# And This is Why Accounts are Put on Hold



## MHR (Jul 23, 2017)

http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-uber-fines-20181108-story.html?outputType=amp

By SAM DEAN
NOV 08, 2018 | 5:55 PM

*Uber fined $750,000 for letting drivers work after customers complained of drunk driving.*

The California Public Utilities Commission fined Uber $750,000 for failing to follow a "zero tolerance" policy on investigating and suspending drivers in response to customer complaints that they were driving while intoxicated.

The fine is the result of a settlement between the commission and Rasier-CA, a company owned and created by Uber to operate its services in California. The settlement approved Thursday was reached after an administrative law judge recommended fining the company $7,500 per violation, amounting to $1,132,500.

The violations were discovered in a Consumer Protection and Enforcement Division investigation that looked at how customer complaints of intoxicated drivers were handled from August 2014 to August 2015.

Uber reported receiving more than 2,000 complaints in that period and deactivated 574 of those drivers in response. But when investigators looked more closely at 154 of those complaints, they found that Uber failed to investigate 133 of them and failed to promptly suspend drivers in all but five of the cases reviewed.


The zero-tolerance policy that Uber agreed to follow is a special exemption for the company, according to the proposal adopted by the state agency. All other companies overseen by the commission are required to enroll in a drug and alcohol testing program for its drivers.

The policy mandates that the company have a clearly visible and dedicated phone number or in-app call function for complaints of driver intoxication. It also requires that the company suspend drivers for further investigation promptly after a zero-tolerance complaint is filed.

The investigators found that even when Uber claimed to have suspended a driver, other records indicated that the driver went on to provide three additional rides in the two hours after the complaint was filed. The investigation further found that there was no dedicated button or phone line for zero-tolerance complaints in particular, which introduced an element of human error into the process of deciding which customer complaints required prompt response.

In addition to the fine, Uber agreed to implement an education program on zero-tolerance regulations and file a motion to expand existing regulations and develop stronger standards for the ride-hailing industry.


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

The problem is that too many false allegations are made and Uber does not check to see if it's real or not. 

They need to make customers be responsible for false allegations and they need to follow up real allegations by calling past riders to see if they also noticed anything.


----------



## PioneerXi (Apr 20, 2018)

"MHR said:


> The investigators found that even when Uber claimed to have suspended a driver, other records indicated that the driver went on to provide three additional rides in the two hours after the complaint was filed.


This would suggest that the complaint was not made until hours after the ride ended

...and sufficient time for a passenger to manufacture a frivolous complaint after seeing the cost of their ride with surge.


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

Most of the time accounts are put on hold because pax as aholes and lie about a driver. That's why. 

Just because a state chooses to fine a company does not mean it's justified. On this I am on Uber's side, as much as I hate them.

Uber put accounts on hold becuase drivers are worthless to them and replaceable and disposable.


----------



## Disgusted Driver (Jan 9, 2015)

This is one of those wonderful legal situations where there are little consequence for bad behavior.

1) Uber gets slammed if they don't suspend immediately
2) There is no effective way to really investigate this with IC's, we would need to be tested immediately upon allegation
3) Pax does not get punished for false allegation, in fact it's never determined whether allegation was true or not.
4) Driver has no real remedy. You can sue the pax but can't prove it's not true and even if you could, the damages are typically very small in terms of lost wages so no attorney will take the case. 

In short, it's called the luck of the draw.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Therefore encouraging Lying Pax to continue for vindictive self serving reasons to punish and affect the earnings of good hard working drivers!


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

MHR said:


> http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-uber-fines-20181108-story.html?outputType=amp
> 
> By SAM DEAN
> NOV 08, 2018 | 5:55 PM
> ...


So now:

- we have received a concerning report that there was a speck of dust on your floor mat. We take Rider safety very seriously and consequently have suspended your account for further investigation.


----------



## HotUberMess (Feb 25, 2018)

There’s a way to test; submit to a blood draw given by a law enforcement agency, to be paid by Uber. 

If the test comes up negative, Uber must pay the driver lost wages and are free to sue the lying passenger.

Of course we know Uber can’t afford to do all this because they lied and said taxis are overcharging when they actually are charging the rate needed to run a legitimate business. Since Uber spread this lie, they have cornered themselves into charging less that what is needed to run a legitimate business.

THE USA’s BEST AND BRIGHTEST, Y’ALL


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

98% FALSE COMPLAINTS BY FREELOADING PASSENGERS !

Meanwhile
Driver went without income for falsely being accused by Liars !


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

what a joke, so there's no actual policy for investigating complaints and no way to punish the pax for false claims, it's just complaint = deactivation 

ridiculous


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Main Reason we need a UNION.

RIGHT HERE !

DRIVER REPRESENTATION.

IMPLEMENTATION OF FAIR AND JUST POLICY.

Main Reason we need a UNION.

RIGHT HERE !

DRIVER REPRESENTATION.

IMPLEMENTATION OF FAIR AND JUST POLICY.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Ooh! This shortens the life of Uber by 3 full weeks.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Less capital = less Uber.


----------



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)

They are not drunk, just tired of driving for 16 hours with more than 15 trips a day and the lingering smell from the previous drunk pax remains in their cars.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

HotUberMess said:


> There's a way to test; submit to a blood draw given by a law enforcement agency, to be paid by Uber.
> 
> If the test comes up negative, Uber must pay the driver lost wages and are free to sue the lying passenger.
> 
> ...


A negative test wouldn't prove anything and there's no way a driver would ever win in court.


----------



## jonhjax (Jun 24, 2016)

Uber could solve this by finding the location of the driver and calling the police about the suspicion of drunk driver along with license plate number. Police stop the driver and administer a field sobriety test. The police might not agree to do this, however. Uber should also state to pax/accusers that a negative test may be cause to revoke the pax's riding privileges or perhaps even legal action.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

jonhjax said:


> Uber could solve this by finding the location of the driver and calling the police about the suspicion of drunk driver along with license plate number. Police stop the driver and administer a field sobriety test. The police might not agree to do this, however. Uber should also state to pax/accusers that a negative test may be cause to revoke the pax's riding privileges or perhaps even legal action.


None of those things will ever happen. Uber would be out of business if they tried any of that.


----------



## Vak67 (Mar 16, 2019)

Lee239 said:


> Most of the time accounts are put on hold because pax as aholes and lie about a driver. That's why.
> 
> Just because a state chooses to fine a company does not mean it's justified. On this I am on Uber's side, as much as I hate them.
> 
> Uber put accounts on hold becuase drivers are worthless to them and replaceable and disposable.


Exactly we are worthless to them and pax are complete asses I hate them. They're the main problem


----------



## Who is John Galt? (Sep 28, 2016)

Just another scare campaign by the Media, the Judiciary, Über and probably Arseholes Anonymous to try to temper(ance) our drinking whilst driving!

Outrageous !!

.


----------



## hanging in there (Oct 1, 2014)

jonhjax said:


> Uber could solve this by finding the location of the driver and calling the police about the suspicion of drunk driver along with license plate number. Police stop the driver and administer a field sobriety test. The police might not agree to do this, however. Uber should also state to pax/accusers that a negative test may be cause to revoke the pax's riding privileges or perhaps even legal action.


This is the way they handled things when I drove a taxi:

They had fleet supervisors on the road at all times. If a driver had an accident (regardless of fault) or was accused of DUI or other serious allegations, the driver was instructed to remain in his or her car and wait for a fleet supervisor.

The nearest fleet supervisor (I was one at one point) would arrive at the scene and take an accident report if needed, and then take the driver to the nearest 24 hour drug/alcohol testing lab.

If the driver refused to cooperate fully with this policy it would result in instant, permanent deactivation as a driver and deactivation of the taxi permit.

Of course the same would result with a positive test outcome.

The point of this policy, besides passenger safety, was to have a viable defense/deterrent against lawsuits.

However, as a driver I loved this policy, and the requirement to have random drug/alcohol testing, because I hate to be falsely accused and was happy to have timely concrete evidence of my innocence.

With Uber and Lyft they just suspend you after an allegation and then "investigate it".... yeh.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

hanging in there said:


> This is the way they handled things when I drove a taxi:
> 
> They had fleet supervisors on the road at all times. If a driver had an accident (regardless of fault) or was accused of DUI or other serious allegations, the driver was instructed to remain in his or her car and wait for a fleet supervisor.
> 
> ...


Same with the cab company i've been dealing with, except Mears Taxi calls them "Safety department" (they were also insurance guys as the company self insured)

Except they have certifications to operate a breathalyzer device and perform other field sobriety tests

On top of that... discount on the taxi rental for losing time.

The longest i had to wait was 90 minutes, the shortest was 25.

So basically..

The cab companies (more than just these two examples i presume) actually investigate the allegations whereas uber... well...










I was accused for DUI on uber one time...

I thought that maybe the customer took back their statement about me driving DUI. That was in early 2015... now i know better.

How many of us have been accused of DUI and not had any sort of investigation of any kind then been reactivated?


----------



## hanging in there (Oct 1, 2014)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Same with the cab company i've been dealing with, except Mears Taxi calls them "Safety department" (they were also insurance guys as the company self insured)
> 
> Except they have certifications to operate a breathalyzer device and perform other field sobriety tests
> 
> ...


It happened to me on a Lyft call about a month ago. They obviously had no actual investigation, except for my statement about how wasted and wacked out the rider was, backed up with dashcam footage that they never wanted to look at.

What worries me is that I can imagine they might take the easy way out and just have my account flagged for "possible DUI", let's say.

Then maybe next time I get falsely accused they might say "2 strikes, you are permanently deactivated because we say so."


----------



## bonum exactoris (Mar 2, 2019)

hanging in there said:


> It happened to me on a Lyft call about a month ago. They obviously had no actual investigation, except for my statement about how wasted and wacked out the rider was, backed up with dashcam footage that they never wanted to look at.
> 
> What worries me is that I can imagine they might take the easy way out and just have my account flagged for "possible DUI", let's say.
> 
> Then maybe next time I get falsely accused they might say "2 strikes, you are permanently deactivated because we say so."


Uber has ALWAYS been indifferent to drivers.
Subsequently.....
?Why would uber spend 2 cents, 3 seconds or ever a passing thought to investigate a disposable nonemployee who has already been replaced by 100 new drivers?

I wish drivers would stop ? craving love from uber and then act
shocked when all that's given is indifference.

Expect nothing ?from uber and you'll never be disappointed ?
And remember: the passenger is king ? and ubers priority


----------

