# City Council Votes To Impose Regulations On Uber, Lyft Drivers



## BuckSF (Jul 14, 2016)

The Honolulu City Council approved a bill to regulate ride-hailing services such as Uber and Lyft on an 8-1 vote Wednesday in a victory for taxi companies that ended months of discussion.

After the Council voted, Uber and Lyft drivers immediately began filing out of the City Council chambers, but a group of taxi supporters in the back erupted in applause.

The Honolulu City Council approved a bill to regulate ride-hailing services such as Uber and Lyft on an 8-1 vote Wednesday in a victory for taxi companies that ended months of discussion.

After the Council voted, Uber and Lyft drivers immediately began filing out of the City Council chambers, but a group of taxi supporters in the back erupted in applause.

http://www.civilbeat.org/2016/08/city-council-votes-to-impose-regulations-on-uber-lyft-drivers

"And So It Begins."
-- Kosh, Babylon 5


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

The TNCs did not announce plans because they know that the municipalities are going to take the dare. Austin staggered and stumbled, but to read what the drivers have to say, it has stabilised. Houston plans on standing its ground. I suspect, too, that someone in Uber's hierarchy realised that dumping a market such as Chicago is cutting off the nose to spite the face.

The TNCs have to be aware that the agitation to subject them to the same rules and regulations as taxi and limousine drivers is growing. There are several things influencing this, not the least of which is the growing number of offences committed by drivers against passengers. In many cases, these drivers passed the TNC's' private background check, but, upon arrest, when the police ran a background check, previous convictions for violent crimes showed.

There are other factors at play, as well. 

The TNCs have no room to talk about donations to politicians. They have done that to get regulatory passes, in addition to "making other arrangements". When the TNCs made those ""arrangements", they thought that it was a one time thing. Obviously, they have no one working for them who is politically astute. Put it this way: "greedy politician" is redundant.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Congrats @honolulu.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

BuckSF said:


> http://www.civilbeat.org/2016/08/city-council-votes-to-impose-regulations-on-uber-lyft-drivers/
> 
> "And So It Begins."
> -- Kosh, Babylon 5


Why now ?
After all this time ?

Massive taxes coming soon.


----------



## Vanstaal (Nov 25, 2015)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Congrats @honolulu.


Traffic is light in New York City. Come on down for a drive!


----------



## ChortlingCrison (Mar 30, 2016)

Well hopefully they'll stand by what they say. With the few excepts like Austin/Houston/NYC, state/city regulators seam to wimp out at the last minute.


----------



## ubershiza (Jan 19, 2015)

Which goes to prove uber and lyft are taxi companies, if it walks and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> The TNCs did not announce plans because they know that the municipalities are going to take the dare. Austin staggered and stumbled, but to read what the drivers have to say, it has stabilised. Houston plans on standing its ground. I suspect, too, that someone in Uber's hierarchy realised that dumping a market such as Chicago is cutting off the nose to spite the face.
> 
> The TNCs have to be aware that the agitation to subject them to the same rules and regulations as taxi and limousine drivers is growing. There are several things influencing this, not the least of which is the growing number of offences committed by drivers against passengers. In many cases, these drivers passed the TNC's' private background check, but, upon arrest, when the police ran a background check, previous convictions for violent crimes showed.
> 
> ...


....annnnnnd, you just made all of that up. Please show us these "many cases". Many would mean more than two or three.

Now, lets discuss how taxis have been robbing people for 3/4 a century.


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> ....annnnnnd, you just made all of that up. Please show us these "many cases". Many would mean more than two or three.
> 
> Now, lets discuss how taxis have been robbing people for 3/4 a century.


Here's 25 cases right here that cost Uber $10 million.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/uber-settles-driver-background-check-case-least-10m-n552741

"Prosecutors ratcheted up pressure on the company in August, expanding the lawsuit with claims that Uber failed to uncover the criminal records of 25 California drivers, including several registered sex offenders and a convicted murderer."

I'd say 25 meets the definition of "many cases." Looks like Another Uber Driver is on top of his facts. Twenty five in California alone, makes one wonder just how big the failed number is across every market Uber operates in.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> Now, lets discuss how taxis have been robbing people for 3/4 a century.


...........a-a-a-a-a-nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnddddddddddd you are making up that.

Now go play in your phantasy world while the adults discuss reality.

Thank you, Beur. I guess that I need not mention the Texas cases. Twenty-five in California ought to be enough, as you so correctly indicate. In addition, some people fail to understand that one woman raped is three too many.


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> ...........a-a-a-a-a-nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnddddddddddd you are making up that.
> 
> Now go play in your phantasy world while the adults discuss reality.
> 
> Thank you, Beur. I guess that I need not mention the Texas cases. Twenty-five in California ought to be enough, as you so correctly indicate. In addition, some people fail to understand that one woman raped is three too many.


When it comes to background checks I don't understand these Uber apologists, unless of course they have something to hide!

Here's my cup of pee, vial of blood, and my fingers, get to printing them and running my background! Nothing to hide here.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Beur said:


> Here's 25 cases right here that cost Uber $10 million.
> 
> http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/uber-settles-driver-background-check-case-least-10m-n552741
> 
> ...


"In many cases, these drivers passed the TNC's' private background check, but, upon arrest, when the police ran a background check, previous convictions for violent crimes showed."

You notice the part where it says "upon arrest"? So no, that's not 25 cases. That's no cases.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> ...........a-a-a-a-a-nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnddddddddddd you are making up that.
> 
> Now go play in your phantasy world while the adults discuss reality.
> 
> Thank you, Beur. I guess that I need not mention the Texas cases. Twenty-five in California ought to be enough, as you so correctly indicate. In addition, some people fail to understand that one woman raped is three too many.


There is no evidence of:

Fingerprint checks resulting in a safer outcome for customers.
Uber drivers committing crimes at a higher rate than taxi drivers.
Hundreds of my passengers have told me stories of being swindled by taxi drivers.

You made a claim that many drivers have been arrested and then they found criminal backgrounds. I'm waiting for your list.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Beur said:


> When it comes to background checks I don't understand these Uber apologists, unless of course they have something to hide!
> 
> Here's my cup of pee, vial of blood, and my fingers, get to printing them and running my background! Nothing to hide here.


I would have no issue with background checks if they could demonstrate a safer outcome for passengers. Until they do, it's just more political incursion on the free market based upon their whims to justify their existence. We're just now shaking off a century of taxi / politician corput monopolization through regulation, I'm not interested in going back.

If you moved to a neighborhood, should the police just show up and search your home and belongings just to make sure you aren't a criminal or are we supposed to have a right to privacy? On the whim of the government? Show me your papers?

The old "if you have nothing to hide" you should surrender all your rights is the exact opposite of the reason we have these rights. I don't surrender rights on someone else's whim and I've had high security clearances, so, nothing to hide.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> There is no evidence of:
> 
> Fingerprint checks resulting in a safer outcome for customers.
> Uber drivers committing crimes at a higher rate than taxi drivers.
> ...


TL;dr


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> TL;dr


Your loss.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> Your loss.


TL;dr


----------



## ChortlingCrison (Mar 30, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> I would have no issue with background checks if they could demonstrate a safer outcome for passengers. Until they do, it's just more political incursion on the free market based upon their whims to justify their existence. We're just now shaking off a century of taxi / politician corput monopolization through regulation, I'm not interested in going back.
> 
> If you moved to a neighborhood, should the police just show up and search your home and belongings just to make sure you aren't a criminal or are we supposed to have a right to privacy? On the whim of the government? Show me your papers?
> 
> The old "if you have nothing to hide" you should surrender all your rights is the exact opposite of the reason we have these rights. I don't surrender rights on someone else's whim and I've had high security clearances, so, nothing to hide.


How long have you been on uber's secret payroll?


----------



## ChortlingCrison (Mar 30, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> ....annnnnnd, you just made all of that up. Please show us these "many cases". Many would mean more than two or three.
> 
> Now, lets discuss how taxis have been robbing people for 3/4 a century.


Why don't you prove they weren't. Uber can do no wrong can they. LOLOL


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

ChortlingCrison said:


> Why don't you prove they weren't. Uber can do no wrong can they. LOLOL


You can't prove a negative. Your joke wasn't as funny.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

ChortlingCrison said:


> How long have you been on uber's secret payroll?


It's no secret, Since September 2015, as a driver.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> TL;dr


Your second loss.

Sorry I caught you in a new tall tale, but you should know better by now.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> Sorry I caught you in a new tall tale, but you should know better by now.


Do you have a study that would back up that statement?


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Do you have a study that would back up that statement?


A study that shows you don't tell the truth and fabricate things? That you're a taxi supporter moderator on what is supposed to be an Uber driver forum, who tells tall tales?

Nope, you caught me, I don't.

What I DO have is I called you out on a new false statement and you can't support it. Please show us the many Uber drivers arrested for crimes who were then discovered to have a criminal past not caught by the background check.

Bonus points if you show this compared to fingerprinted taxi drivers instead of taking it out of context and ignoring all the crimes committed by taxi drivers. Thanks!!


----------



## ubershiza (Jan 19, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Do you have a study that would back up that statement?


I thought moderators were payed to brown nose Travis and Matt wing, but I might be wrong.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

ubershiza said:


> I thought moderators were personally selected to brown nose Travis and Matt wing, but I might be wrong.


You would think all mods would at least be neutral, or even anti-Uber (I get it), though not taxi proponents, but that's not what I see. Justsayin'.

The non-taxi driver mods here are pretty fair handed, honest, and don't push agendas.

By the way, I head up the_ banned for calling a spade a spade_ club.

In a lot of ways Uber sucks, it doesn't suck for me at this point in my market, but only having taxis for a century, with outrageous rates and horrible service forced down our throats, was a nightmare I don't ever want to return to.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> A study that shows you don't tell the truth and fabricate things?
> 
> Nope, you caught me, I don't.
> 
> What I DO have is I called you out on a new false statement and you can't support it.


Time to put you into your place, Skippy.

July, 2016-Ronald De Luca, Boston-previous registered sex offender, numerous traffic violations including no insurance and a suspended licence.
October, 2015-Emmett Lyons, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, previous violent crimes 2007 and before.
December, 2014-Alejandro Dome, Boston, previous sex crime convictions
December, 2014-Yves Goin, Cape Cod, previous violent crimes and sex offences
February, 2016-John David Sanchez, El Cajon, California, numerous previous sex offences.

There are five, I have more. Understand that while some of these people may have had the charges dropped, they were arrested and, upon arrest, it came out that they had these previous records. The previous did not come out in the private background check.

Get it straight, Mister: _*NEVER*_ have you "caught" me "fabricating" _*ANYTHING*_. Every time that you have accused me of fabricating, I have proved you the liar, the fabricator, just plain ignorant or any combination of the three. You simply refuse to see it, even when everyone else in the topic has seen it. Once more, I have proved you to be in error.

What really escapes me is that while you willingly submit personal and financial information to a company that is the daily target of hackers, you complain about submitting personal information to the government agencies. You can not see the inconsistency even in that.



RamzFanz said:


> You would think all mods would at least be neutral, or even anti-Uber (I get it), but not taxi proponents, but that's not what I see. Justsayin'.
> 
> The non-taxi driver mods here are pretty fair handed, honest, and don't push agendas.


Do you expect me to sit there and take it when you make false, baseless, blanket statements about cab drivers and the cab business?
I am supposed to sit there and take lying down the nonsense that you put up here about the cab business? If that is what you think, you are going to be disappointed.

You continue to post false statements about me. I am not anti-Uber. I use Uber Taxi and like it. I have stated that more than once on these Boards. You ignore that. If you expect me to damn the taxi business just because you think that it is fashionable to do so, you are going to be disappointed. If you define "fair-handed and honest" as being anti-taxi or at least not defending the cab business against the baseless attacks that you launch against it, perhaps you need to look in the mirror to see who is "push[ing] an agenda". In fact, even if you do not define it as such, still you need to look in the mirror to see who is "push[ing] an agenda"; an anti--taxi agenda.

I have let you know this more than once: keep attacking the taxi business and I will defend it.

Now do what you are told, Skippy, you should know better by now: run along and go play in your phantasyland sandbox. The adults have important matters that deal with reality to discuss.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Time to put you into your place, Skippy.
> 
> July, 2016-Ronald De Luca, Boston-previous registered sex offender, numerous traffic violations including no insurance and a suspended licence.
> October, 2015-Emmett Lyons, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, previous violent crimes 2007 and before.
> ...


LOL! Look at you going all cabbie!

YOU trash Uber and Uber drivers all day long and don't think I'm going to call you out? Have you never read my posts? Does that sound like me?

Dude, I have so exposed you for fabricating nonsense so many times, I can't count them. You are a taxi driving taxi proponent as a moderator on what is supposed to be an Uber driver forum.

While I OPENLY and CONSISTENTLY acknowledge the failings of Uber you take a position of taxi perfection. I don't think I've ever once read you criticize ANYTHING taxi. All the crimes, all the scams, and you think they just fart roses. Seriously, there is an elephant in the room and that is I have never carried a pax who expressed the opinion they liked taxis. Not one. LOTS and LOTS of horror stories, but not a single supporter. I've had so many pax rave about Uber and Uber drivers, I couldn't count them.

Even Uber haters on here will acknowledge the same experience. I doubt you could find a single honest Uber driver who will tell you they haven't heard the same.



Another Uber Driver said:


> There are several things influencing this, not the least of which is the growing number of offences committed by drivers against passengers. In many cases, these drivers passed the TNC's' private background check, but, upon arrest, when the police ran a background check, previous convictions for violent crimes showed.


You said MANY. Meaning a LOT of drivers OFFENDED passengers and had criminal records. Over a BILLION rides given and you name five people and five crimes? That's less crimes than a minute in the taxi industry.

STOP TRASHING UBER DRIVERS with your BS.

Your hour late and deliberately long ride is over, pay me cash, my card reader is broken. Don't forget my big tip, cash only.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> *1. *Look at you going all cabbie!
> 
> *2, *YOU trash Uber and Uber drivers all day long and don't think I'm going to call you out?
> 
> ...


1. HUH?

2. I do not always "trash" Uber drivers. I am one. I have posted more than once that I drive Uber Taxi and UberX. I have exposed your lying, again.

3. You have never exposed any "lie" from me because never have I posted one. Every attempt that you have made to prove me a liar has failed miserably. Crash goes that chariot.

4. That is a lie. I have pointed out more than one shortcoming of cab drivers and cab companies. I have exposed another lie from you.

5. If that is the case, you must read at about a third grade level. If you are willing to move to India or the Philippines, perhaps you could apply to be an Uber CSR.

6. That is a lie. I have exposed yet another lie from you.

7. I do not know what you are carrying then. I have carried passengers in both the UberX car and the cab that fall on either side of the question. ......or are you telling yet another story to advance your anti-taxi agenda?

8. I have had so many passengers complain about UberX drivers and who are thankful that they have the taxi option here that I can not count them.

9. I told you that there were five to start and that I had more. You can add that to the twenty-four in California (subtract the one that I did mention from California) and you are at twenty-nine. I told you that there are more. That is only in the United States. I have left out Canada, Mexico, Europe and Asia--for now. You have no basis on which to make the statement or to infer that there are five crimes per "minute in the taxi industry". I have exposed another fabrication on your part. Crash goes that chariot.

10, What I post about Uber drivers is not Beta Sigma. It comes from something that I have that you lack: experience. I do not "trash" them, but I will point out their shortcomings when it is merited. I am an Uber driver. I will not trash myself.

You should know better by now, Skippy. The more that you post, the worse that you look. Do what you are told: go play in your *phantasmagorical* sandbox and leave reality to those who can handle it.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> 1. HUH?
> 
> 2. I do not always "trash" Uber drivers. I am one. I have posted more than once that I drive Uber Taxi and UberX. I have exposed your lying, again.
> 
> ...


I see you are counting the CA numbers that were not arrests for offenses against, as I pointed out, but that's what I expected. 100% pro taxi and anti-Uber driver.

My work here, once again, is done. You, once again, made a false statement derogatory to Uber and Uber drivers and I called you out and you failed. I don't believe a word you say, your agenda is obvious. Like I said, I doubt you could find an honest person on here that won't tell you their pax have hundreds of cab horror stories.

Over a billion rides and your "many", which you fabricated out of thin air to support your agenda, turned out to be five. Before you go data mining anti-Uber driver websites for more, go search taxicab driver crimes. We don't have a site where we catalog them because we aren't scared of taxis, but there are hundreds of google pages of them when you are ready to look.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> *1. *I see you are counting the CA numbers that were not arrests for offenses against.
> 
> *2. *My work here, once again, is done. You, once again, made a false statement derogatory to Uber and Uber drivers and I called you out and you failed.
> 
> ...


1. In fact, one of the California cases that I cited involved the arrest of someone who had a previous record that the private background check did not reveal. I have stated more than once that there are others, I cited that one as an example.

2. As you have done repeatedly in the past, you have appointed yourself the referee and (_*SURPRISE!!!!!!)*_ declared yourself the winner. This is an old tactic used by people who come up on the short end of a disagreement.  You have come up on the short end of this disagreement, once more. In fact, every time we have had this disagreement on background checks, you have been owned and not just by me. More than one other participant in the discussions has pointed out your non-arguments and that said non-arguments were nonsense. This discussion was about regulations and background checks, not about Uber drivers in general, To be sure, Uber drivers have come into it, but only those who are criminals. Once more, I have caught and exposed your making false statements about me. You have failed every time that you have tried to tango with me or other posters to these Boards on this subject. Crash goes that chariot.

3, I have proved my points and exposed yours as non-points. Thus, I have reason to disbelieve anything that you state. As your anti-taxi agenda is obvious, I really do not care if you believe anything that I post or not. You have demonstrated repeatedly that logic is a foreign concept to you, so it is a waste of anyone's time even to attempt to have a reasonable discussion with you. Crash goes another one of your chariots.

4. You fail to read what I have stated repeatedly that these are only five and that I have more. You ignore that because it does not fit with your anti-taxi "talking points".

5. "Data-mining'? I have enough trouble working some of the features of this website. I would not have the first idea how to "data-mine'. Never have I denied that cab drivers have committed crimes or violated laws, rules or regulations. In fact, Sirrah, I have cited numerous instances of the foregoing that I had to treat personally when I was an Official of a cab company. While there may be hundreds of google pages on taxi crimes, there are just as many on Uber crimes. By your own admission, taxis have been around for over one-hundred years. Uber started in San Francisco, what?.....2011? That is five years. That would be a comparatively short time for so many google pages. Crash goes your chariot, once more.

Work done? *Y'ain't never done started no work in no first place.*


----------



## Luber4.9 (Nov 25, 2015)

So...I have a question:

I was under the impression Uner and Lyft are against more background checks and fingerprinting because it delays the onboarding of new drivers, the lifeblood of their current business model. Is that incorrect?


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> While there may be hundreds of google pages on taxi crimes, there are just as many on Uber crimes. By your own admission, taxis have been around for over one-hundred years. Uber started in San Francisco, what?.....2011? That is five years. That would be a comparatively short time for so many google pages. Crash goes your chariot, once more.


That's your evidence? Google pages? Any _Uber_ headline draws clicks, so you naturally get more coverage of the rare incident.

OK, a billion served from well over a million drivers and we are up to how many crimes against passengers that also found a missed criminal record? Is it 1? 3? 5? I don't know because I don't bother reading your walls of Uber driver insults, but this isn't even starting to approach _many _in my mind. Maybe in the future you could say a _couple _or a _few_?


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Luber4.9 said:


> So...I have a question:
> 
> I was under the impression Uner and Lyft are against more background checks and fingerprinting because it delays the onboarding of new drivers, the lifeblood of their current business model. Is that incorrect?


I would assume delays are part of the resistance. I don't really know. I do know there is no evidence that fingerprint checks, which also miss past criminal convictions and worse, generate false positives (guilty until you prove your innocence), makes passengers safer than commercial background checks. Uber is not likely to easily bow to the establishment that has monopolized livery for a century.


----------



## El Janitor (Feb 22, 2016)

Hawaii life is a bit different there, no real surprise.


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

Luber4.9 said:


> So...I have a question:
> 
> I was under the impression Uner and Lyft are against more background checks and fingerprinting because it delays the onboarding of new drivers, the lifeblood of their current business model. Is that incorrect?


In my opinion, it also *costs* more money. And enters more _regulation_ into a business model that does not allow for such.


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

Bottom line....if Taxis & Limos need to be finger print background checked, then so should TNC (Uber/Lyft) type of drivers. It's pretty simple, really. 

More important, this is all part of the grand plan of things. Autonomous Cars do not need any background check...now do they?


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> there are hundreds of google pages of them when you are ready to look.





RamzFanz said:


> That's your evidence? Google pages?


The first quote is from post Number Thirty. The post of mine where you question my use of "Google pages" is post Number Thirty-One. The significance of this is that you were the first one to offer "Google pages" as "evidence". In post Number Thirty-Three, you question my use of "Google pages". There are several possible names for that, double standards and foot-in-mouth are the two that come most quickly to mind. I will be kind to you and assume that you have put your virtual foot into your cyber mouth. Keep it up; the more that you post, the more that people can see your "arguments" for what they are: sham.


----------



## ChortlingCrison (Mar 30, 2016)

Luber4.9 said:


> So...I have a question:
> 
> I was under the impression Uner and Lyft are against more background checks and fingerprinting because it delays the onboarding of new drivers, the lifeblood of their current business model. Is that incorrect?


You are correct, but uber/lyft would never openly admit that. Well I think there was one exception where travis said he felt criminals should have a second chance.

As far ramzfonzie is concerned, I think he might be glados's second cousin.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

ChortlingCrison said:


> travis said he felt criminals should have a second chance.


I do not disagree with him. The definition of a "second chance", however, does not extend to a convicted violent criminal's being permitted to be alone in a motor vehicle under his control with a member of the general public, especially when said "member of the general public" is one of my female relatives.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> The first quote is from post Number Thirty. The post of mine where you question my use of "Google pages" is post Number Thirty-One. The significance of this is that you were the first one to offer "Google pages" as "evidence". In post Number Thirty-Three, you question my use of "Google pages". There are several possible names for that, double standards and foot-in-mouth are the two that come most quickly to mind. I will be kind to you and assume that you have put your virtual foot into your cyber mouth. Keep it up; the more that you post, the more that people can see your "arguments" for what they are: sham.


Nope, I did not use Google pages as evidence of anything, I said:

_We don't have a *site where we catalog them because we aren't scared of taxis*, but there are hundreds of google pages of them *when you are ready to look.
*_
A resource for you, not evidence from me. Twisted words again, so typical.


----------



## New2This (Dec 27, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Time to put you into your place, Skippy.
> 
> July, 2016-Ronald De Luca, Boston-previous registered sex offender, numerous traffic violations including no insurance and a suspended licence.
> October, 2015-Emmett Lyons, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, previous violent crimes 2007 and before.
> ...


Wasn't this RamzFanz guy the same one arguing that you're fine Ubering with regular personal car insurance, despite many people showing the opposite?

IMHO another attention harlot. Another Uber Driver you have better things to do than educate the willfully ignorant


----------



## Duber12 (Dec 18, 2015)

When the TNCs made those ""arrangements", they thought that it was a one time thing.
------
The politicians get bought, but they don't stay bought.


----------



## Archie8616 (Oct 13, 2015)

And this is why I'm trying my best to hurry up and pay my outstanding bills off, continue to pay my child support, continuing to go to school. So when and if Uber or Lyft decide to leave Denver, or if something else happens to them, I'll be in a better position to continue paying my bills. I don't know what I would do w/o Lyft and Uber, as I drive both. I was homeless but yet I had a job. I couldn't afford to live anyplace. But since having the ability to work for them part time, I've been able to actually have a place to live in, and feel much better about myself. I don't care what regulations the city may want to impose, as long as I get to keep working, for the hours I need on a part time basis, then that is totally fine with me.


----------



## SamInLasVegas (May 22, 2016)

The only reason why many of these city councils like Honolulu, Austin, and others are acting out against ride share is because most of these politicians get campaign donations and support from the taxi cab companies and unions. This is age old protectionism when these people should be protecting the free market for everyone. Why does everyone seem to assume the answer is to subject Uber and Lyft drivers to more regulations and restrictions as opposed to considering the possibility that the real problem may be taxi cab companies are subject to too many restrictions and regulations? Why is more government regulation necessarily the answer here as opposed to less governance for everyone?


----------



## drexl_s (May 20, 2016)

TNC companies should blacklist all the family members of the congressmen who pass laws against TNC. Let them use taxis; and see how soon they cry to leave Uber/Lyft alone.


----------



## uber strike (Jan 10, 2016)

Beur said:


> When it comes to background checks I don't understand these Uber apologists, unless of course they have something to hide!
> 
> Here's my cup of pee, vial of blood, and my fingers, get to printing them and running my background! Nothing to hide here.


if they are going to further the background checks to finger printing then uber must also finger print riders. there are more attacks and assaults by uber riders than drivers. driver safety must not be neglected.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

SamInLasVegas said:


> The only reason why many of these city councils like Honolulu, Austin, and others are acting out against ride share is because most of these politicians get campaign donations and support from the taxi cab companies and unions. This is age old protectionism when these people should be protecting the free market for everyone. Why does everyone seem to assume the answer is to subject Uber and Lyft drivers to more regulations and restrictions as opposed to considering the possibility that the real problem may be taxi cab companies are subject to too many restrictions and regulations? Why is more government regulation necessarily the answer here as opposed to less governance for everyone?


Oh, PLEASE. Requiring fingerprinting and a proper background check is 'protectionism?' Nope.


----------



## grams777 (Jun 13, 2014)

Luber4.9 said:


> So...I have a question:
> 
> I was under the impression Uner and Lyft are against more background checks and fingerprinting because it delays the onboarding of new drivers, the lifeblood of their current business model. Is that incorrect?


Because the conditions and pay are so lacking, it requires a constant, unimpeded stream of newbies who don't know any better yet to feed the whale.

"Once the fish are at the surface, all the whales lunge upwards with their huge mouths wide open and try to gulp as many herring as they can."

http://nationalgeographic.org/archive/xpeditions/lessons/18/g35/cchumpback.html


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Beur said:


> Here's 25 cases right here that cost Uber $10 million.
> 
> http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/uber-settles-driver-background-check-case-least-10m-n552741
> 
> ...


I know of two convicted murderers driving taxis. I don't think Uber is the only company to put profit above safety.


----------



## LA Cabbie (Nov 4, 2014)

Another Uber Driver said:


> The TNCs did not announce plans because they know that the municipalities are going to take the dare. Austin staggered and stumbled, but to read what the drivers have to say, it has stabilised. Houston plans on standing its ground. I suspect, too, that someone in Uber's hierarchy realised that dumping a market such as Chicago is cutting off the nose to spite the face.
> 
> The TNCs have to be aware that the agitation to subject them to the same rules and regulations as taxi and limousine drivers is growing. There are several things influencing this, not the least of which is the growing number of offences committed by drivers against passengers. In many cases, these drivers passed the TNC's' private background check, but, upon arrest, when the police ran a background check, previous convictions for violent crimes showed


http://www.fox25boston.com/news/fox...tered-sex-offender-driving-for-uber/417909175

either uber background checks are utterly worthless or they just don't care. I tell you what, those background checks by the officials who conduct them are the total opposite of uber.


----------



## LA Cabbie (Nov 4, 2014)

Rat said:


> I know of two convicted murderers driving taxis. I don't think Uber is the only company to put profit above safety.


unless you have factual proof, I call bs. And if you do have proof, post it and I will contact the authorities in charge of the taxicab commission.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

LA Cabbie said:


> unless you have factual proof, I call bs. And if you do have proof, post it and I will contact the authorities in charge of the taxicab commission.


It was twenty years ago, those guys are likely dead, the cab company was sold, and I'm not a rat.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

LA Cabbie said:


> http://www.fox25boston.com/news/fox...tered-sex-offender-driving-for-uber/417909175
> 
> either uber background checks are utterly worthless or they just don't care. I tell you what, those background checks by the officials who conduct them are the total opposite of uber.


The background checks may have been flawless and Uber accepted the drivers despite alarming info on their records. Or..... A terrorist from Syria would have no problem passing a background check because no records exist.


----------



## SamInLasVegas (May 22, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> Oh, PLEASE. Requiring fingerprinting and a proper background check is 'protectionism?' Nope.


I didn't have to be fingerprinted. I don't see how in any way that does anything to make riders safer.


----------



## LA Cabbie (Nov 4, 2014)

Rat said:


> The background checks may have been flawless and Uber accepted the drivers despite alarming info on their records. Or..... A terrorist from Syria would have no problem passing a background check because no records exist.


In the Muslim community of South Florida following the take over of Egypt by the army, many members of the Muslim Brotherhood fled here because they were wanted for terrorist activity. Guess who they worked for until they got their papers in order? Not so hard to have one of you many cousins register an Uber driver account under their name yet you do the driving. LOL.


----------



## Choochie (Jan 4, 2015)

Archie8616 said:


> And this is why I'm trying my best to hurry up and pay my outstanding bills off, continue to pay my child support, continuing to go to school. So when and if Uber or Lyft decide to leave Denver, or if something else happens to them, I'll be in a better position to continue paying my bills. I don't know what I would do w/o Lyft and Uber, as I drive both. I was homeless but yet I had a job. I couldn't afford to live anyplace. But since having the ability to work for them part time, I've been able to actually have a place to live in, and feel much better about myself. I don't care what regulations the city may want to impose, as long as I get to keep working, for the hours I need on a part time basis, then that is totally fine with me.


Good for you - keep up the good work!


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

LA Cabbie said:


> In the Muslim community of South Florida following the take over of Egypt by the army, many members of the Muslim Brotherhood fled here because they were wanted for terrorist activity. Guess who they worked for until they got their papers in order? Not so hard to have one of you many cousins register an Uber driver account under their name yet you do the driving. LOL.


They all have the same name anyway: Ahmed Unpronouncable


----------



## LA Cabbie (Nov 4, 2014)

SamInLasVegas said:


> I didn't have to be fingerprinted. I don't see how in any way that does anything to make riders safer.


You are 100% right. Those pesky fingerprints that run your background against police and FBI records are no match for Uber's internet check and their vigilant contractors in the Philippines.

And all those Uber drivers who get busted for crimes are just patsies setup by BIG TAXI. Uber on.


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona (Mar 18, 2015)

SamInLasVegas said:


> The only reason why many of these city councils like Honolulu, Austin, and others are acting out against ride share is because most of these politicians get campaign donations and support from the taxi cab companies and unions. This is age old protectionism when these people should be protecting the free market for everyone. Why does everyone seem to assume the answer is to subject Uber and Lyft drivers to more regulations and restrictions as opposed to considering the possibility that the real problem may be taxi cab companies are subject to too many restrictions and regulations? Why is more government regulation necessarily the answer here as opposed to less governance for everyone?


You should move someplace where they have no effective government. The libertarian paradise of Somalia.


----------



## LA Cabbie (Nov 4, 2014)

Archie8616 said:


> And this is why I'm trying my best to hurry up and pay my outstanding bills off, continue to pay my child support, continuing to go to school. So when and if Uber or Lyft decide to leave Denver, or if something else happens to them, I'll be in a better position to continue paying my bills. I don't know what I would do w/o Lyft and Uber, as I drive both. I was homeless but yet I had a job. I couldn't afford to live anyplace. But since having the ability to work for them part time, I've been able to actually have a place to live in, and feel much better about myself. I don't care what regulations the city may want to impose, as long as I get to keep working, for the hours I need on a part time basis, then that is totally fine with me.


Drive taxi. When I fell on hard times in LA what did you think I did? Denver is a big market for cab. I just did a quick Google search and found you one:
http://www.metrotaxidenver.com/join-our-team/


----------



## u-Boat (Jan 4, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> I do not disagree with him. The definition of a "second chance", however, does not extend to a convicted violent criminal's being permitted to be alone in a motor vehicle under his control with a member of the general public, especially when said "member of the general public" is one of my female relatives.


Still at it huh? Your quest for winning every argument is eternal. My advice is every now and then ya gotta be a bit like Elsa and just "Let it Go". However, since I know that you're 100% incapable of displaying such restraint, how about considering this hypothetical? What if your "female relative" was the one out at 2am driving for uBer or Lyft? Would you THEN also insist on RIDERS being subjected to fingerprint background checks as well?

If safety is your true goal with fingerprinting then anything short of fingerprinting EVERYONE is moot and hypocritical. No matter how you slice and dice it, it's still two unknown parties alone in a car together at 2am.

P.S. You're a moderator. How about acting like one by refraining from referring to forum members as "Skippy"?


----------



## u-Boat (Jan 4, 2016)

Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> You should move someplace where they have no effective government. The libertarian paradise of Somalia.


Libertarianism means minimal, common sense Govt. Anarchy means ZERO Govt. I think what you meant to say was the "Anarchist paradise of Somalia".


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> A resource for you,


If, indeed, that is the case, what do you expect that I will find in this "resource"?



Hackenstein said:


> Oh, PLEASE. Requiring fingerprinting and a proper background check is 'protectionism?' Nope.


As fingerprinting and a proper background check is in conflict with the TNCs' business model, it is "protectionism", "Opposed to innovation" and similar. Remember, the definition of "Opposed to innovation" is "disagreeing with T. Kalanick".



Rat said:


> I know of two convicted murderers driving taxis. I don't think Uber is the only company to put profit above safety.


Many, but not all, jurisdictions in this country require a Law Enforcement background check for cab drivers. Some jurisdictions have no regulations for cab drivers, cab companies or cab service.



u-Boat said:


> Still at it huh? Your quest for winning every argument is eternal. My advice is every now and then ya gotta be a bit like Elsa and just "Let it Go". However, since I know that you're 100% incapable of displaying such restraint, how about considering this hypothetical? What if your "female relative" was the one out at 2am driving for uBer or Lyft? Would you THEN also insist on RIDERS being subjected to fingerprint background checks as well?
> 
> If safety is your true goal with fingerprinting then anything short of fingerprinting EVERYONE is moot and hypocritical. No matter how you slice and dice it, it's still two unknown parties alone in a car together at 2am.
> 
> P.S. You're a moderator. How about acting like one by refraining from referring to forum members as "Skippy"?


TL;dr


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Many, but not all, jurisdictions in this country require a Law Enforcement background check for cab drivers. Some jurisdictions have no regulations for cab drivers, cab companies or cab service.
> 
> TL;dr


Oh, they had a requirement for background checks, just no standards for what was not acceptable.


----------



## the ferryman (Jun 7, 2016)

I drive in Honolulu. Got over 1000 rides together on U/L at 4.9 average.

This is one of the most politically corrupt backwaters you'll ever find. Check the attitude of Councilrat Ernie Martin in the originally linked article for a taste of what it is like to be governed here. "How dare that peasant mention that campaign contribution!" Essentially ruled by the ultra left since statehood in the 50's with a brief pause of having a republican governor, Lingle. Quite an anomaly that she got in. State senate has a total of ONE republican!

Crumbling infrastructure, crooked inside dealing and amongst the highest taxi rates in the country for crap service generally speaking. If it weren't for the natural beauty no one in their right mind would live here. The older I get the more I question the value and values.

The article is really vague about what requirements will be foisted upon TNC here beyond the usual fingerprint, registrations, etc. I think I read somewhere that we'll have to have permanent stickers on our bumper as per the taxi jwads. The sense I got was this was very much a 5th or 6th attempt by the state legislature and/or chity council to pass something at the urging of the taxi lobby. Ann finally got to stick it to us.

On balance, I hate the low TNC fares and plan to discontinue driving at the end of the year though I may change my mind. It was best a year ago before the huge fare drops. I liked ferrying the tourists around and sharing places of interest, restaurants tips and activities with the riders, most of whom were great. They got a lot more from me than most taxi drivers would give or be able to give, I'm sure. Hawaii licks nads for business climate and freedom in general.

Big middle finger to the chity council and the leg! A steady and profoundly foul stream of flatus in your general direction!


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Rat said:


> Oh, they had a requirement for background checks, just no standards for what was not acceptable.


Ah, I see. That clears up a few things. So this or that company would allow a convicted child molestor to drive a cab. That would be a lawsuit waiting to happen, these days. Now, if the Florida cab companies have horrid balance sheets, I suppose that it would not make a difference.

Here, you will not even get a hack licence if you have a violent crime or drug conviction in the past ten years. If you have one that is more than ten years old, you may not get one. Certain things such as child molestation, rape, or felony assault will result in a denial, no matter how old. You must submit to an FBI fingerprint and background check in the District of Columbia. Some of the suburbs require it, as well. Some do not require the fingerprint check but do require the FBI background check.



the ferryman said:


> This is one of the most politically corrupt backwaters you'll ever find.


We had one councilman and the City Council Chairman thrown in jail for corruption in 2012. Another councilman was thrown into jail in 2013 for corruption. The one in 2013 stole from children. His daddy was a Councilman so he thought that the council seat was his by divine right. Make no mistake about it, his daddy was a crook, but he did not steal from children and he actually did things for people.

Uber offers taxis in Honolulu. Do you know how Uber Taxi works there?


----------



## WeirdBob (Jan 2, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> ....annnnnnd, you just made all of that up. Please show us these "many cases". Many would mean more than two or three.
> 
> Now, lets discuss how taxis have been robbing people for 3/4 a century.


If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Yes, Uber drivers are taxi drivers. Trade dress, licenses, and delusional self labeling will never change that simple fact.


----------



## Buckiemohawk (Jun 23, 2015)

Beur said:


> When it comes to background checks I don't understand these Uber apologists, unless of course they have something to hide!
> 
> Here's my cup of pee, vial of blood, and my fingers, get to printing them and running my background! Nothing to hide here.


Background checks are vital. They prevent all sorts of idiots from driving people around. Also interviews with a live person helps. I remember being in the training office and Dave and Walt were telling a guy he didn't have what it takes.


----------



## mrlasvegas (Aug 9, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> ...........a-a-a-a-a-nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnddddddddddd you are making up that.
> 
> Now go play in your phantasy world while the adults discuss reality.
> 
> Thank you, Beur. I guess that I need not mention the Texas cases. Twenty-five in California ought to be enough, as you so correctly indicate. In addition, some people fail to understand that one woman raped is three too many.


Actually cabs in Las Vegas have been ripping off the tourist public for well over the 25 years. It has been published in local and national media at least quarterly for those 25 years. Cabs did not really start being remotely honest till Uber arrived. They are still pretty shady, just slightly less so.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

mrlasvegas said:


> ripping off


Given the tone of the post and poster to which I was replying, I took a stronger and slightly different meaning.

I do not know the Las Vegas market, but I do know my own. Here, at least, taking the proverbial "scenic route" does not pay. That went double before 2008, when we did not have meters. Now that we have them, it applies, still. Meter or none, you are better off delivering your passenger to his destination in the quickest, most efficient manner possible and moving on to your next customer.

You _*might*_ (note the stressed word, please) convince me that it would pay to take the "scenic route" when Congress is on its protracted Summer Recess (as it is, now) or during the week between Christmas and New Year's, You might convince me, but you would need to work awfully hard at it. Assuming that someone actually managed to convince me, there is the old saw about the man convinced against his will.................................

Even though Congress is out for Summer, there is major work taking place on our METRO, "Operation Safe Track". They are doing work even on weekdays and during Rush Hour. Some of the work involves closing stations and long sections of track. This has created a higher than usual demand for TNC and cab service.

That is only my market, though. I do not know yours, although we do have a Las Vegas cab driver who peeks into these Boards from time to time. He never has come out and stated it, but he has implied more than once that it does not pay to take the scenic route there, either. He works less The Strip and more the residents of Las Vegas. You can earn money in some markets hacking the residents. I do it, here. The residents here have used taxis for years (Yes, people actually DO live in the Capital of Your Nation).


----------



## shiftydrake (Dec 12, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> It's no secret, Since September 2015, as a driver.


Yeah I forget you are a "professional driver" since 9/2015 I bow to you and your ignorance........I guess my over 10 years of experience in the StL market (your home town by the way) don't mean anything I will once again bow to you and your ignorance


----------



## shiftydrake (Dec 12, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Here, at least, taking the proverbial "scenic route" does not pay. That went double before 2008, when we did not have meters. Now that we have them, it applies, still. Meter or none, you are better off delivering your passenger to his destination in the quickest, most efficient manner possible and moving on to your next customer.
> 
> You _*might*_ (note the stressed word, please) convince me that it would pay to take the "scenic route" when Congress is on its protracted Summer Recess (as it is, now) or during the week between Christmas and New Year's, You might convince me, but you would need to work awfully hard at it. Assuming that someone actually managed to convince me, there is the old saw about the man convinced against his will................................. You can earn money in some markets hacking the residents. I do it, here. The residents here have used taxis for years.


Don't worry about him he is a "true professional"...........as he has driven since 9/2015 not like all the years you and I have been hacking Another Uber Driver so he lost the argument with me once before..........he knew he lost...so he put me on ignore.......talking about Ramzfanz or whatever he calls himself he got caught in so many lies he couldn't back up......so anyway I know exactly what your talking about....hack the residents not the tourists.........


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

Rat said:


> It was twenty years ago, those guys are likely dead, the cab company was sold, and I'm not a rat.


In others words, you lied. You lied because YOU DON'T KNOW 2 cab drivers convinced of murder.

Ya....you're not a rat But you are full of BS.


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

mrlasvegas said:


> Actually cabs in Las Vegas have been ripping off the tourist public for well over the 25 years. It has been published in local and national media at least quarterly for those 25 years. Cabs did not really start being remotely honest till Uber arrived. They are still pretty shady, just slightly less so.


35 bucks via cab from downtown Portland THE LONG WAY to the airport. Same trip during surge..$75 to $150.

Who's the rip-off?


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

phillipzx3 said:


> from downtown Portland to the airport during surge..$75 to $150.


Sadly, for the Uber users, at least, and, possibly for Portland hackers, there is no Uber Taxi there so that the users can game the surge. We have it here. Uber and Lyft users take advantage of it to game the surge. Uber Taxi use is pretty good here, as a rule, anyhow. You can tell when UberX is surging, though, as Uber Taxi starts going crazy. You get nothing but stacked taxi pings. You could not take a street hail even if it were the Mr. Obama himself.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

shiftydrake said:


> Yeah I forget you are a "professional driver" since 9/2015 I bow to you and your ignorance........I guess my over 10 years of experience in the StL market (your home town by the way) don't mean anything I will once again bow to you and your ignorance


Uhhh, what are you ranting about? I haven't even spoken to you in this thread.

Your 10 years of driving in a city with a horrible reputation for cab drivers is hardly an endorsement.

No need to bow, I'm a fast learner.


----------



## ChortlingCrison (Mar 30, 2016)

Mr ubershill strikes again.


----------



## Cowboyup (Apr 22, 2016)

BuckSF said:


> The Honolulu City Council approved a bill to regulate ride-hailing services such as Uber and Lyft on an 8-1 vote Wednesday in a victory for taxi companies that ended months of discussion.
> 
> After the Council voted, Uber and Lyft drivers immediately began filing out of the City Council chambers, but a group of taxi supporters in the back erupted in applause.
> 
> http://www.civilbeat.org/2016/08/city-council-votes-to-impose-regulations-on-uber-lyft-drivers


What was the regulation that they were needing a vote ??


----------



## Cowboyup (Apr 22, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> The TNCs did not announce plans because they know that the municipalities are going to take the dare. Austin staggered and stumbled, but to read what the drivers have to say, it has stabilised. Houston plans on standing its ground. I suspect, too, that someone in Uber's hierarchy realised that dumping a market such as Chicago is cutting off the nose to spite the face.
> 
> The TNCs have to be aware that the agitation to subject them to the same rules and regulations as taxi and limousine drivers is growing. There are several things influencing this, not the least of which is the growing number of offences committed by drivers against passengers. In many cases, these drivers passed the TNC's' private background check, but, upon arrest, when the police ran a background check, previous convictions for violent crimes showed.
> 
> ...


Uber pulled out of Austin and Uber in Houston is staying after vote for TNC regulation which now Uber drivers need in order to pickup rides inside city limits (no problem outside city of limits).


----------



## shiftydrake (Dec 12, 2015)

ChortlingCrison said:


> Mr ubershill strikes again.


Thanks Crison apparently he didn't read or comprehend that as an insult of his intelligence.......but whatever he wants to post about so we all can laugh..........so what else you want to say?


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Cowboyup said:


> Uber in Houston is staying after vote for TNC regulation which now Uber drivers need in order to pickup rides inside city limits


Thank you for the update. I am interested in how this will play out in other jurisdictions.


----------



## Flarpy (Apr 17, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> Now, lets discuss how taxis have been robbing people for 3/4 a century.


 I do agree that the taxi Medallion system is about as corrupt as it gets, but replacing one corrupt system with another is not the answer.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

shiftydrake said:


> Thanks Crison apparently he didn't read or comprehend that as an insult of his intelligence.......but whatever he wants to post about so we all can laugh..........so what else you want to say?


Who would care about what Crison had to say?!

I'm so thankful that you St. Louis taxi drivers paved the way for us Uber drivers by pissing off the customers so bad. I love hearing how much more they like Uber. Like candy from a baby.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Flarpy said:


> I do agree that the taxi Medallion system is about as corrupt as it gets, but replacing one corrupt system with another is not the answer.


How are TNCs corrupt?


----------



## Flarpy (Apr 17, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> I'm so thankful that you St. Louis taxi drivers paved the way for us Uber drivers by pissing off the customers so bad. I love hearing how much more they like Uber. Like candy from a baby.


Yes you make enough money from Uber to be able to buy a pack of Necco wafers and that's about it.



RamzFanz said:


> How are TNCs corrupt?


If you can't figure that out, then you deserve a career as a taxi cab driver. Uber on!


----------



## yojimboguy (Mar 2, 2016)

ChortlingCrison said:


> Well hopefully they'll stand by what they say. With the few excepts like Austin/Houston/NYC, state/city regulators seam to wimp out at the last minute.


In Wisconsin they just bypassed the cities and, er, _influenced _the state government to pass laws protecting them from any municipal restrictions.


----------



## Laughingatyoufoolsdaily (Apr 16, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> 1. HUH?
> 
> 2. I do not always "trash" Uber drivers. I am one. I have posted more than once that I drive Uber Taxi and UberX. I have exposed your lying, again.
> 
> ...


Pistols at dawn...Ten paces....I'm lovin this...


----------



## mrlasvegas (Aug 9, 2015)

phillipzx3 said:


> 35 bucks via cab from downtown Portland THE LONG WAY to the airport. Same trip during surge..$75 to $150.
> 
> Who's the rip-off?


Still the cab. Uber and Lyft passengers know exactly how much they will pay with surge. It is quite transparent in the fare estimate. Cab passengers expect the most expedient route at a normal rate but taking a long route misleads them and is outright theft.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

phillipzx3 said:


> In others words, you lied. You lied because YOU DON'T KNOW 2 cab drivers convinced of murder.
> 
> Ya....you're not a rat But you are full of BS.


No, as much as you want to believe so, I didn't. And they were convicted, I have no idea if they were convinced.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Ah, I see. That clears up a few things. So this or that company would allow a convicted child molestor to drive a cab. That would be a lawsuit waiting to happen, these days. Now, if the Florida cab companies have horrid balance sheets, I suppose that it would not make a difference.
> 
> Here, you will not even get a hack licence if you have a violent crime or drug conviction in the past ten years. If you have one that is more than ten years old, you may not get one. Certain things such as child molestation, rape, or felony assault will result in a denial, no matter how old. You must submit to an FBI fingerprint and background check in the District of Columbia. Some of the suburbs require it, as well. Some do not require the fingerprint check but do require the FBI background check.


Don't they (the FBI) require fingerprints for the background check?


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Rat said:


> Don't they (the FBI) require fingerprints for the background check?


My understanding is that the FBI can run your name and social security number and will do so for Law Enforcement agencies. Do be aware that this is only my "understanding" and that the FBI may have a different answer.


----------



## crookedhalo (Mar 15, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> There is no evidence of:
> 
> Fingerprint checks resulting in a safer outcome for customers.
> Uber drivers committing crimes at a higher rate than taxi drivers.
> ...


^^^^ when you've lost an argument can't except the fact you lost.


----------



## DriverX (Aug 5, 2015)

Beur said:


> When it comes to background checks I don't understand these Uber apologists, unless of course they have something to hide!
> 
> Here's my cup of pee, vial of blood, and my fingers, get to printing them and running my background! Nothing to hide here.


I'm fine with finger prints, but taking my bodily fluids and DNA is NOT OK. You need to rethink that.


----------



## DriverX (Aug 5, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> You can't prove a negative. Your joke wasn't as funny.


I found it HILARIOUS!

You are a fan of a team that has told your city to EFF OFF, clearly you are an enabler of abusive relationships. It's called codependency, look it up and get some help. Or maybe you just don't have documentation. I will gladly prove my identity and citizenship to work in the USA and this is clearly what uber and lyft are trying to avoid. They lose a third of their fleet in California when they have to dump all the undocumented drivers. You might not be aware that in CA you can get a DL without being a citizen or having a work visa or green card. So in CA you can be an undocumented worker that owns or leases a vehicle and drive for uber and lyft because they don't have to confirm citizenship when paying an IC.


----------



## DriverX (Aug 5, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> LOL! Look at you going all cabbie!
> 
> YOU trash Uber and Uber drivers all day long and don't think I'm going to call you out? Have you never read my posts? Does that sound like me?
> 
> ...


Hey you started this whole thin by saying he lied by saying
"many cases"

He just listed five, that is technically more than a few. You look like the brat that can't accept it when he's wrong. The current BG checks are clearly insufficient. Are you arguing that they aren't?


----------



## DriverX (Aug 5, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> Who would care about what Crison had to say?!
> 
> I'm so thankful that you St. Louis taxi drivers paved the way for us Uber drivers by pissing off the customers so bad. I love hearing how much more they like Uber. Like candy from a baby.


NEWSFLASH:

If you are driving Uber you ARE A TAXI DRIVER.

Stop fooling yourself into thinking you are any better, it's ridiculous. No one out their gives AF if you are driving them in an uber or a taxi, to them you are the scab willing to undercut the cabbies so they can get a cheap ride.

I've never driven for a cab so don't start saying I'm biased or whatever. I'm just not deluded enough to think that somehow I'm better than your common cabbie.


----------



## DriverX (Aug 5, 2015)

u-Boat said:


> Libertarianism means minimal, common sense Govt. Anarchy means ZERO Govt. I think what you meant to say was the "Anarchist paradise of Somalia".


Who builds the roads you Uber on? The Libertarian regulation and tax free utopia is complete Horse S and anyone who can see past their front bumper knows how dependent we all are on infrastructure and social systems like public schools; security like fire departments, police forces, military and all the rest the government does to keep society functioning. Proving ones citizenship or visa status to work in the USA is not a violation of privacy rights, it's simply a tax requirement. If Uber has to match a SSN or other tax payer ID with a bacnk account they will lose drivers, that's the crux of the matter here. and as a DOCUMENTED Uber driver, you should want that.

I can totally understand why you're arguing IF you can't prove citizenship and/or you have some criminal record your trying to hide. Regardless, don't use US citizen privacy rights to try and hide your scam.


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

DriverX said:


> I'm fine with finger prints, but taking my bodily fluids and DNA is NOT OK. You need to rethink that.


They already have that on me. Well, I'm pretty sure they do with all the test I've been subjected to over the years.


----------



## Rex8976 (Nov 11, 2014)

RamzFanz

Never allow the facts to interfere with a good argument.


----------



## DriverX (Aug 5, 2015)

Rat said:


> The background checks may have been flawless and Uber accepted the drivers despite alarming info on their records. Or..... A terrorist from Syria would have no problem passing a background check because no records exist.


Actually if a Syrian terrorist got to California, they could get a DL, with that they could use a phony SSN or tax payer ID to set up a uber account and they could easily acquire a vehicle and get it registered and insured all with just a DL.

Safety is a talking point for the public. The issue here is taxes.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

crookedhalo said:


> ^^^^ when you've lost an argument can't except the fact you lost.


Because I haven't. You see, for me to lose a point, you would actually have to counter it. Give it a try:

There is no evidence of:

Fingerprint checks resulting in a safer outcome for customers.
Uber drivers committing crimes at a higher rate than taxi drivers.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

DriverX said:


> Hey idiot you started this whole thin by saying he lied by saying
> "many cases"
> 
> He just listed five, that is technically more than a few. You look like the brat that can't accept it when he's wrong. The current BG checks are clearly insufficient. Are you arguing that they aren't?


No, I pointed out he was wildly exaggerating and he was.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

DriverX said:


> NEWSFLASH:
> 
> If you are driving Uber you ARE A TAXI DRIVER.
> 
> ...


Nope. People will choose Uber even when it's more expensive (surge) because, in my market, people HATE taxis. Like, with a passion. You can see and hear the anger and frustration when they talk about them. I can guarantee you I'm far better than the experience an average taxi driver gives in my market.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Rex8976 said:


> RamzFanz
> 
> Never allow the facts interfere with a good argument.


Your moto?


----------



## ubershiza (Jan 19, 2015)

yojimboguy said:


> In Wisconsin they just bypassed the cities and, er, _influenced _the state government to pass laws protecting them from any municipal restrictions.


Lobbyist dollars hard at work.


----------



## Rex8976 (Nov 11, 2014)

@RamzFanz 

From the last time we were involved.
https://uberpeople.net/threads/new-...lion-leveraged-loan.88783/page-8#post-1265602
Bonne soirée mon ami.

Buenas noches mi amigo.

Buona sera amico mio.

こんばんは、私の友人

مساء الخير يا صديقي

Boa noite meu amigo.


----------



## DriverX (Aug 5, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> No, I pointed out he was wildly exaggerating and he was.


See, there you go again. Everyone here thinks you are wrong except you. You're a taxi driver that will work for less than a cabbie. If the cabbies cut uber's rates all your pax would be flagging down cabs and talking sh*t about what a effing idiot the grinders like you are for schlepping them a mile down the road for 1X.


----------



## REX HAVOC (Jul 4, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> The TNCs did not announce plans because they know that the municipalities are going to take the dare. Austin staggered and stumbled, but to read what the drivers have to say, it has stabilised. Houston plans on standing its ground. I suspect, too, that someone in Uber's hierarchy realised that dumping a market such as Chicago is cutting off the nose to spite the face.
> 
> The TNCs have to be aware that the agitation to subject them to the same rules and regulations as taxi and limousine drivers is growing. There are several things influencing this, not the least of which is the growing number of offences committed by drivers against passengers. In many cases, these drivers passed the TNC's' private background check, but, upon arrest, when the police ran a background check, previous convictions for violent crimes showed.
> 
> ...


As a driver I have no problem with this as long I get paid equal to the taxis per mile.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

crookedhalo said:


> ^^^^ when you've lost an argument can't except the fact you lost.


Correct. He can not.



DriverX said:


> you started this whole thin by saying he lied by saying "many cases"
> 
> He just listed five, that is technically more than a few
> 
> ...


\/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ See below^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



Rex8976 said:


> RamzFanz Never allow the facts to interfere with a good argument.





RamzFanz said:


> No, I pointed out he was wildly exaggerating and he was.


You did not "point out" anything. You accused me of "exaggerating". I proved to you that I was not. You can not accept that. I exposed you , once more, as someone who does not let facts interfere with his anti-taxi agenda.

\/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \ / \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/



DriverX said:


> See, there you go again. Everyone here thinks you are wrong except you.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

REX HAVOC said:


> As a driver I have no problem with this as long I get paid equal to the taxis per mile.


I find it hard to disagree with you on that. In fact, cab rates are what they are for a reason.

I do not know what goes on in San Francisco, but here, there are more and more Uberhoopties and more and more users are complaining about dirty, junky UberX cars. The reason for the deterioration in the quality of the vehicles is that you can not maintain a motor vehicle and turn a profit when you are collecting one dollar six per mile, eighty five cents per mile or sixty nine cents per mile.

A Michelin costs two hundred dollars whether it goes on a taxicab or an UberX car (and yes, I put Michelins on both the UberX car and the cab).

A brake job costs the same three hundred dollars be it on an UberX car or a taxi.

An UberX car sitting in horrible urban traffic consumes the same amount of fuel as a taxicab.

A windshield costs the same four hundred dollars on an UberX car that it does on a cab.

My cab is a 2015 Fusion hybrid; the UberX car a 2014 Fusion hybrid.

I can keep going, in case anyone thinks that four examples is "only a few".


----------



## GooberX (May 13, 2015)

tohunt4me said:


> Why now ?
> After all this time ?
> 
> Massive taxes coming soon.


Because better late than never.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

REX HAVOC said:


> As a driver I have no problem with this as long I get paid equal to the taxis per mile.


The taxi drivers will all be Uber drivers then.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> I find it hard to disagree with you on that. In fact, cab rates are what they are for a reason.
> 
> I do not know what goes on in San Francisco, but here, there are more and more Uberhoopties and more and more users are complaining about dirty, junky UberX cars. The reason for the deterioration in the quality of the vehicles is that you can not maintain a motor vehicle and turn a profit when you are collecting one dollar six per mile, eighty five cents per mile or sixty nine cents per mile.
> 
> ...


Yet each and EVERY UBER driver subsidises Uber !


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Sadly, for the Uber users, at least, and, possibly for Portland hackers, there is no Uber Taxi there so that the users can game the surge. We have it here. Uber and Lyft users take advantage of it to game the surge. Uber Taxi use is pretty good here, as a rule, anyhow. You can tell when UberX is surging, though, as Uber Taxi starts going crazy. You get nothing but stacked taxi pings. You could not take a street hail even if it were the Mr. Obama himself.


There are 3 Local cab companies with UberTaxi here in Portland. All three are the bottom of the barrel with garbage reputations. They got onboard with Uber because they were about to go under had they not done so.

We're the largest driver owned fleet in Oregon. We're also (unfortunately) the company with the most experience of not being paid by Uber driver caused accidents.


----------



## JimS (Aug 18, 2015)

I think random drug testing would be safer for passengers than a more comprehensive background check.

But Cabbies first.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

phillipzx3 said:


> There are 3 Local cab companies with UberTaxi here in Portland.


Thank you for the update. I can add Portland, Oregon to the list of places where Uber offers taxis. I was not aware of Portland. Is Uber working with fleets, only, in Portland for Uber Taxi? Here, Uber works with individual drivers, not fleets for Uber Taxi. Curb! (formerly Taxi Magic) works with fleets, only, here, but not individual drivers.

From what you stated in the part that I edited out, it appears that Uber is working with fleets, in Portland, Oregon.


----------



## REX HAVOC (Jul 4, 2016)

phillipzx3 said:


> There are 3 Local cab companies with UberTaxi here in Portland. All three are the bottom of the barrel with garbage reputations. They got onboard with Uber because they were about to go under had they not done so.
> 
> We're the largest driver owned fleet in Oregon. We're also (unfortunately) the company with the most experience of not being paid by Uber driver caused accidents.


So are you saying that Uber Taxi's get paid at Taxi rates but their customers are supplied by Uber. Does anyone see anything wrong with this arrangement? If this is true then Uber is supplying customers to Taxi's in direct competition with Uber drivers and paying them at a higher rate. They are cornering the market from both sides and cheating the their independent drivers at the same time. Shame on you Uber.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

REX HAVOC said:


> So are you saying that Uber Taxi's get paid at Taxi rates but their customers are supplied by Uber.
> 
> Does anyone see anything wrong with this arrangement?
> 
> If this is true then Uber is supplying customers to Taxi's in direct competition with Uber drivers and paying them at a higher rate.


Line Number One: Yes and yes.

Line Number Two: No.

Line Number Three: The first Uber to show up was Black. The second Uber was Taxi. UberX came after the taxis. In addition to the taxis, Uber pays the Black, Select, SUV and XL at higher rates.


----------



## u-Boat (Jan 4, 2016)

DriverX said:


> Who builds the roads you Uber on? The Libertarian regulation and tax free utopia is complete Horse S and anyone who can see past their front bumper knows how dependent we all are on infrastructure and social systems like public schools; security like fire departments, police forces, military and all the rest the government does to keep society functioning.


The roads retort against Libertarians is the oldest one in the book. I already pay a tax for local roads when I pay my $500 annual registration bill. As far as federal and state highways are concerned, it's 2016. Use transponders and make it a pay-per-use toll system. Simple and fair. The more you use the more you pay. Don't go roads argument on a Libertarians.

Schools, police and fire depts are a part of a minimal Govt to which I was referring. As far as the military is concerned... 800 bases in over 70 countries? That necessary to "keep American Society functioning?"


----------



## DriverX (Aug 5, 2015)

u-Boat said:


> The roads retort against Libertarians is the oldest one in the book. I already pay a tax for local roads when I pay my $500 annual registration bill. As far as federal and state highways are concerned, it's 2016. Use transponders and make it a pay-per-use toll system. Simple and fair. The more you use the more you pay. Don't go roads argument on a Libertarians.
> 
> Schools, police and fire depts are a part of a minimal Govt to which I was referring. As far as the military is concerned... 800 bases in over 70 countries? That necessary to "keep American Society functioning?"


Toll roads! that's an awful idea. The traffic jams caused alone is reason not to have them. You do realize that the electric and cable wiring infrastructure was paid for by Govt subsidies right? Del Mar Race Track was a WPA project. Libertarians look around at the world and see nothing past the surface. They can't see the huge efforts by society to move towards progress by providing the necessary systems to support it.

You're basically saying keep all the stuff we need the same but you don't want to pay for it because you're a libertarian.

You won't get an argument from me about cutting the military welfare program, but you better figure out a way to put all those people to work first.


----------



## Toadster (Aug 10, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> I would have no issue with background checks if they could demonstrate a safer outcome for passengers. Until they do, it's just more political incursion on the free market based upon their whims to justify their existence. We're just now shaking off a century of taxi / politician corput monopolization through regulation, I'm not interested in going back.
> 
> If you moved to a neighborhood, should the police just show up and search your home and belongings just to make sure you aren't a criminal or are we supposed to have a right to privacy? On the whim of the government? Show me your papers?
> 
> The old "if you have nothing to hide" you should surrender all your rights is the exact opposite of the reason we have these rights. I don't surrender rights on someone else's whim and I've had high security clearances, so, nothing to hide.


There is no way to test, or 'demonstrate' it, because there is no safe trial of drivers with 'no background check'.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> I would have no issue with background checks if they could demonstrate a safer outcome for passengers. Until they do, it's just more political incursion on the free market based upon their whims to justify their existence. We're just now shaking off a century of taxi / politician corput monopolization through regulation, I'm not interested in going back.
> 
> If you moved to a neighborhood, should the police just show up and search your home and belongings just to make sure you aren't a criminal or are we supposed to have a right to privacy? On the whim of the government? Show me your papers?
> 
> The old "if you have nothing to hide" you should surrender all your rights is the exact opposite of the reason we have these rights. I don't surrender rights on someone else's whim and I've had high security clearances, so, nothing to hide.


See, now me, I want massive regulations and scrutiny, BECAUSE, that will limit supply. Thus, I can charge more. If the increased regulations also happen to make things safer for the public, well, that's just a happy coincidence.

Yes that taxi industry sucks. Plenty wrong indeed. But that doesn't mean I think we should all embrace the technologists/pirates who aim the skim 25% out of every conceivable service industry provider.

I'm all for competition, but I also think industries can and should protect their own interests.

These gig economy proponents are steering us towards massive unemployment and, soon to follow, anarchy.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

I'm surprised Honolulu allowed Uber in the first place. Seems like a place where everything is highly protected and locally regulated. It only makes sense. It's on an island. And, its really expensive to live there. I'd guess that Uber's cheapie rates would not attract many drivers.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Toadster said:


> There is no way to test, or 'demonstrate' it, because there is no safe trial of drivers with 'no background check'.


Except we do have background checks. The same ones used by almost all of corporate America. This is a product A vs B comparison, not A vs nothing.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

stuber said:


> See, now me, I want massive regulations and scrutiny, BECAUSE, that will limit supply. Thus, I can charge more. If the increased regulations also happen to make things safer for the public, well, that's just a happy coincidence.
> 
> Yes that taxi industry sucks. Plenty wrong indeed. But that doesn't mean I think we should all embrace the technologists/pirates who aim the skim 25% out of every conceivable service industry provider.
> 
> ...


So we want the government gouging the customers using their power?


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

No, but maybe that's better than unelected corporations. Driver-owned is ultimately where this has to go, if you want a fair and competitive marketplace.

Uber will never be transparent and balance the needs of customers with those of drivers.


----------

