 70s/80s about Ford knowingly distributing an unsafe car - "Milton Friedman on Ford not recalling the ford pinto" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jltnBOrCB7I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jltnBOrCB7I

ineedasername 9y ago

More & more, Uber's conduct reads like a case study in when the culture of "it's better to ask forgiveness" goes too far, and begins inculcating a culture of "it's not wrong if you don't get caught"

thearn4 9y ago
Which really makes me hope that the Uber Elevate concept is smoke and mirrors, and they aren't going to try and disrupt their way through aviation regulations.
- sokoloff 9y ago
  The paper is optimistic (to say the least), but it does appear they intend to fly under part 135 (on-demand charter), which is the "following the FAA rules" way to approach it. I think they're dreaming if they expect to get part 135 pilot requirements waived/lessened because of their augmentation systems. Not for a long, long time.

mylons 9y ago

regulators and law makers need to step in and shut it down

i_heart_robots 9y ago

What we need is our rights!!! We need to get the unions on the line and in the room immediately!!! Else we will end up in a reckless society like China, or having the Chinese immigrants take our jobs for a piddance of our wage!!