The issue here is that it really would not be in Uber's best interest to take all of the hit for this. This bullshit about "community" or whatever is a nice sugar coating for the whole issue, but it really has to do with legal jurisdiction and economics.

Uber drivers are not employees. They are independent contractors. They can be part of a limo company or they can be literally independent, and drive the car they own/lease around. That is what many drivers in Philadelphia do. So in that sense, Uber is pretty much a more expensive, clean, and medallion-free version of a taxicab.

This is precisely why it isn't Uber's fault at all for what happened, especially because the service wasn't used in any stage of this scenario. So in that sense, I think it's good that they are "standing their ground" and emphasizing how background they are in this whole operation.

Personally, I like that. I'm a big believer in supporting your local economy, and I like how my Uber fares are mostly going to the driver. But the other side of that coin, responsibility, is also being saddled on the Uber driver. I also like that. It means that it's up to the driver and I, not some bullshit startup 5,000 miles away, to set out the rules of the trip. It makes Uber a better company to contract from and it makes the whole trip feel more "homey" rather than some kind of "ride from above".

In my opinion, Uber's done a great job at fostering its community by staying the FUCK out of my business.

This is a line from my article:

"Is it Uber’s responsibility to do something here? No."

So no, I don't think they should take the hit for this, and I don't think they're legally culpable.

Perhaps I didn't make it clear in the article: I think Uber is making people dislike them through their lack of empathy in this and other situations.

This is bad for Uber, and I'm suggesting they change this. That is all.

So, now that we've covered that...

I think your point about Uber staying out of your business is valid. Some people prefer that, and perhaps Uber doesn't need to try to build a strong connection with their community. As I said at the end of the article, I don't think this attitude will kill Uber, but I do think it'll make it lose some customers. Maybe, to your point, that's totally ok because they're keeping the type of customers they want. Would be interesting if that was their strategy!

It is questionable if "independent contractors" that do 100% of their work for Uber will be considered such.

In general, companies are responsible for accidents caused by employees performing work duties under the respondeat superior doctrine. Notice that the "performing work duties" part has been stretched pretty far in cases; a drunk driver coming from a company party where alcohol was served could still cause liability for the company.

You're seriously using a dead six year old kid as a springboard for a another dreary rant about surge pricing? You're a damn ghoul.

Last time I checked, Uber wasn't an autonomous, driverless automobile service.

Given that fact, I really don't understand how the responsibility of pedestrian fatalities resides with anyone except the person who assumes direct control of the car. When you drive the car, you, and you alone are responsible for anyone you might kill.

What a stupid headline. Yellow journalism. Mud slinging. and for what? To parade a dead child as a trophy, and a symbol for the car service you choose?

Thanks for reading.

I explicitly state in the article that I feel no legal responsibility rests with them. I state that in the first few paragraphs.

What I am trying to make clear is that treating a tragedy like a legal technicality is not a way to build community. People are disgusted by their reaction.

For the record, I don't use any of the car services...this is not meant to promote Lyft or degrade Uber in any way, just to advise companies to invest in community. I would have hoped my numerous clear messages that I do not harbor anything against Uber would have made that clear.

I agree that my headline was designed to be provocative (though it is addressed in my very first sentence) and perhaps a bad choice on my part.

And latching onto a tragedy to complain about a company and community as a "community manager" yourself is in poor taste.

This is a horrible tragedy but it is coincidence that it was an Uber driver. I live in SF and it could have easily been a taxi cab, regular driver, a cyclist, or a even a muni bus that hit this poor family. Every day I see at least one, two or more people that fall into those groups treat stop signs and reds as yields and regularly make turns without looking or slowing down for pedestrians or cyclist. Poor driving (and pedaling) is a damn epidemic here.

This article missed so many of it's own points its hard to see why it's being voted up. I've never seen how surges and pricing are vague, it's right in front of you in the application. Home Depot has accidents and deaths in their stores and you don't see the author complaining about a lack of community there, and arguably, driving is a much more dangerous than shopping.

The title is link bait and the complaints are a shallow attempt at expanding the authors personal exposure as a community manager.

I definitely see things through the lens of community management, as marketers may see things through the lens of marketing. I haven't seen Home Depot's response to the deaths in their stores so I don't have any comment on that, but it's likely I would if I saw them. I wrote this post based on my disgust at Uber's response and the lesson I think companies should learn from it.

Lots of folks have complained about the surge pricing notifications, which is why I'm repeating those complaints. Perhaps Uber has improved that messaging since the last, highly-publicized round of complaints.

I appreciate your feedback on the title and I agree. I've updated the post and HN title. Thanks for keeping me honest...that was a lame move on my part.

I agree completely with you last statement. Honestly I find it a little bit disgusting that somebody would use a car accident as a means of marketing themselves.

Shame on you, Evan Hamilton. You even submitted this yourself.

Thanks to everyone for your feedback on the title of this post. I was trying to catch the eye and, in doing that, misrepresented my point. This article is not designed to hurt Uber...it was born out of frustration at their public response to this situation, and designed to point out that they, like many companies, would benefit from a stronger focus on their community.

Link bait title

Agreed, thank you for calling me out. I've updated the post and HN title.

I've largely stopped using Uber in place of Lyft and less often Sidecar. Uber drivers tend to be less pleasant and their pricing less transparent than other services.

Hear hear for competition. Hopefully Uber will catch up.

"Elon Musk killed in article body: with excitement from his growing business."

What a link bait title.

Agreed. Thanks for the feedback, I've updated the HN and blog title. Lame move, thank you.

Community is something few companies do well. Yelp does it really well with the Yelp Elite program. YouTube seems to do alright with their small business ad platform, live-action shows(although I've heard many of these have been flops) and other events.

But, for example, Facebook has no community outreach. None. I mean, shit, Instagram does waaaay better with at least fostering community outreach than Facebook. Uber is not cultivating the community nor fostering community outreach by its drivers.

Lyft is literally built around community; it started with regular drivers instead of commercial ones.

Community allows people to feel comfortable in sharing excitement for a product. That's all. I'm excited about Instagram or Lyft or Yelp. I'm excited to watch YouTube videos.

I'm excited to use Uber. Is anyone else?

Did you mean to write "I'm not excited to use Uber."? Just wanted to clarify!