Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
exactly.. it was a very well ran slogan they use to scare people. The scare tactics worked and this is the end results. Just because one person up north goes on a rampage doesnt mean all drivers are like that. Heck we had more uber/lift drivers saving lifes and helping those too drunk a ride home. One uber saved a human traffic from happening, another save a guy who was having a heart attack. list can go on and on. But because COA couldnt tax them.. that is the only thing can come up with.
The scare tactics were used by Uber and Lyft, not the city. They made arrogant threats and spent an unprecedented amount of money trying to mislead Austin voters - and still lost resoundingly.
Besides. Fasten, Fare, and RideAustin are nearly indistinguishable from Uber/Lyft on the consumer side, and more generous to drivers on the driver side. As someone who used Uber and Lyft often when they were in the city, I couldn't care less if they never came back.
People are so easily appeased if it makes their lives easier. Just so you don't stick your heads too far in the sand, there are multitudes of criminal offenses committed by Uber driver's that potentially could have been flagged with background checks.
Further, the state of California last year mandated stricter background checks for drivers. Note that neither Uber nor Lyft left the state. Both of these companies tried to strong arm Austin. Now, to save face, they are refusing to come back. Much like petulant children not getting their way.
Who Pays When An Ãœber or Lyft Driver Causes An Accident?
"Ãœber is denying liability because Muffazar was not carrying a passenger at the time of the accident. Victims will have difficulty obtaining compensation for their injuries in these situations, absent specific laws and regulations that define car accident fault, insurance and compensation requirements for rideshare companies.
"
Sure, and ridesharing companies are completely up front about this. If you consider it (or actually go through and become a driver, as I did, because I wanted to actually understand their process) it's quite difficult to do it any other way.
There is nothing stopping me from logging into Uber at any time and 'going online.' I don't have to accept fares. I can just drive around. The debate you're linking is over at what point you become 'contracted' to do something for Uber, and common sense will tell you that it's once you accept a fare. If you're just driving around, whether or not you logged into an app on your phone has got no bearing on what you're doing. "Victims" will not have difficulty obtaining compensation -- they will just have to go through their regular insurance, as the rest of humanity does when they get into a car accident.
Quote:
Originally Posted by m1a1mg
The reference was insuring you have a valid check by using fingerprints. Checkr (used by Uber) won't even divulge what metrics they use for their checks. Claim proprietary use. Bull poop.
Yes, it's a big secret that you can uncover with...Google.
They contract with a company who specializes in name- and data-based background checks.
I really can't emphasize enough how much this subject is made very difficult by the failure of most people (in this thread and elsewhere) to understand how background checks work. A fingerprint does absolutely nothing to 'insure you have a valid check.' All it does is insure that you haven't previously been fingerprinted under a different name, and it records your prints in the event that you do commit a crime, which will produce a non-zero number of people caught doing things, but then that's an argument to fingerprint everybody.
A "valid check" in all 50 states would require multiple visits to county courthouses in places where they don't have online records accessible. It's extremely expensive and time-consuming. It's why the FBI is so backlogged on the (more thorough) background checks for handgun purchases and why checks for security clearances are contracted out. Those are "valid" checks (assuming the contractors don't let things slip through the cracks, which isn't always a safe assumption). Now, you can make the argument that any "professional" driver should have to pass a high bar, on the level of a handgun purchase, because strangers are entrusting you with their safety. I wouldn't make that argument, simply because of the effect a barrier like that has on pricing out a segment of the market that needs this service, but it's at least a consistent viewpoint.
"Background checks need fingerprints or else they're no good!" is just ignorance masquerading as social concern. But then that's why it's so easy to persuade state governments to require 1500 hours to cut hair. BUT THE SCISSORS! THERE ARE CHILDREN! That's you, folks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnivalGirl
no one was forcing you to use them. That doesn't make it right to keep everyone else from using them.
"But we're not! We just have simple rules and Uber decided not to follow them!" <--- the rationalization response to your (very rational) observation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by m1a1mg
urther, the state of California last year mandated stricter background checks for drivers. Note that neither Uber nor Lyft left the state. Both of these companies tried to strong arm Austin
Your linked article supports everything I've (tried) to explain. Which is probably why
Quote:
Both Uber and Lyft supported the new legislation
Uber and Lyft have an interest in strong background checks and they always have, because of their giant exposure to liability in the event that an Uber driver goes off the rails. The fact that Uber drivers have committed crimes is a tautology: well, of course they have, just as cab drivers have (even so, the bulk of your "list" is just allegations - it's not remotely pretending to be criminal statistics). The big difference is that we tend to know about it when an Uber driver commits a crime because we know exactly who was in the car at what time and where they were.
And the kicker: Not even California demanded fingerprinting. Austin, you special snowflake, you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek
o you admit, that rather than being "historically low turnout" as you claimed, it was record _high_ turnout for a May election?
No. I admit that you're trying to lie with statistics. It was a historically low turnout. The only way to conclude anything else is to look only at single-issue, May elections. So sure, if you eliminate all the elections with high turnout, this one is at the top of the list. The "historically high" majority that decided this issue are fewer than one in ten people living here. That's fine -- I'm not saying "Not my President!" -- but it ain't a mandate.
----
Folks, I don't have a pony in this race. I don't own stock in these companies and it doesn't hurt me to pay more for a local alternative. I have exactly one useful thing to contribute, which is my understanding of background checks. That understanding demonstrates to me two things:
1) Lots of people were played by the safety angle, just as they are in many industries
2) Uber and Lyft not only didn't counter successfully, they made it worse with bamboozling literature (and, simply, too much of it!)
If you like the new companies better, and there are plenty of reasons to do so, I wouldn't try to persuade you otherwise. If you just hate Uber because you think their execs are jerks, I wouldn't argue against that either. But if you think that fingerprinting adds value to a background check in this instance sufficient to be worth the cost, you're mistaken, unless your cost-benefit analysis is "no price is too high for even the tiniest addition to security," in which case I hope you spend the afterlife at Philadelphia International Airport.
"11.4 percent in city elections between 1997 to 2012"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquitaine
The only way to conclude anything else is to look only at single-issue, May elections. So sure, if you eliminate all the elections with high turnout, this one is at the top of the list.
And it's only at the bottom of the list("historically low") if you eliminate all the elections with lower turnout.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquitaine
The "historically high" majority that decided this issue are fewer than one in ten people living here. That's fine -- I'm not saying "Not my President!" -- but it ain't a mandate.
In that case, no election matters, since almost all of them have turnout <50% residents.
Sure, and ridesharing companies are completely up front about this. If you consider it (or actually go through and become a driver, as I did, because I wanted to actually understand their process) it's quite difficult to do it any other way.
There is nothing stopping me from logging into Uber at any time and 'going online.' I don't have to accept fares. I can just drive around. The debate you're linking is over at what point you become 'contracted' to do something for Uber, and common sense will tell you that it's once you accept a fare. If you're just driving around, whether or not you logged into an app on your phone has got no bearing on what you're doing. "Victims" will not have difficulty obtaining compensation -- they will just have to go through their regular insurance, as the rest of humanity does when they get into a car accident.
Yes, it's a big secret that you can uncover with...Google.
They contract with a company who specializes in name- and data-based background checks.
I really can't emphasize enough how much this subject is made very difficult by the failure of most people (in this thread and elsewhere) to understand how background checks work. A fingerprint does absolutely nothing to 'insure you have a valid check.' All it does is insure that you haven't previously been fingerprinted under a different name, and it records your prints in the event that you do commit a crime, which will produce a non-zero number of people caught doing things, but then that's an argument to fingerprint everybody.
A "valid check" in all 50 states would require multiple visits to county courthouses in places where they don't have online records accessible. It's extremely expensive and time-consuming. It's why the FBI is so backlogged on the (more thorough) background checks for handgun purchases and why checks for security clearances are contracted out. Those are "valid" checks (assuming the contractors don't let things slip through the cracks, which isn't always a safe assumption). Now, you can make the argument that any "professional" driver should have to pass a high bar, on the level of a handgun purchase, because strangers are entrusting you with their safety. I wouldn't make that argument, simply because of the effect a barrier like that has on pricing out a segment of the market that needs this service, but it's at least a consistent viewpoint.
"Background checks need fingerprints or else they're no good!" is just ignorance masquerading as social concern. But then that's why it's so easy to persuade state governments to require 1500 hours to cut hair. BUT THE SCISSORS! THERE ARE CHILDREN! That's you, folks.
"But we're not! We just have simple rules and Uber decided not to follow them!" <--- the rationalization response to your (very rational) observation.
Your linked article supports everything I've (tried) to explain. Which is probably why
Uber and Lyft have an interest in strong background checks and they always have, because of their giant exposure to liability in the event that an Uber driver goes off the rails. The fact that Uber drivers have committed crimes is a tautology: well, of course they have, just as cab drivers have (even so, the bulk of your "list" is just allegations - it's not remotely pretending to be criminal statistics). The big difference is that we tend to know about it when an Uber driver commits a crime because we know exactly who was in the car at what time and where they were.
And the kicker: Not even California demanded fingerprinting. Austin, you special snowflake, you.
No. I admit that you're trying to lie with statistics. It was a historically low turnout. The only way to conclude anything else is to look only at single-issue, May elections. So sure, if you eliminate all the elections with high turnout, this one is at the top of the list. The "historically high" majority that decided this issue are fewer than one in ten people living here. That's fine -- I'm not saying "Not my President!" -- but it ain't a mandate.
----
Folks, I don't have a pony in this race. I don't own stock in these companies and it doesn't hurt me to pay more for a local alternative. I have exactly one useful thing to contribute, which is my understanding of background checks. That understanding demonstrates to me two things:
1) Lots of people were played by the safety angle, just as they are in many industries
2) Uber and Lyft not only didn't counter successfully, they made it worse with bamboozling literature (and, simply, too much of it!)
If you like the new companies better, and there are plenty of reasons to do so, I wouldn't try to persuade you otherwise. If you just hate Uber because you think their execs are jerks, I wouldn't argue against that either. But if you think that fingerprinting adds value to a background check in this instance sufficient to be worth the cost, you're mistaken, unless your cost-benefit analysis is "no price is too high for even the tiniest addition to security," in which case I hope you spend the afterlife at Philadelphia International Airport.
At least you can still catch Uber and Lyft from the Philly Airport. (I'm from Philly and go back often, so I am all too familiar with PHL).
They contract with a company who specializes in name- and data-based background checks.
I really can't emphasize enough how much this subject is made very difficult by the failure of most people (in this thread and elsewhere) to understand how background checks work. A fingerprint does absolutely nothing to 'insure you have a valid check.' All it does is insure that you haven't previously been fingerprinted under a different name, and it records your prints in the event that you do commit a crime, which will produce a non-zero number of people caught doing things, but then that's an argument to fingerprint everybody.
A "valid check" in all 50 states would require multiple visits to county courthouses in places where they don't have online records accessible. It's extremely expensive and time-consuming. It's why the FBI is so backlogged on the (more thorough) background checks for handgun purchases and why checks for security clearances are contracted out. Those are "valid" checks (assuming the contractors don't let things slip through the cracks, which isn't always a safe assumption). Now, you can make the argument that any "professional" driver should have to pass a high bar, on the level of a handgun purchase, because strangers are entrusting you with their safety. I wouldn't make that argument, simply because of the effect a barrier like that has on pricing out a segment of the market that needs this service, but it's at least a consistent viewpoint. "Background checks need fingerprints or else they're no good!" is just ignorance masquerading as social concern. But then that's why it's so easy to persuade state governments to require 1500 hours to cut hair. BUT THE SCISSORS! THERE ARE CHILDREN! That's you, folks.
Complete and utter horse poop. Uber only checks locally at the address you give them. They make absolutely no attempt to go back to previous addresses, or states.
The red part is pure fabrication. I don't know how much you actually know about background checks, but it appears to be minimal, at best. Fingerprints will identify persons who have previously been arrested in other locales. Local background checks don't do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquitaine
Your linked article supports everything I've (tried) to explain. Which is probably why
Uber and Lyft have an interest in strong background checks and they always have, because of their giant exposure to liability in the event that an Uber driver goes off the rails. The fact that Uber drivers have committed crimes is a tautology: well, of course they have, just as cab drivers have (even so, the bulk of your "list" is just allegations - it's not remotely pretending to be criminal statistics). The big difference is that we tend to know about it when an Uber driver commits a crime because we know exactly who was in the car at what time and where they were.
And the kicker: Not even California demanded fingerprinting. Austin, you special snowflake, you.
If you like the new companies better, and there are plenty of reasons to do so, I wouldn't try to persuade you otherwise. If you just hate Uber because you think their execs are jerks, I wouldn't argue against that either. But if you think that fingerprinting adds value to a background check in this instance sufficient to be worth the cost, you're mistaken, unless your cost-benefit analysis is "no price is too high for even the tiniest addition to security," in which case I hope you spend the afterlife at Philadelphia International Airport.
Actually, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Maryland all initially demanded fingerprints. They all backed down due to public pressure of Uber/Lyft threatening to leave. If fingerprints are so worthless, why are they required for other forms of livery?
The voters did not run Uber and Lyft out of town. That was not on the ballot. They could be operating now if they chose to follow the same rules as everybody else.
Don in Austin
And they could be operating now if the city council let consumers decide what products they want.
They run background checks, and DL checks, so what more do you (austin) want? Only people who hate them are the taxi services and city not getting their taxes from the drivers.
The city council has to protect their buddies who run the taxi companies.
I still think the moral of the story is that if you don't feel comfortable using Uber or Lyft due to their policies on background checks, employee pay or status, etc., no one was forcing you to use them. That doesn't make it right to keep everyone else from using them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
