Chariot for Women is a new ride sharing service for women only | Hacker News Reader

Chariot for Women is a new ride sharing service for women only

techcrunch.com

11 pointsgberger22 comments

A premium ride sharing service that puts safety at the forefront and targets women sounds like a viable business. This doesn't. Not only are they refusing service to men but likely the bigger problem is they are refusing to employee (or contract) them. I'm sure the lawyers are already circling for the inevitable discrimination lawsuits.

Yeah, I can't see this succeeding anymore than a hypothetical "Uber for white people who are afraid of black drivers".

I am sure an Uber for white people would be quite a success despite being morally offensive. Thankfully people fought (and still fight) to stop this sort of crude discrimination and any such business will soon be sued out of existence.

I am interested to know what sort of thinking went through the investors heads when they were pitched Chariot.

Good analogy.

Comment from a Uber driver:

> you know this is bullshit, this is so sexist and honestly very offensive. I am an UBER driver and im an excellent driver and treat all my riders with respect and equality. This app is basically saying that all UBER drivers are sexual predators which is not true, yes I agree that UBER should increase the throughness of their background checks because every rider should have that peace of mind of being safe when riding with UBER, but this is not the solution because this is catagorizing me as a sexual predator which is bullshit. I hope this guy who made this reads my post because this is bullshit.

From a business perspective, he needn't worry. There likely aren't many Uber customers who use the service but dislike it enough to switch. So, Chariot's growth will come from people who don't use ride share, which means if it succeeds, it'll expand the market. People become less afraid as they become more familiar, so a percentage of Chariot customers will start riding Uber as well since they see Uber drivers are very similar to Chariot drivers. In the long run, Uber could have more customers because of Chariot and possibly purchase the company outright.

I can't wait for the next version - Chariot for White People.

Couldn't this whole issue of women feeing unsafe be solved by a real time camera in every car and something like a Amazon Echo with a safe word that triggers human intervention. Actually use technology to solve a problem rather than millennial old discrimination.

Chariot for Men:

The premise is the same as all the other ridesharing services, There’s a driver app and a client app, except that what makes us unique is our safe driving feature that other apps forgot to do. We ensure every driver in our entourage is a male.

I am all in as long as every car comes with fluffy dice and a huge sub-woofer.

Seems to me, that if the same service was offered for all men it would be considered sexist.

I find it amazing that anyone thinks this could even be legal, much less ethical. Both to refuse service based on gender, as well as refuse to hire anyone who is male? This can't possibly be a legal company to operate in the United States.

It's sexism, plain and simple.

There are plenty examples of sexism in business that seems to go unregulated. Vegas night clubs for example sometimes charge men up to 4 times as much as women.

At the very least, the employment angle. Civil Rights Act of 1964:

"It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;"

Yea that sounds nice but in actuality there are numerous ways that businesses can skirt this rule.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_quali...

There's an exception to US anti discrimination laws for jobs that require a certain age/sex/gender/race etc. Catholic schools for example can exclude non-Catholics from being theology teachers, for instance. Actors can be excluded on the basis of race, if the character requires a certain race.

I'm not sure though if this qualifies though. Seems like there would be caselaw somewhere on it though.

"Bona fide occupational qualifications generally only apply to instances in which the BFOQ is considered reasonably necessary to the normal operation of a particular business. For example, a Catholic college may lawfully require such positions as president, chaplain, and teaching faculty to be Catholics, but membership in the Catholic Church would generally not be considered a BFOQ for occupations such as secretarial and janitorial positions.

Mere customer satisfaction, or lack thereof, is not enough to justify a BFOQ defense, as noted in the cases Diaz v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc.[6] and Wilson v. Southwest Airlines Co..[7] Therefore, customer preference for females does not make femininity a BFOQ for the occupation of flight attendant.[8] However, there may be cases in which customer preference is a BFOQ—for example, femininity is reasonably necessary for Playboy Bunnies.[9] Customer preference can "'be taken into account only when it is based on the company's inability to perform the primary function or service it offers,' that is, where sex or sex appeal is itself the dominant service provided."[10]"

My guess would be that excludes gender discriminating people driving cars outright. While obviously, as discussed in the article, women may prefer women drivers, the driver being a woman is not functionally necessary to drive a car.

This is why Hooters doesn't have to employ men as servers. http://www.businessinsider.com/how-can-hooters-hire-only-wom...

To co-opt a recent argument from the bathroom debate, what are they going to do? Check people's genitals?

Probably need a birth certificate to prove your kid is only age 13, not 14.

So predators can sign up fake accounts and lure women right to them then?

Seems like not knowing the specifics of who will turn up when you press the button is just a good idea. Even if it may be someone from a group more routinely targeted by predators, they don't have a guarantee.

Reminds me of the Nathan for You episode with the dating site that sends a bodyguard with every woman that goes on a date.

I wouldn't be so absolutely convinced the legal case against this. For instance, designating something a private club. Private clubs include whomever they choose.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com