How safe is Uber, for its customers? (legal, radical, crimes)

[pop251808]

Originally Posted by Westerner92

Yeah, a thumbprint or $200,000 medallion would have prevented this for sure.

Not for sure, but they might have kept out the riffraff, you know, the mass murdering type, at least. But Uber's a great way to work part time, for sure. See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...5f6_story.html Now they think he made a few bucks hauling people around BETWEEN murders! The murdered people's next of kin can take comfort in the fact that they can sue the driver, maybe clean out his big fat bank account. Is the "gig economy" cool, or what?
Anyway, it will be interesting to see what effect, if any, this incident will have on the Austin electorate. Judging by what I've seen here so far, maybe not much.

[petro]

Originally Posted by pop251808

Apparently, very safe: driver only shoots OUT at non-Uber using passersby. See NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/us...shootings.html

You may want to keep this in mind while deciding whether to hang or draw and quarter Ann Kitchen, Austin councilwoman who demanded Uber fingerprint its drivers...

This guy did NOT have a criminal record, so what's your point exactly?

[Aquitaine]

Not for sure, but they might have kept out the riffraff, you know, the mass murdering type,

Tens of thousands of people trying to make a living, all defeated by your reveling in a single anecdote and your defense of a law that would have had no effect on it?

It's fine if you don't care about the gig economy and people trying to make a buck. But at least have the decency to cite laws that would make a difference rather than trying to score political points off a tragedy that has nothing to do with what is going on here in Austin and wouldn't have been prevented by any background check?

Please do give us a proposal that would both detect and prevent someone with no criminal record in a case like this. We can use it for guns and air travel as well.

[Westerner92]

Originally Posted by pop251808

Not for sure, but they might have kept out the riffraff, you know, the mass murdering type, at least. But Uber's a great way to work part time, for sure. See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...5f6_story.html Now they think he made a few bucks hauling people around BETWEEN murders! The murdered people's next of kin can take comfort in the fact that they can sue the driver, maybe clean out his big fat bank account. Is the "gig economy" cool, or what?
Anyway, it will be interesting to see what effect, if any, this incident will have on the Austin electorate. Judging by what I've seen here so far, maybe not much.

Please tell us, have you even used Uber before? Anyone who has can tell you that they are nice and normal people. I wish I could say the same for taxi drivers, who, in my experiences, are exactly the definition "riffraff", excepting those in London.

[Down in a Hole]

Originally Posted by pop251808

Apparently, very safe: driver only shoots OUT at non-Uber using passersby. See NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/us...shootings.html

You may want to keep this in mind while deciding whether to hang or draw and quarter Ann Kitchen, Austin councilwoman who demanded Uber fingerprint its drivers...

This guy passed the background check and the last time that I checked, background checks don't stop or prevent stuff like this from happening

[CarnivalGal]

So, I guess you missed all the follow-up stories where police confirmed that he had no prior criminal history at all. So he would have passed every background check they could have done on him. Fingerprinting would have made no difference.

[RooCeleste]

I've had so much better luck and experiences with Uber than I have taxis.....I've used Uber in Bangkok and in Miami and never felt threatened or concerned at all. I will continue to use them without concern.

[pop251808]

Originally Posted by Westerner92

...taxi drivers, who, in my experiences, are exactly the definition "riffraff", excepting those in London.

Hmm. I wonder why taxi drivers might be better in London? Could it be because they are subjected to MORE rigorous regulations than they are in Austin, Texas, by any chance?

Originally Posted by CarnivalGal

...he had no prior criminal history at all. So he would have passed every background check they could have done on him. Fingerprinting would have made no difference.

Ah, this logic is airtight (or is it airless?). Since this guy might have passed through some checks (who knows, there were none), then background checks and fingerprinting won't work for anyone here and shouldn't be instituted. Don't let your ideology hit you on your backside on the way out.

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by pop251808

Hmm. I wonder why taxi drivers might be better in London? Could it be because they are subjected to MORE rigorous regulations than they are in Austin, Texas, by any chance?

Ah, this logic is airtight (or is it airless?). Since this guy might have passed through some checks (who knows, there were none), then background checks and fingerprinting won't work for anyone here and shouldn't be instituted. Don't let your ideology hit you on your backside on the way out.

The guy was married with kids and no criminal record or history.

What would fingerprinting and a background check have uncovered ? NOTHING.

We aren't living in the world of "Minority Report" yet. Future crimes can't be detected by fingerprint checks or background checks.

[Trainwreck20]

I wonder why taxi drivers might be better in London? Could it be because they are subjected to MORE rigorous regulations than they are in Austin, Texas, by any chance?

They have to take a test that is commonly considered one of the most difficult in the world.

Of course, they must need more regulation still, because some are criminals!

Worboys was a London black cab taxi driver, who picked up women as fares late at night in central London and told them he was celebrating coming into a large amount of money, usually by winning the lottery or at a casino. He would show them a carrier bag full of money to back up his story, ply them with champagne that had been drugged with sedatives, and then sexually assault or rape them. In some cases, he offered women money to have sex with him. The women would often have little memory of what happened to them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Worboys

Ah, this logic is airtight (or is it airless?). Since this guy might have passed through some checks (who knows, there were none), then background checks and fingerprinting won't work for anyone here and shouldn't be instituted. Don't let your ideology hit you on your backside on the way out.

Wait..I am confused...who has the ideology issue here? You cite a crime that by almost all accounts appears to be almost impossible to predict (especially by fingerprinting) and imply that the fingerprinting requirement is therefore very rational? Then claim disagreeing with the proposal is due to someone's ideology?