Uber Knowingly Leased Unsafe Cars to Drivers(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Uber Knowingly Leased Unsafe Cars to Drivers
https://www.wsj.com/articles/smoke-then-fire-uber-knowingly-leased-unsafe-cars-to-drivers-1501786430
59 comments
More & more, Uber's conduct reads like a case study in when the culture of "it's better to ask forgiveness" goes too far, and begins inculcating a culture of "it's not wrong if you don't get caught"
Which really makes me hope that the Uber Elevate concept is smoke and mirrors, and they aren't going to try and disrupt their way through aviation regulations.
The paper is optimistic (to say the least), but it does appear they intend to fly under part 135 (on-demand charter), which is the "following the FAA rules" way to approach it.
I think they're dreaming if they expect to get part 135 pilot requirements waived/lessened because of their augmentation systems. Not for a long, long time.
I think they're dreaming if they expect to get part 135 pilot requirements waived/lessened because of their augmentation systems. Not for a long, long time.
Uber looks like they are becoming the Comcast of ride sharing. The largest player in the space with some competition. But, instead of bad customer service its questionable morals. Also, a small vocal group will hate it.
I think at this point, Comcast is the injured party here, given recent customer service quality that they've given me.
When I was buying a house and researching what isps were available they were really nice to deal with. Ultimately had to go with Frontier... which has been... interesting.
So you live in a place where there is actual competition.
Not really. I can have fiber that's not utilized (Frontier) or cable with awful data caps and poor upload speeds (Comcast). Nearby there are a lot more options but since I'm in between two cities, I kinda get screwed. Good news though, Frontier will sell me gigabit for the low price of 299 if I'll take only 100mbps upload.
Comcast has pretty questionable morals, if you ask me.
Once Uber runs out of money to burn they will be no better than your average taxi, and probably more expensive. As more stories like this come out, it's becoming apparent they will be worse.
I'm not a lawyer, but... isn't this attempted manslaughter at the very least? They knowingly put lives in danger for personal profit and gain, so clearly the motive is there.
Sounds more like (gross) negligence as they weren't actually /trying/ to hurt someone, just didn't do what they should have to prevent it.
From a legal perspective, did anyone actually get hurt? What could of happened isn’t legally relevant. Negligence isn’t a crime, but a civil matter.
I am not defending Uber, only clarifying the legal argument. Some people claiming attempted manslaughter clearly have no idea what they are talking about. Attempted murder would be what they really mean, but then there would have to be intent. What Uber did is negligence – a purely civil issue (at least under U.S. law.)
Sometimes our outrage ventures into lynch mob territory when facts and the law actually don’t matter as much as assuaging our collective outrage.
Did Uber break the law? No. Were they negligent? It seems so. Was there malice? Not based on the facts.
I am not defending Uber, only clarifying the legal argument. Some people claiming attempted manslaughter clearly have no idea what they are talking about. Attempted murder would be what they really mean, but then there would have to be intent. What Uber did is negligence – a purely civil issue (at least under U.S. law.)
Sometimes our outrage ventures into lynch mob territory when facts and the law actually don’t matter as much as assuaging our collective outrage.
Did Uber break the law? No. Were they negligent? It seems so. Was there malice? Not based on the facts.
Unintentionally killing somebody is manslaughter. I guess there is no such thing as 'attempted manslaughter', unlike murder.
If somebody had died it could have been manslaughter.
If somebody had died it could have been manslaughter.
The law school answer is "there is no attempted manslaughter", but in some states, it really does exist due to statute.
Example:
https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/603.html
There would have to be a reasonable expectation that one’s actions would cause death. Whether we think that their actions would reasonably cause death or not wouldn’t matter, what matters is what could be proven. There would have to be evidence that Uber knew that there was a “reasonable” chance of death. That’s would be a very tough bar to reach in a courtroom. A “chance” of death wouldn’t be good enough, but the “likeliness” of death. Under US law there is no real case. Even on the civil side, there wasn’t anybody injured and financial damages to the victim would be minimal, so it would be a case that would go nowhere.
[deleted]
It might be reckless endangerment, which is a crime that does not require actual harm to have occurred. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangerment
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangerment
Good luck. Ford was charged with murder in 1979 with relation to their Pinot, which they new was dangerous and did actually kill people. They got off.
[deleted]
Do rental car companies take cars off the road that have recall notices on them? I think there are always recall notices going out, but I don't know what the legal responsibilities are for car rental companies to take cars off the road for every single recall issue, especially in a foreign country like Singapore.
In the US, it is illegal to rent out cars with active recalls, but only since June 2016 [1]. The bill was named for some of the only people I can find who were injured or killed by a recalled rental car - two sisters who died in 2004 when the PT Cruiser they rented caught fire. (if you want to read an infuriating story about rental car corporations, this really is one). [2]
1: https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/effective-today-new-fed... 2: http://www.carconsumers.org/saferentalcaract.htm
1: https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/effective-today-new-fed... 2: http://www.carconsumers.org/saferentalcaract.htm
> (if you want to read an infuriating story about rental car corporations, this really is one)
Notwithstanding that it shouldn't take legislation to "don't rent out cars under active recall for profit until repaired", even the linked article hardly sounds "infuriating" about rental providers:
"In a commendable move, the rental car industry, including Enterprise, Hertz, Avis, Dollar- thrifty, Alamo, National, and the American Car Rental Association, as well as many smaller rental car companies, helped persuade lawmakers to vote for the Act, and worked alongside Cally Houck, Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, and other supporters for passage of the new law. General Motors and Honda broke ranks with other auto manufacturers and also supported the bill"
Notwithstanding that it shouldn't take legislation to "don't rent out cars under active recall for profit until repaired", even the linked article hardly sounds "infuriating" about rental providers:
"In a commendable move, the rental car industry, including Enterprise, Hertz, Avis, Dollar- thrifty, Alamo, National, and the American Car Rental Association, as well as many smaller rental car companies, helped persuade lawmakers to vote for the Act, and worked alongside Cally Houck, Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, and other supporters for passage of the new law. General Motors and Honda broke ranks with other auto manufacturers and also supported the bill"
Sometimes businesses like regulation, because it levels the playing field. It can be hard to do what you know is morally right, if it affects your bottom line and you have to justify the decision to your shareholders.
I don't know, but the fact that many automakers didn't support the law implies that the new law might have triggered some contractual terms between automakers and fleet owners around loss of use ...
I don't know, but the fact that many automakers didn't support the law implies that the new law might have triggered some contractual terms between automakers and fleet owners around loss of use ...
Interesting question. I poked around a bit and found this:
http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/01/news/companies/rental-car-re...
To summarize: in the US, rental companies had no particular responsibilities on recalls until about a year ago. Now they are required by law to have recalled cars repaired before continuing to rent them out.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/01/news/companies/rental-car-re...
To summarize: in the US, rental companies had no particular responsibilities on recalls until about a year ago. Now they are required by law to have recalled cars repaired before continuing to rent them out.
Reminds me of this video from the 70s/80s about Ford knowingly distributing an unsafe car - "Milton Friedman on Ford not recalling the ford pinto"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jltnBOrCB7I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jltnBOrCB7I
[deleted]
Pass the paywall: https://t.co/fU9VRQUpiw
Thanks for that. I couldn't figure out how to get around the paywall.
regulators and law makers need to step in and shut it down
This is their MO. Growth at any cause. Passengers get raped? Oh well. Tell them it was fake! There was that story where they hired a known convicted rapist in India, who then raped a passenger, and then Uber executives tried to discredit the victim and say it didn't happen. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/15/uber-indi...
Unable to read the article linked, but this is Classic Uber and the reason that capitalism needs more regulations. Cars catch fire? Oopsies!
Companies like Uber should not be allowed to operate at this insane "growth at any cost". It's not functional. It's not human. They can't be bothered to do background checks on drivers or safety checks on cars. They shouldn't be allowed to operate.
Unable to read the article linked, but this is Classic Uber and the reason that capitalism needs more regulations. Cars catch fire? Oopsies!
Companies like Uber should not be allowed to operate at this insane "growth at any cost". It's not functional. It's not human. They can't be bothered to do background checks on drivers or safety checks on cars. They shouldn't be allowed to operate.
I totally agree but it's interesting how quickly opinions seem to have turned around on Uber. I feel like a year or two ago a comment like this would have been at the bottom of the page.
> Tell them it was fake! There was that story where they hired a known convicted rapist in India, who then raped a passenger, and then Uber executives tried to discredit the victim.
No they did not. They tried to procure her medical records to verify whether the rape claim was true. They never actively discredited the victim.
There's plenty of stuff to hate Uber for without you making up outrage.
No they did not. They tried to procure her medical records to verify whether the rape claim was true. They never actively discredited the victim.
There's plenty of stuff to hate Uber for without you making up outrage.
They succeeded in procuring her medical records. They then accused her of being a shill for a competitor. I think that's perfectly reasonable to summarize as "tried to discredit the victim." If anything, it's putting things a bit too mildly, since it fails to mention that obtaining her medical records was itself illegal and immoral.
> They tried to procure her medical records to verify whether the rape claim was true
No they didn't. They illegally gained access to the records. If they were trying to verify the situation's accuracy they would not have used illegal methods to do so and should not be given a pass since they did.
No they didn't. They illegally gained access to the records. If they were trying to verify the situation's accuracy they would not have used illegal methods to do so and should not be given a pass since they did.
Honest attempt at verification would involve medical expert. What happened is that Uber employees wawed the records to each other and yelled "see, she is making it up".
[deleted]
[deleted]
because that's so much better.
They have fought background checks at various times in various places.
They have fought background checks at various times in various places.
[deleted]
> Unable to read the article linked, but this is Classic Uber and the reason that capitalism needs more regulations. Cars catch fire? Oopsies!
You CLEARLY didn't read the article. Uber reached out to the authorities and other automative experts about this recall. There was NO objection from authorities.
Everyone is so quick to jump on Uber about literally anything. They've done a lot of terrible shit, but it doesn't seem like what they did here was so terrible. Sure, maybe they should've taken greater precautions, but after reaching out to authorities and experts, what would you have them do, pull these cars off the roads? The headline would have read "Uber takes away cars from driver depriving them of income".
From Uber in a recent response:
As soon as we learned of a Honda Vezel from the Lion City Rental fleet catching fire, we took swift action to fix the problem, in close coordination with Singapore’s Land Transport Authority as well as technical experts. But we acknowledge we could have done more—and we have done so. We’ve introduced robust protocols and hired three dedicated experts in-house at LCR whose sole job is to ensure we are fully responsive to safety recalls. Since the beginning of the year, we’ve proactively responded to six vehicle recalls and will continue to do so to protect the safety of everyone who uses Uber.
You CLEARLY didn't read the article. Uber reached out to the authorities and other automative experts about this recall. There was NO objection from authorities.
Everyone is so quick to jump on Uber about literally anything. They've done a lot of terrible shit, but it doesn't seem like what they did here was so terrible. Sure, maybe they should've taken greater precautions, but after reaching out to authorities and experts, what would you have them do, pull these cars off the roads? The headline would have read "Uber takes away cars from driver depriving them of income".
From Uber in a recent response:
As soon as we learned of a Honda Vezel from the Lion City Rental fleet catching fire, we took swift action to fix the problem, in close coordination with Singapore’s Land Transport Authority as well as technical experts. But we acknowledge we could have done more—and we have done so. We’ve introduced robust protocols and hired three dedicated experts in-house at LCR whose sole job is to ensure we are fully responsive to safety recalls. Since the beginning of the year, we’ve proactively responded to six vehicle recalls and will continue to do so to protect the safety of everyone who uses Uber.
> Uber reached out to the authorities and other automative experts about this recall. There was NO objection from authorities.
After one car caught fire, they wrote up a plan that involved talking to authorities and experts, but that would be much too late. At that point they had already ignored the problem and intentionally endangered their drivers.
> what would you have them do, pull these cars off the roads?
No, not give them to their drivers in the first place. Buy other cars. "Uber managers in Singapore were aware of the Honda recall when they bought more than 1,000 defective Vezels and rented them to Mr. Koh and other drivers without the needed repairs, according to internal Uber emails and documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal and interviews with people familiar with Uber’s operations in the region." Uber wouldn't have to worry about taking cars off the road if they didn't knowingly buy defective cars.
After one car caught fire, they wrote up a plan that involved talking to authorities and experts, but that would be much too late. At that point they had already ignored the problem and intentionally endangered their drivers.
> what would you have them do, pull these cars off the roads?
No, not give them to their drivers in the first place. Buy other cars. "Uber managers in Singapore were aware of the Honda recall when they bought more than 1,000 defective Vezels and rented them to Mr. Koh and other drivers without the needed repairs, according to internal Uber emails and documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal and interviews with people familiar with Uber’s operations in the region." Uber wouldn't have to worry about taking cars off the road if they didn't knowingly buy defective cars.
You mean the passenger hired the rapist to drive her somewhere, right?
I do not believe that customers have an expectation that they are hiring totally independent operators they need to vet themselves when they decide to ride an Uber.
Capitalism does not need more regulations, the government just needs to enforce the ones that exist.
In case of Uber - precisely. They mostly exploit the fact that law is not enforced swiftly and decisively enough. By the time a local government realizes they should probably do something, Uber already has popular support in the area due to their price shenanigans.
It’s not human? What does that even mean? What does this story have to do with capitalism needing more regulation? A company acting negligently already is subject to legal action.
Any idea how much dangerous stuff gets covered up by governments? This isn’t a problem with capitalism; it’s a problem with Uber.
As far as background checks, why should that be required? If it’s known that Uber doesn’t need do background checks, then consumers are free to choose another option. They can choose the level of risk they want to assume. Millions of Uber rides – so there are bound to be some outlier cases of bad actors. Taxi drivers have never committed a crime?
We aren’t talking water systems here, we are talking about a ride share/taxi service that nobody has any obligation to use. Using Uber is completely voluntary.
Don’t agree with Uber? Don’t use Uber! I haven’t used Uber for several years now. That’s how capitalism works – you vote with your money.
I personally think that the entire private car transportation business is filled with terrible people: taxi drivers in Seoul trying to rip you off, Shanghai taxi drivers refusing to give change, New York taxi drivers expecting a tip for driving all over Brooklyn to run up the meter. Taxi mobsters controlling medallions. Drivers showing up hours late for a scheduled pickup. I paid the French SNCF for a taxi booking to make a Sunday morning train and the driver never showed up. Missed my train and never could get my money back without Kafka-level bureaucratic insanity.
Uber does some bad things, but you obviously have never spent any time in the highly regulated taxi business. It’s a cesspool of dishonesty and cutthroat drivers, corrupt business practices and more. Look at how taxi companies exploit drivers – ridiculous things like charging 10% for credit card transactions, charging drivers for no-fault car damage despite being covered by insurance. “Leasing” taxis with extortionare terms which essentially make the drivers indentured servants. The drivers pay it forward by doing everything they can to scam customers out of an extra dollar here and there. There are plenty of good taxi drivers but you’re playing airport roulette when you arrive in Delhi late in the evening and need to get to your hotel. Good luck – you will need it. Only place I have always had a good taxi experience was London. But being a London cabbie is incredibly difficult. It isn’t a job for fresh-of-the-boat drivers, but for highly trained professionals.
The private car business is a dirty one and it has nothing to do with regulations or lack thereof.
Any idea how much dangerous stuff gets covered up by governments? This isn’t a problem with capitalism; it’s a problem with Uber.
As far as background checks, why should that be required? If it’s known that Uber doesn’t need do background checks, then consumers are free to choose another option. They can choose the level of risk they want to assume. Millions of Uber rides – so there are bound to be some outlier cases of bad actors. Taxi drivers have never committed a crime?
We aren’t talking water systems here, we are talking about a ride share/taxi service that nobody has any obligation to use. Using Uber is completely voluntary.
Don’t agree with Uber? Don’t use Uber! I haven’t used Uber for several years now. That’s how capitalism works – you vote with your money.
I personally think that the entire private car transportation business is filled with terrible people: taxi drivers in Seoul trying to rip you off, Shanghai taxi drivers refusing to give change, New York taxi drivers expecting a tip for driving all over Brooklyn to run up the meter. Taxi mobsters controlling medallions. Drivers showing up hours late for a scheduled pickup. I paid the French SNCF for a taxi booking to make a Sunday morning train and the driver never showed up. Missed my train and never could get my money back without Kafka-level bureaucratic insanity.
Uber does some bad things, but you obviously have never spent any time in the highly regulated taxi business. It’s a cesspool of dishonesty and cutthroat drivers, corrupt business practices and more. Look at how taxi companies exploit drivers – ridiculous things like charging 10% for credit card transactions, charging drivers for no-fault car damage despite being covered by insurance. “Leasing” taxis with extortionare terms which essentially make the drivers indentured servants. The drivers pay it forward by doing everything they can to scam customers out of an extra dollar here and there. There are plenty of good taxi drivers but you’re playing airport roulette when you arrive in Delhi late in the evening and need to get to your hotel. Good luck – you will need it. Only place I have always had a good taxi experience was London. But being a London cabbie is incredibly difficult. It isn’t a job for fresh-of-the-boat drivers, but for highly trained professionals.
The private car business is a dirty one and it has nothing to do with regulations or lack thereof.
> It’s not human? What does that even mean?
It means they show no compassion, either as executives or a company.
> Don’t agree with Uber? Don’t use Uber
Uber has far reaching consequences that affect all of society regardless of whether I use the service or not. In this case those consequences are negative and I'm morally right to oppose the service even if I don't use it.
Your argument is full of logical fallacies.
It means they show no compassion, either as executives or a company.
> Don’t agree with Uber? Don’t use Uber
Uber has far reaching consequences that affect all of society regardless of whether I use the service or not. In this case those consequences are negative and I'm morally right to oppose the service even if I don't use it.
Your argument is full of logical fallacies.
"That’s how capitalism works – you vote with your money."
And living in a mostly-democratic society, I'd prefer to vote with my vote and have laws reflect better standards of behavior than "lol here's your car, might need a fire extinguisher lol".
Voting with your dollars is fine, once a basic level of decency is achieved; my laundry soap isn't actively poisoning anyone no matter which brand I choose, because the factories have to meet regulations, the soap itself has to meet safety standards, and so on.
I'll vote with my dollars on my laundry detergent, but when it comes to how society is structured (what people are allowed to do or prohibited from doing), there's no substitute for voting with your vote.
And living in a mostly-democratic society, I'd prefer to vote with my vote and have laws reflect better standards of behavior than "lol here's your car, might need a fire extinguisher lol".
Voting with your dollars is fine, once a basic level of decency is achieved; my laundry soap isn't actively poisoning anyone no matter which brand I choose, because the factories have to meet regulations, the soap itself has to meet safety standards, and so on.
I'll vote with my dollars on my laundry detergent, but when it comes to how society is structured (what people are allowed to do or prohibited from doing), there's no substitute for voting with your vote.
I agree with your argument, but need to correct your example..
Leading laundry detergents emit chemicals determined to be toxic and don't need to list ingredients.. :(
http://www.washington.edu/news/2008/07/23/toxic-chemicals-fo...
Leading laundry detergents emit chemicals determined to be toxic and don't need to list ingredients.. :(
http://www.washington.edu/news/2008/07/23/toxic-chemicals-fo...
Vote with your wallet - you don't need big brother to do your research for you. Read reviews, (possibly) try out the service, and make your decision from there. Whatever you do, don't ask your government to decide what you should and should not have a right to buy. If you think "why not? what could go wrong?", then you are young, and will likely (and unfortunately) learn these lessons in your lifetime.
Vulnerable people must be proactively protected.
It’s too late to vote with your wallet after you have been raped, isn’t it?
It’s too late to vote with your wallet after you have been raped, isn’t it?
>> Vulnerable people must be proactively protected.
"Slippery slope" is the term used to describe the fallacy of logic in that sentence. Who must perform this proactive protection? Why should/must they do it? What constitutes "vulnerable"? This sounds like the musings of a privileged youth.
It's not too late to avoid making the same mistakes you made that resulted in your original grievance. No one put a gun to your head and made you become an Uber driver/passenger. You/they decided to take on that role, and failed to assess and appreciate the risk involved.
tldr; those unpleasant things in your life that have happened, are happening, and will eventually happen in your life are ultimately your fault.
PS: I'm not advocating whatever happened or didn't happen to whatever circumstance you are attributing "rape" to. I'm not sure if you chose that verb for hyperbolic reasons or not.
"Slippery slope" is the term used to describe the fallacy of logic in that sentence. Who must perform this proactive protection? Why should/must they do it? What constitutes "vulnerable"? This sounds like the musings of a privileged youth.
It's not too late to avoid making the same mistakes you made that resulted in your original grievance. No one put a gun to your head and made you become an Uber driver/passenger. You/they decided to take on that role, and failed to assess and appreciate the risk involved.
tldr; those unpleasant things in your life that have happened, are happening, and will eventually happen in your life are ultimately your fault.
PS: I'm not advocating whatever happened or didn't happen to whatever circumstance you are attributing "rape" to. I'm not sure if you chose that verb for hyperbolic reasons or not.
>> "Slippery slope" is the term used to describe the fallacy of logic in that sentence. Who must perform this proactive protection? Why should/must they do it? What constitutes "vulnerable"? This sounds like the musings of a privileged youth.
Fun fact: "Slippery slope" is the term used to describe the fallacy of logic in your sentences. The slippery slope fallacy lies in you rejecting the -- admittetly vague -- claim "Vulnerable people must be proactively protected." just because you can imagine that bad things might happen if this mind-set was applied excessively.
This is a fallacy of logic, since it leads you to reject a claim just because it is not as precise as you'd like it to be. However, a claim isn't invalid per se just because it is vague.
Fun fact: "Slippery slope" is the term used to describe the fallacy of logic in your sentences. The slippery slope fallacy lies in you rejecting the -- admittetly vague -- claim "Vulnerable people must be proactively protected." just because you can imagine that bad things might happen if this mind-set was applied excessively.
This is a fallacy of logic, since it leads you to reject a claim just because it is not as precise as you'd like it to be. However, a claim isn't invalid per se just because it is vague.
You can't think of any reason someone might think that passengers should be protected from drivers with an intent to sexually assault besides being a "privileged youth"?
The parent poster is probably referring to the Uber driver that raped a woman in India. Uber tried to discredit her, illegally obtained her medical records, etc.
It's not hyperbole, because rape is what happened.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/technology/uber-fires-exe...
It's not hyperbole, because rape is what happened.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/technology/uber-fires-exe...