• UberPeople.NET - Independent community of rideshare drivers. It's FREE to be a person and enjoy all the benefits of membership. JOIN US! CLICK HERE

Gino goes berserk when I refuse the fare because he won't buckle up

Uberhomme

New Member
Passenger Gino went berserk today after I refused to take him because he would't wear his seat belt.
He said "f--k you" several times as he ranted when he left my car before closing the door. In non-uber trips, I insist that everyone who comes with me in my car wears their seat belt. I don't want any passengers crashing into me or my windshield if I have to come to a sudden stop. I also think that I am unnecessarily attracting the attention of the police. Please below from the MTO web site. Any thoughts?

Safe driving practices

Seatbelt fines
If you are driving, you can face a fine if you or anyone in your vehicle under age 16 is not wearing a seatbelt or secured in a proper child seat. If you are convicted, you will:

  • be fined between $200 and $1,000
  • receive two demerit points - demerit points remain on your driving record for two years
You can also be fined for having a broken seatbelt, even if it is not being used when you're stopped by a police officer.

Passengers over age 16
Passengers who are 16 years of age or older are responsible for buckling up themselves. If you appear to be at least 16 years of age, police officers can ask you for your name, address and date of birth. You will face a fine if you are not using or wearing a seatbelt properly.

Seatbelts in taxis
You must wear a seatbelt whenever you travel in a taxi. Taxi drivers must make sure that their cars have seatbelts in good working order.

The law does not require the taxi driver to provide a child car seat. When travelling in a taxi with a child, you should provide your own child car seat or booster seat.
 

RockinEZ

Well-Known Member
I have had them buckle up, and then un-buckle during the trip.
I tell them the law fines both of us. Buckle up or the trip ends.
It also offers a tiny bit more protection to the driver. If they don't comply it is a clue more trouble is coming.

I have enough trips so no one trip can hurt my score.
Out they go if they don't want to comply with the law.
 

biozon

Well-Known Member
It's super easy for me - in the front if anyone is not buckled up, it starts beeping annoyingly, and no one wants that, including pax, so they always buckle up. Also, 99% of my pax buckle up themselves without reminder.

As for back seat - I coulnd't care less. Anyone over 16 are responsible for themselves.

So if they don't want to buckle up, I don't care.

If they want that:

Be my guest!
 
Last edited:

RockinEZ

Well-Known Member
I picked up some very drunk 20 somethings when I first started. They had a sober girl minding the 3 guys in the back.

She kept apologizing for the idiots in the back. I asked them to buckle up, and they replied OK.

A car pulled out in front of us later in the trip, and the drunkest idiot hit the back of the front seat head rest (see biozon's photo) full force when I braked quickly. He kept complaining about his head hurting.

At that point I quit caring about drunken idiots and let him know that if he did not fasten his seat belt, his sore head was because he broke the law. I would be happy to have the cops escort him out of my car if he did not shut up. He shut up and apparently bought the story.

I let them out at the next corner. They were my first pax dump... turned out the be the first of many.

Evidently the girl had the account, because I never heard a thing from Uber. Didn't see any complaints on my weekly status for the next two months.

Freaking idiot......
 

RockinEZ

Well-Known Member
California seat belt law is pretty simple-everyone buckles up, or else.

The statute also has several sections that determine who is responsible for ensuring compliance with the law. If everyone in the car is 16 years of age or older, the driver is responsible for securing himself and all passengers. If there are children under the age of 16 in the car and their parents are not present, the driver is responsible for making sure the children are properly secured, as well. However, when parents of minors under age 16 are in the vehicle with their kids, they are responsible for securing their children no matter who is actually driving the car.

The driver is responsible, and will be ticketed unless the offender is a minor under 16 w/parents on board.
 

biozon

Well-Known Member
Wow, that's unreasonably strict and doesn't make sense to me. Why is the driver supposed to be responsible for adults to buckle themselves up in the car?
 

PoorBasterd

Well-Known Member
Wow, that's unreasonably strict and doesn't make sense to me. Why is the driver supposed to be responsible for adults to buckle themselves up in the car?
I thought America was the land of Libertarianism where every adult is responsible for himself only.
 

RockinEZ

Well-Known Member
Wow, that's unreasonably strict and doesn't make sense to me. Why is the driver supposed to be responsible for adults to buckle themselves up in the car?
Here in California the driver is responsible for most things that happen in the driver's car.

This is the land of "property confiscation" and the driver has the most valuable assets that can be claimed by the state.

In many cases property is confiscated, and sold before the case can go to court.

At the minimum the driver will face loss of driver license if the fine is not paid immediately upon judgement. This leads to loss of work, and homelessness in many cases.

The sad truth is, in California the citizen is looked on as a source of revenue.

Californians, including the State Governor, think this sucks.
The California legislature is trying to balance the state budget on the backs of drivers.
We have ineffective law makers in California.
 

PoorBasterd

Well-Known Member
This is the land of "property confiscation"
Now that you mentioned it, I remember hearing of that some time ago. The state has this law that allows it to expropriate the contents of safety deposit boxes if the customer was considered inactive. But allot of times, active bank customers where having their stuff taken as well.

Whatever happened to that part in the constitution about protection from "unlawful search and seizure"? A constitution isn't even worth the fancy paper it's printed on if the nation's executive, judiciary and law enforcement don't rever it as sacred.
 
Last edited:

RockinEZ

Well-Known Member
Now that you mentioned it, I remember hearing of that some time ago. The state has this law that allows it to expropriate the contents of safety deposit boxes if the customer was considered inactive. But allot of times, active bank customers where having their stuff taken as well.

Whatever happened to that part in the constitution about protection from "unlawful search and seizure"? A constitution isn't even worth the fancy paper it's printed on if the nation's executive, judiciary and law enforcement don't rever it as sacred.
I hear you talking, and I hate what is happening here.

Have you seen the videos of the police yanking people out of their cars when no law was broken?

It is a police state now.
 
Top