[phamilyman]

Originally Posted by Cyrus_the_virus

Why is the police trying to shift blame of its utter incompetence of not being able to maintain a database of cab drivers convicted of crimes and has its own department issuing forged signatures and seals for character certificates? ...

For all the problems that Uber has to currently fix, the truth of the matter is, they did NOT knowingly hire a rapist, but the police let off a rapist knowingly and made no effort to warn others or list him in a database of offenders.

Spot on.

My core problem is that if it takes me 3 seconds to verify my challan status on https://delhitrafficpolice.nic.in/echallannotices/ or the criminal record of politicians on websites, why should someone's criminal record not be available online (make it duly protected with prior permission / request from said individual, just like google / FB app access)?

Criminal records are a matter of public interest in so far as hiring folks for jobs is concerned. Why can't it be more accessible in the 21st century? Is that because the government makes money from challans but none from giving police clearance certificates? Then let's change it.

If every market participant has to do police verification themselves, then let's take a hyperbolic argument - let us shut down that part of the police department that should maintain this database. No point wasting taxpayer money on a govt dept that only forces the public to do its own job, right?

Originally Posted by Vid6639

Who will track every single cab via GPS? How do they know that a cab enroute has stopped for 15-20mins and a crime is being committed inside the vehicle?

GPS in the car or on the phone makes no difference here. Phone you can turn off but even if you cannot turn off there is no way of catching this issue..

Sorry - I think this is doable.

They should leverage big data or such tools - track such movements and proactively have call centers call out customers in cases where any issue is happening OR learn from previous cases. Point is - you can setup rules and heuristics esp for uber (since you have the route mapped) to figure out when the rules are being violated. Better have a hundred false positives initially than a single false negative.

The brand cost is impossibly high IMHO. For a technology company, this is the ideal problem to crack. Imagine the branding benefit - truely a cab company that looks over its passengers, what else can give more peace of mind?

[Freebird82]

Originally Posted by Rajeevraj

Was looking at the positives listed by GTO in the opening post. There is this one point

In this case I did not see any mention of an in-between agency. So did Uber recently change this approach and start recruiting individual drivers (or individual owners)? If that is the case, looks like the law and order concerns mentioned in the point above has come back to hit Uber. .

Last Thursday I hailed an UberX. The driver said he was working directly with Uber instead of through an agency. I think this is a recent development, probably to chase higher market share.

Trivia : If you are in MG Road and open the app, you will be surprised to see the density of cabs around Shankar Nag theatre location (has been the case since a month or so). Possible reason : Uber office is in the Raheja building !!

[phamilyman]

Originally Posted by woof

I guess the ban is only in Delhi.

In gurgaon, I can see lots of cabs available (on both OLA & Uber apps)

This is critical for me. My wife and I need to do some errands in gurgaon but she has an evening flight from the airport while I have critical stuff to wrap up.

I was hoping that we could use an Ola mini or such so that she can go from gurgaon to delhi to pick up our son + luggage and then to the airport using the same cab.

Without ola we need to reserve some local chappie for the day which is an unnecessary expense. but can we use an ola hired in gurgaon to get into delhi?

[woof]

Originally Posted by phamilyman

This is critical for me. My wife and I need to do some errands in gurgaon but she has an evening flight from the airport while I have critical stuff to wrap up.

I was hoping that we could use an Ola mini or such so that she can go from gurgaon to delhi to pick up our son + luggage and then to the airport using the same cab.

Without ola we need to reserve some local chappie for the day which is an unnecessary expense. but can we use an ola hired in gurgaon to get into delhi?

If ola is banned in Delhi, i doubt you can use it there. Take Meru or EasyCabs for airport drops.

[noopster]

I think banning Uber is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It is a fascinating model of practicing Digital business rather than just talking about it. The reality is that the alleged rape could have happened anywhere, to anyone. Am struggling to find a parallel that works and the closest I can come to is to shut down a dating site because someone who met another person through the site got sexually assaulted by them.

The only thing I find strange in all this is Uber's alleged claims of "ensuring safety" of their customers. How on earth were they ever going to do that? They are, as they claim themselves, a "technology platform". If they did in fact make such a claim and people have started using the service assuming they were in fact a cab company that vets its drivers thoroughly then they need to own up to their share of the blame. Even then I think banning them is too harsh- it's obviously a reaction born in ignorance: we don't understand this so we will ban it- that pervades Indian administrative thinking.

Originally Posted by Rajeevraj

Was looking at the positives listed by GTO in the opening post. There is this one point

"+ Internationally, Uber recruits individual drivers as well. In India, they've only tied up with professional rental agencies. This is definitely a smart move, considering the dynamics of our market and the law & order situation."

Originally Posted by Freebird82

Last Thursday I hailed an UberX. The driver said he was working directly with Uber instead of through an agency. I think this is a recent development, probably to chase higher market share.

Internationally (laws permitting) Uber is a "ridesharing" service and anyone with a driving license can sign up as a driver. There have been cases of a Ferrari owner picking up zapped clients that highlights this. In India you need a commercial taxi driver's license to ply a vehicle for money (technically I am breaking the law if I carpool to work and accept compensation from my fellow poolers to split the fuel cost. It's stupid and regressive, but that's no surprise since most of our laws are obsolete). What you guys encountered are probably taxi drivers who own their own vehicles, i.e. they are free agents who have signed up with Uber because they see it as a profitable proposition.

[Vid6639]

Originally Posted by phamilyman

Sorry - I think this is doable.

They should leverage big data or such tools - track such movements and proactively have call centers call out customers in cases where any issue is happening OR learn from previous cases. Point is - you can setup rules and heuristics esp for uber (since you have the route mapped) to figure out when the rules are being violated. Better have a hundred false positives initially than a single false negative.

The brand cost is impossibly high IMHO. For a technology company, this is the ideal problem to crack. Imagine the branding benefit - truely a cab company that looks over its passengers, what else can give more peace of mind?

Yes then you have another conspiracy theory that uber tracks your every movement. It knows where you stay and where you keep going. Someone will come up with the theory that this is dangerous as they are monitoring.

Doable yes but it's doable with the mobile phone as well as with the in built tracker. I don't see how the car GPS vs movile GPS is the reason for contention.

Originally Posted by Freebird82

Last Thursday I hailed an UberX. The driver said he was working directly with Uber instead of through an agency. I think this is a recent development, probably to chase higher market share.

You never had to work through an agency. I can go out and buy an Etios with yellow board and drive for Uber as well. But that doesn't mean I cannot drive for anyone else.

Basically there are 2 models. One is the car is owned by the driver and he either associates himself with a travel agency or other is car is owned by the travel agency and the driver drives for the agency.

Car owned by the driver means the guy can choose any travel agency or drive for Uber, Ola or Taxi4sure.

If you go back a few pages you will see I got a Meru green Verito car with Ola stickers on it but I booked an Uber.

The driver purchased the Verito and tied up with Meru. Meru was not that profitable so he moved to Ola. Then he saw Uber and joined Uber as well.

He just says I keep both Ola and Uber phones on and take customers from both to get more trips thereby make more money.

Now imagine if this rape incident had happened in a Ola sticker car but driver was tied up with Uber as well.

[Freebird82]

Originally Posted by noopster

Internationally (laws permitting) What you guys encountered are probably taxi drivers who own their own vehicles, i.e. they are free agents who have signed up with Uber because they see it as a profitable proposition.

Originally Posted by Vid6639

Basically there are 2 models. One is the car is owned by the driver and he either associates himself with a travel agency or other is car is owned by the travel agency and the driver drives for the agency.

Now imagine if this rape incident had happened in a Ola sticker car but driver was tied up with Uber as well.

Thats correct. What i was mean is that I have been using Uber ever since it was launched in Bangalore, and the drivers were always associated with some cab agency. Ofcourse, at that time the cabs used to be Beemers, Mercs etc. This phenomenon of drivers signing up with Uber directly is more recent, presumably also as the fleet is now Etios, Indicas etc.

[Vid6639]

Originally Posted by Freebird82

Thats correct. What i was mean is that I have been using Uber ever since it was launched in Bangalore, and the drivers were always associated with some cab agency. Ofcourse, at that time the cabs used to be Beemers, Mercs etc. This phenomenon of drivers signing up with Uber directly is more recent, presumably also as the fleet is now Etios, Indicas etc.

Earlier Uber had to approach travel agencies to have their cabs associated with Uber. The USP offered by Uber was that the cab company can turn on Uber app when they don't have customers on their own.

Over the year it became so popular that drivers started approaching Uber directly.

Now a driver can approach Uber even if he doesn't have a car and Uber helps them with loan processing and a heft discount with a tie up with Toyota.

Basically the driver can make his livelihood from Uber rather than Uber being additional income on the side earlier.

If the ban goes through for all app based cab services, some of the drivers are going to be in a financial doldrums as they bought cars on load thinking that driving for Uber and Ola will guarantee returns and they can pay off the car loan as well make some money.

[poloman]

Originally Posted by Vid6639

Now a driver can approach Uber even if he doesn't have a car and Uber helps them with load processing and a heft discount with a tie up with Toyota.

Basically the driver can make his livelihood from Uber rather than Uber being additional income on the side earlier.

This is the reality and lot of people even on informed forums like TBHP believe they are just an aggregator or a tech company. They are no different from a Meru or Mega Cabs atleast in India. How else can a person like this culprit own a Swift Dzire with in 6 months of working with Uber?
This rat race and confused network of ownership has to end for good. With earning figures of 1Lac pm getting wide publicity lot of bad elements are transforming themselves as Uber/OLA groomed drivers overnight. Every rickety Indica in Bangalore is sporting an OLA sticker now a days.

When fake resumes became a big problem in tech industry, they started the innovative way of overcoming this through referral system. The employee who refers the candidate will get a good bonus and the company will get a suitable and verified candidate to fill the position.

If the company is so innovative it is for them to find a solution for situations like these.As usual blaming the Police and system is not going to help. If you put the onus on a person to prove his character, most of the time you will end up having a fake certificate. It is for you as a responsible corporate to spend resources for independent background verification if you want to filter out bad elements.

[zenren]

Originally Posted by Vid6639

If the ban goes through for all app based cab services, some of the drivers are going to be in a financial doldrums as they bought cars on load thinking that driving for Uber and Ola will guarantee returns and they can pay off the car loan as well make some money.

If these drivers have all the necessary documents to operate a cab in Delhi, they might still be able to associate with the registered radio taxi providers and leverage their service. Agreed that the profits may not be as good as in the rideshare scenario but it might still be better than nothing.

[ajmat]

I have been using Uber over the past week

1: The GPS mapping system sucks or is it the driver's map sense, it always involves guiding the driver in

2: UberBlack seem to be more willing to take fares compared to UberX -reason, UberX has halved UberBlack trips

3: Uber at Bangalore Airport is brilliant. Click on the app as you ente the terminal and he is waiting in the designated pickup area

4: The nearest car might be 10 min away but some block 20 min away will pik up the drop. Not good when in a hurry

[Turbo_Charger]

1. Uber is an aggregator of Cabs and operates around the World.

2. Uber is an online only Company and does not have any phone number, address or any other info to contact in case of emergency.

3. Uber promises Safe Travel of its riders by employing drivers after verification, tracking of cabs and other safety systems.

4. It does NOT take any responsibility of the cabs or drivers' behavior if anything were to happen to the rider. (Did you read #3 ?)

5. Uber claims to be a Technology Company.

6. Uber does not follow any local law anywhere in the world and even in some parts of the USA and has been banned because of the same reason.


Now let's come to the this incident. A female rider had complained to Uber on November 26th about the same Driver (Shiv Yadav) and what did Uber do ? Nothing, Nada, Zilch. Just the usual automated we will get back to you email.

Just look at the gravity of the situation. First Uber hires a rapist as a driver without any verification, then when a female rider complains to Uber about the driver's behavior, they do nothing. Still they act like they are the victims. I have read all of Uber's statements (more like sermons) since the incident and all of them have been nothing but condescending in nature. Meanwhile Uber have admitted that they didn't verify even a single driver out of the 4,000 that they hired, and they still showcase themselves as a premium and safe service.

They have been banned in Portland, Oregon too. Take a look at the reason.

“If Uber thinks there should be no maximum price on what they charge Portlanders, they should make their case to the Portland City Council. If Uber thinks taxi companies shouldn’t have to serve people with disabilities, they should make their case. If Uber thinks taxis should not have to have proper insurance in case of a crash, they should tell us why we should allow that,” Novick said.

They claim they are a Technology Company and hence don't need to follow any local laws, do any verification of drivers and not even buy insurance for their cabs, they don't want to serve people with disabilities at all.

Imagine if tomorrow your favorite airline were to re-brand itself as a technological company, lease airplanes and hire pilots without doing any checks & after a crash, they start making the excuse they are a technology company (selling online tickets on a website/app) and are not liable for anything. Will you travel in that airline ?

I had heard the Uber was a really crappy company but now after reading this interview it sickens me how they are trying to buy the victim by throwing money at her. Also count the number of times the word 'willing' has been used by Uber, like they are doing a favor. The tone and message of that interview is that Uber is doing a charity service by following the laws of the land that they should have followed in the first place.

"We are also willing to be subjected to Indian laws and regulatory regime. We have done that in other markets and we are willing to do it here,"

"We would be happy to assist in her recovery. Financially. If there are things that we can do to help her, we will do.

And I think that is the right thing,"

[FONT=arial]Read more at:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...campaign=cppst[/FONT]

"We would be happy to assist in her recovery. Financially. If there are things that we can do to help her, we will do.

And I think that is the right thing,"

[FONT=arial]Read more at:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...campaign=cppst"We would be happy to assist in her recovery. Financially. If there are things that we can do to help her, we will do.

And I think that is the right thing,"[/FONT]

"We would be happy to assist in her recovery. Financially. If there are things that we can do to help her, we will do. And I think that is the right thing,"

On the issue of police verification of drivers, Uber said that it is willing to work with third party verification agencies to perform background checks on drivers. It is also willing to set up a call centre in India.

On the issue of installing GPS trackers, he said that the company is willing to install physical devices in cabs of its partner-drivers 'if that helps'.

Am sure there will be more updates in the case but I think the government has done the correct thing by banning all App based companies which operate with All India Permit Cabs and don't have license to operate on intra-city routes.

Link 1 Twitter : http://t.co/Ho4ZpA3xbn

Link 2 Twitter : http://t.co/e4Hl6dEI4f

[Juggy]

Originally Posted by noopster

Internationally (laws permitting) Uber is a "ridesharing" service and anyone with a driving license can sign up as a driver. What you guys encountered are probably taxi drivers who own their own vehicles, i.e. they are free agents who have signed up with Uber because they see it as a profitable proposition.

Then I wonder why they are getting sued by the state in LA & SFO for misleading advertising. There are lots of service aggregators who don't make wild claims on safety and convenience like these guys. This is not new and please don't pretend they are being deliberately held to a higher standard.. What is to stop this incident happening in a Uber Black?

http://www.engadget.com/2014/12/09/u...ft-settlement/

[Hayek]

Originally Posted by Shivank

[left]So, Uber is banned. Why? Because they do not comply with the rules and regulations. When a company does not meet a pre-requisite set of government regulations, how can it be operating in the country in the first place?



Did the goverment not do a 'background' check of Uber before? Can anyone, be it a cab provider or an app that directly affects the safety of people can run just like that in our country?

.

Actually, the government has no legal basis to ban Uber. Uber is a service which connects licensed taxi owners to customers. It does not require any license itself. We already have too much bureaucracy in this country - and don't need the government to background check apps or any other business. The government had an obligation to check the background of guys who hold a commercial drivers license and a cab with an all India permit, and failed to do that. Frankly, we all know how government background checks work in any case - it's an excuse for a cop to extract Rs. 500 from a citizen. With a corrupt and incompetent government, we can't expect any better.

Originally Posted by phamilyman

Criminal records are a matter of public interest in so far as hiring folks for jobs is concerned. Why can't it be more accessible in the 21st century? Is that because the government makes money from challans but none from giving police clearance certificates?

In this case, the guy concerned had been ACQUITTED by a court. In short, there were no charges pending against him. He was not a convict, who should have a criminal record - as a matter of law, he was a citizen against whom a charge had been filed, which the government failed to prove in court. In short, he was no different from any other Indian. Spending time in jail as an undertrial and then being acquitted is not the same as spending time in jail as a convict and then being released.

Originally Posted by noopster

I think banning Uber is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It is a fascinating model of practicing Digital business rather than just talking about it. The reality is that the alleged rape could have happened anywhere, to anyone. Am struggling to find a parallel that works and the closest I can come to is to shut down a dating site because someone who met another person through the site got sexually assaulted by them.



The only thing I find strange in all this is Uber's alleged claims of "ensuring safety" of their customers. How on earth were they ever going to do that?

Agree fully Anoop. Uber is clearly guilty of misrepresentation, at least in markets outside the U.S. In the US, they can run checks on public databases, but even that does not guarantee safety. But I find people who sign contracts and then blame stuff in the fine print ridiculous. You are free to use or not use an app. You sign a contract when you use an app. You are bound by that contract. If you did not read it, it's your fault, not anyone else's.

[akhil_007]

I agree that banning Uber is not the solution.

Just a weird thought. Why cant the court give death penalty or capital punishment in such cases to the offender, without any delay? They can set a precedence and this will act as a deterrent. I know that law says Innocent until proven guilty. But in rarest of rare cases like this, capital punishment is inevitable.

As in Nirbhaya's case, where was uber then? There was no app nor call taxi. Still the thugs took a precious life. If govt resorts to knee jerk reactions like these, they would further go down in Ease of doing Business Index. Govt wants to India to become like Singapore. Atleast learn from what they do. Not just wishful thinking.

Link to Singapore Uber News Article: Uber SG