[poloman]

I am not sure why people here are busy defending UBER. Here is their legal fine print. Is this what they are claiming publicly?.

UBER DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE SUITABILITY, SAFETY OR ABILITY OF THIRD PARTY PROVIDERS. IT IS SOLELY YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE IF A THIRD PARTY PROVIDER WILL MEET YOUR NEEDS AND EXPECTATIONS. UBER WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN DISPUTES BETWEEN YOU AND A THIRD PARTY PROVIDER. BY USING THE SERVICES, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU MAY BE EXPOSED TO SITUATIONS INVOLVING THIRD PARTY PROVIDERS THAT ARE POTENTIALLY UNSAFE, OFFENSIVE, HARMFUL TO MINORS, OR OTHERWISE OBJECTIONABLE, AND THAT USE OF THIRD PARTY PROVIDERS ARRANGED OR SCHEDULED USING THE SERVICES IS AT YOUR OWN RISK AND JUDGMENT. UBER SHALL NOT HAVE ANY LIABILITY ARISING FROM OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO YOUR TRANSACTIONS OR RELATIONSHIP WITH THIRD PARTY PROVIDERS

A crime is a crime. Let us stop making public spectacles out of incidents like rape. If a rape happens in a school we jump up and say close down the school, the same logic applies here. This is a result of unending public pressure put on authorities once such incidents take place. If Uber has flouted norms they should be banned. The ban can be lifted if they comply to rules and regulations.

[srameshdelhi]

Originally Posted by bblost

These gaps exist in all the Auto-rickshaws that ply in a city.
Autorickshaws have been used by rapists before to abduct victims.

How come they are allowed?

No one should be allowed to violate any rules. Where is the doubt?

Cities will have to formulate new rules impose them, if they need to improve. Delhi is trying hard to regulate Autos since long but in vain. But it can't stop trying and give it up.

Hope you are not trying to say, since some auto-rickshaws are violating rules, every other vehicle in the city should also be allowed to violate the rule lawfully.

[drmohitg]

Typical knee jerk reaction by the Delhi administration/Police. Blame others for your shortcomings and failure to ensure the well being of the citizens. The incident could have happened with any cab/bus/Auto etc. And this is just a attempt to run away from responsibility. We all know how efficiently these police versifications of your employees is carried out!

What is appalling is that the same guy was caught for a similar offence few years back. Three cheers for our LAWS!!

Edit: And how exactly does a background check on part of Uber with the Police help in this case? If you are suggesting that the accused would then be not given the job, then anyways what is the point of acquitting him from the earlier case. An Acquittal means he is guilt free right? Then how can you deny him a chance to earn his lively-hood. That way you are only forcing him to do something illegal to earn a living. And incase you say that he was actually responsible for a rape incident few years back then its a shame that even after arrest he was let to roam free on our roads.

[PetrolRider]

Originally Posted by sudeepg

Really? A hefty compensation returns the victim's dignity and is all justified? In my opinion, there is no better justice than bringing the criminal to task and sooner.

No, it does not.

Where the driver is a criminal, Uber is a party of his crime. I strongly believe those who do not regard other human as human and can do these type of crimes, should not be allowed to be human anymore (Yes I support death penalty for rapist).
But you can not hang a corporate, do you? Even if you try to catch their CEOs and Presidents, it will go they way it happened with late Mr Warren Anderson.
The best way to punish them is to hit where they bleed much.
Can't we have fines like they do have in EU or USA? What about few hundred million?

[SilentEngine]

The ban on Uber is based on technicalities (not having appropriate license to run cab service), and Uber could have been banned without this incident too. Of course it's another matter why the authorities were silent on this till now.

We need to look at this incident objectively. There are two different offenses here. One, the incident that happened on Friday. Two, violation of law from Uber. The driver who committed the first crime should be punished for his actions. But even if you leave out the incident that happened on Friday, there is still a case to be made against Uber for not having appropriate license to run its service, which would automatically mean all other Uber cabs running are illegal, hence the ban.
I wouldn't be surprised if other states follow suit and ban Uber in respective states.

Related news from Netherlands today where UberPop has been banned for a similar offense (not having appropriate permit to run the service)
http://techcrunch.com/2014/12/08/uber-holland-uberpop/

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by srameshdelhi

1. They should not have engaged a driver who does not have a commercial licence.

The driver has a commercial licence. To get one you need a character certificate by the Delhi Police and you need to submit it to the transport department. The same certificate was also presented to Uber.

Originally Posted by srameshdelhi

2. GPS should have been installed and monitored by Uber - As per Delhi rules.

The Cab is GPS enabled via phone instead of dedicated GPS monitoirng device. I am sure if the driver committed a crime and wanted to switch off the dedicated GPS monitoring device he can do that too.

Originally Posted by srameshdelhi

3. Police verification form is not submitted to Delhi Police - This is their official stand, contrary to what is reported here.

He got a clean character certificate from the Delhi Police itself.

Originally Posted by srameshdelhi

4. Emergency Telephone no. of company should be available in the car. - Missing here.
5. They say in the T&C that they are not responsible for safety - Therefore, they can't operate at a place which requires a lot of safety.

Where the stipulated government rules which say this? If there are Why was Uber allowed to run at first place? In anycase Uber is not a taxi company, they provide technology to mediate between the driver and the passenger and therefor the standard Taxi rules do not apply here.

Originally Posted by srameshdelhi

However, if some city is very safe and there is no such regulations as above are required that city can enjoy the services of Uber - No problem.

A city is a safe not because the taxi drivers are well behaved, a city is safe due to co-ordination between the government and law enforcing agencies and to an extent citizens. The onus is not only on the private player.

[bblost]

Originally Posted by srameshdelhi

Hope you are not trying to say, since some auto-rickshaws are violating rules, every other vehicle in the city should also be allowed to violate the rule lawfully.

No. I am not saying that.

Instead I am saying that we need to now get our house in order.
1. Uber has been banned.
2. Lets ban Autos as well.
3. The 2012 gangrape that happened in a private bus is still vivid in our memories. Lets ban private buses as well.

[Biraj]

Originally Posted by srameshdelhi

What is it so difficult to understand here? There are some rules. Uber did not follow them. They got punished (banned).

Originally Posted by poloman

I am not sure why people here are busy defending UBER.

There's a difference between a taxi operator and booking service provider. Uber is not a cab operator. It's a service provider that makes lives of travellers (like me) very easy.

• It connects us to the nearest taxi-driver that uses Uber app.
• We don't need to carry cash or look for exact change/denomination.
• We get cleaner and better cabs than conventional radio-taxi at lower charges.
• We don't need to book a cab for 4/8 hours for short trips
• We don't need to pay overinflated fee plus night charges to conventional radio-taxi for early morning and late night flights.

Uber has many benefits that only a regular user will appreciate. It's unfortunate that we are still stuck with our bureaucratic practices/norms (DLY not allowed for point-to-point drop), and are unable to accept more convenient platforms.

[balajisv]

Originally Posted by sudeepg

Does a yearly police verification really make the cabs safe? The criminal could commit the crime and never return at all



If drivers are tied up with Uber, they will most likely have to find another company to tie up with now since Uber no longer cannot operate in Delhi. This doesn't mean end of road for them though in my opinion.
It is indeed an unfortunate incident. What happened in Nirbhaya case and how the govt handled it then is well known. There was no action until the matter escalated. The current govt has taken some action (Please note, do not mistake that this is a blind fold support for the current govt)



So true! The technology is only there for namesake, even security in most cases. When the real need arises, there is no one really monitoring.

I agree the govt took action before the matter escalated. But, taking a knee jerk decision just to show the public that the govt acted: Not fair. They could have engaged Uber officials in a better and productive way to ensure an effective solution. Please note that I strongly agree that Uber is also responsible for this incident.

I still wonder how these so called tech companies did not even think about some alerts being sent out when an 'in-ride' cab goes offline before the trip ends?

[poloman]

Originally Posted by Biraj

There's a difference between a taxi operator and booking service provider. Uber is not a cab operator. It's a service provider that makes lives of travellers (like me) very easy.

Can you enlighten me what a cab operator does differently from Uber? Even most of cab operators now days outsource the ride to individual owners who just put the sticker of the company. If they are just a service provide like redbus, why they take pain of training drivers, claim they verify driver background etc? You cannot put your leg in two boats.
I have been a regular Uber user myself and stop using them recently due to non availability of cabs when you need them, extremely high surge pricing, arrogant drivers etc

[PetrolRider]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

The Cab is GPS enabled via phone instead of dedicated GPS monitoirng device. I am sure if the driver committed a crime and wanted to switch off the dedicated GPS monitoring device he can do that too.

Uber knew the particular cab had accepted the request by the registered user. Uber knew the cab had started the journey with the traveler. Uber knew the journey was not finished and the driver went offline.

Responsible corporate with a fail safe process would try to contact the driver or the traveler and if not possible contact the law enforcement agency with GPS track till offline spot.

What Uber did in this case? If they have followed any of the above, the thing should have been completely different. So why something like Uber should be there? What is the difference between them and the local rowdy who set up a travel agency shop on the corner and provide you some cab number with keeping his commission?

Uber should be made accountable to be part of this crime. They surely didn't follow their corporate responsibility here.

[SS-Traveller]

Uber has been banned and blacklisted from plying a taxi service in Delhi-NCR as of today.

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

Delhi government on Monday banned all operations by private cab service Uber with immediate effect and blacklisted it from providing any transport service in the national capital in the wake of the alleged rape incident in a taxi plying for it.

The action came a day after a taxi driver employed by Uber was arrested from Mathura for allegedly raping a 27-year-old woman executive in his cab.

"The transport department has banned all activities related to providing of any transport service by www.uber.com with immediate effect. The department has also blacklisted the company from providing any transport service in the NCT of Delhi in future," the Delhi government said in a statement.

It said the transport department has cancelled the permit and registration certificate of the taxi (DL1YD 7910) and driving licence of the accused.

According to the department, the taxi permit was granted on May 28, 2014, after due verification of character and antecedents of the permit holder.

Government said that Uber, the US-based cab firm, misled the commuter (rape victim) about the nature of the taxi service offered by its App.

Condemning the unfortunate and heinous crime committed by the taxi driver, it also said, "The All India Tourist Permit taxi was provided by M/s Uber on the request of the commuter through the Uber Web application for a local journey within Delhi which was in contravention of the MV Act, 1988, and rules framed there under.

"M/s Uber also misled the commuter about the nature of the taxi service offered by the 'Uber App'," said a senior government official.

The official also said that the government took such a decision keeping in view the violations and the horrific crime committed by the driver.

[poloman]

Looks like the character certificate submitted by the driver now turns out to be fake. Now whom to blame now? Delhi Police, Delhi Govt, Haryana Govt, Haryana Police. Let us stop behaving we are far superior to law enforcement agencies. Did any one give credit to DP for catching the culprit in one day despite sketchy details provided by the company

[Biraj]

Originally Posted by poloman

Can you enlighten me what a cab operator does differently from Uber?

They own or lease a major part of their fleet thus, have direct control over the operations.

If Uber is compared to Redbus, I would call Uber a more jazzy, user-friendly, technologically competent version of Redbus. They are just trying to improve the user-experience by training the drivers and other initiatives.

Anyway, enough has been discussed. If taking Uber off Delhi's streets makes it a safer place for women, then so be it.

[abhisheksircar]

- A previous rape case against the same driver had resulted in a meager 7 months jail
- Delhi police had issued, even after previous convictions, a clear character certificate against the driver.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/c...w/45412700.cms

If someone had to be punished, it is the culprit and the police department. Now will the Govt. close the police department too for just being involved in the incident. The CEO of UBER is right to point out that there is no proper verification system in place. And with punishments of 7 months in jail for even an attempt, is too trivial to call it a punishment.