Two Uber drivers arrested while on duty, Uber paying $50 million in previous suits

Ca$h4

Well-Known Member
A man in Palo Alto, California, was arrested and charged with sexual assault after a female passenger told police that he made uninvited advances and ignored her requests to stop the vehicle, according to police.

Another driver in Chicago was pulled over for not wearing a seat belt and was arrested when officers discovered marijuana and a loaded weapon in the car. Police learned that the man has a prior felony conviction and doesn't have the proper license for carrying a firearm.

It's unclear if the Chicago man already had a criminal record when he was hired by Uber.

Uber has exploded around the world, but its ambitions have hit a number of speed bumps. The company has been slapped with government fines, sued by drivers, targeted in protests, and even banned outright in some cities. In India, an Uber driver was found guilty of raping a passenger.

Voters in Austin, Texas, passed a law that mandated fingerprinting for ride share drivers in May. Uber and competitor Lyft promptly left the city in protest. Critics argue that fingerprints are more thorough than the name-based checks that Uber currently conducts. Uber, meanwhile, says fingerprinting is discriminatory and time consuming.

Uber, which is valued at $62.5 billion, has faced multiple lawsuits for advertising its service as the "safest ride on the road." Uber stopped making those types of claims earlier this year and has agreed to pay more than $50 million to settle the suits.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/two-uber-drivers-arrested-while-on-duty
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Teksaz

Well-Known Member
This is why Travis doesn't want fingerprinting. Lol Hilarious It's awesome that Austin told Goober and Lyft to go pound sand. Hopefully Houston and Chicago follow Austin's lead. Eff Travis and Goober.

Another driver in Chicago was pulled over for not wearing a seat belt and was arrested when officers discovered marijuana and a loaded weapon in the car. Police learned that the man has a prior felony conviction and doesn't have the proper license for carrying a firearm.
 

tohunt4me

Well-Known Member
Everyone should be fingerprinted,D.N.A. tested,and polygraphed to work anywhere .

Weekly drug tests.

Body cams required during working hours.

Cameras in the home for " Random Viewing" by employers !

Privacy ? Rights?
YOU DONT NEED THEM IF YOU WANT TO WORK.

BIG BROTHER LOVES YOU.
 

u-Boat

Well-Known Member
This would, of course, mean that the Good Voters of Austin who came out to vote in the plebiscite on the fingerprinting were "corrupt". The "corrupt Austin City Govt" held this plebiscite at the demand of Uber and Lyft.
uBer and Lyft saw the writing on the wall. They drew a line in the sand and held firm. Good for them. All Govts are corrupt in one form or another. Just follow the money trail.
 

u-Boat

Well-Known Member
If that is the case, why did Uber and Lyft spend eight million dollars in an attempt to buy the results of that plebiscite?
Prop 1's purpose was to overturn the 2015 ordinance passed by Austin City Council requiring fingerprint background checks and a 1% tax on uBer and Lyft correct? Correct. uBer knew this "plebiscite" would get shot down in a town like Austin where voter awareness & turnout would be minimal at best. Austin City Council knew that too. So uBer threw some money into the ring because they had something at stake. And they owed it to their employees and drivers to at least put up a fight against a corrupt, pro-taxi city council.

Furthermore if you look at the ordinance the 1% tax was just a start. It also left the door open for an additional 1% tax if certain safety standards were not met. This was a classic "give an inch and they'll take a mile" scenario. uBer and Lyft smartly did not give that inch, setting precedent against future horse shit ordinances in other cities.
 

u-Boat

Well-Known Member
I think UBoat is out of meaningful contributions to this debate. He's almost out of one liner talking points.
And you call this reply a meaningful contribution? This forum has been hijacked by disgruntled cabbies and anti-uBer folk that care nothing about competition and free market principles. So no, I'm nowhere close to being out of meaningful contributions and one-liner talking points. Especially considering that I'm only one "city ordinance" away from being put out of business. Where I live the taxi lobby is deeply embedded into the system & without a company like uBer sticking up for the me I'd have zero chance of being allowed to legally operate my business.
 

sellkatsell44

Well-Known Member
u-Boat || And you call this reply a meaningful contribution? This forum has been hijacked by disgruntled cabbies and anti-uBer folk that care nothing about competition and free market principles. So no, I'm nowhere close to being out of meaningful contributions and one-liner talking points. Especially considering that I'm only one "city ordinance" away from being put out of business. Where I live the taxi lobby is deeply embedded into the system & without a company like uBer sticking up for the me I'd have zero chance of being allowed to legally operate my business. ||

Is this a case of which is the lesser evil?

I feel like you're getting a bit confused.

Uber may have started ideally wanting to disrupt the system and put a little competition with taxi and I almost admire (because once upon a time, I would fight the same, hit hard the first punch, no real finesse, just aim to crush the competition every time)...

But they're not doing it in a way that is community, environmentally and labor sensitive/friendly. I'm all for competition so that there isn't a monopoly but not if that competition isn't bringing real value & on its way to becoming the next monopoly
 

u-Boat

Well-Known Member
u-Boat || And you call this reply a meaningful contribution? This forum has been hijacked by disgruntled cabbies and anti-uBer folk that care nothing about competition and free market principles. So no, I'm nowhere close to being out of meaningful contributions and one-liner talking points. Especially considering that I'm only one "city ordinance" away from being put out of business. Where I live the taxi lobby is deeply embedded into the system & without a company like uBer sticking up for the me I'd have zero chance of being allowed to legally operate my business. ||

Is this a case of which is the lesser evil?

I feel like you're getting a bit confused.

Uber may have started ideally wanting to disrupt the system and put a little competition with taxi and I almost admire (because once upon a time, I would fight the same, hit hard the first punch, no real finesse, just aim to crush the competition every time)...

But they're not doing it in a way that is community, environmentally and labor sensitive/friendly. I'm all for competition so that there isn't a monopoly but not if that competition isn't bringing real value & on its way to becoming the next monopoly
I understand your point and I agree. But consider this... In my state legislators have enacted an annual permit tax of $1 million per year for a TNC to operate. So say a small, driver-friendly startup like Juno is looking to break into the market and compete with uBer and Lyft. They need to pony up $1 million... not exactly chump change. It's State-enacted hurdles like this that stifles competition, promotes monopolies, and allows companies like uBer to get away with treating their drivers unfairly. Hence my point... we need more freedom from Govt. Let the best TNC companies weed themselves out by competing for OUR services. Best man left standing. Taxes are ridiculous, it's 2016... local Govts can and should just take a negotiated, small cut off the top off of each and every single ride. They can get paid weekly just like we do.
 

LA Cabbie

Well-Known Member
If uber really was a taxi company and all these shenanigans went on: 1) the taxicab commission would have pulled the companies franchise license. 2) company management would have been fired.

But when it comes to uber they can have a terrorist shooting and killing bystanders between pickups and it's all ok because uber is free market and innovative.
 

sellkatsell44

Well-Known Member
I understand your point and I agree. But consider this... In my state legislators have enacted an annual permit tax of $1 million per year for a TNC to operate. So say a small, driver-friendly startup like Juno is looking to break into the market and compete with uBer and Lyft. They need to pony up $1 million... not exactly chump change. It's State-enacted hurdles like this that stifles competition, promotes monopolies, and allows companies like uBer to get away with treating their drivers unfairly. Hence my point... we need more freedom from Govt. Let the best TNC companies weed themselves out by competing for OUR services. Best man left standing. Taxes are ridiculous, it's 2016... local Govts can and should just take a negotiated, small cut off the top off of each and every single ride. They can get paid weekly just like we do.
Can I see the actual document stating that in your state it's been enacted and it's a million in taxes and not a million minimum insurance policy?

I have this from Houston
https://www.houstontx.gov/ara/chapter46docs/vehicle_for_hire-faqs.pdf

http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=248539

And this from Austin

They're talking about a certain percentage of the fare as tax...

Also if anything, I think this area needs a little governing to help the little guys aka the drivers as right now, managed by uber, it isn't creating any ideal situations
 

Another Uber Driver

Well-Known Member
Moderator
uBer knew this "plebiscite" would get shot down in a town like Austin where voter awareness & turnout would be minimal at best. Austin City Council knew that too.
You base this assertion on what? You forget that Uber and Lyft demanded this plebiscite. Neither Uber nor Lyft are going to spend millions of dollars on something that they are sure will go for naught. That makes no sense, especially when you consider Uber. Uber is not going to spend millions because it thinks that it owes something to its employees and drivers. Uber's corporate culture is such that it does not think that it owes anyone or any entity anything.

There was a massive publicity campaign put on by the TNCs. They collected signatures. Crash goes your "awareness" (or lack thereof) chariot.

I am curious about your objection to safety standards and a penalty for failing to meet them. Taxicabs and limousines must meet certain safety standards. Why should not TNC cars? You put language in your posts about "fair competition", but when you support safety standards for other public conveyances and oppose them for yours, you are supporting a double standard and what is a textbook illustration of unfair competition.

Taxicab and limousine companies pay taxes and fees. Why should TNCs not pay taxes and fees? Or do you support another double standard and another textbook illustration of unfair competition?

By your TNCs' own admission, they can not compete when subjected to the same rules and regulations as taxicabs and limousines. By T. Kalanick's own admission, the TNCs are doing the same thing that the taxicabs and limousines are doing.

Your statements are mere speculation. They might hold water on paper, but they hold none in reality and especially, if they don't hold no water, they ain't gonna' make no steam.






This forum has been hijacked by disgruntled cabbies and anti-uBer folk that care nothing about competition and free market principles.
How do you define either a "disgruntled cabbie" or "anti-uBer folk" [sic]? Someone who does not agree with u-Boat?
I have no problem with a free market in a fair marketplace. I have a real problem when all competitors but one or two must compete with a handicap; especially when they must do so at the order of the referee in the marketplace.
 

phillipzx3

Well-Known Member
So all the other cities have to do is tell Uber/Lyft they have to follow the same rules cabs have been doing, they'll stomp their feet like a two year old and leave?

If that's the case, it's obvious Uber truly doesn't give a rats behind about anyone/anything other than making Travis a pile of money.

Claiming Uber won is like telling a snakebite victim they "won" because they only lost an arm but didn't die.
 

u-Boat

Well-Known Member
You base this assertion on what? You forget that Uber and Lyft demanded this plebiscite.
17% voter turnout for prop 1 despite the campaign. It was never gonna pass. uBer & Lyft simply wanted a public vote and national story to set a precedent for other cities thinking about tightening the screws on the free market.
 

Another Uber Driver

Well-Known Member
Moderator
17% voter turnout for prop 1 despite the campaign.
A seventeen per-cent turnout means that Uber and Lyft knew that they were going to lose the plebiscite? That makes no sense. I will start with no one's knowing what the turnout would be until the plebiscite was concluded.

You have no argument.
 
Last edited:
Top