4 ms·
The original article was really quite informative about this. Please have a look: When drivers accept a call, furthermore, they need to interface with the
by bonemachine 13y ago
The original article was really quite informative about this. Please have a look:
When drivers accept a call, furthermore, they need to
interface with the app. The suit goes on to note that
under California law, it is illegal to use a “wireless
telephone” while driving unless it is specifically
configured to be hands-free — which the app is not. In
essence, the suit argues that Uber was negligent in the
“development, implementation and use of the app” so as
to cause the driver to be distracted and inattentive.
- gasull 13y agoThat's a very good point.
- angersock 13y agoAs we've seen with the Google buses, when an individual does it they must follow the laws, and when a company does it it isn't a crime.
- bonemachine 13y agoWell it's still a "crime", technically, but for companies at Google/HSBC/BP-scale the consequences are more like those for a misdemeanor -- i.e. you might pay a trivial fine, and maybe get a little egg on your face, but that's pretty much it. Whereas for an individual or a small-timer, the analogous violation would be treated as felony-class, or worse. So dreht sich alles auf der Welt.