Thread

1. calibas · 1790002537 · focus · HN ↗

   > Stone rejected Uber's argument that it is "merely a technology company" connecting riders with drivers, finding that Uber provides transportation services to the public through its app, sets prices and controls key aspects of the rider experience.

   > The arbitrator also rejected Uber's argument that Proposition 22 -- a California ballot measure approved by voters in 2020 that allows companies to classify app-based drivers as independent contractors instead of employees -- prevented the company from being held liable for Tran's conduct.

   The dream of every major tech company, making ridiculous profits while taking zero legal responsibility for what you create...

   1. xhkkffbf · 1790004516 · focus · HN ↗

      The bad guy here is the driver. Could Uber have done more? That's what the arbitrators concluded.

      But the reality is that this is a victory for the driverless cars (Waymo, Tesla, etc.). If you want to force Uber to take responsibility for the driver, the simplest thing is to get rid of the driver.

      1. sandeepkd · 1790008917 · focus · HN ↗

         Yes the driver made a poor decision in a situation that he was not trained for. However enrolling and onboarding the driver is a part of Uber's process. The situation may have been avoided if Uber had this strict clause in its onboarding manual to never stop the car or drop the passenger at unsafe spot. The driver and rider are bound by the Uber negotiated contract atleast until the end of ride.

         On the driverless cars, the chances are that the companies would come up with some innovative legal clause to add to their terms and services to avoid taking any liability from the driverless car's action.

         1. randyrand · 1790009460 · focus · HN ↗

            > The situation may have been avoided if Uber had this strict clause in its onboarding manual to never stop the car or drop the passenger at unsafe spot.

            You think they don't?

            1. sandeepkd · 1790011127 · focus · HN ↗

               Its interesting, saying sorry for your mistakes using plain words does not have the same impact as saying it in a convincing manner as if you mean it. Giving them a 10 page long documentation and asking them to just acknowledge it as a part of onboarding process wont do the job. We are talking about human life here and an emphasis on security should be baked into mind by regular training, and it is usually required for such jobs in general.

               Being responsible for some one else's safety should have a higher bar than being responsible for your own safety.

               I cannot claim to have done the onboarding process myself, tried to look up online and the most I could find is that a good amount of time is spend on doing background checks. I was able to find Uber's employee onboarding information for their corporate employees and it turns out that there is indeed some training required for people who are managing your corporate property. Ironically I do not see any mandatory (ideally paid for) training provided by Uber to drivers when they are handling other human beings (passengers). And to be fair its hard to predict everything, mistakes happen unfortunately, the goal should always be to get to a better state than where we are as of today.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.