# San Fran Uber driver threatens passenger with rape and murder



## SECOTIME (Sep 18, 2015)

http://gawker.com/san-francisco-uber-driver-fired-after-allegedly-threate-1737356150


----------



## Old Rocker (Aug 20, 2015)

The SRF at work. Glad the 'safety team' got right on it.


----------



## SECOTIME (Sep 18, 2015)

lol the idiots in the comments think the SRF is an option to get a safer ride


----------



## jrboy (Sep 14, 2015)

what about our safety? uber doesn't care. they don't do background checks on pax. uber doesn't even have their true identity. we could be driving a murderer or rapist around; we have female drivers, shouldn't they be safe? the srf is just another way to take more commission. uber off


----------



## SECOTIME (Sep 18, 2015)

all true


----------



## SECOTIME (Sep 18, 2015)

What I find most interesting about the story is the severity in the context of the allegation. The language used just seems a bit extraordinary. Who knows though, people say and do ****ed up things all the time. It seems a bit overplayed though.

Also, Uber replies saying _"We want to offer our deep apologies for this terrible ordeal and thank you for bringing this to our attention. This kind of behavior is absolutely unacceptable and the driver's* access to Uber* has been permanently removed." ...
_
...that shit in red cracks me up.


----------



## jrboy (Sep 14, 2015)

yeah, lol. no job security. and also, if the pax gets banned for something inappropriate, pax could just set up another account. uber does not have true identity. that's unsafe and very dangerous for the driver.


----------



## Uber 1 (Oct 6, 2015)

Would have been MUCH better story had that happened over a TIPPING issue rather than the drivers inability to find the Pax

;-)

Andy


----------



## Lack9133 (Mar 26, 2015)

SECOTIME said:


> What I find most interesting about the story is the severity in the context of the allegation. The language used just seems a bit extraordinary. Who knows though, people say and do ****ed up things all the time. It seems a bit overplayed though.
> 
> Also, Uber replies saying _"We want to offer our deep apologies for this terrible ordeal and thank you for bringing this to our attention. This kind of behavior is absolutely unacceptable and the driver's* access to Uber* has been permanently removed." ...
> _
> ...that shit in red cracks me up.


You're right, that part in red is a joke.

In most states, the state PUC requires all cab drivers to be licensed for reasons like this. If this driver did this while driving for Taxi Company A and got fired, and tomorrow he applied to go work at Taxi Company B, the PUC would throw up a red flag that and inform Company B of his previous allegations no matter if those allegations made public news or not. His license would be pulled where he could not work for any taxi company in order to prevent this situation from happening again under a different company name.

I do know that Uber has fought regulators on providing access to their database of drivers. But this case, it is proof that regulators should have access to all situations of this nature so if this particular driver tried to go drive a taxi tomorrow, a town car, a city bus or any other form of public transportation, he is automatically disqualified.

This guy should never be allowed to driver public transportation again.


----------



## jrboy (Sep 14, 2015)

Lack9133 said:


> You're right, that part in red is a joke.
> 
> In most states, the state PUC requires all cab drivers to be licensed for reasons like this. If this driver did this while driving for Taxi Company A and got fired, and tomorrow he applied to go work at Taxi Company B, the PUC would throw up a red flag that and inform Company B of his previous allegations no matter if those allegations made public news or not. His license would be pulled where he could not work for any taxi company in order to prevent this situation from happening again under a different company name.
> 
> ...


but what about pax? what if a rider threatens a driver with rape and murder? uber does not even have pax true identity. pax could easily set up another account and be a serious risk to other drivers.


----------



## Lack9133 (Mar 26, 2015)

jrboy said:


> but what about pax? what if a rider threatens a driver with rape and murder? uber does not even have pax true identity. pax could easily set up another account and be a serious risk to other drivers.


Oh I agree. It would be nice to ban passengers who misbehave but the moment one of those banned passengers gets into an alcohol related accident you'll have MADD up you're ass. Not sure there will every be a perfect solution.


----------



## jrboy (Sep 14, 2015)

Lack9133 said:


> Oh I agree. It would be nice to ban passengers who misbehave but the moment one of those banned passengers gets into an alcohol related accident you'll have MADD up you're ass. Not sure there will every be a perfect solution.


we don't work for madd. we are ic's. and our safety shouldn't be compromised at any cost. the solution is for uber to ensure drivers safety by having pax give documentation of identity just like drivers. once banned they are banned for life just like driver that was accused.


----------



## cubanito1 (Sep 17, 2015)

I'm sure if they added a tip option on the app this won't happen.


----------



## Lack9133 (Mar 26, 2015)

jrboy said:


> we don't work for madd. we are ic's. and our safety shouldn't be compromised at any cost. the solution is for uber to ensure drivers safety by having pax give documentation of identity just like drivers. once banned they are banned for life just like driver that was accused.


I think you're missing the point I am trying to make. While I agree that safety should be the number one priority for drivers, what we don't want to have happen is we deny service to some drunk asshole who ends up getting behind the wheel and slamming into one of our drivers or anyone else on the road.


----------



## jrboy (Sep 14, 2015)

Lack9133 said:


> I think you're missing the point I am trying to make. While I agree that safety should be the number one priority for drivers, what we don't want to have happen is we deny service to some drunk asshole who ends up getting behind the wheel and slamming into one of our drivers or anyone else on the road.


ut if this guy is a threat to drivers he or she shouldn't have access to the platform no matter what. there are other means of transportation. they can call lyft or a cab. it is uber's responsibility to maintain safety on this platform. but safety should be considered for drivers too. the srf comes out of driver's fare. yet our safety is neglected.


----------



## Lack9133 (Mar 26, 2015)

jrboy said:


> ut if this guy is a threat to drivers he or she shouldn't have access to the platform no matter what. there are other means of transportation. they can call lyft or a cab. it is uber's responsibility to maintain safety on this platform. but safety should be considered for drivers too. the srf comes out of driver's fare. yet our safety is neglected.


Yet if this individual is a threat to Uber drivers, he is probably a threat to cab drivers, bus drivers and individuals in other lines of transportation. If this was flipped and an individual was banned from taxi's, would you want him in the back seat of your Uber vehicle? Let's be honest, if he's causing issues in one form of transportation, he's probably doing it in all form of transportation and if one should be allowed to ban him, the others should be as well.

The question still remains is where is the line one must cross that he should be banned from public transportation at the expense of him possibly getting behind the wheel and driving drunk? There is no clear solution to that question.


----------



## jrboy (Sep 14, 2015)

Lack9133 said:


> Yet if this individual is a threat to Uber drivers, he is probably a threat to cab drivers, bus drivers and individuals in other lines of transportation. If this was flipped and an individual was banned from taxi's, would you want him in the back seat of your Uber vehicle? Let's be honest, if he's causing issues in one form of transportation, he's probably doing it in all form of transportation and if one should be allowed to ban him, the others should be as well.
> 
> The question still remains is where is the line one must cross that he should be banned from public transportation at the expense of him possibly getting behind the wheel and driving drunk? There is no clear solution to that question.


then uber is at fault for deactivating this driver. this driver could easily do as you say and drive for a cab or lyft, but uber still deactivated him. uber ensures the safety of pax, but does nothing to keep the driver safe although they take money for the safe ride fee. the ride should be safe for both the rider and the driver.


----------



## Uber-Doober (Dec 16, 2014)

SECOTIME said:


> What I find most interesting about the story is the severity in the context of the allegation. The language used just seems a bit extraordinary. Who knows though, people say and do ****ed up things all the time. It seems a bit overplayed though.
> 
> Also, Uber replies saying _"We want to offer our deep apologies for this terrible ordeal and thank you for bringing this to our attention. This kind of behavior is absolutely unacceptable and the driver's* access to Uber* has been permanently removed." ...
> _
> ...that shit in red cracks me up.


^^^
The first sentence of the Uber reply should be sent to drivers after they email Uber saying that they're quitting.


----------



## Lack9133 (Mar 26, 2015)

jrboy said:


> then uber is at fault for deactivating this driver. this driver could easily do as you say and drive for a cab or lyft, but uber still deactivated him. uber ensures the safety of pax, but does nothing to keep the driver safe although they take money for the safe ride fee. the ride should be safe for both the rider and the driver.


The driver definitely deserved to be fired for his acts. It's still a very fine line of how much a driver should be asked to tolerate before putting someone on the road who could possibly get behind the wheel drunk and cause even more damage.


----------



## jrboy (Sep 14, 2015)

Lack9133 said:


> The driver definitely deserved to be fired for his acts. It's still a very fine line of how much a driver should be asked to tolerate before putting someone on the road who could possibly get behind the wheel drunk and cause even more damage.


if the rider gets banned from uber for threats or indecent behavior, etc. he should think twice about drinking if he has no transportation. he is responsilble for his own actions not uber. uber needs to seriously start considering the safety of the driver. unless the srf is only taken from us as extra commission under the guise of safe ride fee.


----------



## Lack9133 (Mar 26, 2015)

jrboy said:


> if the rider gets banned from uber for threats or indecent behavior, etc. he should think twice about drinking if he has no transportation. he is responsilble for his own actions not uber. uber needs to seriously start considering the safety of the driver. unless the srf is only taken from us as extra commission under the guise of safe ride fee.


If people actually thought twice about their drinking and general behavior, our prison system would be a lot less crowded. Wishful thinking......


----------



## jrboy (Sep 14, 2015)

Lack9133 said:


> If people actually thought twice about their drinking and general behavior, our prison system would be a lot less crowded. Wishful thinking......


exactly, they should be where they belong if they are going to be violent. they shouldn't be in our back seats. but uber doesn't care about our safety. only riders safety. but they still take $1.65 out of every single trip


----------

