It’s a topic that’s not going away.
With the new, smartphone-based services, drivers and passengers said, the relationship between the person behind the wheel and the person paying for the trip is unique: “It’s just you and them,” one driver said, asking not to be identified. “That’s a big level of trust.”
Accommodating the model of Uber and competitors such as Lyft is proving to be a tumultuous process for state and local governments, experts say.
“It is a disruptive technology and we are in a period in which we are trying to examine how these companies should be regulated,” said Janice Griffith, a law professor at Suffolk University in Boston.
The companies’ disputes with officials in many cities and states – including Houston, San Antonio and Texas – focus on how best to regulate a new way of providing paid rides. For example, the companies have pressed for their type of background check, which relies on Social Security information, while some cities demand a fingerprint-based system.
“If they would just start doing that, it would solve a lot of the issues,” said Jeanne Christensen, a partner at the New York law firm Wigdor LLP. The firm represents women who say they were assaulted by Uber drivers in Boston, Detroit and New Delhi.
[…]
Passenger safety is a key issue in the discussions of how best to regulate the new paid-ride companies.
“I think societies make decisions about where they want to put extra filters on,” said Deborah Hersman, president of the nonprofit National Safety Council. “School bus drivers face greater scrutiny, for example.”
Truck drivers and drivers for public transit agencies also undergo fingerprint background checks, Hersman said, because of a consensus that is in everyone’s best interest to screen them more thoroughly.
Christensen said repeated incidents have demonstrated that the less expensive background check used by Uber puts riders at risk.
“Everyone likes the service, the concept is great, but it is not working out great,” she said, adding that additional checks and in-person interviews of drivers would probably ward off some less-desirable applicants and give the company more scrutiny of its drivers.
Local officials in many cities agree. During a December news conference announcing a consumer protection lawsuit filed by district attorneys in San Francisco and Los Angeles, San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon called Uber’s background check “completely worthless.”
The company has declined comment on many issues surrounding the Houston incident, but has repeatedly said it stands by its safety standards.
“We’ll continue innovating, refining, and working diligently to ensure we’re doing everything we can to make Uber the safest experience on the road,” the company says on its website.
Christensen isn’t convinced. As the company expands to more cities worldwide, she said, she believes the problem will only get worse until public perception turns.
“The problem is people like the service, so the word is not getting out,” Christensen said.
Well, that and the face that Uber wants to do as little as possible about it. Using fingerprints isn’t perfect, but it may be the only way to uncover someone who has used different identities in the past. Mostly, they just need to put some real effort into it, and their claims that they already do are not credible right now. There is a case to be made for having the state set the standards for Uber and Lyft to follow, but that’s only worthwhile if they don’t simply pass a bill based on Uber’s wish list.