6 ms·

What a strange article. It had plenty of emotional language that led me to believe there was some build up to a story about the driver being horribly unqualifi

by toolz 8y ago

What a strange article. It had plenty of emotional language that led me to believe there was some build up to a story about the driver being horribly unqualified to drive, but in the end the driver already had a taxi license. What was the point? That we should use taxi's without apps instead? Why? Because sometimes wrecks happen and this time it happened in a ride-share? There were some anecdotes about a driver driving for 12 hours and another driver claiming they hadn't been behind the wheel in years, but how reliable is that data I wonder? I was hoping to learn something other than the authors bias.

eh78ssxv2f 8y ago
Yeah, I found the article to be very confusing too. The author seems to be upset that the driver and the passenger lost a lot of money/ body parts, but Grab did not lose anything. Sure, but the author fails to explain why Gab should lose anything? It's like complaining that my Prius had an accident with somebody's Tesla, but Toyota and Tesla CEOs did not lose anything. Why should they?
- simion314 8y ago
  Maybe the company should have insurance if something bad happens? But if the law does nor require this then I am sure this companies would try to shift the blame and have the driver pay.
- mikeash 8y ago
  It’s more like complaining that you were in an accident that was the fault of a Toyota employee, but Toyota didn’t lose anything. Should a company be liable for losses caused by their workers while they’re on the job? Seems to me like the answer is yes, at least most of the time.
  - isostatic 8y ago
    Sal's cars, based in Northwich in the UK, charge drivers a 'radio fee', and send cabs their way. They don't employ the drivers, they don't own the cars. I struggle to see how Uber is any different to Sal's cars. In the UK, Uber requires its drivers to have taxi insurance. In addition, it has 'backstop insurance', just in case an uber driver had lost their insurance / license. I'd far rather be in an Uber in the UK than a typical minicab in the UK. Or a typical yellow taxi in new york.
    - mikeash 8y ago
      Do I, as a customer, need to carefully scrutinize the employment relationship used for every service I use? Let’s say I call a plumbing company to fix a sink and the plumber floods my house. The company tells me, “That plumber is an independent contractor not employed by us. You’ll have to get restitution directly from him. Good luck, bye!” I certainly wouldn’t accept this. I didn’t sign up to have some unknown third party do the work and be responsible for the outcome, I signed up to have the company I’m paying do it. Imagine if your car is defective and the manufacturer tells you to get restitution from the subcontractors that made the part. Or if you bought a sandwich full of arsenic and they told you to talk to some random farmer who happened to grow the affected vegetable. These companies want to have it both ways. They want to completely own the relationship with the customer... until something goes wrong. Then it’s all, “we’re just a broker for independent contractors, they’re responsible for everything, don’t talk to us.” There’s nothing wrong with just being a broker, but you have to be consistent.
- tzs 8y ago
  > The author seems to be upset that the driver and the passenger lost a lot of money/ body parts, but Grab did not lose anything. Sure, but the author fails to explain why Gab should lose anything? One argument for Grab to be responsible would be that Grab is probably in the best position to estimate the frequency and severity of such accidents and buy insurance to cover them. Riders probably don't have the information necessary to specifically buy insurance for this, and so if riders have to use their own insurance they will have to make it part of some general purpose insurance which won't be as efficient and will spread the costs among everybody instead of just people using ride services.
dahart 8y ago
> ... the driver already had a taxi license. What was the point? The article came to a pretty clear and definite conclusion, did you read to the end? The point made is that she realized the company bore no responsibility and no damage in her accident, and these companies need to bear some of the responsibility and some of the liability for the system they’re creating. She realized the driver isn’t wholly responsible and the driver suffered some pretty big consequences himself. “Me: left vertebral artery. Driver: livelihood + S$3,700 in fines and expenses. Grab: S$20, the refund they’d given me after the accident.” “I’m also more aware of the profound compromises we’ve made in giving tech companies, even those with well-intentioned CEOs, so much power over our daily lives. Tan showed me kindness in the months that followed my accident. But we deserve more than expressions of remorse from companies such as Grab. Detailed safety records would be a good place to start.”
- dorfsmay 8y ago
  Would it be different with a taxi company? Would a taxi customer be able to obtain anything from a taxi company beside the money paid out by the insurance? Does it matter who pays for the insurance, company vs driver? Aren't a lot of taxi driver insured themselves? I don't see technology to call the ride (an apps vs phone), or work arrangement (cab might be an employee or a contractor to a large company vs an "independent worker" makes a difference. Would a taxi company bear more responsibilities? How?
  - dahart 8y ago
    I didn’t get the sense that the article was about taxi vs ride sharing, I don’t think her point depends on ride sharing being worse than taxis. They should both bear some responsibility, in my interpretation of the article. > Would a taxi company bear more responsibilities? How? I don’t know about Singpore, but I think the answer in many cities is yes to some degree, and the reason is that taxi companies are more established and have more regulatory oversight today. In some places the taxi company owns the car, and licenses the car and the driver, where ride sharing apps benefit from hiring people who use their own car. That is, after all, the main reason why ride share apps are currently under-cutting taxis.

by toolz 8y ago

eh78ssxv2f 8y ago

Yeah, I found the article to be very confusing too. The author seems to be upset that the driver and the passenger lost a lot of money/ body parts, but Grab did not lose anything. Sure, but the author fails to explain why Gab should lose anything? It's like complaining that my Prius had an accident with somebody's Tesla, but Toyota and Tesla CEOs did not lose anything. Why should they?

simion314 8y ago
Maybe the company should have insurance if something bad happens? But if the law does nor require this then I am sure this companies would try to shift the blame and have the driver pay.
mikeash 8y ago
It’s more like complaining that you were in an accident that was the fault of a Toyota employee, but Toyota didn’t lose anything. Should a company be liable for losses caused by their workers while they’re on the job? Seems to me like the answer is yes, at least most of the time.
- isostatic 8y ago
  Sal's cars, based in Northwich in the UK, charge drivers a 'radio fee', and send cabs their way. They don't employ the drivers, they don't own the cars. I struggle to see how Uber is any different to Sal's cars. In the UK, Uber requires its drivers to have taxi insurance. In addition, it has 'backstop insurance', just in case an uber driver had lost their insurance / license. I'd far rather be in an Uber in the UK than a typical minicab in the UK. Or a typical yellow taxi in new york.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    Do I, as a customer, need to carefully scrutinize the employment relationship used for every service I use? Let’s say I call a plumbing company to fix a sink and the plumber floods my house. The company tells me, “That plumber is an independent contractor not employed by us. You’ll have to get restitution directly from him. Good luck, bye!” I certainly wouldn’t accept this. I didn’t sign up to have some unknown third party do the work and be responsible for the outcome, I signed up to have the company I’m paying do it. Imagine if your car is defective and the manufacturer tells you to get restitution from the subcontractors that made the part. Or if you bought a sandwich full of arsenic and they told you to talk to some random farmer who happened to grow the affected vegetable. These companies want to have it both ways. They want to completely own the relationship with the customer... until something goes wrong. Then it’s all, “we’re just a broker for independent contractors, they’re responsible for everything, don’t talk to us.” There’s nothing wrong with just being a broker, but you have to be consistent.
tzs 8y ago
> The author seems to be upset that the driver and the passenger lost a lot of money/ body parts, but Grab did not lose anything. Sure, but the author fails to explain why Gab should lose anything? One argument for Grab to be responsible would be that Grab is probably in the best position to estimate the frequency and severity of such accidents and buy insurance to cover them. Riders probably don't have the information necessary to specifically buy insurance for this, and so if riders have to use their own insurance they will have to make it part of some general purpose insurance which won't be as efficient and will spread the costs among everybody instead of just people using ride services.

dahart 8y ago

> ... the driver already had a taxi license. What was the point? The article came to a pretty clear and definite conclusion, did you read to the end? The point made is that she realized the company bore no responsibility and no damage in her accident, and these companies need to bear some of the responsibility and some of the liability for the system they’re creating. She realized the driver isn’t wholly responsible and the driver suffered some pretty big consequences himself. “Me: left vertebral artery. Driver: livelihood + S$3,700 in fines and expenses. Grab: S$20, the refund they’d given me after the accident.” “I’m also more aware of the profound compromises we’ve made in giving tech companies, even those with well-intentioned CEOs, so much power over our daily lives. Tan showed me kindness in the months that followed my accident. But we deserve more than expressions of remorse from companies such as Grab. Detailed safety records would be a good place to start.”

dorfsmay 8y ago
Would it be different with a taxi company? Would a taxi customer be able to obtain anything from a taxi company beside the money paid out by the insurance? Does it matter who pays for the insurance, company vs driver? Aren't a lot of taxi driver insured themselves? I don't see technology to call the ride (an apps vs phone), or work arrangement (cab might be an employee or a contractor to a large company vs an "independent worker" makes a difference. Would a taxi company bear more responsibilities? How?
- dahart 8y ago
  I didn’t get the sense that the article was about taxi vs ride sharing, I don’t think her point depends on ride sharing being worse than taxis. They should both bear some responsibility, in my interpretation of the article. > Would a taxi company bear more responsibilities? How? I don’t know about Singpore, but I think the answer in many cities is yes to some degree, and the reason is that taxi companies are more established and have more regulatory oversight today. In some places the taxi company owns the car, and licenses the car and the driver, where ride sharing apps benefit from hiring people who use their own car. That is, after all, the main reason why ride share apps are currently under-cutting taxis.