Skip to content

Uber, Lyft oppose some bills that aim to prevent assaults during rides

Technology
12 6 48
  • This post did not contain any content.
  • This post did not contain any content.

    like petroleum companies opposing bills that aim to encourage batteries during rides.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    The bill would jeopardize rideshare services in Colorado “to an untenable degree, and could very well lead to companies that Coloradans rely on exiting the market, raising prices, or reducing the number of drivers,"

    What a bizarre statement. If they exit the market, everything will improve.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    They're opposing the bills because the things they suggest won't do anything their existing safety procedures don't do, and reading the companies security/safety protocols and the proposed new ones it's pretty clear that they are not needed.

    In her lawsuit filed against Lyft in January, Willford alleges she was “subjected to unwelcome, nonconsensual sexual contact, touching” and lewd comments during the ride.

    Willford was picked up by a different driver than the person identified in the Lyft app, according to the suit.

    How would these new bills have prevented this? How would they prevent a Lyft driver from letting someone else drive their car to pick up passengers? How would they prevent lewd comments during the ride? Riders can already record their entire trip on their phone if they want. These companies already do background checks. They already suspend drivers if complaints are made and deemed serious/real. They already ban drivers who assault people or who let other people drive for them.

    What exactly do they think these new bills would solve and how?

  • They're opposing the bills because the things they suggest won't do anything their existing safety procedures don't do, and reading the companies security/safety protocols and the proposed new ones it's pretty clear that they are not needed.

    In her lawsuit filed against Lyft in January, Willford alleges she was “subjected to unwelcome, nonconsensual sexual contact, touching” and lewd comments during the ride.

    Willford was picked up by a different driver than the person identified in the Lyft app, according to the suit.

    How would these new bills have prevented this? How would they prevent a Lyft driver from letting someone else drive their car to pick up passengers? How would they prevent lewd comments during the ride? Riders can already record their entire trip on their phone if they want. These companies already do background checks. They already suspend drivers if complaints are made and deemed serious/real. They already ban drivers who assault people or who let other people drive for them.

    What exactly do they think these new bills would solve and how?

    I don't know if these bills would help, but there is a need for something to be done. The daughter of a friend of mine was raped by a Lyft driver a few years ago. Going home from a party, she didn't want to drive because she had been drinking. She thought Lyft was the safer option. It wasn't.

  • I don't know if these bills would help, but there is a need for something to be done. The daughter of a friend of mine was raped by a Lyft driver a few years ago. Going home from a party, she didn't want to drive because she had been drinking. She thought Lyft was the safer option. It wasn't.

    That’s terrible, but you can’t just say “something needs to be done” because a bad thing happened, when the thing wasn’t preventable. Bad people exist, and bad people do bad things.

    What do you think could be signed into law that would have prevented that from happening? Would those laws have prevented a taxi driver from doing it? A “friend” giving her a lift?

  • They're opposing the bills because the things they suggest won't do anything their existing safety procedures don't do, and reading the companies security/safety protocols and the proposed new ones it's pretty clear that they are not needed.

    In her lawsuit filed against Lyft in January, Willford alleges she was “subjected to unwelcome, nonconsensual sexual contact, touching” and lewd comments during the ride.

    Willford was picked up by a different driver than the person identified in the Lyft app, according to the suit.

    How would these new bills have prevented this? How would they prevent a Lyft driver from letting someone else drive their car to pick up passengers? How would they prevent lewd comments during the ride? Riders can already record their entire trip on their phone if they want. These companies already do background checks. They already suspend drivers if complaints are made and deemed serious/real. They already ban drivers who assault people or who let other people drive for them.

    What exactly do they think these new bills would solve and how?

    1. What about ride share companies that aren’t Uber or Lyft that don’t have safety programs?
    2. What requirement do Uber or Lyft have to maintain good safety after, say, they own the market?
    1. What about ride share companies that aren’t Uber or Lyft that don’t have safety programs?
    2. What requirement do Uber or Lyft have to maintain good safety after, say, they own the market?

    Laws and regulations already exist that all ride share companies have to follow around things like vetting their drivers.

  • Laws and regulations already exist that all ride share companies have to follow around things like vetting their drivers.

    In the US? I’m gonna need to see some statutes there bud. Last I checked there are no federal requirements and as far as I can tell there are only insurance requirements in Colorado at the moment.

  • In the US? I’m gonna need to see some statutes there bud. Last I checked there are no federal requirements and as far as I can tell there are only insurance requirements in Colorado at the moment.

    Yeah in the US. There are too many different laws and regulations for me to list since they’re often state specific. Take California for example:

    The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has passed laws for the operation of a TNC within the state. These laws involve the following:

    Licensing, permit and certification requirements

    Mandatory Lyft and/or Uber decals on a vehicle’s front and back passenger-side windshields
    Insurance requirements, including vehicle liability and workers’ compensation insurance

    Minimum TNC driver age requirement of 21 years old, with at least one year of driving history

    Department of Motor Vehicle record checks required for all TNC drivers

    Annual background checks required for all TNC drivers

    Mandatory driver training programs to ensure drivers are safely operating their vehicles

    Accessibility plans for individuals with disabilities

    A Zero Tolerance Policy for drivers under the influence of drugs or alcohol

    Required vehicle inspections once per year or every 50,000 miles, whichever comes first

    Prohibition against TNC drivers accepting street hails from potential passengers

    Prohibition against TNC drivers transporting more than seven passengers per ride

    If Uber, Lyft or another ridesharing company is found to be delinquent in following any of these laws, it could face penalties. The CPUC accepts complaints from the public regarding ridesharing services or drivers who are in violation of any of the state’s TNC laws.

  • Yeah in the US. There are too many different laws and regulations for me to list since they’re often state specific. Take California for example:

    The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has passed laws for the operation of a TNC within the state. These laws involve the following:

    Licensing, permit and certification requirements

    Mandatory Lyft and/or Uber decals on a vehicle’s front and back passenger-side windshields
    Insurance requirements, including vehicle liability and workers’ compensation insurance

    Minimum TNC driver age requirement of 21 years old, with at least one year of driving history

    Department of Motor Vehicle record checks required for all TNC drivers

    Annual background checks required for all TNC drivers

    Mandatory driver training programs to ensure drivers are safely operating their vehicles

    Accessibility plans for individuals with disabilities

    A Zero Tolerance Policy for drivers under the influence of drugs or alcohol

    Required vehicle inspections once per year or every 50,000 miles, whichever comes first

    Prohibition against TNC drivers accepting street hails from potential passengers

    Prohibition against TNC drivers transporting more than seven passengers per ride

    If Uber, Lyft or another ridesharing company is found to be delinquent in following any of these laws, it could face penalties. The CPUC accepts complaints from the public regarding ridesharing services or drivers who are in violation of any of the state’s TNC laws.

    California is not Colorado nor is it federal. I don’t think you understand the things you’re saying since you don’t seem to grasp, as you put it, the regulations are “often state-specific.” You linked California, not Colorado, which this article is in reference to. Even in the beginning, you didn’t seem to grasp why regulation and some level of understanding about what people should or shouldn’t do is reasonable to have defined. Good luck!

  • California is not Colorado nor is it federal. I don’t think you understand the things you’re saying since you don’t seem to grasp, as you put it, the regulations are “often state-specific.” You linked California, not Colorado, which this article is in reference to. Even in the beginning, you didn’t seem to grasp why regulation and some level of understanding about what people should or shouldn’t do is reasonable to have defined. Good luck!

    California is not Colorado nor is it federal

    No shit, did you even read my comment?

    Regulations already exist in every state that ride share companies operate in, including any state where taxis operate.

    People are already not supposed to sexually assault their passengers. Will adding another regulation saying they shouldn’t do that, even when one already exists, suddenly stop it from happening? No.

    Have you even looked at the regulations in Colorado for ride share drivers and companies? I’m guessing not. Here are the ones that were made in 2014:

    https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2021/title-40/article-10-1/part-6/section-40-10-1-605/#%3A~%3Atext=§+40-10.1-605.+Operational+Requirements+A+driver+shall+not%2Ca+ride%2C+otherwise+known+as+a+“street+hail”.

    Here’s just one little but relevant section:

    Before a person is permitted to act as a driver through use of a transportation network company's digital network, the person shall:
    Obtain a criminal history record check pursuant to the procedures set forth in section 40-10.1-110 as supplemented by the commission's rules promulgated under section 40-10.1-110 or through a privately administered national criminal history record check, including the national sex offender database; and
    If a privately administered national criminal history record check is used, provide a copy of the criminal history record check to the transportation network company.
    A driver shall obtain a criminal history record check in accordance with subparagraph (I) of paragraph (a) of this subsection (3) every five years while serving as a driver.
    A person who has been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol in the previous seven years before applying to become a driver shall not serve as a driver. If the criminal history record check reveals that the person has ever been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to any of the following felony offenses, the person shall not serve as a driver: (c) (I) A person who has been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol in the previous seven years before applying to become a driver shall not serve as a driver. If the criminal history record check reveals that the person has ever been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to any of the following felony offenses, the person shall not serve as a driver:
    An offense involving fraud, as described in article 5 of title 18, C.R.S.;
    An offense involving unlawful sexual behavior, as defined in section 16-22-102 (9), C.R.S.;
    An offense against property, as described in article 4 of title 18, C.R.S.; or
    A crime of violence, as described in section 18-1.3-406, C.R.S.
    A person who has been convicted of a comparable offense to the offenses listed in subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (c) in another state or in the United States shall not serve as a driver.
    A transportation network company or a third party shall retain true and accurate results of the criminal history record check for each driver that provides services for the transportation network company for at least five years after the criminal history record check was conducted.
    A person who has, within the immediately preceding five years, been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to a felony shall not serve as a driver.
    Before permitting an individual to act as a driver on its digital network, a transportation network company shall obtain and review a driving history research report for the individual.
    An individual with the following moving violations shall not serve as a driver:
    More than three moving violations in the three-year period preceding the individual's application to serve as a driver; or
    A major moving violation in the three-year period preceding the individual's application to serve as a driver, whether committed in this state, another state, or the United States, including vehicular eluding, as described in section 18-9-116.5, C.R.S., reckless driving, as described in section 42-4-1401, C.R.S., and driving under restraint, as described in section 42-2-138, C.R.S.
    A transportation network company or a third party shall retain true and accurate results of the driving history research report for each driver that provides services for the transportation network company for at least three years.

    So all sorts of criminal history, driving record, etc checks have been required since 2014. Colorado were actually the first state in the USA to implement rules like this for ride share companies lol.

  • Apparently Debian has alienated the developers

    Technology technology
    16
    13 Stimmen
    16 Beiträge
    30 Aufrufe
    prodigalfrog@slrpnk.netP
    You can read more about it here: https://www.phoronix.com/news/Debian-More-Newcomers-LLMs They also seem to have voted on this subject back in may, but I don't know how to find the results: https://www.debian.org/vote/2025/vote_002#secondsa
  • 9 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    22 Aufrufe
    N
    Same, but for enshittified apps. Just do your job goddammit; no more, no less.
  • 55 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    48 Aufrufe
    D
    Except AI would break everything so just watch the digital fires that are about to get started. They already figured a method to put malicious code in AI crawlers. Imagine you tell AI to code and it uses malware in the code.
  • 1 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    8 Aufrufe
    X
    How many times is this putz going to post this article under new titles before they are banned?
  • 15 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    26 Aufrufe
    P
    WTF I looked for something like this for a while and this never popped up. Awesome.
  • 106 Stimmen
    25 Beiträge
    40 Aufrufe
    tryenjer@lemmy.worldT
    In short, we will need an open-source alternative to these implants, of course.
  • 1k Stimmen
    95 Beiträge
    17 Aufrufe
    G
    Obviously the law must be simple enough to follow so that for Jim’s furniture shop is not a problem nor a too high cost to respect it, but it must be clear that if you break it you can cease to exist as company. I think this may be the root of our disagreement, I do not believe that there is any law making body today that is capable of an elegantly simple law. I could be too naive, but I think it is possible. We also definitely have a difference on opinion when it comes to the severity of the infraction, in my mind, while privacy is important, it should not have the same level of punishments associated with it when compared to something on the level of poisoning water ways; I think that a privacy law should hurt but be able to be learned from while in the poison case it should result in the bankruptcy of a company. The severity is directly proportional to the number of people affected. If you violate the privacy of 200 million people is the same that you poison the water of 10 people. And while with the poisoning scenario it could be better to jail the responsible people (for a very, very long time) and let the company survive to clean the water, once your privacy is violated there is no way back, a company could not fix it. The issue we find ourselves with today is that the aggregate of all privacy breaches makes it harmful to the people, but with a sizeable enough fine, I find it hard to believe that there would be major or lasting damage. So how much money your privacy it's worth ? 6 For this reason I don’t think it is wise to write laws that will bankrupt a company off of one infraction which was not directly or indirectly harmful to the physical well being of the people: and I am using indirectly a little bit more strict than I would like to since as I said before, the aggregate of all the information is harmful. The point is that the goal is not to bankrupt companies but to have them behave right. The penalty associated to every law IS the tool that make you respect the law. And it must be so high that you don't want to break the law. I would have to look into the laws in question, but on a surface level I think that any company should be subjected to the same baseline privacy laws, so if there isn’t anything screwy within the law that apple, Google, and Facebook are ignoring, I think it should apply to them. Trust me on this one, direct experience payment processors have a lot more rules to follow to be able to work. I do not want jail time for the CEO by default but he need to know that he will pay personally if the company break the law, it is the only way to make him run the company being sure that it follow the laws. For some reason I don’t have my usual cynicism when it comes to this issue. I think that the magnitude of loses that vested interests have in these companies would make it so that companies would police themselves for fear of losing profits. That being said I wouldn’t be opposed to some form of personal accountability on corporate leadership, but I fear that they will just end up finding a way to create a scapegoat everytime. It is not cynicism. I simply think that a huge fine to a single person (the CEO for example) is useless since it too easy to avoid and if it really huge realistically it would be never paid anyway so nothing usefull since the net worth of this kind of people is only on the paper. So if you slap a 100 billion file to Musk he will never pay because he has not the money to pay even if technically he is worth way more than that. Jail time instead is something that even Musk can experience. In general I like laws that are as objective as possible, I think that a privacy law should be written so that it is very objectively overbearing, but that has a smaller fine associated with it. This way the law is very clear on right and wrong, while also giving the businesses time and incentive to change their practices without having to sink large amount of expenses into lawyers to review every minute detail, which is the logical conclusion of the one infraction bankrupt system that you seem to be supporting. Then you write a law that explicitally state what you can do and what is not allowed is forbidden by default.
  • My character isn't answering me

    Technology technology
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    11 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet