Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber warns drivers against avoiding 'disadvantaged' areas

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 15 posts

Re: Uber warns drivers against avoiding 'disadvantaged' areas

#3

Post by LinuxBender »

Uber already have different options for vehicles bigger, ability to haul equipment, luxury, etc... so how about embrace this issue by having a class of armored vehicle for rough neighborhoods? Call it the "Presidential Service". Or pay former bouncers and ex gang members extra to service these areas. If there is a policy against this make an exception for this category and add disclaimers. Probably not a wonderful idea but someone could probably build upon it.

Re: Uber warns drivers against avoiding 'disadvantaged' areas

#4

Post by YellOh »

LinuxBender wrote: post #3

Uber already have different options for vehicles bigger, ability to haul equipment, luxury, etc... so how about embrace this issue by having a class of armored vehicle for rough neighborhoods? Call it the "Presidential Service". Or pay former bouncers and ex gang members extra to service these areas. If there is a policy against this make an exception for this category and add disclaimers. Probably not a wonderful id…

I think the trouble is the overlap of high-crime and high-diversity areas. Say you're sending an armored vehicle into a high-crime area and it's reasonable protection. Someone writes a news article about having expensive & specially trained drivers required in the poorest minority communities and it's a major PR issue. Depends on who gets control of the narrative.

Re: Uber warns drivers against avoiding 'disadvantaged' areas

#5

Post by LinuxBender »

YellOh wrote: post #4
LinuxBender wrote: post #3

Uber already have different options for vehicles bigger, ability to haul equipment, luxury, etc... so how about embrace this issue by having a class of armored vehicle for rough neighborhoods? Call it the "Presidential Service". Or pay former bouncers and ex gang members extra to service these areas. If there is a policy against this make an exception for this category and add disclaimers. Probably not a wonderful id…

I think the trouble is the overlap of high-crime and high-diversity areas. Say you're sending an armored vehicle into a high-crime area and it's reasonable protection. Someone writes a news article about having expensive & specially trained drivers required in the poorest minority communities and it's a major PR issue. Depends on who gets control of the narrative.

major PR issue. Depends on who gets control of the narrative

Agreed, even as I was typing it I can see all the negative optics. It's probably a bad idea but there is probably some derivation that could work and could even give more job opportunities to people that are otherwise between a rock and a hard place. I'm thinking along the lines of private military contractors but with less formal training.

Re: Uber warns drivers against avoiding 'disadvantaged' areas

#7

Post by QuarterReptile »

The article particularly mentions California. It seems that Uber had to give up some of the tools that they use to police the ecosystem in order to show CA regulators that the drivers are contractors: the article mentions penalties for skipping too many fares in other locales and Uber letting CA drivers see destinations of ride requests.

CA drivers have predictably used thise tools to optimize for their own profit/enjoyment/safety(?)

Re: Uber warns drivers against avoiding 'disadvantaged' areas

#9

Post by TrevorJ »

EA-3167 wrote: post #6

That sounds like something you could reasonably demand of employees, but not contractors like Uber drivers.

From the IRS:

"A worker who is required to comply with instructions about when, where, and how to work is ordinarily an employee."

Sure seems like you are correct.

Post reply on HN