Skip to content

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

Technology
12 6 55
  • 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.

  • Danish Ministry switching from Microsoft Office/365 to LibreOffice

    Technology technology
    46
    1
    641 Stimmen
    46 Beiträge
    116 Aufrufe
    U
    This already exists, look up "Collabora". It integrates very nicely with Nextcloud.
  • What is SIEM (Security Information and Event Management)?

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    3 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    7 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 89 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    62 Aufrufe
    S
    I suspect people (not billionaires) are realising that they can get by with less. And that the planet needs that too. And that working 40+ hours a week isn’t giving people what they really want either. Tbh, I don't think that's the case. If you look at any of the relevant metrics (CO², energy consumption, plastic waste, ...) they only know one direction globally and that's up. I think the actual issues are Russian invasion of Ukraine and associated sanctions on one of the main energy providers of Europe Trump's "trade wars" which make global supply lines unreliable and costs incalculable (global supply chains love nothing more than uncertainty) Uncertainty in regards to China/Taiwan Boomers retiring in western countries, which for the first time since pretty much ever means that the work force is shrinking instead of growing. Economical growth was mostly driven by population growth for the last half century with per-capita productivity staying very close to inflation. Disrupting changes in key industries like cars and energy. The west has been sleeping on may of these developments (e.g. electric cars, batteries, solar) and now China is curbstomping the rest of the world in regards to market share. High key interest rates (which are applied to reduce high inflation due to some of the reason above) reduce demand on financial investments into companies. The low interest rates of the 2010s and also before lead to more investments into companies. With interest going back up, investments dry up. All these changes mean that companies, countries and people in the west have much less free cash available. There’s also the value of money has never been lower either. That's been the case since every. Inflation has always been a thing and with that the value of money is monotonically decreasing. But that doesn't really matter for the whole argument, since the absolute value of money doesn't matter, only the relative value. To put it differently: If you earn €100 and the thing you want to buy costs €10, that is equivalent to if you earn €1000 and the thing you want to buy costing €100. The value of money dropping is only relevant for savings, and if people are saving too much then the economy slows down and jobs are cut, thus some inflation is positive or even required. What is an actual issue is that wages are not increasing at the same rate as the cost of things, but that's not a "value of the money" issue.
  • 337 Stimmen
    19 Beiträge
    83 Aufrufe
    R
    What I'm speaking about is that it should be impossible to do some things. If it's possible, they will be done, and there's nothing you can do about it. To solve the problem of twiddled social media (and moderation used to assert dominance) we need a decentralized system of 90s Web reimagined, and Fediverse doesn't deliver it - if Facebook and Reddit are feudal states, then Fediverse is a confederation of smaller feudal entities. A post, a person, a community, a reaction and a change (by moderator or by the user) should be global entities (with global identifiers, so that the object by id of #0000001a2b3c4d6e7f890 would be the same object today or 10 years later on every server storing it) replicated over a network of servers similarly to Usenet (and to an IRC network, but in an IRC network servers are trusted, so it's not a good example for a global system). Really bad posts (or those by persons with history of posting such) should be banned on server level by everyone. The rest should be moderated by moderator reactions\changes of certain type. Ideally, for pooling of resources and resilience, servers would be separated by types into storage nodes (I think the name says it, FTP servers can do the job, but no need to be limited by it), index nodes (scraping many storage nodes, giving out results in structured format fit for any user representation, say, as a sequence of posts in one community, or like a list of communities found by tag, or ... , and possibly being connected into one DHT for Kademlia-like search, since no single index node will have everything), and (like in torrents?) tracker nodes for these and for identities, I think torrent-like announce-retrieve service is enough - to return a list of storage nodes storing, say, a specified partition (subspace of identifiers of objects, to make looking for something at least possibly efficient), or return a list of index nodes, or return a bunch of certificates and keys for an identity (should be somehow cryptographically connected to the global identifier of a person). So when a storage node comes online, it announces itself to a bunch of such trackers, similarly with index nodes, similarly with a user. One can also have a NOSTR-like service for real-time notifications by users. This way you'd have a global untrusted pooled infrastructure, allowing to replace many platforms. With common data, identities, services. Objects in storage and index services can be, say, in a format including a set of tags and then the body. So a specific application needing to show only data related to it would just search on index services and display only objects with tags of, say, "holo_ns:talk.bullshit.starwars" and "holo_t:post", like a sequence of posts with ability to comment, or maybe it would search objects with tags "holo_name:My 1999-like Star Wars holopage" and "holo_t:page" and display the links like search results in Google, and then clicking on that you'd see something presented like a webpage, except links would lead to global identifiers (or tag expressions interpreted by the particular application, who knows). (An index service may return, say, an array of objects, each with identifier, tags, list of locations on storage nodes where it's found or even bittorrent magnet links, and a free description possibly ; then the user application can unify responses of a few such services to avoid repetitions, maybe sort them, represent them as needed, so on.) The user applications for that common infrastructure can be different at the same time. Some like Facebook, some like ICQ, some like a web browser, some like a newsreader. (Star Wars is not a random reference, my whole habit of imagining tech stuff is from trying to imagine a science fiction world of the future, so yeah, this may seem like passive dreaming and it is.)
  • matrix is cooked

    Technology technology
    75
    1
    180 Stimmen
    75 Beiträge
    253 Aufrufe
    penguin202124@sh.itjust.worksP
    That's very fair. Better start contributing I guess.
  • The AI girlfriend guy - The Paranoia Of The AI Era

    Technology technology
    4
    1
    7 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    26 Aufrufe
    S
    Saying 'don't downvote' is the flammable inflammable conundrum, both don't and do parse as do.
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 17 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    14 Aufrufe
    J
    This is why they are businessmen and not politicians or influencers