Eddie Mella NEW UBER/LYFT REGULATIONS.

Eddie Mella

Active Member
Never listen to negativity. Fight for what you believe is right.

By Adam VaccaroGLOBE STAFF SEPTEMBER 08, 2017

In a bow to pressure from business interests and criminal justice activists, the state government Friday modified background checks for Uber and Lyft drivers that critics said unfairly cost those with past legal and driving infractions their livelihood.

The changes should give some drivers who had been automatically banned because they had court settlements, but not a criminal conviction, more opportunity to appeal their rejections. Regulators are also shortening the time period that a suspended license disqualifies most drivers, from seven to five years.

The new regulations take effect Sept. 22 and replace temporary rules that began in January.

Some activists said the changes did not go far enough and that the state background checks remain overly harsh.

But Katie Gronendyke, a spokeswoman for the Department of Public Utilities, which oversees ride-hail firms, said “the regulations represent several adjustments to address such concerns.” She noted that many drivers “who erred years ago” could ask the court to have their criminal records sealed after a certain number of years.

“The administration believes the regulations protect riders from drivers with serious criminal records and histories of dangerous driving,” she added.

In April, the state reported it had rejectedabout 8,200 of 71,000 active ride-hail driversduring the initial round of background checks. Hundreds were banned for violent crimes, sex offenses, or serious driving violations, and those conditions remain automatic disqualifiers under the new rules.


But the most common reasons for rejections were related to driver’s license status: Many had their licenses suspended within the last seven years. Others were disqualified because they had court cases that ended not with a conviction but in a continuation without a finding, a form of settlement that defendants can later get dismissed.

Many banned drivers were frustrated the state left them little opportunity to argue their case, automatically rejecting most appeals without a hearing. Drivers and civil rights activists packed public hearing rooms, calling the background checks unfair and potentially discriminatory because minority populations are more likely to have had contact with the criminal justice system.

Now the state appears to have bent, if only slightly.

Drivers banned for having a continuance without a finding can now get a hearing before regulators — but only if the court settlement is more than seven years old. Onlicense suspensions, drivers will be disqualified if the event happened within the previous five years, instead of seven.

However, “habitual traffic offenders,” those who have racked up serious infractions within certain time periods, can be banned for a license suspension within a 10-year window.

The DPU added offenses that could ban drivers, including felony breaking and entering, and witness intimidation.

The state background checks, the first of their kind in the country, go deeper into an applicant’s past than those conducted by Uber and Lyft. The companies note they are limited by state law to checking just the last seven years of a driver’s history, and had previously criticized the state checks as overly stringent.

The DPU elected not to adopt a cap on drivers spending more than 70 hours a week on the road, a measure meant to limit driver fatigue that Uber had opposed. Instead, drivers will be limited to 12 hours on the road a day.

Uber and Lyft both said they are reviewing the new rules.

Johanna Griffiths, a criminal defense attorney who consulted with drivers rejected by the state checks, said the adjustments do not address some central concerns: that the state can still examine an unlimited period of a driver’s history for some offenses and those with court continuances are unfairly banned from work.

Andrea James, an advocate for prison inmates with the group Families for Justice as Healing, said she was dismayed by the state’s approach to the background checks and has little confidence the government will take seriously other matters of criminal justice reform. “It speaks to the state’s absence of will to move us forward to meaningful criminal justice reform,” she said. “They say we need to do something, but they continue to do things like this.”

Adam Vaccaro can be reached [email protected]. Follow him on [email protected]
 

Tysmith95

Well-Known Member
God, this guy had massive anger problems and does not have the temperament required to be a ride share driver
 

Eddie Mella

Active Member
God, this guy had massive anger problems and does not have the temperament required to be a ride share driver
What massive anger problems. You just got your livelihood taken away. Hope that never happens to you regardless of all the nagativity from you.

God, this guy had massive anger problems and does not have the temperament required to be a ride share driver
Funny how you judge me. You dont even know me.
 

B - uberlyftdriver

Well-Known Member
IMG_0074.JPG
 

john1975

Well-Known Member
Never listen to negativity. Fight for what you believe is right.

By Adam VaccaroGLOBE STAFF SEPTEMBER 08, 2017

In a bow to pressure from business interests and criminal justice activists, the state government Friday modified background checks for Uber and Lyft drivers that critics said unfairly cost those with past legal and driving infractions their livelihood.

The changes should give some drivers who had been automatically banned because they had court settlements, but not a criminal conviction, more opportunity to appeal their rejections. Regulators are also shortening the time period that a suspended license disqualifies most drivers, from seven to five years.

The new regulations take effect Sept. 22 and replace temporary rules that began in January.

Some activists said the changes did not go far enough and that the state background checks remain overly harsh.

But Katie Gronendyke, a spokeswoman for the Department of Public Utilities, which oversees ride-hail firms, said “the regulations represent several adjustments to address such concerns.” She noted that many drivers “who erred years ago” could ask the court to have their criminal records sealed after a certain number of years.

“The administration believes the regulations protect riders from drivers with serious criminal records and histories of dangerous driving,” she added.

In April, the state reported it had rejectedabout 8,200 of 71,000 active ride-hail driversduring the initial round of background checks. Hundreds were banned for violent crimes, sex offenses, or serious driving violations, and those conditions remain automatic disqualifiers under the new rules.


But the most common reasons for rejections were related to driver’s license status: Many had their licenses suspended within the last seven years. Others were disqualified because they had court cases that ended not with a conviction but in a continuation without a finding, a form of settlement that defendants can later get dismissed.

Many banned drivers were frustrated the state left them little opportunity to argue their case, automatically rejecting most appeals without a hearing. Drivers and civil rights activists packed public hearing rooms, calling the background checks unfair and potentially discriminatory because minority populations are more likely to have had contact with the criminal justice system.

Now the state appears to have bent, if only slightly.

Drivers banned for having a continuance without a finding can now get a hearing before regulators — but only if the court settlement is more than seven years old. Onlicense suspensions, drivers will be disqualified if the event happened within the previous five years, instead of seven.

However, “habitual traffic offenders,” those who have racked up serious infractions within certain time periods, can be banned for a license suspension within a 10-year window.

The DPU added offenses that could ban drivers, including felony breaking and entering, and witness intimidation.

The state background checks, the first of their kind in the country, go deeper into an applicant’s past than those conducted by Uber and Lyft. The companies note they are limited by state law to checking just the last seven years of a driver’s history, and had previously criticized the state checks as overly stringent.

The DPU elected not to adopt a cap on drivers spending more than 70 hours a week on the road, a measure meant to limit driver fatigue that Uber had opposed. Instead, drivers will be limited to 12 hours on the road a day.

Uber and Lyft both said they are reviewing the new rules.

Johanna Griffiths, a criminal defense attorney who consulted with drivers rejected by the state checks, said the adjustments do not address some central concerns: that the state can still examine an unlimited period of a driver’s history for some offenses and those with court continuances are unfairly banned from work.

Andrea James, an advocate for prison inmates with the group Families for Justice as Healing, said she was dismayed by the state’s approach to the background checks and has little confidence the government will take seriously other matters of criminal justice reform. “It speaks to the state’s absence of will to move us forward to meaningful criminal justice reform,” she said. “They say we need to do something, but they continue to do things like this.”

Adam Vaccaro can be reached [email protected]. Follow him on [email protected]
These tweaks won't help the bulk of deactivated drivers. The most significant rule change is the limit to 12 hours. Lyft already has a 14 hour max that requires requires 6 hours off. I wonder if the apps will now shut us off over 12. but can't see how to prevent someone from running both app for more hours.

God, this guy had massive anger problems and does not have the temperament required to be a ride share driver
Sounds like a perfect fit to me.
 

Wookie767

Well-Known Member
How are they determining the time? Time on the app? I cant see how they know your working if the app is offline
 

Gung-Ho

Well-Known Member
WOW. All those banned drivers getting unshackled and being allowed to drive again. I sense they will be rabid and invading the streets like locusts.
 

Eddie Mella

Active Member
He's a loser. He fits right in with most full time Uber drivers. lol
Funny how you judge me. You dont even know me.

Once an offender always an offender! As soon as he gets activated again and starts doing dumb uber driving and starts getting summons, his license will be gone again.. UBER ON!
I have not had a ticket in 3 years. Your response is pure baseless b.s.

WOW. All those banned drivers getting unshackled and being allowed to drive again. I sense they will be rabid and invading the streets like locusts.
Its not that many that got the green light. All they did was reduce the lookback for suspensions from 7 to 5 years.
 

Jaackil

Well-Known Member
How are they determining the time? Time on the app? I cant see how they know your working if the app is offline
The app is always running in the backround. It is tracking and analyzing your every movement not being paranoid it's the truth The only way to stop it is turn your phone off or delete the app
 
Top