Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Transportation

All-Female Ridesharing To Debut In Boston (qz.com) 584

HughPickens.com writes: Scores of women have reported assaults by Uber drivers... Now Jenni Avins reports at Quartz that a ride-sharing service that only uses women as drivers, Chariot for Women, is set to launch April 19 in Boston, featuring more stringent background checks and additional steps to ensure riders correctly match with their drivers.... "[U]nlike other services, Chariot for Women features a patent-pending technology that will provide both users and drivers with a code after a request is made that will need to be verified upon starting the ride," reports Glamour. But "whether it's legal or not is a different question," says Joseph L. Sulman. Quartz reports that "According to civil rights lawyers, Chariot for Women's female-only policies could put it squarely in the crosshairs of gender discrimination lawsuits, which would be difficult to win." Founder Michael Pelletz says he welcomes the legal challenge. "We want to show there's inequality in safety in our industry," says Pelletz. "We hope to go to the US Supreme Court to say that if there's safety involved, there's nothing wrong with providing a service for women."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

All-Female Ridesharing To Debut In Boston

Comments Filter:
  • This will be fun (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rossz ( 67331 ) <ogreNO@SPAMgeekbiker.net> on Sunday April 10, 2016 @02:04PM (#51880053) Journal

    I can't wait until someone claims they identify as female and demand the right to rideshare with the all female service.

    • I though rules were generally phrased in terms of how you *identify*, not how you *claim to identify* ?

    • Re:This will be fun (Score:5, Interesting)

      by frovingslosh ( 582462 ) on Sunday April 10, 2016 @03:15PM (#51880463)
      A quick scan of local on-line arrest records shows a majority of blacks committing violent crimes even though the black population is a minority. So the next logical step will be a white only version of Uber. Just for safety purposes, of course.
      • by ewibble ( 1655195 ) on Sunday April 10, 2016 @04:09PM (#51880743)

        I know you disagree with this and so do I. I would like point out that blacks are more likely be arrested for the same crime, and given a harsher penalty.

        However I have heard similar statistics for males and violence. Men are more likely to be arrested for domestic violence even if they where the ones that called the police in the first place. I am sure that it is much less likely that a man would report violence against him committed by a woman. Women also have a tendency to pick men that stronger than them as partners, it is hard to physically intimidate a person stronger than you. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] in the US 76.8% murder victims are men, I pick murder because it is unlikely to go unreported. Although this could also be perpetrated by men, mens lives are clearly more dangerous.

        While we continue to assume men are somehow bad, and are so dangerous, it is fair to not even let them into the same car as a woman just because they are a man we will only alienate more men. This will only cause men to dislike women more. I am sure black people where considered somehow bad, or somehow somehow worse than white people. That was racism them and this is sexism now.

        If you want a "safer" uber service then you can have a service that does security checks on all its customers, and drivers. That way you are judged on your previous actions, not the genitals you where born with.

  • Legality (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PeteJanda ( 1481299 ) on Sunday April 10, 2016 @02:08PM (#51880069)
    /sigh/ Discrimination with a noble intent is still... discrimination. Would love to know out a ride sharing service exclusively for white bros who want a safe space for off color jokes would be received.
    • This 'discrimination' is just a symptom of the larger problem: If humans didn't treat each other like shit, and act like animals instead of the sentient beings they pretend to be, then we indeed wouldn't need a ride-sharing service by women for women, now would we?
    • Re:Legality (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Sunday April 10, 2016 @03:56PM (#51880661)
      For those who don't/can't see it, basically these people are saying that because some men are guilty of assaulting women, they will generalize that stereotype to all men and prohibit them entirely. In one fell swoop they've legitimized stereotyping, discrimination based on stereotypes, and gender profiling.

      To me, the acid test for any potentially discriminatory practice is simple algebra. Instead of a race or gender or whatever, replace it with a variable. Then apply the same formula to all other situations you can think of. This eliminates any personal biases you may have. "A taxi service for women" becomes "a taxi service for x". Substitute anything else for x. x = men. x = wealthy. x = whites. x = blacks. If any of those seems discriminatory, then the entire concept is likely discriminatory.

      That is what you get when you apply the absolute binary standards of discrimination the PC crowd has advocated. If you apply (IMHO more sensible) looser standards which take into account real statistical differences (which may coincide with certain stereotypes), then services like this become allowable. If the rate of male on female assault in taxis greatly exceeds the rate of female on female assault, then there is justification for a service like this. But to get to this point, you first have to admit that men and women are different. Something the PC crowd has assiduously denied thus far. Otherwise you have no basis for generating separate statistics for men vs women in the first place.
    • Re:Legality (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Sunday April 10, 2016 @04:22PM (#51880811) Homepage Journal

      A better solution that doesn't involve any discrimination would be to simply vet the drivers better. Uber want to avoid doing that because it makes them look too much like a taxi company with employees, instead of just a pure ride sharing service that doesn't have to abide by the rules. The rules which were put in place to stop this sort of thing.

      • Re:Legality (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Firethorn ( 177587 ) on Sunday April 10, 2016 @05:29PM (#51881089) Homepage Journal

        One thing that taxi drivers don't want getting out is that for the most part:
        1. Assaults by taxi drivers are fairly common as well.
        2. Taxi drivers are often vetted about as well as Uber drivers - many of the companies use the same background check service Uber does.

        Now, I can't make universal statements because there's thousands of taxi companies, but I think Uber is getting a bad rap from sheer size and being a good target for news articles.

  • by Nkwe ( 604125 ) on Sunday April 10, 2016 @02:09PM (#51880075)
    Really? The driver and passenger are each given a password / secret code in order to verify each other? This certainly has never been done before.
    • Really? The driver and passenger are each given a password / secret code in order to verify each other? This certainly has never been done before.

      In taxi service? Probably not.

  • So.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ericdano ( 113424 ) on Sunday April 10, 2016 @02:09PM (#51880077) Homepage

    So instead of regulating Uber and other "ride sharing" services......they just create another thing with potentially the same problems.

    Why not just cut the BS and just regulate Uber like we do Taxi companies.......like what should have happened a long time ago.

    • Yes, because taxi drivers have never assaulted a customer. We only hear about the ride sharing drivers assaulting their customers because it's a fairly new service.

      We need a better way to get the bad drivers out of the industry whether they are driving a taxi or for a ride sharing service. What we don't need is a service specifically for woman, another specifically for the LGBT community, another for Muslims, ... because then we'll never ride to show up conveniently as any drivers will be so spread out.

  • by Etherwalk ( 681268 ) on Sunday April 10, 2016 @02:11PM (#51880079)

    There are some better arguments for allowing discrimination here than in most other cases, but ultimately those arguments will fail. While there is danger in taking an Uber, there is danger in *walking*, and the danger of taking an Uber is not very high. They are a "common carrier" and make themselves available to the public; they will not be permitted to discriminate in either employment (sex of drivers) or in who they are willing to transport.

  • This country has a stellar history with segregated public transportation, something like this can only work for good. Yes not everyone can use it, but there are separate equivalent ride-sharing services available for those people.
    • Well the insteresting dilemma is - is it ok to say you, as a female, don't feel safe being driven by a male, given that some males may pose a threat, while it's genrally thought not ok to say you don't feel safe being driven by a person of a certain race/religion (eg. black/muslim)?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 10, 2016 @02:14PM (#51880099)

    Scores of women have reported assaults by Uber drivers

    Good thing that a woman could never assault another woman.

  • As if... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by x0ra ( 1249540 ) on Sunday April 10, 2016 @02:16PM (#51880109)
    women on women rape/sexual assault didn't exist...
  • A rapist need merely register as a trans and is guaranteed a woman is delivered promptly to his location.

    They say they do "extra screening' but how much more can they practically do than Uber already does?

    Also they mention no surge pricing - without surge pricing you aren't going to find many drivers working at times or places you want to go anywhere. Surge pricing may be annoying but it also attracts far more drivers.

  • Preventing discrimination is SUPER important...well, unless it's helpful, right?

  • Will they cover drives on the clock but are open / looking for a fair?
    In route to a fair?

  • by thecombatwombat ( 571826 ) on Sunday April 10, 2016 @03:28PM (#51880535)

    This is not the first company to try this, what they don't say at least up front, is how tricky this business would be.

    According to one in NY, She Taxis [shetaxis.com] only 2% of drivers right now are women.

    Will a lot more women flock to this job if they feel it's safer? It seems from a business point of view, these people are really banking on that being true. All law aside, it's an interesting experiment. I mean this dynamic comes up all the time in most conversations about gender disparity. "If we just got rid of all the harassment, there'd be far more women coders" is something I've heard plenty of times before. This is the closest thing to a controlled experiment we're ever going to see.

  • The legal back and forth on this will be interesting. I think I'll grab a beer and some popcorn and watch the carnage unfold.

    As someone that leans heavily towards leaving the government out of my business and letting the market decide I will say that this is a brilliant business move and the government should just leave this alone.

    I'm reminded of a an incident in my own personal experience. Due to a failing on my part to renew my license to drive in a timely manner I was required to take a driving test to

  • Safety Issues? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by KermodeBear ( 738243 ) on Sunday April 10, 2016 @03:38PM (#51880581) Homepage

    "We want to show there's inequality in safety in our industry,

    Want to fix your safety inequality because males tend to be stronger and more aggressive? Start carrying a pistol. Will it solve all problems? No, but being armed can prevent a bad situation from escalating to a Very Bad situation.

    • by Snufu ( 1049644 )

      and the presence of guns can turn a Very Bad situation into a lethal one.

      • That's not a bug, it's a feature. A very bad situation is a women getting raped, the scum getting away, and the woman reporting the attack to the police. A lethal situation is the woman reporting the death of that scum to the police. While I will not wish death upon anyone I hope God may forgive me if I don't shed a tear for one more rapist killed.

  • by pereric ( 528017 ) on Sunday April 10, 2016 @03:47PM (#51880619) Homepage

    Both Uber and this service seems to provide a service where you order someone to drive you somewhere, without that person actually having any errand of their own to that place. To me that's not "ridesharing", it's taxi. "Ridesharing" to me is when you intend to drive somewhere, and check if someone else wish to ride along. And share expenses like fuel and perhaps vehicle depreciation, but nothing more.

    Just having drivers being independent contractors instead of employed doesn't make a big difference end-user-wise to me (well except a lack of quality control, as shown by Uber) - it's still functionally a taxi service. This service (with good intentions) seems to make it even more like regular taxi operations by also emphasizing background checks and such.

    Have I misunderstood "ridesharing", or are the "ridesharing" companies just trying to change the word to use for their "sure-not-a-taxi" taxi service?

  • by MBGMorden ( 803437 ) on Sunday April 10, 2016 @04:49PM (#51880943)

    This whole thing is stupid and accusatory. Basically, the idea seems to be that if you're male, you're automatically suspected of being a rapist or mugger.

    That's OK. If I want to use the service I'll just decide to identify as a girl (a really, really butch girl) for the duration of the ride. Just because I identify as a woman doesn't mean I can't wear short hair, a t-shirt/jeans, and men's cologne . . .

  • by EEPROMS ( 889169 ) on Sunday April 10, 2016 @05:43PM (#51881167)
    Many IT professionals complained they had issues with Uber drivers who ask inane technical questions once they found out their customer was an IT professional. This has lead to a new taxi service where all the drivers must have advanced emacs and vi skills thus helping their customers avoid having to ask the driver "have you tried turning it off and on again".
    • by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Monday April 11, 2016 @02:21AM (#51882663)

      What a stupid idea. You're just going to alienate potential customers who will feel threatened by their drivers.

      I will start a ride sharing service where the drivers have advanced knowledge in emacs alone, and potential customers need to show they aren't vi users before they get on.

  • by JustNiz ( 692889 ) on Sunday April 10, 2016 @05:55PM (#51881207)

    Without any actual stats to back them up, I'm far more inclined to believe that this is just more feminazi man-hating bullshit than the result of a real epidemic of rapist Uber drivers.

  • by slashmydots ( 2189826 ) on Sunday April 10, 2016 @11:13PM (#51882275)
    Ever heard of the term "personal responsibility." I don't go to the gas station at night with a wallet full of money without my taser and my pistol. If you live in some backwards anti-gun liberal shit hole that doesn't let you carry one, MOVE. At the very least get some pepper spray.
  • German railway introduces women-only carriages.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]

    Something is going the wrong way.

  • by MitchDev ( 2526834 ) on Monday April 11, 2016 @07:01AM (#51883261)

    Discrimination against men.

    The law works both ways, bitches

Think of it! With VLSI we can pack 100 ENIACs in 1 sq. cm.!

Working...