Skip to content

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

Technology
11 6 0
  • 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!

  • 56 Stimmen
    13 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    P
    I tried before, but I made my life hell on earth. I only have whatsapp now because its mandatory. Since 2022, I only have lemmy, mastodon and unfortunately whatsapp as social media.
  • 1 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 40K IoT cameras worldwide stream secrets to anyone with a browser.

    Technology technology
    18
    1
    120 Stimmen
    18 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    T
    For the Emperor!
  • Why Decentralized Social Media Matters

    Technology technology
    45
    1
    388 Stimmen
    45 Beiträge
    7 Aufrufe
    fizz@lemmy.nzF
    Yeah we're kinda doing well. Retaining 50k mau from the initial user burst is really good and Lemmy was technologically really bad at the time. Its a lot more developed today. I think next time reddit fucks uo we spike to over 100k users and steadily grow from there.
  • 39 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    7 Aufrufe
    C
    I believed they were doing such things against budding competitors long before the LLM era. My test is simple. Replace it with China. Would the replies be the opposite of what you've recieved so far? The answer is yes. Absolutely people would be frothing at the mouth about China being bad actors. Western tech bros are just as paranoid, they copy off others, they steal ideas. When we do it it's called "innovation".
  • Why doesn't Nvidia have more competition?

    Technology technology
    22
    1
    33 Stimmen
    22 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    B
    It’s funny how the article asks the question, but completely fails to answer it. About 15 years ago, Nvidia discovered there was a demand for compute in datacenters that could be met with powerful GPU’s, and they were quick to respond to it, and they had the resources to focus on it strongly, because of their huge success and high profitability in the GPU market. AMD also saw the market, and wanted to pursue it, but just over a decade ago where it began to clearly show the high potential for profitability, AMD was near bankrupt, and was very hard pressed to finance developments on GPU and compute in datacenters. AMD really tried the best they could, and was moderately successful from a technology perspective, but Nvidia already had a head start, and the proprietary development system CUDA was already an established standard that was very hard to penetrate. Intel simply fumbled the ball from start to finish. After a decade of trying to push ARM down from having the mobile crown by far, investing billions or actually the equivalent of ARM’s total revenue. They never managed to catch up to ARM despite they had the better production process at the time. This was the main focus of Intel, and Intel believed that GPU would never be more than a niche product. So when intel tried to compete on compute for datacenters, they tried to do it with X86 chips, One of their most bold efforts was to build a monstrosity of a cluster of Celeron chips, which of course performed laughably bad compared to Nvidia! Because as it turns out, the way forward at least for now, is indeed the massively parralel compute capability of a GPU, which Nvidia has refined for decades, only with (inferior) competition from AMD. But despite the lack of competition, Nvidia did not slow down, in fact with increased profits, they only grew bolder in their efforts. Making it even harder to catch up. Now AMD has had more money to compete for a while, and they do have some decent compute units, but Nvidia remains ahead and the CUDA problem is still there, so for AMD to really compete with Nvidia, they have to be better to attract customers. That’s a very tall order against Nvidia that simply seems to never stop progressing. So the only other option for AMD is to sell a bit cheaper. Which I suppose they have to. AMD and Intel were the obvious competitors, everybody else is coming from even further behind. But if I had to make a bet, it would be on Huawei. Huawei has some crazy good developers, and Trump is basically forcing them to figure it out themselves, because he is blocking Huawei and China in general from using both AMD and Nvidia AI chips. And the chips will probably be made by Chinese SMIC, because they are also prevented from using advanced production in the west, most notably TSMC. China will prevail, because it’s become a national project, of both prestige and necessity, and they have a massive talent mass and resources, so nothing can stop it now. IMO USA would clearly have been better off allowing China to use American chips. Now China will soon compete directly on both production and design too.
  • 68 Stimmen
    7 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    heythisisnttheymca@lemmy.worldH
    Worked with the US federal government for much of my professional career, mostly in an adversarial role. "reliable federal data sources" do not exist
  • The Document Foundation is proud to release LibreOffice 25.2.3

    Technology technology
    7
    1
    265 Stimmen
    7 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    somethingburger@jlai.luS
    View -> User Interface -> Tabs It already exists but is nowhere near as good as MS Office (like everything with LO).