Uber Face Fines Over Drunk Driving Complaints -- And Lost $2.8 Billion Last Year (usnews.com) 134
While Uber's bookings doubled last year, the company still showed a net lost of $2.8 billion. And now, "California regulators are recommending that Uber pay a $1.13 million fine for not investigating rider complaints that drivers were working intoxicated." An anonymous reader writes:
California "requires ride-hailing companies to have a zero-tolerance policy for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs," notes Reuters -- and yet Tuesday's order reports that investigators "found no evidence that (Uber) followed up in any way with zero-tolerance complaints several hours or even one full day after passengers filed such complaints." Investigators from the state's Public Utilities Commission are asking the full commission to examine their findings,
"To confirm the policy, regulators analyzed selected complaints against drivers who received three or more complaints," Reuters reports. Though Uber has sometimes suspended drivers within one hour of customer complaints -- 22 times -- they've apparently received 2,047 drug- or alcohol-related complaints between August 2014 and August of 2015. "The company said drivers were banned from working in 574 of those complaints, according to the order. But regulators then reviewed 154 complaints, and determined that the company failed to promptly suspend drivers in 149 complaints. The company also failed to investigate 133 complaints, and did not suspend a driver or investigate 113 complaints, the order shows... In at least 25 instances, Uber failed to suspend or investigate a driver after three or more complaints, the order states."
An Uber spokeswoman said the company had no comment, but "Adding to Uber's challenges, a Reuters investigation found a ten-fold increase in attacks on drivers in Sao Paulo last year, including several murders, after the start of cash payments on its platform at the end of July." And in addition, a judge in Brazil ruled last week that Uber's drivers are employees, which could make Uber liable for a variety of benefits, following a similar ruling in another Brazilian state court.
But there's also some good news for Uber. A court in Rome suspended a ban on Uber in Italy until the company finishes its legal appeal, and a two-month suspension in Taiwan also came to an end after Uber agreed to partner with license rental car companies.
"To confirm the policy, regulators analyzed selected complaints against drivers who received three or more complaints," Reuters reports. Though Uber has sometimes suspended drivers within one hour of customer complaints -- 22 times -- they've apparently received 2,047 drug- or alcohol-related complaints between August 2014 and August of 2015. "The company said drivers were banned from working in 574 of those complaints, according to the order. But regulators then reviewed 154 complaints, and determined that the company failed to promptly suspend drivers in 149 complaints. The company also failed to investigate 133 complaints, and did not suspend a driver or investigate 113 complaints, the order shows... In at least 25 instances, Uber failed to suspend or investigate a driver after three or more complaints, the order states."
An Uber spokeswoman said the company had no comment, but "Adding to Uber's challenges, a Reuters investigation found a ten-fold increase in attacks on drivers in Sao Paulo last year, including several murders, after the start of cash payments on its platform at the end of July." And in addition, a judge in Brazil ruled last week that Uber's drivers are employees, which could make Uber liable for a variety of benefits, following a similar ruling in another Brazilian state court.
But there's also some good news for Uber. A court in Rome suspended a ban on Uber in Italy until the company finishes its legal appeal, and a two-month suspension in Taiwan also came to an end after Uber agreed to partner with license rental car companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A court's primary jobs (at least in the US) is to interpret the law as written and considering precedents and to legally decide matters of fact. Striking a law down is rare, although it does tend to make the news more than the latest civil trial between two companies. Most laws are perfectly legal. Most of the bills introduced in Congress and state legislatures that would be illegal are political grandstanding only and die a quiet death in committee, once the sponsors' constituents have forgotten about
2.8 Billion (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:2.8 Billion (Score:4, Insightful)
If Uber pulls off what they're trying to do
What they're trying to do is what all corporations run by psychopaths is trying to do: Be the perfect cancer.
And they should be treated as such.
Re:2.8 Billion (Score:5, Insightful)
Any sane society would shut Uber down for what it is; a ponzi scheme that abuses and asset-strips labor.
The regulators and drivers will shut them down well before anyone gets fully reliable self-driving automobiles on the market.
This is Enron all over again.
Abusing labor isn't their long term goal (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Millennials were born between ~1980 to the mid '90s. Plenty, or even most, Millennials have cars.
I'm a Millennial and don't know a single one that doesn't have a car.
Re: (Score:2)
If they have children, well guess who will be "helping" them to enable their bosses to keep going paying them peanuts;
if they do not have children, they will be heavily taxed, and their gold and savings directly confiscated, or savings severely diminished due to negative taxation.
Having a car is also being heavily taxed, both in gas, in repairs, in absurd sale
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that you also rob a lot of independency to old folks who cannot already walk very well, and depend on a car every day to do their small errands.
Re: (Score:2)
Given enough hardship, people will vote for change. Clearly, they won't necessarily vote intelligently, but either the powers that be will go along or there will be chaos.
Re: (Score:2)
We already have negative taxes in the banks.-
Everyone and their dog are outsourcing many jobs to Philippines/India/Former Eastern Block countries, being broadband a reality nowadays.
In Europe and USA you still have a momentum/inertia in the economy with the old generation dipping into their economies and retirement packages, that somehow still hold some value after all these years of inflation to support the younger generations. That generation is dwindling btw, and w
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking about bad things happening. I'm talking about the reaction to bad things.
This is something the elites at least should be worrying about. If things get too bad, there will be Changes, and the elites won't like that. It looks to me like the majority don't want to live in third-world countries, and they definitely don't want to be first up against the wall when the Revolution comes. To a small extent, we're all in this together.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think all those people voted for Trump? It wasn't because he was a reasonable, moral, honest, or intellectual individual. Sanders came close to winning the Democratic nomination despite not being a Democrat.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why they're banned in Germany and the Netherlands. We have enough problems with normal taxi companies as it is.
Re:2.8 Billion (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh please. If taxis could ever have been "the defacto transportation system for the entire world", it would've happened decades ago. Having a phone app is an improvement, but not THAT much of an improvement.
And plenty of companies "try" to conquer the world. That doesn't give them the right or ability to handwave away a $3 billion dollar loss based upon their CEO's future dreamworld where they earn $25 trillion a second.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd be just as well off investing in a cold fusion company.
Re:2.8 Billion (Score:5, Interesting)
isn't a lot of money given what's at stake. If Uber pulls off what they're trying to do they'll become the defacto transportation system for basically the entire modern world.
Uber is losing money on every single ride. That's where the $2.8B went last year: paying drivers. If that money-losing model become a "defacto" transportation system for the entire modern world, it will mean that the bulk of the GDP will be spent on paying drivers to move people around. This is so fucking absurd I really don't get how educated people can even consider that as a serious possibility. The numbers just don't add up.
There's only 2 way Uber can turn a profit:
1) increase their prices to a point where cabs are a lot cheaper
2) use self-driving cars that are cheap to build and operate, and find someone to subsidize production on a massive scale
If they were anywhere near a breakthrough with their self-driving cars, things would be different. But they're not. They've used the worst possible strategy for their business: acquire shitloads of customers long before they can be monetized. They started on that path at a time when it was all the rage in Silicon Valley (case in point: Twitter). But that's not going to work. Tesla, Amazon and Google are all in a much better position to take over this market if it ever becomes cost-effective because they will have the technology to make it happen. Uber only has an app that a handful of RoR retarded programmers could recreate in a week.
A good chunk is (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:A good chunk is (Score:4, Interesting)
Stop guessing stuff. A "good chunk" is NOT on research and patents. Of the $2.8B loss, a bit over $2.6B went to drivers. Uber is trying to kill the competition by subsidizing their drivers with investors money.
Even if it was to work, it's still not worth it.
Do the math. Average cab fare: $14. In NYC there's about 240 millions taxi trips per year. So roughly. that's a revenue of $3.4B. About half of it goes to car expenses (acquisition, fuel, repairs, etc). The other half goes to drivers.
On a national scale, the revenue is around $11B. This means that if Uber was to take over 100% of the taxi market and replace those 250,000 cars with self-driving cars (that don't exist yet) that are not more expensive than existing non-self-driving cars, they would stand to make an annual profit equivalent to what Facebook makes in profit every quarter. And they start with a huge debt of almost $10B.
There's no money in that business. Costs are too high.
Re:A good chunk is (Score:4, Informative)
Stop guessing stuff. A "good chunk" is NOT on research and patents. Of the $2.8B loss, a bit over $2.6B went to drivers. Uber is trying to kill the competition by subsidizing their drivers with investors money.
People are obviously happy with Uber rides being cheap. And then they think that Uber has some excellent ideas and implements them well, and that's why they are cheap. WRONG. It's very easy to offer cheap rides if you just subsidize every ride with investors' money.
In China drivers were paid more than the customer paid at some point, so clever drivers let the whole family book rides, didn't drive anyone, paid back the ride fees, and kept the difference in their pocket. Free money, straight from the pocket of an investor into the pocket of a driver in China.
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed]. Where are you getting your data? The linked article doesn't give data like that and Uber is still private so there aren't SEC 10-k filings for them. From an accounting standpoint, Uber doesn't pay drivers, they give them the portion of the fare that the driver earned (at least in the US). Drivers are not Uber employees, they are independent contractors that have a relationship with Uber for booking and payments in the driver's taxi business. Uber doesn't recognize the portion of fare
Re: (Score:2)
It was on wired a while ago:
According to analysis by Horan, Uber passengers are only paying 41 per cent of the actual cost of a trip, with Uber using subsidies to undercut rivals and potentially achieve a monopoly.
http://www.wired.co.uk/article... [wired.co.uk]
You can also check on bloomberg, they discussed financials with Uber.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It worked for Amazon. It might work for Uber too.
Uber has an app, a lot of users, huge debts and no profit in sight. They're not like Amazon, they're more like twitter.
You can buy toilet paper, books and flat screen TV on Amazon. That's a huge barrier to entry for the competition. On the other hand, writing an app that includes gps and credit card payments is something pretty much anyone can achieve. If there was money in that business, there would be competition.
Re: (Score:2)
The taxi industry revenue in the US alone is $19 billion. Uber is global(ish). $10 billion isn't a huge debt. They had revenue of $6.5 billion and an increase of 100% of bookings last year. The theory is that you lose a lot of money now, but due to the large growth you will eventually get positive. It worked for Amazon. It might work for Uber too.
If Uber had all that $19 billion in revenue in the US but still made a loss, the company would logically have a negative value.
Presumably, Uber's plan is to put its competitors out of business so that it can then ramp up its charges dramatically and make a profit.
If this was Microsoft doing something similar, everyone here would be up in arms demanding the Government fined them out of existence.
Re: A good chunk is (Score:2)
Of the $2.8B loss, a bit over $2.6B went to drivers.
Now that's funny... they had to pay their drivers and "apparently took a loss doing so." I wonder if they'll ever figure out where to source those funds from...
Re: (Score:2)
Of the $2.8B loss, a bit over $2.6B went to drivers.
Now that's funny... they had to pay their drivers and "apparently took a loss doing so." I wonder if they'll ever figure out where to source those funds from...
Customers pay 41% of the actual price on each ride. Someone has to pay the difference. That's where the $2.6B loss comes from.
Re: (Score:2)
In Michigan they calcuated it would be cheaper to hire Uber to carry bus passengers door to door rather than create an enormous multi-county bus service.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because they're getting Uber's investors to subsidize their "transit" system. This is nothing more than the greater fool theory writ large, eventually it will come crashing down like all the other boneheaded dotcoms that have gone bust over the past 20 years.
Re: (Score:2)
In Michigan they calcuated it would be cheaper to hire Uber to carry bus passengers door to door rather than create an enormous multi-county bus service.
If I had enough foolhardy investors backing me, I could give Michigan (or anywhere else) a completely free bus/taxi service.
Re: (Score:3)
"There's only 2 way Uber can turn a profit:"
Oh, ye of little imagination ...
3) Uber has a captive audience in every car. Ask yourself what Google and Facebook and TV networks do with their captive audience.
4) Uber has vast knowledge about where people go, and inferences about what people do as well as their financial and social status. Ask yourself what Google and Facebook do with similar information.
5) Uber's various conflicts with worldwide governments become an asset as they learn how to manipulate and c
Re: (Score:3)
...If Uber pulls off what they're trying to do they'll become the defacto transportation system for basically the entire modern world. Now, any sane society would just have public transportation instead of "Public Transportation with a private company skimming 20% off the top...
Part of what makes Uber unique is the fact that they employ humans, which is a considerable benefit for any sane society to see value in.
If Uber "pulls off" autonomous vehicles (essentially the only road to a sustainable business model), they fucking will be public transportation with a greedy company skimming 20% off the top.
The larger concern is they may force all other competition off the proverbial road in the process, ensuring that your "defacto" option is the only monopoly in town. You thought cab f
Re: (Score:3)
Wait until that shit happens and insurance companies make it financially impossible to afford to own a car or let a "dangerous" human drive one."
People keep saying this but there is the reality of rural America (most of America geographically speaking). If you live in the city or burbs this seams reasonable. Where I live we have mostly farmers driving their 15 year old pickups around. These often have farm use plates (important point here). Normal registrations, plates, and full rate insurance would already be to much for this market. So the state and insurers have already carved out exceptions. More carve outs will be made.
I expect what we wi
Re: (Score:3)
I tell the difference between a dirt road and an ATV trail, because I just can.
The way to tell the difference between a dirt road and a paved road in NM is that the dirt road has fewer potholes. I expect ATV trails are better still.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. A sane society would like a business that employed few people better. Of course, the sane society would also have a better way of dealing with the unemployed and/or a better way to help create more jobs for the displaced humans to do.
Re: (Score:2)
The state gets significant revenue by licensing and fuel and other. Don't think everyone will give it up so easy. Driving is as much of a perceived right as gun ownership.
Once autonomous driving safety records outshine humans behind the wheel by a considerable margin, there will be a price to pay to maintain the luxury of human driving, in much the same way you pay a premium today for the luxury of driving around a 1960's sports car that doesn't have any airbags, ABS, anti-theft, or other modern features that qualify as deductibles.
People won't give it up because they want to. They may give it up because they have to, due to liability and greed.
Re: (Score:2)
isn't a lot of money given what's at stake. If Uber pulls off what they're trying to do they'll become the defacto transportation system for basically the entire modern world.
It is a lot, because Uber have very little chance of doing that. In terms of self driving cars, they are one of a large number of players. There's nothing much to indicate that they have any particular advantage over anyone else in that regard either.
In terms of taxis, well, they're just taxis. App based ride hailing complete with dri
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck GTR. Fuck Southern and fuck the Tories.
Jeremy Corbyn should adapt this as his slogan, even the most diehard conservative would have to agree with two thirds of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, any sane society would just have public transportation instead of "Public Transportation with a private company skimming 20% off the top"
Only if the government-run model were less expensive.
Many government programs are only 30% efficient. 80% would be seen as a miracle in most of the public sphere.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to give them credit for taking advantage of stupid and/or desperate investors along with desperate ordinary people.
How is that possible? (Score:1, Interesting)
a net lost of $2.8 billion
How can a company continue to operate and attract investors / high valuation with $2.8 billion losses?
California "requires ride-hailing companies to have a zero-tolerance policy for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs,"
That's a deeply meaningful policy definition. What about someone who had too much coffee?
Also, are some companies in California allowed to have a 1-tolerance policy?
Re:How is that possible? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not complicated. Zero tolerance just means any infraction. You're trying to be clever by conflating tolerance with blood alcohol level or somesuch. One tolerance would be that one conviction is allowed. It's not complicated.
Also, coffee isn't a drug for the purposes of the law in so far as driving is concerned. Honestly, I don't know what you think you're illuminating here. We probably agree Uber is money pit. But none of the other stuff you said makes any sense.
Re: (Score:3)
But that isn't at all what the state is talking about. They are not talking about DUI convictions, or even arrests. They are talking about complaints.
Meaning, some customer reported that they thought their driver was drunk or on drugs.
What does zero tolerance mean in this context?
A taxi company doesn't have an app for rating every ride. So you have to really, really want to complain. And how well is that tracked?
So now does it make more sense to question what "zero tolerance" means? Surely they don't m
Re: (Score:2)
Sure they do.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure they do.
Some do now, most don't, and if you call the taxi company and complain that they were late, or didn't come, or that you were raped, they will ignore you. (Two of my personal friends can attest to that last one.)
Re: (Score:2)
It's called a phone.
Re: (Score:2)
California "requires ride-hailing companies to have a zero-tolerance policy for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs,"
That's a deeply meaningful policy definition. What about someone who had too much coffee?
If someone has consumed enough coffee that their ability to drive is impaired, then yes, they would probably be arrested for DUI. For the vast majority of people, one or two cups of coffee won't impair them at all. Whether or not "enough" is above the LD50 level, I don't know.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you kidding? At this rate, Uber Corporation will become president in 2020.
Re: (Score:2)
uber is basically the manifestation of the current investment bubble.
the fundamentals are bullshit
the company is just evil in it's dealings with their drivers
taxi cartels aren't exactly the optimal solution, but neither is uber.
By 2020 they'll be out of business.
bet they're still eating well (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How does a company like Uber lose $$? (Score:2)
I mean, to me, UBER is just some form of app running company...with a few servers to handle ride requests; and some hook up to Credit Card companies.
I guess I do not get it but where does such a huge the loss come from really?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:How does a company like Uber lose $$? (Score:5, Interesting)
I was wondering the same thing.
Theoretically they are operating in the black at the lowest level - the cost of a ride is less than the company pays their drivers.
App development and hosting is in the millions, not billions.
So that leaves advertising and legal fees, right? $2.8 Billion Dollars.... in legal fees and advertising. Wow. Just.... Wow.
So if each high-profile case runs around $10 million in legal fees.... that's, what? .... a couple hundred cases? Hmm... Ok. Worldwide.... I suppose that is plausible.
But with that they'd still have to be operating at only break-even on the rest of their operations. How is that possible? They don't have any employees to speak of. They only get a cut of orders for other people. They claim to have netted $6.5 billion on bookings of $20 billion. And still they lost almost $3 billion.
That is simply a stunning number. How can their costs possibly be $10 billion per year - above what drivers make? That's just a colossal amount of money for a middle-man. .........So I google.... and find that there are some leaked financial documents running around. Apparently they are paying drivers in places like China 50% more than they are charging the customer, as a "driver incentive". So they lost a billion a year in the china market, because driver incentives were 154% of revenues.
Well... that would explain it then. Next question.... why exactly are they paying drivers more than they charge the customer?
Re: (Score:2)
why exactly are they paying drivers more than they charge the customer?
So they'll have drivers?
Re: (Score:3)
Their business model appears to be effectively based upon self-driving vehicles. Human drivers are just a stop-gap for bootstrapping the business, so the investors subsidize your ride to get market share now, and later they will reap the profits when they can fire all their drivers.
Re: (Score:2)
Yahoo had "huuuge" market share. It may still have.
Any rental company teaming with a software shop has a good shot. Even a ZipCar type of outfit.
I guess Uber got lucky. The guy running the outfit seems to be your garden variety sociopath and has run out of ideas. What they need is someone like Zuckerber
Re: How does a company like Uber lose $$? (Score:2)
Network effects, deals, name recognition: the usual. Even if they only dominate the world market for a half decade, it could be worth a shit ton.
Re: (Score:2)
why exactly are they paying drivers more than they charge the customer?
Try: why are they charging customers less than they're paying drivers. Answer: So they'll have passengers and not have competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting question, considering the average Uber driver is making about $13/hr. How much less you think they're going to be able to pay?
Re: (Score:2)
App development and hosting is in the millions, not billions.
There is also the development of self-driving cars, based on technology that Google claims has been stolen from them, and for which Uber paid many hundred million dollars.
Re: (Score:1)
Uber subsidizes the cost of a ride to keep it's prices low in order to undercut the taxi industry (they lose money on each ride). Taxis have more fixed costs so they can't lower costs down to Uber's level. Just like every other company which does this (Walmart is a good example), if Uber manages to stay popular long enough it'll drive a lot of those taxi companies out of business, then it can raise prices with immunity and use its position to crush anything that challenges it. Taxis used to do that but p
Re: (Score:2)
Drivers. Basically Uber is spending $1.55 for every $1 people pay for their ride.
https://techcrunch.com/2016/12... [techcrunch.com]
Who Cares!!? (Score:2, Insightful)
Who the F*** is paying for all these stories about Uber and who cares so much about this one company?? It's insane. They get more press than any other company. Why should we care?? They're a big nothing, really.
Re: (Score:2)
Uber is, that's why they're losing so much money.
Re: (Score:2)
That wouldn't even surprise me. Making all kinds of noise about their money problems to position themselves for an acquisition by a company that has the means to make this business work.
But really I don't think it's going to happen. Google isn't buying companies like they used to, and the profit margin on transportation is razor thin, so it would be unlikely that a lot of companies would be interested to take on the massive debt.
Re: (Score:2)
They get so much press because:
1) They're an outlier in terms of unicorn funding, and also unicorn like losses.
2) Everyone wants to watch a slow motion train wreck.
In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
Uber drivers in several states have been reported cutting off mattress labels that plainly say, DO NOT REMOVE THIS TAG.
What about the stars? (Score:2)
Are riders not giving their drunk drivers zero stars? Or is the state of California just complaining that this system to remove drivers isn't fast ENOUGH?
Uber Bros are Exempt, Duh! (Score:1)
That's nothing (Score:1)
Uber: We lost 2.8 billion
Hillary Clinton: Hold my beer
Re: (Score:2)
More Complicated (Score:2)
I have very mixed feelings about Uber (and ride sharing in general), and I think it's hard not to when you really think about it.
One one hand, cost aside, the user experience for Uber is simply much better than cab companies. If I need a ride somewhere, all I have to do is pull up an app. It will tell me exactly how soon someone can get to me, when I will likely arrive at my destination, and how much it will cost. By contrast, if I call a cab, I have no idea where they will dispatch it from or when it wi
Bah. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
My bullshit detector just went off (Score:5, Informative)
All things considered, $2.8B USD isn't a whole lot.
Are you trying to be cool by association, dropping big numbers like that, or are you just terrible at math? $2.8 is a whole lot of money.
If Uber continues to succeed, they will be among giants such as Delta Air Lines and Greyhound but in a more local realm.
Uber has lost more money in 2016 than the entire revenue of Greyhound. Two more years of such losses and Uber will have lost more money than the entire fleet, equipments and offices of Delta are worth.
These guys are WAY more efficient than the public sector transit solutions and are more efficient than the government-sponsored Taxi Cartels. Uber only needs to not be shut down to grow and succeed.
No they're not. The bulk of the $2.8 loss is money paid to the drivers by Uber. Their business model is not sustainable unless they figure out a way to make self-driving cars work. Knowing the current state of technology, it's unlikely to happen before investors pull the plug.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:$2.8 Billion USD Isn't A Lot Of Money (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Delta filed for bankruptcy once, and Greyhound has gone bankrupt twice. Now, that's an efficient business model to aspire to.
Re: (Score:1)
Non-blacks get away with murder more often than blacks.
Okay - how much more often? 0.01% wouldn't really matter. 35% would. So, care to quantify or is this another drive-by posting?
If (and only if) that's true, why? Are non-black murderers smarter and harder to catch? IQ testing results broken down by racial lines would suggest yes. If not, why not and can you substantiate it?
There are five times more whites than blacks.
This suggests that murders generally happen at random. They don't. The vast majority of murder victims are murdered by someone who knows them. Thus, black males commit most murder
Re: Paradox (Score:2)
If it really is genetic (the racist point of view) then nothing anyone can do will change things because the problem is inherent.
And if you travel around, meet enough Africans and black Americans... you'll know it's not; it's clearly cultural.
Re: (Score:1)
Black males commit over 50% of all solved murder cases in the USA. They are about 6.5%-7% of the population. Most of these murders are black on black crime. Still, a white person is many times more likely to be shot by a black person, than vice-versa. Yet if you respond to these facts rationally - by avoiding blacks - you're somehow a bad person.
You're a bad person because you posted this off-topic shit on a Slashdot discussion about Uber.