3 ms·

If you don’t punish the corporation they won’t ensure they vet their employees and have strict policies and procedures around handling customers. So in my mind

If you don’t punish the corporation they won’t ensure they vet their employees and have strict policies and procedures around handling customers. So in my mind the driver was at fault criminal negligence, but when the driver can be any untrained pleb with a phone, the company assumes the risk and should be held liable.

joshstrange 11d ago
I’m not at all opposed to Uber getting slapped. I just think that “the driver is the bad guy” is incredibly reductionist and absolves Uber of the responsibility that I think we both agree that hold.
- jester997 11d ago
  The driver IS the bad guy. Any driver who stops and forces their customers onto a freeway doesn’t know how to drive, let alone shuttle people around for money. They would rather put people at risk than spend an hour cleaning their car. This is practically the definition of criminal negligence.
  - RHSeeger 11d ago
    Except for the fact that they don't actually know that's what happened.
  - redsocksfan45 11d ago
    [dead]
AnthonyMouse 11d ago
> If you don’t punish the corporation they won’t ensure they vet their employees and have strict policies and procedures around handling customers. What if that's what you want? Why should we be pressuring corporate middlemen to be regulators and law enforcement? They're not only bad at it and in no position to do it well, their attempts do more harm than good. How is a corporation supposed to "vet" drivers? The only plausible tools they have are things like background checks. So now you have someone who is only trying to put food on the table getting excluded from some of the only work it's easy to get quickly because they have an unrelated drug conviction from when they were 19 years old. Meanwhile the same thing happens in the case in question because that driver can pass the background check. Whereas if you put the liability on the driver, i.e. the person who is actually there and making the decision, then losing their fancy new car and maybe going to jail provides the right incentive to not dump people in a dangerous place, to the person who is actually choosing to do it.

joshstrange 11d ago

I’m not at all opposed to Uber getting slapped. I just think that “the driver is the bad guy” is incredibly reductionist and absolves Uber of the responsibility that I think we both agree that hold.

jester997 11d ago
The driver IS the bad guy. Any driver who stops and forces their customers onto a freeway doesn’t know how to drive, let alone shuttle people around for money. They would rather put people at risk than spend an hour cleaning their car. This is practically the definition of criminal negligence.
- RHSeeger 11d ago
  Except for the fact that they don't actually know that's what happened.
- redsocksfan45 11d ago
  [dead]

AnthonyMouse 11d ago

> If you don’t punish the corporation they won’t ensure they vet their employees and have strict policies and procedures around handling customers. What if that's what you want? Why should we be pressuring corporate middlemen to be regulators and law enforcement? They're not only bad at it and in no position to do it well, their attempts do more harm than good. How is a corporation supposed to "vet" drivers? The only plausible tools they have are things like background checks. So now you have someone who is only trying to put food on the table getting excluded from some of the only work it's easy to get quickly because they have an unrelated drug conviction from when they were 19 years old. Meanwhile the same thing happens in the case in question because that driver can pass the background check. Whereas if you put the liability on the driver, i.e. the person who is actually there and making the decision, then losing their fancy new car and maybe going to jail provides the right incentive to not dump people in a dangerous place, to the person who is actually choosing to do it.