I used to exclusively use Lyft, until one of their drivers nearly killed me. Lyft, of course, sided with the driver despite GPS evidence, multiple witnesses, and a police report.
Uber's horrific management notwithstanding, I've never feared for my life in an Uber, so I intend to use Uber until it dies or a replacement comes along that is superior to both Uber and Lyft.
The fact that this is the only downvoted/flagged comment so far supports my suspicion that it's mainly lyft/google/alphabet/waymo employees and fanboys and fangirls upvoting these stories to the front page.
> In March, it was revealed that the company had been “greyballing” law enforcement, hiding vehicles from them in an effort to fox attempts to catch drivers in cities where the app is banned.
Is that wrong? If there's a police car set up on 6th, can I avoid it and go on 7th? Or does that mean I'm a criminal with something to hide?
If Uber is banned in a city, that means it's against the law. Dodging cops while you're doing something against the law... yeah, that's wrong. It's wrong to be doing the thing that against the law, and you're proving that you know it by dodging the cops.
But you may argue that the Uber service is fine; the law itself is wrong. And that's a reasonable argument. (Not necessarily right, but at least reasonable.) But the correct way to respond is with civil disobedience - deliberately disobey the law, and accept the consequences, trying to win either in court of law or in the court of public opinion. You can't do that if you dodge the consequences.
Don't dodge bad laws. Either obey them (even while you're working to change them), or publicly disobey them. Dodging the cops is not the answer.
I don't think the company makes any secret of operating in any city. As far as I know they are quite public and let elected officials know they are going to operate in their city. This means that the city can quite trivially subpoena the company once it starts operating. The drivers are just trying to earn a living. So basically the company was practicing civil disobedience, but was kind enough not to try and keep individual drivers just trying to make a living out of it.
If you're not breaking the law, then avoiding police is perfectly legal. If you are breaking the law, avoiding police, depending on how you do it, can be an additional violation of the law, and can be a criminal addition to a civil infraction.
NAL, but my understanding is that it's legal to avoid police, or kick them off your service, but it's not legal to lie to someone you specifically believe to be a police officer in order to hinder their investigation.
Avoiding the police is perfectly okay. The thing that is illegal is that Uber is facilitating the operation of illegal taxi cabs. In this case, Uber's avoidance of police demonstrates a sort of 'mens rea' a mindful violation of the law.
> Instead, Uber has entered that rarified portion of the market, alongside companies like Ryanair and Sports Direct, where unpleasantness is now an assumed part of the brand.
I don't think that's fair, because I don't have any expectation of unpleasantness when I interact with Uber drivers, who're my only contact with the company. The unpleasantness that exists seems to be at the corporate level. My experience with drivers and the Uber service has been very positive (and the same goes for Lyft).
Your average person is not going to pay attention or care about what Uber as a company does.
The only things that matters to the average user is the experience and the price - in order for people to stop using Uber something has to affect them personally.
This is dead on, I'm well aware of Uber's issues and continue to use them almost daily. It's such a useful service for me at this point in my life that I can't think of much that would make we walk away.
I've never personally had a bad experience with Uber or Lyft, and unless that happens, I'll continue to use their services. The bottom line is I just don't care THAT much, i'm more concerned with my life.
I really do not think this is true. It may vary geographically, but I can say unequivocally that everyone I know in my city (Portland, Oregon) is aware of and annoyed by the apparent sexist culture and shady law-evading that has become associated with Uber. And it has definitely altered their usage habits. And they talk about it. A lot. Having entered the market as a heralded White Knight, doing battle with entrenched and crummy Taxi companies, Uber had a high standard to live-up to. Yet they keep shooting themselves in the tires.
That's signaling. It's a mating strategy. Whether that actually changes the behavior of all those who are signaling when they aren't being observed by others in their in-group is another matter entirely.
As I've come to realize -- or, accept more fully -- in the last few years, morals take a distant second to personal welfare and convenience, for most people.
Uber is emblematic of today's world.
Which is the same world it's always been. Different day, same shit.
16 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 51.8 ms ] threadUber's horrific management notwithstanding, I've never feared for my life in an Uber, so I intend to use Uber until it dies or a replacement comes along that is superior to both Uber and Lyft.
Is that wrong? If there's a police car set up on 6th, can I avoid it and go on 7th? Or does that mean I'm a criminal with something to hide?
If Uber is banned in a city, that means it's against the law. Dodging cops while you're doing something against the law... yeah, that's wrong. It's wrong to be doing the thing that against the law, and you're proving that you know it by dodging the cops.
But you may argue that the Uber service is fine; the law itself is wrong. And that's a reasonable argument. (Not necessarily right, but at least reasonable.) But the correct way to respond is with civil disobedience - deliberately disobey the law, and accept the consequences, trying to win either in court of law or in the court of public opinion. You can't do that if you dodge the consequences.
Don't dodge bad laws. Either obey them (even while you're working to change them), or publicly disobey them. Dodging the cops is not the answer.
My biker bar analogy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14270214
I don't think that's fair, because I don't have any expectation of unpleasantness when I interact with Uber drivers, who're my only contact with the company. The unpleasantness that exists seems to be at the corporate level. My experience with drivers and the Uber service has been very positive (and the same goes for Lyft).
The only things that matters to the average user is the experience and the price - in order for people to stop using Uber something has to affect them personally.
I've never personally had a bad experience with Uber or Lyft, and unless that happens, I'll continue to use their services. The bottom line is I just don't care THAT much, i'm more concerned with my life.
That's signaling. It's a mating strategy. Whether that actually changes the behavior of all those who are signaling when they aren't being observed by others in their in-group is another matter entirely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory
Uber is emblematic of today's world.
Which is the same world it's always been. Different day, same shit.