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



## Ca$h4 (Aug 12, 2015)

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

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

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

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

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

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

*http://www.news4jax.com/news/two-uber-drivers-arrested-while-on-duty*


----------



## Teksaz (Mar 16, 2015)

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

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


----------



## u-Boat (Jan 4, 2016)

Teksaz said:


> Lol Hilarious It's awesome that Austin told Goober and Lyft to go pound sand.


 You have it backwards chief. uBer and Lyft told the corrupt Austin City Govt to go pound sand.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

u-Boat said:


> You have it backwards chief. uBer and Lyft told the corrupt Austin City Govt to go pound sand.


This would, of course, mean that the Good Voters of Austin who came out to vote in the plebiscite on the fingerprinting were "corrupt". The "corrupt Austin City Govt" held this plebiscite at the demand of Uber and Lyft.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Everyone should be fingerprinted,D.N.A. tested,and polygraphed to work anywhere .

Weekly drug tests.

Body cams required during working hours.

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

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

BIG BROTHER LOVES YOU.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

u-Boat said:


> You have it backwards chief. uBer and Lyft told the corrupt Austin City Govt to go pound sand.


Time to retire this absurd talking point.


----------



## u-Boat (Jan 4, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> This would, of course, mean that the Good Voters of Austin who came out to vote in the plebiscite on the fingerprinting were "corrupt". The "corrupt Austin City Govt" held this plebiscite at the demand of Uber and Lyft.


uBer and Lyft saw the writing on the wall. They drew a line in the sand and held firm. Good for them. All Govts are corrupt in one form or another. Just follow the money trail.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

u-Boat said:


> uBer and Lyft saw the writing on the wall. They drew a line in the sand and held firm. Good for them.


If that is the case, why did Uber and Lyft spend eight million dollars in an attempt to buy the results of that plebiscite?


----------



## The Mollusk (Feb 13, 2016)

I think UBoat is out of meaningful contributions to this debate. He's almost out of one liner talking points.


----------



## u-Boat (Jan 4, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> If that is the case, why did Uber and Lyft spend eight million dollars in an attempt to buy the results of that plebiscite?


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

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


----------



## u-Boat (Jan 4, 2016)

The Mollusk said:


> I think UBoat is out of meaningful contributions to this debate. He's almost out of one liner talking points.


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


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

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

Is this a case of which is the lesser evil?

I feel like you're getting a bit confused.

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

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


----------



## u-Boat (Jan 4, 2016)

sellkatsell44 said:


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


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


----------



## LA Cabbie (Nov 4, 2014)

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

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


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

u-Boat said:


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


Can I see the actual document stating that in your state it's been enacted and it's a million in taxes and not a million minimum insurance policy?

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

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

And this from Austin

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

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


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

u-Boat said:


> uBer knew this "plebiscite" would get shot down in a town like Austin where voter awareness & turnout would be minimal at best. Austin City Council knew that too.


You base this assertion on what? You forget that Uber and Lyft demanded this plebiscite. Neither Uber nor Lyft are going to spend millions of dollars on something that they are sure will go for naught. That makes no sense, especially when you consider Uber. Uber is not going to spend millions because it thinks that it owes something to its employees and drivers. Uber's corporate culture is such that it does not think that it owes anyone or any entity anything.

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

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

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

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

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



u-Boat said:


> This forum has been hijacked by disgruntled cabbies and anti-uBer folk that care nothing about competition and free market principles.


How do you define either a "disgruntled cabbie" or "anti-uBer folk" [_*sic*_]? Someone who does not agree with u-Boat?
I have no problem with a free market in a fair marketplace. I have a real problem when all competitors but one or two must compete with a handicap; especially when they must do so at the order of the referee in the marketplace.


----------



## WeirdBob (Jan 2, 2016)

u-Boat said:


> uBer and Lyft saw the writing on the wall. They drew a line in the sand and held firm. Good for them. All Govts are corrupt in one form or another. Just follow the money trail.


This is true. Unfortunately, it is also true of private enterprises.

We are screwed all around.


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

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

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

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


----------



## u-Boat (Jan 4, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> You base this assertion on what? You forget that Uber and Lyft demanded this plebiscite.


17% voter turnout for prop 1 despite the campaign. It was never gonna pass. uBer & Lyft simply wanted a public vote and national story to set a precedent for other cities thinking about tightening the screws on the free market.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

u-Boat said:


> 17% voter turnout for prop 1 despite the campaign.


A seventeen per-cent turnout means that Uber and Lyft knew that they were going to lose the plebiscite? That makes no sense. I will start with no one's knowing what the turnout would be until the plebiscite was concluded.

You have no argument.


----------



## u-Boat (Jan 4, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> I am curious about your objection to safety standards and a penalty for failing to meet them. Taxicabs and limousines must meet certain safety standards. Why should not TNC cars?


You're obviously not an uBer driver. Safety standards are plenty adequate. Annual vehicle inspection, bi-annual DOT physical, proof of TNC insurance, proof of valid DL, proof of valid registration, random facial recognition checks, and a constant rating system. Do cabs and limos have a rating system for each and every ride? Nope. What more do you want? Oh yeah, you want to collect biometric data from everyone in America and store it in a Govt database so you can feel "safe".


----------



## Rex8976 (Nov 11, 2014)

phillipzx3 said:


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


This is exactly what happened in Broward County last year. The County Commisioners enacted a set of common sense regulations. Uber threw a tantrum and left. Lyft followed suit, as they always do.

Like Austin, they LEFT and were not thrown out.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

u-Boat said:


> Furthermore if you look at the ordinance the 1% tax was just a start. It also left the door open for an additional 1% tax if certain safety standards were not met. This was a classic "give an inch and they'll take a mile" scenario.





u-Boat said:


> *1. *You're obviously not an uBer driver.
> 
> *2. *Safety standards are plenty adequate. Annual vehicle inspection, bi-annual DOT physical, proof of TNC insurance, proof of valid DL, proof of valid registration, random facial recognition checks, and a constant rating system.
> 
> ...


1. This is the typical statement of an elitist TNC driver who has had what passes for "arguments" debunked. Here, take this statement:

_*YOU, OBVIOUSLY, HAVE NO BASIS ON WHICH TO MAKE THAT STATEMENT. *_ Again, you make yet another baseless statement. I do drive Uber. I drive two levels of Uber: Uber Taxi and UberX. Crash goes that chariot.

2. You complain about safety standards (first quoted post) now you state that they are "adequate". You are contradicting yourself. Crash goes that chariot.

3. Rating systems are irrelevant to this discussion. They are subjective, as it is, but, as they have no relevance to this discussion, I am passing over them, for now. That chariot never got off the starting line.

4. I want biometric data checked so that I can be sure that someone who is driving around my relatives has not been convicted of a violent crime. Law Enforcement background checks bring out the most accurate data on that. Violent criminals have a high rate of recidivism. If you do not care that a convicted rapist is driving your niece, that is your business. I do not want one to be driving my niece. Cab drivers must submit to these checks. TNC drivers are doing the same thing that cab drivers do. TNC drivers should have to submit to the same regulations that cab drivers do.

Now that I have treated all of this beside-the-point nonsense that you have raised, we return to the original topic of our disagreement, which was the Austin plebiscite. You have failed, once more, to prove your statements about it. I have destroyed every one of your statements. You have no argument; you never had one.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

u-Boat said:


> Bottom line is 83% of Austin's population didn't give a flying about whether or not uBer & Lyft drivers receive fingerprint background checks.
> 
> creating solutions for problems that were never there to begin with.


Your first statement is irrelevant. The only thing relevant to this discussion is how those who voted did vote. The voters of Austin who did vote wanted fingerprint checks.

Would you call the Houston Uber driver who raped a passenger a problem that was "never there to begin with"? That driver passed Uber's background check. When the police arrested him and booked him, his previous rape conviction came up. That is why you run biometric data; to find out if someone is running away from a violent criminal past.

I share your contempt for nanny staters and the intolerant Left, but, in some cases, you do want to know what is what.


----------



## u-Boat (Jan 4, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> I share your contempt for nanny staters and the intolerant Left, but, in some cases, you do want to know what is what.


No you don't share my contempt. If you feel that it's ok for Govt to collect and store the biometric data of American citizens without just cause than you yourself sir are part of the problem.

And spare me the serial rapist retort. Tell your drunk niece not to get into a car at 2am alone with a complete stranger and accept some personal responsibility for her actions. Or at the very least carry mace or a peacemaker! Furthermore what's stopping anyone wanting to rape someone from slapping an uBer or Lyft sticker (or taxi light) on their vehicle and pulling up in front of a bar at last call? (Hint: It's happened already and will happen again) Or what about the first time uber/taxi driver rapist that passed your fingerprint background check with flying colors?

I get it, you want to feel cozy and safe in this big, bad world out there. But at what expense? If it involves violating the basic personal rights and privacy of American citizens without just cause than count me out!

I'm done arguing with you. I'm obviously out of my league going toe to toe with a clinical master debater such as yourself. And nothing or nobody will change my mind on this topic.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

u-Boat said:


> No you don't share my contempt
> 
> And spare me the serial rapist retort.
> 
> ...


***Presses "HUH?" button.****


----------



## JimS (Aug 18, 2015)

u-Boat said:


> No you don't share my contempt. If you feel that it's ok for Govt to collect and store the biometric data of American citizens without just cause than you yourself sir are part of the problem.


No one is forcing the government to do this. It's your choice if you want to pursue a particular occupation (or hobby). That's like applying for a top secret security clearance and then complaining that your privacy is being violated.

I didn't take the time to read the rest.


----------



## DriverX (Aug 5, 2015)

u-Boat said:


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


WHy is that? are you not able to pass a real background check?

U and L are fighting it because they'd lose 30% of the undocumented drivers they got on the road if other cities start demanding real background checks.

I got no problem with being finger printed because I am a legal resident and have a clean record. What is wrong with regulations that help keep illegal immigrants and sex offenders or thiefs and drug dealers off the platform? Last time I checked the less drivers the more we make!


----------



## DriverX (Aug 5, 2015)

u-Boat said:


> And spare me the serial rapist retort. Tell your drunk niece not to get into a car at 2am alone with a complete stranger and accept some personal responsibility for her actions. Or at the very least carry mace or a peacemaker! Furthermore what's stopping anyone wanting to rape someone from slapping an uBer or Lyft sticker (or taxi light) on their vehicle and pulling up in front of a bar at last call?


This is about the stupidest argument to not requiring fingerprinting drivers I ever heard. THat's your advice to your drunk niece or daughter.. so are you suggesting she drive herself home while drunk or walk? I'm sure a drunk girl on the side of the road alone at 2am is in a much safer place than the one calling an uber.

It's clear, your worried because, you can't pass the finger print test, tough luck dude they are coming.


----------



## ZZY (May 10, 2015)

Fingerprinting discriminates against who, drivers without fingers?


----------



## u-Boat (Jan 4, 2016)

DriverX said:


> This is about the stupidest argument to not requiring fingerprinting drivers I ever heard.


What's stupid is requiring uBer drivers to get fingerprint background checks but not uBer riders. What's stopping a criminal rider from setting up a fake account, requesting an uBer at 3am in some remote location and then carjacking the driver? Or even worse raping the driver? By advocating fingerprint checks for drivers you're advocating fingerprint background checks for everyone. Period. Anything less is a double standard and purposeless.


----------



## u-Boat (Jan 4, 2016)

DriverX said:


> This is about the stupidest argument to not requiring fingerprinting drivers I ever heard. THat's your advice to your drunk niece or daughter.. so are you suggesting she drive herself home while drunk or walk? I'm sure a drunk girl on the side of the road alone at 2am is in a much safer place than the one calling an uber.


No, she can call a taxi since they're so much more reliable and safe. Or call the Police. They give stranded people rides home all the time in my town.


----------



## u-Boat (Jan 4, 2016)

DriverX said:


> It's clear, your worried because, you can't pass the finger print test, tough luck dude they are coming.


Never been arrested in my life chief. So no, not worried whatsoever. What worries me is the idea of an inept, corrupt Govt possessing my biometric data for no just reason.


----------



## u-Boat (Jan 4, 2016)

JimS said:


> No one is forcing the government to do this. It's your choice if you want to pursue a particular occupation (or hobby). That's like applying for a top secret security clearance and then complaining that your privacy is being violated.


No one is forcing the Govt to do this? You're kidding right? That's exactly what is happening. Govt is FORCING this invasion of privacy on the rideshare industry.

You can't fingerprint rideshare drivers without also requiring mandatory fingerprints on rideshare riders. Anything less is moot.


----------

