https://globalnews.ca/news/3907475/taxi-driver-refuses-to-dr...
Medallion-taxis are comprehensively awful, and California seems determined to regress to where they're the only choice for riders again.
Uber was, and remains, a huge improvement over the pre-Uber status quo.
Taxi companies are monopolies allowed by the state, it sucks for the last ones who paid $300,000 for a license to operate just before Uber took off, but technology finds its way.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/postever...
In a competitive market, this should happen much less. And the big innovation of ride sharing is it gives a valuable tool to drivers judge potential fares with besides their appearance or pickup location, specifically their rating.
And if a woman for some sexist reason can refuse a fare, why can't a man refuse a fare if, e.g., he does not like the destination area because it is riddled with crime and he is exponentially more likely to be robbed?
[0] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/12/interracial...
Yes, it can absolutely happen that you pick someone up and they end up raping you. The opposite happens too, you order up an Uber when you're drunk and end up the raped one yourself. While the app might possibly offer information that makes it easier to get justice in the future, and while that may dissuade some folks, in the end crimes of opportunity like this will continue to happen.
Intelligent, self-preserving people will always use their own personal heuristics for risk management regardless of political correctness. If this ends up looking prejudiced, the problem to solve is the input information (in the form of observed events and news) that causes the prejudice, not to tell the person to just pretend that there's no reason to have such a risk calculation.
Apparently it's possible for a rather slow week to happen, in combination with rides that mean a loss for the driver.
I can't help but think that the business is quite tough.