Hacker News Reader

Comment by cs702 | Hacker News Reader

At least one critic of the company warned exactly about this a long while ago:

"Laws don’t exist merely to frustrate the business ambitions of coastal hipsters: They also exist to protect the more vulnerable members of society. Back home in London (where such statistics are available), 11 women a month are attacked in unlicensed cabs, and unlicensed drivers are responsible for a horrifying 80 percent of all stranger rapes. If Uber doesn't have to follow licensing laws, then neither does any Tom, Dick, or Harry who chooses to paint the word 'TAXI' on the side of his car, and start offering rides via the Internet. A disruptive CEO will shrug (and there's a foreshadowing word) and insist that it’s not his fault that such criminals exist."[1]

It appears this critic was right.

[1] http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/24/travis-shrugged/

Edit: added "It appears," which more accurately conveys my position.

View on HN

This is very different from the dark days of unlicensed London minicabs. Unlicensed minicab drivers would literally not be traceable - no driver id, no company, no receipt. The car would have license plates but even then how do you track down the driver? Here the fact that she ordered the driver by phone, and had a receipt on her phone, means that she could clearly track down the cab driver. Which is a good thing, and probably the best possible deterrent to this kind of thing happening more often.

[edit] Also its worth noting that the reason people would risk unlicensed cabs in London was that taxi licenses were so strictly controlled that prices were quite ridiculous for many.[edit2] And that the solution to the issue in London was to license the minicabs where trying to shut them down demonstrably failed.

We had a scandal similar to this in Peru a few months ago: http://www.larepublica.pe/26-06-2012/imagenes-demuestran-que...

"Taxi Satelital" is a taxi company valued for its safety and overall ease of use, that subcontracts each ride to a pool of licensed drivers (like uber).

A young woman accused one of its drivers of drugging and abusing her. Everyone assumed she was right and went all "duke-lacrosse" on the firm, which we assumed will have to go bust soon. The next day, the CEO appeared on TV with a CC video, the phone call audio, GPS records, and even one witness, showing that she was indeed making it up.

After seeing this happen one too many times, I think its prudent if we withhold judgement and let the police do their job. That said, I do believe unlicensed drivers are a huge issue in thefts, kidnappings, and rapes in many parts of the world (London as you quoted, but this is also common knowledge in most of Latin America)

You can't just become an uber driver. They are licensed livery drivers registered with each state. I'm not sure it is any less stringent application than becoming a cab driver.

It's not clear to me how government licensing would prevent an already illegal rape.

Tracking, people are far less likely to commit crimes if they need to be identified beforehand.

Background checking, while far from foolproof it's both a deterrent and a preventative measure.

Higher barriers to entry, if it takes significant amounts of effort and money to be able to drive a cab then people are both less likely to risk it and going to try something else to have their 'fun'.

Aren't Uber taxi tracked far better than normal taxies (i.e. GPS)?

Uber drivers are already identified beforehand, have to go through background checks, and, as we've learned in the article, are suspended if they are even accused of a crime. They are also tracked by GPS and probably cam, and probably will soon be tracked via other means as well (driver's door opening, etc.)

Uber isn't a ride-sharing service. Their drivers are just as tracked and identified as normal taxi drivers are. Probably more tracked than a typical limo service is.

(I also do not believe that the ride sharing services are particularly risky.)

Well, if unlicensed drivers constitute 80% of all stranger rapes (seems high, but let's take it at face value), and fewer than 80% of all drivers are unlicensed (highly likely), it certainly does seem to do something to help prevent it. Maybe easy trace-ability and filtering out of previously convicted criminals plays a part, which isn't too big a stretch.

Or alternately: people inclined to use taxis to facilitate rape are not really driving for a living anyway, and are likely not concerned about violating a licensing law.

According to the article, the (legally, still "alleged") rapist was a licensed limo driver with Capital Limo. With the information we have so far, he was following the law totally with respect to taxi/limo licensing.

How does licensing ward off rape? I'm pretty sure I can warn that licensed cap drivers rape people and I'll be vindicated too.

Such a position is tantamount to saying that information brokers should be responsible for what others do with their information. That would basically moot the 1st amendment. Understandably, the limo/taxi business is somewhat exceptional, since a passenger is so much in the power of the driver. But even here, we now have technology that could moot such laws. (There's no reason why drivers couldn't be required by companies to install cameras, for example.)

Except Uber drivers are licensed with their parent companies who provide the cars and services to fill Uber requests. Or that was my impression of their model.

How is licensing prevents rape?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com