
Chariot for Women is a new ride sharing service for women only - gberger
http://techcrunch.com/2016/04/08/chariot-for-women-is-a-new-ride-sharing-service-for-women-only/
======
slg
A premium ride sharing service that puts safety at the forefront and targets
women sounds like a viable business. This doesn't. Not only are they refusing
service to men but likely the bigger problem is they are refusing to employee
(or contract) them. I'm sure the lawyers are already circling for the
inevitable discrimination lawsuits.

~~~
klipt
Yeah, I can't see this succeeding anymore than a hypothetical "Uber for white
people who are afraid of black drivers".

~~~
danieltillett
I am sure an Uber for white people would be quite a success despite being
morally offensive. Thankfully people fought (and still fight) to stop this
sort of crude discrimination and any such business will soon be sued out of
existence.

I am interested to know what sort of thinking went through the investors heads
when they were pitched Chariot.

------
sridca
Comment from a Uber driver:

> _you know this is bullshit, this is so sexist and honestly very offensive. I
> am an UBER driver and im an excellent driver and treat all my riders with
> respect and equality. This app is basically saying that all UBER drivers are
> sexual predators which is not true, yes I agree that UBER should increase
> the throughness of their background checks because every rider should have
> that peace of mind of being safe when riding with UBER, but this is not the
> solution because this is catagorizing me as a sexual predator which is
> bullshit. I hope this guy who made this reads my post because this is
> bullshit._

~~~
1123581321
From a business perspective, he needn't worry. There likely aren't many Uber
customers who use the service but dislike it enough to switch. So, Chariot's
growth will come from people who don't use ride share, which means if it
succeeds, it'll expand the market. People become less afraid as they become
more familiar, so a percentage of Chariot customers will start riding Uber as
well since they see Uber drivers are very similar to Chariot drivers. In the
long run, Uber could have more customers because of Chariot and possibly
purchase the company outright.

------
danieltillett
I can't wait for the next version - Chariot for White People.

Couldn't this whole issue of women feeing unsafe be solved by a real time
camera in every car and something like a Amazon Echo with a safe word that
triggers human intervention. Actually use technology to solve a problem rather
than millennial old discrimination.

~~~
Cartwright2
Chariot for Men:

The premise is the same as all the other ridesharing services, There’s a
driver app and a client app, except that what makes us unique is our safe
driving feature that other apps forgot to do. We ensure every driver in our
entourage is a male.

~~~
danieltillett
I am all in as long as every car comes with fluffy dice and a huge sub-woofer.

------
blackflame7000
Seems to me, that if the same service was offered for all men it would be
considered sexist.

------
ocdtrekkie
I find it amazing that anyone thinks this could even be legal, much less
ethical. Both to refuse service based on gender, as well as refuse to hire
anyone who is male? This can't possibly be a legal company to operate in the
United States.

It's sexism, plain and simple.

~~~
danielvf
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_quali...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualifications)

There's an exception to US anti discrimination laws for jobs that require a
certain age/sex/gender/race etc. Catholic schools for example can exclude non-
Catholics from being theology teachers, for instance. Actors can be excluded
on the basis of race, if the character requires a certain race.

I'm not sure though if this qualifies though. Seems like there would be
caselaw somewhere on it though.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
"Bona fide occupational qualifications generally only apply to instances in
which the BFOQ is considered reasonably necessary to the normal operation of a
particular business. For example, a Catholic college may lawfully require such
positions as president, chaplain, and teaching faculty to be Catholics, but
membership in the Catholic Church would generally not be considered a BFOQ for
occupations such as secretarial and janitorial positions.

Mere customer satisfaction, or lack thereof, is not enough to justify a BFOQ
defense, as noted in the cases Diaz v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc.[6] and
Wilson v. Southwest Airlines Co..[7] Therefore, customer preference for
females does not make femininity a BFOQ for the occupation of flight
attendant.[8] However, there may be cases in which customer preference is a
BFOQ—for example, femininity is reasonably necessary for Playboy Bunnies.[9]
Customer preference can "'be taken into account only when it is based on the
company's inability to perform the primary function or service it offers,'
that is, where sex or sex appeal is itself the dominant service
provided."[10]"

My guess would be that excludes gender discriminating people driving cars
outright. While obviously, as discussed in the article, women may prefer women
drivers, the driver being a woman is not functionally necessary to drive a
car.

------
jackvalentine
So predators can sign up fake accounts and lure women right to them then?

Seems like not knowing the specifics of who will turn up when you press the
button is just a good idea. Even if it may be someone from a group more
routinely targeted by predators, they don't have a guarantee.

------
sotojuan
Reminds me of the Nathan for You episode with the dating site that sends a
bodyguard with every woman that goes on a date.

------
dpweb
I wouldn't be so absolutely convinced the legal case against this. For
instance, designating something a private club. Private clubs include whomever
they choose.

