travis county sheriff against banning uber/lyft (Austin: 2015, fingerprints)

[Austin97]

https://www.facebook.com/jeffstensla...type=3&theater

Not sure if the above link is reachable since it is facebook. Here is an image of the letter

[Austinite101]

City Council is not banning Uber or Lyft. Please stop spreading misinformation.

[verybadgnome]

I had my photo taken and was fingerprinted when I got a taxi license in Austin, circa 2003. It was not a big deal......but of course I don't have a felony conviction like some. If this involves more than just those issues please inform.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by Austinite101

City Council is not banning Uber or Lyft. Please stop spreading misinformation.

I agree this is mis information. All City Council is asking is that they phase in a requirement for drivers to get background checks before being allowed to drive for them. Seems completely reasonable to me.

[Austinite101]

Uber and Lyft, while I like the services, have been downright dishonest to their employees and their user base. I don't know about you, but they've been pounding me with emails about how Austin is pushing them out or making them leave; telling their drivers that they're going to lose their jobs. Disgraceful.

It reminds me of that Parks & Rec episode when Paunch Burger threatens to lay off workers after Leslie Knope pushes for a soda tax.

[Austin97]

maybe Im not fully understanding, but here is the revised ordinance

http://austin.siretechnologies.com/s...5101455834.PDF

It is not just about finger prints

The sections to be added to existing Code relate to the regulation of Transportation Network companies and include
vehicle safety inspections, accessibility, data reporting requirements, trade dress, geofencing, and a prohibition on
stopping in a travel lane.

here is a TNC response

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/bl...ed-austin.html

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by Austin97

maybe Im not fully understanding, but here is the revised ordinance

http://austin.siretechnologies.com/s...5101455834.PDF

It is not just about finger prints



here is a TNC response

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/bl...ed-austin.html

Understand. I just want to know is there anything in these new requirements that go beyond the regulations imposed on traditional taxi cab companies?

[Austinite101]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

Understand. I just want to know is there anything in these new requirements that go beyond the regulations imposed on traditional taxi cab companies?

Absolutely not.

[Aquitaine]

As I understand it, the complaint against fingerprinting is not 'what if you turn up a felony conviction,' but 'what if you turn up an arrest with no conviction.' If something later happens with that driver, you can bet that Uber will be slapped with a civil suit because it 'should have known' to bar the person with no conviction record but hits on his fingerprint check from driving. You have to ask why a company like Uber would be against something that ostensibly would reduce the rate of dangerous people driving under their banner. The answer is that it wouldn't, or at least, the extent to which it would is dwarfed by the new problems it introduces.

I don't really care about the requirements for traditional taxi companies. Traditional taxi companies are not about driving or about passengers. They are about limiting the supply of taxi medallions and doing well in the market for taxi medallions (which has crashed since Uber and Lyft have been on the scene). Give me even the most surly, wandering Uber driver where an app knows where I am and who is responsible over any regular taxicab - after six years in NYC I'll be happy to never get into one again.

The bulk of the proposed regulations are bureaucratic fluff. Fire extinguishers, trade dress - does anyone care about these things? I get reasonable disagreement about fingerprints since the city certainly has an interest in safety, but it's naive to suppose that the city's interest is either greater than or more effective than Uber's own interest, given their liability if and when something does happen.

[TexasHorseLady]

I'm frankly repelled by Uber's corporate attitude all across the country when involved with cities of "give me my way or I'll take my ball and go home". I seriously doubt that their liability is a consideration, because their approach doesn't seem that mature and considered.