Current Events > Uber driver raped a woman in his car while taking her home from a work party

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4449948/Uber-driver-charged-raping-California-woman-car.html

Angel Sanchez, 37, allegedly attacked the woman on the evening of March 30

Woman was at work party when friends hailed ride because she was intoxicated

Sanchez allegedly drove her to street near her Santa Ana home before attacking

Uber driver, who has been with company for a year, is facing eight years in jail
---

It's only 8 years in Cali for criminal sexual assault?

does uber require camera in car?
---

dumbass friends didn't see her home
---

This is why that Uber for Women only (sorry, I'm forgetting the actual company's name) will catch on. Stories like this are sadly too common.
---

ModLogic posted...

dumbass friends didn't see her home

And what about the piece of shit uber driver? We've seen these stories many times.
---

FrisbeeDude posted...

This is why that Uber for Women only (sorry, I'm forgetting the actual company's name) will catch on. Stories like this are sadly too common.

This company actually seems like the perfect environment for predators: easy job, no skills required, just need your own car, no employment screening, random strangers usually drunk or down on their luck calling you for a lift.
---

FrisbeeDude posted...

This is why that Uber for Women only (sorry, I'm forgetting the actual company's name) will catch on.

Cabracadabra?
---

FrisbeeDude posted...

This is why that Uber for Women only (sorry, I'm forgetting the actual company's name) will catch on. Stories like this are sadly too common.

I bet you're for separate bathrooms too.
---

FrisbeeDude posted...

This is why that Uber for Women only (sorry, I'm forgetting the actual company's name) will catch on. Stories like this are sadly too common.

We really do need a woman only Uber.
---

That's goddamn tragic, if true. Why doesn't Uber have a camera policy?
---

armandro posted...

FrisbeeDude posted...

This is why that Uber for Women only (sorry, I'm forgetting the actual company's name) will catch on. Stories like this are sadly too common.

I bet you're for separate bathrooms too.

Imagine being this defensive about women feeling safer getting random rides from other women ESPECIALLY given the numerous stories of assault by Lyft and Uber drivers.
---

Leanaunfurled posted...

That's goddamn tragic, if true. Why doesn't Uber have a camera policy?

Do city cabs have a camera-policy? I can only speak on Chicago cabs, which do have them installed.

EnterTheTekken posted...

Leanaunfurled posted...

That's goddamn tragic, if true. Why doesn't Uber have a camera policy?

Do city cabs have a camera-policy? I can only speak on Chicago cabs, which do have them installed.

I really don't know. another con of living where I do, I've never been in a taxi before and only rode Uber twice while out-of-state. I would assume any kind of ride company would enforce a camera policy for things like this, though?
---

http://observer.com/2016/04/all-female-ride-sharing-app-is-launching-nationwide-after-overwhelming-demand/

Sorry guys from the "Why won't women let me hit on them in any public situation" school of thought, but women want this.
---

FrisbeeDude posted...

Sorry guys from the "Why won't women let me hit on them in any public situation" school of thought, but women want this.

So...what are you trying to say exactly?
---

If I were the Uber CEO, I would have come after this guy with the wrath of a thousand suns for staining my company's reputation.

FrisbeeDude posted...

This is why that Uber for Women only (sorry, I'm forgetting the actual company's name) will catch on. Stories like this are sadly too common.

Oh my...
---

According to SafeHer’s website states, a women only car service is the untapped market that Uber and Lyft neglected. However, a similar app known as SheRides (formally SheTaxis) attempted to get off the ground in 2014. The app, which currently isn’t available, is supposed to re-launch this summer.

What genius thought "SheRides" was a good name lol.
---

I mean the CEO of Uber is part of the Trump cabinet so it's not exactly surprising they would enforce a policy like this.
---

Another good look for Uber. Guy is scum and deserves much more than 8 years if found guilty.

And yes, in-cab cameras should be mandatory for anyone in the cabbing business, for both the customer's and cabbie's protection.
---

Leanaunfurled posted...

EnterTheTekken posted...

Leanaunfurled posted...

That's goddamn tragic, if true. Why doesn't Uber have a camera policy?

Do city cabs have a camera-policy? I can only speak on Chicago cabs, which do have them installed.

I really don't know. another con of living where I do, I've never been in a taxi before and only rode Uber twice while out-of-state. I would assume any kind of ride company would enforce a camera policy for things like this, though?

I'm sure there would be a liability issue where Uber would have to take that on if a camera "malfunctions" and a crime is committed. If Uber is willing to extend their liability insurance is the question.

Or who is responsible for purchase, installation, and maintenance of these devices, which could come at high costs. And who eats those costs?

FrisbeeDude posted...

armandro posted...

FrisbeeDude posted...

This is why that Uber for Women only (sorry, I'm forgetting the actual company's name) will catch on. Stories like this are sadly too common.

I bet you're for separate bathrooms too.

Imagine being this defensive about women feeling safer getting random rides from other women ESPECIALLY given the numerous stories of assault by Lyft and Uber drivers.

so segregation is the solution?

pretty lazy one if you ask me.
---

RIdeAustin offers options for female only drivers. But its available to both men and women and I don't know of anyone who has actually taken advantage of the offer.

It's interesting that this is coming closer and closer to reality because my final writing assignment in my first year of law school was about the legality of a female only driver service under sex discrimination laws.
---

EnterTheTekken posted...

Leanaunfurled posted...

EnterTheTekken posted...

Leanaunfurled posted...

That's goddamn tragic, if true. Why doesn't Uber have a camera policy?

Do city cabs have a camera-policy? I can only speak on Chicago cabs, which do have them installed.

I really don't know. another con of living where I do, I've never been in a taxi before and only rode Uber twice while out-of-state. I would assume any kind of ride company would enforce a camera policy for things like this, though?

I'm sure there would be a liability issue where Uber would have to take that on if a camera "malfunctions" and a crime is committed. If Uber is willing to extend their liability insurance is the question.

Or who is responsible for purchase, installation, and maintenance of these devices, which could come at high costs. And who eats those costs?

You can buy an HD camera for your car for like thirty bucks. I have one right next to my police radar and some other stuff.
---

This woulda happened to that one guy had he not been filming the whole ride
---

REMercsChamp posted...

no employment screening

Well that's not true.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

armandro posted...

FrisbeeDude posted...

armandro posted...

FrisbeeDude posted...

This is why that Uber for Women only (sorry, I'm forgetting the actual company's name) will catch on. Stories like this are sadly too common.

I bet you're for separate bathrooms too.

Imagine being this defensive about women feeling safer getting random rides from other women ESPECIALLY given the numerous stories of assault by Lyft and Uber drivers.

so segregation is the solution?

pretty lazy one if you ask me.

What would be your solution?

A company like Uber or Lyft that makes more of an effort in making sure their customers feel safe using their service and giving them more options. If that doesn't happen, I see no reason why people shouldn't go with an alternative. People's safety isn't something that can be compromised.
---

gatorsPENSbucs posted...

REMercsChamp posted...

no employment screening

Well that's not true.

What's the interview?

"Hey man you got a car?"

"Yeah"

"Can you drink only one 6-pack of beer the day you drive? Hired!"
---

Asherlee10 posted...

legendary_zell posted...

It's interesting that this is coming closer and closer to reality because my final writing assignment in my first year of law school was about the legality of a female only driver service under sex discrimination laws.

Would you be willing to share of the points you addressed?

Sure. So I ended up writing on the side of the hypothetical person opposing the legality of the driver service. That has strongly colored my views because I haven't rigorously thought about the other side.

Discrimination law is a general prohibition on sex discrimination which includes hiring bans or hiring exclusively hiring one gender over another. But that's not the end of the story. Title VII allows even blatant sex/gender discrimination if it is essential to the business and gender is a bona fide occupational qualification (a technical term).

So the debate focuses on what the business is exactly. If it's generally defined as "the taxi business", a female only driver service would be in trouble. If it's defined as "a taxi business that caters to clientele x", then that's more favorable to the taxi service. You would be debating whether that extra service/benefit of peace of mind is essential to the business.

Then you'd move on to whether gender based classifications are the only practicable/reasonable way to achieve that. If it is, that would make being female a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). If you can find other ways to achieve the same peace of mind, then the service is in trouble, if you can't, they're probably fine. But the "essential to the business" part and "BFOQ" part overlap here because there's a core question about whether it's a valid goal to have a woman only business for people like rape survivors where its simply the status of being a male that makes people uncomfortable with male drivers, not anything the guy has done. There's a question whether a business can choose to open a business to serve these people and thus define that peace of mind as essential to the business when they know that will inevitably lead to blatant gender discrimination
---

Asherlee10 posted...

armandro posted...

FrisbeeDude posted...

armandro posted...

FrisbeeDude posted...

This is why that Uber for Women only (sorry, I'm forgetting the actual company's name) will catch on. Stories like this are sadly too common.

I bet you're for separate bathrooms too.

Imagine being this defensive about women feeling safer getting random rides from other women ESPECIALLY given the numerous stories of assault by Lyft and Uber drivers.

so segregation is the solution?

pretty lazy one if you ask me.

What would be your solution?

This is a difficult question.
---

He raped her while driving? Sounds dangerous.

EnterTheTekken posted...

It's only 8 years in Cali for criminal sexual assault?

murderers sometimes get less than that
---

itachi15243 posted...

EnterTheTekken posted...

Leanaunfurled posted...

EnterTheTekken posted...

Leanaunfurled posted...

That's goddamn tragic, if true. Why doesn't Uber have a camera policy?

Do city cabs have a camera-policy? I can only speak on Chicago cabs, which do have them installed.

I really don't know. another con of living where I do, I've never been in a taxi before and only rode Uber twice while out-of-state. I would assume any kind of ride company would enforce a camera policy for things like this, though?

I'm sure there would be a liability issue where Uber would have to take that on if a camera "malfunctions" and a crime is committed. If Uber is willing to extend their liability insurance is the question.

Or who is responsible for purchase, installation, and maintenance of these devices, which could come at high costs. And who eats those costs?

You can buy an HD camera for your car for like thirty bucks. I have one right next to my police radar and some other stuff.

You are right. That's YOUR camera. You have control over it, when it records, and where the footage uploads to. That's not a secure enough option and there's no guarantee where the footage goes if something occurs in the vehicle.

Uber themselves would have to provide the cameras, install them into their driver's vehicles, and host a database to house the surveillance feeds. The question is whether they are willing to go that extra mile.

Asherlee10 posted...

legendary_zell posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

legendary_zell posted...

It's interesting that this is coming closer and closer to reality because my final writing assignment in my first year of law school was about the legality of a female only driver service under sex discrimination laws.

Would you be willing to share of the points you addressed?

Sure. So I ended up writing on the side of the hypothetical person opposing the legality of the driver service. That has strongly colored my views because I haven't rigorously thought about the other side.

Discrimination law is a general prohibition on sex discrimination which includes hiring bans or hiring exclusively hiring one gender over another. But that's not the end of the story. Title VII allows even blatant sex/gender discrimination if it is essential to the business and gender is a bona fide occupational qualification (a technical term).

So the debate focuses on what the business is exactly. If it's generally defined as "the taxi business", a female only driver service would be in trouble. If it's defined as "a taxi business that caters to clientele x", then that's more favorable to the taxi service. You would be debating whether that extra service/benefit of peace of mind is essential to the business.

Then you'd move on to whether gender based classifications are the only practicable/reasonable way to achieve that. If it is, that would make being female a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). If you can find other ways to achieve the same peace of mind, then the service is in trouble, if you can't, they're probably fine. But the "essential to the business" part and "BFOQ" part overlap here because there's a core question about whether it's a valid goal to have a woman only business for people like rape survivors where its simply the status of being a male that makes people uncomfortable with male drivers, not anything the guy has done. There's a question whether a business can choose to open a business to serve these people and thus define that peace of mind as essential to the business when they know that will inevitably lead to blatant gender discrimination

Very interesting perspectives. Thanks for sharing, definitely something to think about. I've not considered the points brought up.

armandro posted...

This is a difficult question.

Sure. I think it's a fair question, however. You seem hardlined about this sort of separation. Why is that?

I don't have all the answers I just know that its a bad idea.
we all need to come together not be separate.
---

FrisbeeDude posted...

armandro posted...

FrisbeeDude posted...

This is why that Uber for Women only (sorry, I'm forgetting the actual company's name) will catch on. Stories like this are sadly too common.

I bet you're for separate bathrooms too.

Imagine being this defensive about women feeling safer getting random rides from other women ESPECIALLY given the numerous stories of assault by Lyft and Uber drivers.

I'm pretty sure he was joking considering that we already do have seperated bathrooms...
---

Leanaunfurled posted...

What genius thought "SheRides" was a good name lol.

---

Kitt posted...

FrisbeeDude posted...

armandro posted...

FrisbeeDude posted...

This is why that Uber for Women only (sorry, I'm forgetting the actual company's name) will catch on. Stories like this are sadly too common.

I bet you're for separate bathrooms too.

Imagine being this defensive about women feeling safer getting random rides from other women ESPECIALLY given the numerous stories of assault by Lyft and Uber drivers.

I'm pretty sure he was joking considering that we already do have seperated bathrooms...

:O
pls dont tell them my jokes!
---

Asherlee10 posted...

armandro posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

legendary_zell posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

legendary_zell posted...

It's interesting that this is coming closer and closer to reality because my final writing assignment in my first year of law school was about the legality of a female only driver service under sex discrimination laws.

Would you be willing to share of the points you addressed?

Sure. So I ended up writing on the side of the hypothetical person opposing the legality of the driver service. That has strongly colored my views because I haven't rigorously thought about the other side.

Discrimination law is a general prohibition on sex discrimination which includes hiring bans or hiring exclusively hiring one gender over another. But that's not the end of the story. Title VII allows even blatant sex/gender discrimination if it is essential to the business and gender is a bona fide occupational qualification (a technical term).

So the debate focuses on what the business is exactly. If it's generally defined as "the taxi business", a female only driver service would be in trouble. If it's defined as "a taxi business that caters to clientele x", then that's more favorable to the taxi service. You would be debating whether that extra service/benefit of peace of mind is essential to the business.

Then you'd move on to whether gender based classifications are the only practicable/reasonable way to achieve that. If it is, that would make being female a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). If you can find other ways to achieve the same peace of mind, then the service is in trouble, if you can't, they're probably fine. But the "essential to the business" part and "BFOQ" part overlap here because there's a core question about whether it's a valid goal to have a woman only business for people like rape survivors where its simply the status of being a male that makes people uncomfortable with male drivers, not anything the guy has done. There's a question whether a business can choose to open a business to serve these people and thus define that peace of mind as essential to the business when they know that will inevitably lead to blatant gender discrimination

Very interesting perspectives. Thanks for sharing, definitely something to think about. I've not considered the points brought up.

armandro posted...

This is a difficult question.

Sure. I think it's a fair question, however. You seem hardlined about this sort of separation. Why is that?

I don't have all the answers I just know that its a bad idea.
we all need to come together not be separate.

Why do you think separation in the case of women using women uber drivers is a bad idea?

Women always get the short end of the stick.
they'll prob have slower pickup times
cost more maybe too since less pick ups
IDK
---