Comment

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

FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

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?

source

Sort:hotnew top

thesmokingman@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
What about ride share companies that aren’t Uber or Lyft that don’t have safety programs?

What requirement do Uber or Lyft have to maintain good safety after, say, they own the market?
source
- FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  Laws and regulations already exist that all ride share companies have to follow around things like vetting their drivers.
  
  source
  - thesmokingman@programming.dev ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    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.
    
    source
    FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    Yeah in the US. Take California for example:
    
    rkmlaw.net/ridesharing-regulations-in-california/
    
    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.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
cygnosis@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
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.

source
- FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  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.
  
  source