[SilentEngine]

It's surprising that people here are defending Uber and letting it off lightly as if it doesn't have any obligation and responsibility on its part.

Originally Posted by Hayek

This is what I call the liftman argument - the propensity for Indians to want liftmen in automatic lifts. Uber IS a tech company. It has not put any cabs on the road - the cabs it connects you to are all registered commercial vehicles, registered with state RTOs, who bear the primary responsibility to regulate them. Uber can't be held liable for everything that happens during rides,

In case of an automated lifts, there is no human element involved within the lift (when it's fully automated). When it malfunctions, what will you do? Obviously there will be an alarm button that you will press to alert some 'human' so he is aware of incident and can arrange for help. Let's say the help doesn't arrive or is not enough to avert a tragedy, i am not sure if you will still hold on tightly to your 'technology' argument.

Originally Posted by devilwearsprada

These are promises which are a common form of advertisement.
Now, if a company such as Sony is selling Bravia with something like 'True Colors never seen before'. Or something like '4K- Four times the clarity'. These are promises based on the input. They can't be held liable for the same, atleast in this country.
Every cab company will at one point or the other promise 'Safety, Comfort and VFM'. For me, those are factors that I decide on my experience.

This is absolutely hilarious (and sad in this context!) example.
Sony is selling Bravia TV for your entertainment needs, not your safe travel needs. If your TV didn't have the supposed 'True colors', there is no risk to your safety. Well, in spite of that, i believe there are regulations that act against deceitful advertising campaigns (not delivering what was promised). In Team-BHP itself you will find examples where unsatisfied customers have taken auto companies to courts.

Overall this incident is an eye-opener. It would be wrong to blindly believe in all these new-age tech companies who claim they provide safe travel options. Their primary objective is business, i.e. to make money off end consumers and nothing more. We need to be aware of that.
Secondly, in this case, i think the police have been rather quick to nab the offender, without getting much help from Uber to trace him.
I see a ban coming in Uber's way unless they implement checks and balances voluntarily.

EDIT:
Another important safety aspect which is lacking is the safety of the driver! By not having a GPS system installed in the car and a way to track it (other than the phone which can be switched off/stolen), this will put a driver at risk too. Somebody could easily hire one of these taxis and use it for unlawful activities. In such cases even if driver doesn't voluntarily disclose the location, a dedicated GPS device may be of some help (at least to track down the vehicle if not to prevent a crime).

[mercedised]

I never trust these services no matter what people tell me. Even after reading some good reviews on Team-Bhp I never even thought to hire these so called premium services, the reason was not safety. I prefer regular taxis, this way the money goes straight to the needed poor man and not these foreign brands who never care about the safety and are only there to earn their piece of currency.

Mods: I hope I am not offending or posting something irrelevant to this topic (the part in bold).

[alpha1]

I am amazed at childish expectations shown by a few on this thread.
Uber does not own the cab drivers.
Uber is a company.
Cab drivers are adults.
Both are only bound together by a contract.

Though, speedmiester has rightly pointed out that in spite of having a huge disclaimer about safety, Uber has proclaimed that safety is their first concern, which is terribly misleading.
In fact it is their duty at this hour to clearly state their contract conditions and say that "BUYER BEWARE".

[Foxbat]

Looks like Uber didn't do any background checks on their "safe" drivers.

The driver accused of rape had spent 2 years in jail for another rape charge before.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-...1-1294283.aspx

That means Uber hired the cab driver without the mandatorary police verification.

[SilentEngine]

Originally Posted by Foxbat

Looks like Uber didn't do any background checks on their "safe" drivers.

The driver accused of rape had spent 2 years in jail for another rape charge before.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-...1-1294283.aspx

That means Uber hired the cab driver without the mandatorary police verification.

If this is true, it throws Uber's defense out of the window.

Also it's rather amusing to see TaxiForSure ads surrounding this news article.

[Foxbat]

Originally Posted by SilentEngine

If this is true, it throws Uber's defense out of the window.

Also it's rather amusing to see TaxiForSure ads surrounding this news article.

Even I noticed that and found it amusing. No doubt its intentional, Customers will be having doubts on Uber's safety and will be looking for alternate taxi providers.

Here is another article on the same:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/c...w/45408582.cms

[vasudeva]

Uber is justly getting a lot of negative publicity. Recently, the Economist had something negative to say about Uber.

Emil Michael, senior vice president of business at Uber , told guests at an Uber dinner party in New York City last week that his company should combat negative media coverage by spending $1 million to dig up damaging information that would discredit journalists (in particular Sarah Lacy) who are critical of the company.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2...lley/19234569/

http://pando.com/2014/11/17/the-mome...-attack-women/

This article says that on October 22, Uber's offensive campaign in Lyon that encouraged riders to get picked up by hot female drivers, essentially a scary invitation to objectify (or worse) any woman working for the company. That ad was taken down once exposed by Buzzfeed, but sources tell us no one was fired for taking that kind of “initiative.” We also heard that Kalanick’s misogyny is such a problem that recently hired political operative David Plouffe had made it a priority to work on the CEO’s behavior.

To add to it, Peter Thiel (Paypal founder and venture capitalist) called it the most ethically challenged company in Silicon Valley.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102008782

Relevant to this is that the pando article also stated ``We’ve seen it in the company’s PR team discrediting female passengers who accuse drivers of attacking them by whispering that they were “drunk” or “dressed provocatively.”

This is also not the first time that an Uber driver has been doing this:

In June, an Uber ride-share driver was for kidnap for the purpose of sexual assault after a woman woke up in a motel room with him following a night of drinking. No allegations of sexual assault were made.


http://abc7.com/news/uber-driver-tak...rrested/91780/

[vasudeva]

Based on this incident and following the example of Sarah Lacy, I recently deleted the Uber app from my android.

Uber has now blamed the Indian Govt for this.

Their CEO Travis Kalanick has responded to this by saying

We will work with the government to establish clear background checks currently absent in their commercial transportation licensing programs.

http://www.bgr.in/news/uber-ceo-blam...h-authorities/

So now the sexist Uber will now set the standards for background checks in India. Height of pompousness. What do you expect when the company releases this ad:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarze...-riders-with-a

[SilentEngine]

There you go. Uber banned in Delhi!

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...w/45411180.cms

[zenren]

There seems to be serious lapses on the part of Uber, even if they claim that they cannot be responsible for the driver's actions.

• They are blaming the government for not having background verification as part of granting commercial licenses, but if the media reports are to be believed, this driver didn't even have a commercial DL to drive a cab in Delhi.
• They facilitated a cab with an unauthorized driver disguised as a verified driver to one of their customers.
• They didn't do any background verification and had themselves associated with an ex-convict who had been jailed in the recent past for an offense that could seriously put the safety of their customers at risk.

They can still be tried under the sections for cheating customers, if nothing else can be done.

[_raVan_]

Uber has been banned by the Delhi Govt.

TOI

The Delhi government on Monday banned "all activities" by Uber taxi company after one of its drivers was arrested on charges of raping a woman.

An official statement said the Delhi government's transport department had also blacklisted the company from providing any transport service in the national capital in future.

The cab driver, who allegedly raped a 27-year-old woman in New Delhi on Friday night, was arrested in Mathura, even as questions were raised over security measures provided by Uber.

The background check of Uber cab driver Shiv Kumar Yadav has revealed that he had been arrested on rape charges in 2011 as well. He had allegedly taken a bar dancer who had hired the taxi to a secluded place and then raped her. The accused was in Tihar jail for seven months after the arrest.

He was, however, acquitted in that case later after a compromise followed between him and the victim, police said. The revelation has raised serious questions on the Uber cab service who hired the driver despite him being involved in a sexual assault case.

[Soumyajit9]

As usual lame knee-jerk reaction - Uber Banned.

Uber should have been suspended and legal action initiated against it.
It should have been made to suffer till the case comes to a closure.

With this ban, Uber would be the most happiest entity now.
Wham bam and go scott free.

[mints21]

What is surprising is the tweet by Times Now. It shows that the police had given a clean chit to the driver during police verification.

Link to the news item:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/c...w/45411516.cms

[poloman]

Originally Posted by Soumyajit9

As usual lame knee-jerk reaction - Uber Banned.

Uber should have been suspended and legal action initiated against it.
It should have been made to suffer till the case comes to a closure.

With this ban, Uber would be the most happiest entity now.
Wham bam and go scott free.

Banning is what it is going to hurt Uber the most. Legal action against a $40B company is going to take nowhere. It has the financial and legal muscle to handle such cases. Even in USA many cities have banned Uber for some or other reasons.

[vasudeva]

Originally Posted by Soumyajit9

As usual lame knee-jerk reaction - Uber Banned.

I guess that is to be expected from state Govts. Allow all sorts of activities and once it gets out of hand, ban it.

Banning it closes the chapter and mollifies the public. Taking it to court may have led to some uncomfortable questions from the media/public/court towards the powers that be.