I suppose now it's just a matter of time until a transphobe complains that the women-only option matched them with a trans woman.
Yup, and Uber will cave, saying cis women have a right to "be comfortable." They'll ignore that women being comfortable was the main justification for Jim Crow laws.
I don't like these policies and find them sexist. It is as if men were these wild creatures that women must stay away from and cannot be reasoned with. It is dehumanizing. How would you feel if I could choose not to take rides from people of color because of some bullshit statistic about them being more likely to commit crimes?
Except it’s not a bullshit statistic that men are more dangerous to women than other women.
Men are also more dangerous to men
Yes they are. To pretend like men aren't violent towards others is disingenuous. It's also true that men are more dangerous to women than other women.
It's not bullshit statistics.
Get over it.
While understandable, being able to request specific characteristics from your driver, like sex and gender, is putting drivers at risk even more than they already were. Like I can already think of a few dark scenarios and situations that are facilitated by this feature. In fact, this feature opens Uber drivers up as a much more viable source of victims for sex offences, robbery, stalking/inceldom, etc.
No, women being able to request female drivers doesn’t put them more at risk. It’s puts them much less at risk. Why are you making things up? You fantasizing about “dark scenarios” doesn’t make them likely.
If you have any friends…chances are you have one or more that have been sexually assaulted after hiring a ride…that’s how common it is.
you didn't understand their point.
being able to choose that a woman will show up increases the availability of somebody getting a woman to show up where they want. this is a non-zero increase in risk for that specific event.
So your logic is that because it’s theoretically possible for the system to be “gamed”…the option shouldn’t be available for anyone? SMH
Uber aren’t saints…they’re just reacting to behaviour that’s already happening: A customer can already “vet” their driver and choose somebody with lots of ratings and their preferred (declared) gender etc. This option isn’t creating any additional harm…all it’s doing is adding a filter…and therefore a niche for women who want to provide rides to females and vice versa.
A criminal lying about who they are won’t be exasperated or eliminated with this new option. There’s no downside.
I'm not reading your comment since you referred to it as "my" logic, btw
get some reading comprehension
I’d be curious to see if Lyft found that attacks on drivers increased when they started offering this. I wouldn’t think there would be that great of a difference honestly. Women drivers are already at increased risk in general.
This reminds me of a whole plot in BoJack Horseman
Does it come with extra airbags or an eject button?
Men are categorically worse drivers than women.
Source? I mean this was a joke and doesn't matter but w/e.
I found some more sources for you:
"There are more licensed female drivers in the U.S. than male drivers. But men nonetheless drive far more than women each year.
A disproportionate share of fatal traffic accidents involves male drivers, particularly when speeding or alcohol use is a contributing factor. Overall, male drivers were involved in over 72% of fatal car accidents in the U.S. in 2023."
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/insurance/male-vs-female-driving-statistics.html
"For nearly every year from 1975 to 2023, the number of male crash deaths was more than twice the number of female crash deaths."
https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/fatality-statistics/detail/males-and-females
"The results indicate that young women who exhibit high-risk driving behavior deviate more from the general population of young women with respect to alcohol use, alcohol misuse, and marijuana use than high-risk-driving young men differ from other young men. In addition, findings indicate that even if young men and women were to eventually have equal levels of substance use, women would likely retain their lower-risk driving profiles. These findings suggest the need for (1) future research to understand the differential associations, and (2) prevention programs that consider these gender differences."
On average, men drive about 16,550 miles and women around 10,142 per year, which is 39% fewer miles than men.
So per mile, women are still safer drivers
Yes, but it's funnier to punch down on women /s
Is the punchline sexism? Hilarious.
“But compared with women, male drivers of cars and vans had twice the rate of fatal accidents per mile driven. Male truck drivers had about four times the rate of women truckers, and men driving motorcycles almost 12 times the rate of women motorcyclists. For bus drivers and bicycle riders, there was little difference between the sexes.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/27/well/live/car-accidents-deaths-men-women.html
I get passed by the same three women nurses every morning. You can tell by their car tags they are nurses. They pass into oncoming traffic. They pass in heavy rain. They pass in non passing zones. They are the worst drivers out there on my morning commute. All cars have damage. Two have multiple dipshit dings. So yeah. Its men who are the whole problem. /s
Yes yes, those 3 women represent all women worldwide. You found us out.
At least you can admit it since you think all men are terrible drivers.
Reading comprehension is a real struggle for you, isn't it?
Knowing that men, on average, are worse drivers than women does not mean I think all men are terrible drivers.
Same as knowing that 3 women being terrible drivers doesn't mean all women are terrible drivers.
I didn't say all women were bad drivers. I described the three worst drivers I encounter on my morning commute and you extrapolated all women from that. With you superior comprehension skills. LOL.
You clearly offered that anecdotal evidence to refute my claim that men are worse drivers than women on average.
Your sarcastic line at the end of your comment "So yeah. Its men who are the whole problem. /s" belies your intent.
You clearly are childishly triggered I posted at all. You are looking for a fight where none exist. I know what to do though I block you now so spray away I wont see it.
Yeah pushing that women are worse drivers than men because of the 3 drivers you encountered is a brain dead take.
sure, and dudes under 25 pay more for car insurance.
15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance. It could also ending up costing you 30% more for car insurance so choose wisely.
Yeah, Those nursing tags virtually guarantee they will never get pulled over and it shows in their reckless sprint to work every morning.
You, too, could become a nurse and get to drive recklessly.
See? Not sexist.
If you think this is fine in the name of safety, how about a white-only option?
No one has issues with women requesting female doctors. What's your issue with women trying to be safer while traveling?
I don't have an issue with it. But wouldn't that also apply to white people traveling?
Sounds like self-driving taxis are getting popular.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.