[primitive]

I don't think Uber's model is necessarily conducive to this, but with small private hire firms it is likely that any case like this would bankrupt them so they may be more careful about drivers they take on. Uber has scale, but that also divorces it from the effects of "one bad apple".

Also, while I agree that taxi drivers are no better than any group - if you've paid for a medallion I doubt you would waste all that on committing a crime like this.

Running an unlicensed cab - now that is a dodgy bunch of people that no-one should get in a car with.

[applecore]

Few (if any) taxi drivers are medallion owners. Drivers pay lease fees to access medallions and the vehicles to which they're attached.

[king_jester]

True, but in some places taxi drivers are vetted or have background check to some degree before being allowed to operate. The question is are Uber's practices too lax in this regard?

[yason]

But don't medallion owners also hire drivers? Not all of them care about their employer's reputation.

Thus, surely some negligible——but still tangible——fraction of cab drivers, working for Uber or not, will at some point rape a customer no matter what but with Uber the chances to collect evidence and identify the driver after the fact is probably much better, making it likely for the abusing driver to be prosecuted. This in turn creates a deterrent. With a regular cab, unless the customer can identify the car s/he doesn't really know who the driver is. Further, all the bad driver needs to do is to cover the cab number and become practically anonymous.