What do you guys think of Uber's threat to leave Houston

They're still preventing those in Houston right now (even with Houston's background check requirements).

 

nothing public about ride-sharing

 

There is, actually. Uber drivers use public roads and benefit from public funds. If background checks can prevent sexual assaults or whatever else, then the city has every right and reason to regulate it.

 

See this where I disagree. You would then need to finger print all delivery services from your food/item delivery apps, to ordinary pizza chain delivery because a sexual assault could happen. Or for that matter any situation that involves person to person interaction. I would think unless there's some statistic out there that shows Rideshare Driver/Passengers get raped more than that usual status quo, it has no basis for argument.

Truth is the driver that raped a passenger is a dumb ass for a) the rape and b) how he did it. You're on the clock with a phone that has GPS navigation using a work app that is essentially an activity tracker. Not to play all criminal but I would think if you were going to assault somebody, you'd probably want to get away with it. Goes to show how stupid most criminals are. Phones can even be tracked when turned off.

http://www.darkreading.com/risk-man...d-off-cellphones/d/d-id/1110897?page_number=2

 

so everyone who uses a public road should have a background check?

If people want to pay extra for a more vetted driver, that's their prerogative.

If they are ok assuming that risk based on prior reputation score or they just dgaf, that's also their prerogative.

 

Except a food delivery person doesn't have a captive audience in their car. Once you're in someone's car, they can drive you whereever and there's not much you can do unless you (a) know where they are going and (b) are willing to jump out.

And the idea that you shouldn't prevent ANY danger if you can't prevent ALL danger is nonsensical anyway.

Of course rapists are dumbasses - is that a surprise? The problem is that there are dumbasses out there. And we generally like to be protect people before they are raped when possible, rather than just knowing how to catch them.

 

If you're using them for commercial services and having access to the general public, yes. Taxi drivers, bus drivers, etc generall do get background checked, I believe.

And if the people of the city want to have stricter rules for the businesses that operate in their area, that's their prerogative. Businesses don't have free reign to do whatever they hell they want without interference by the local governing body, much as you'd like to believe otherwise.

 

There was no need for any additional regulation (which was pushed by the taxi cab companies and city counselors wanting their cut)

There already were regulations in place and they were working great. The new onerous ones kill the ride sharing businesses model and dont make anyone safer.

 

I agree rape is bad. I don't think doing finger print scans is going to prevent rape from happening any more than it does.

http://kxan.com/investigative-story...ng-alleged-sex-assaults-by-uber-lyft-drivers/

Article states 7 sexual assault claims out of 10,000 total rideshare drivers. That's not including the number of individual rides each driver gave that was safe. Like I had 57 rides over the weekend. It could be seven separate individual cases or a serial case with only one or two culprits. That's a whopping .07% of the total ride share drivers in Austin with charges against them. The number of sexual assaults spread out over the general population is higher than with rideshare drivers. It's making a mountain out of a mole hill.

It's like banning Four Loko when it's irresponsible alcohol use while getting behind the wheel that should be the main focus. Ban one drink or ban them all. Otherwise it's a news fluff piece headline to make government officials feel like they're doing their job when they're just stirring **** for the sake of just doing it.

And I say this as someone for more fingerprinting because I want less part time drivers on the road willing to do fingerprint checks (whereas I am willing) when it comes back so I have access to more passengers and will be the greater beneficiary of supply and demand.

 

RR, I'm hoping nothing comes of it. Austin has a very long history of the state legislature interfering with local control. As an example, some House member from "Midland" will introduce a bill taking land from the jurisdiction of the city, land it has declared environmentally critical and protected, after a vote by the people of Austin, and essentially take local control away. Why? Big contributions from large developers who could care less about the fragile Hill Country environment. When folks from out of town drive around the area and are surprised at the subdivisions all over the land west of Austin, that's why they are there.

 

Are you paid by Uber? The new regulations do no such thing. Please explain how a $40 background check and additional ~1 week wait time to become a driver destroys the business model.

 

So is claiming that a $40 background check makes it impossible for Uber to operate.

Good thing the city didn't ban anyone. Uber banned themselves for no real reaosn - maybe you should complain to them. You say "ban one drink or ban them all". In this case, these regulations standardized the policy for taxis and uber. You seem to want different regulations for each, which is the opposite of what you're arguing with drinks.

 

Are you paid by the taxi cab companies? Confused smiley.

It's not just the money, which is part of it, is t also the extended time it takes to get new drivers cleared to drive. A lot of drivers only do it for a little while or part time, so uber and lyft need to constantly be signing up people quickly to make the business model work. It obviously doesn't with the new regs

 

Nah I'm saying the background checks Uber had in place were showing their success. You can't prevent 100% of all rape but statistically Uber/Lyft drivers are less likely to assault you than the U.S. general population. So the backgrounds must be doing something if they're better than the general population. And if they're already better than that standard, then to me it seems unnecessary to enforce further regulation.

 

Exactly how I feel


Not to mention I feel 100x safer in an uber/lyft than I do in a taxi. I have never had a bad experience with either of them. My route is being tracked via GPS so someone knows where I am and if there is a bad experience I get my money back. Taxi drivers on the other hand have ZERO accountability, can drive you wherever the hell they want and are verbally abusive to passengers at least 60% of the time. (try to force taxis to do what uber does and there would be a huge fight on your hands and people protecting the taxis)

 

I agree with you that Uber's background checks were probably 'good enough' but that's a little besides the point. But 'good enough' is not compliance. I own a small business and I have lots of ridiculous rules that make no sense to what we do that we have to comply with. I don't just go to the city and say, 'you know, how I decided to do it is actually better.' Of course it is, but they want compliance. And, as a resident I want compliance. When they comply, then there is a basis to have a conversation about how to make the rules better. If they won't comply, forget it.

 

But they were complying. Then the cities passed new rules after people started enjoying their services.

 

If they stop driving for a bit, they do not have to re-take certifications or whatever, they can become drivers again in about the time it takes to pass a drug test. Probably only an annual test, but I don't know.

 

Yes, but I mean uber needs to be hiring new first time drivers quickly because anyone can quit at anytime or they can just decide to drive much less

 

I tried "get me" last night in Austin -- my driver said I was the first rider he ever had. Despite warnings that the cost was the same or more than a cab, I got from downtown to my home (south of William Canon) for less than $20.