3 ms·
The question might sounds sarcastic,but it's not meant to be: so why haven't any of those instances happen to Uber's user? Does it mean that the regulation alre
by NhanH 12y ago
The question might sounds sarcastic,but it's not meant to be: so why haven't any of those instances happen to Uber's user? Does it mean that the regulation already applies to Uber (to a certain extend). Or is there any other reason?
- jimboyoungblood 12y agowho says they haven't? http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Victim-of-alleged-Uber-hammer-attack-may-lose-eye-5792092.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Victim-of-alleged-Uber... edit: yes it happens in taxis too, but in that case it's pretty clear that the taxi company has liability. not so clear if it happens in an uber. see: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2014/09/30/uber-driver-hammer-attack-liability/2/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2014/09/30/uber-driver...
- wvenable 12y agoI had a family member attacked by a cabbie. He was actually mere hours away from getting away with it too because a) The passenger had no record of the transaction and b) The cab service recycles their camera data every few days. The way I see it, there is no guarantee of safety in either situation. You never know if your driver is a criminal or crazy. But services like Uber seem considerably more safe: There is extreme record keeping, user ratings, and no direct money changing hands.
- santaclaus 12y agoRight, but a quick search also turns up numerous stories of traditional taxi drivers attacking/abusing passengers. I think it would be interesting to see statistically significant evidence that one model is demonstrably safer than the other.