Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

What do we really want from rideshare regulations?

From Medium:

Uber

To help ensure people have a fair chance at earning a living, Uber’s screening process embraces protections codified in the Fair Credit Reporting Act and other similar laws, ensuring lookback periods are reasonable and arrests without convictions or charges are not considered, among other indicators. We have said time and again that fingerprinting may not be the best way to determine whether or not someone is qualified and able to provide a safe and reliable ride. Further, there’s no evidence to suggest it would improve safety for passengers and it has costs to privacy that other approaches to background checks do not.

We believe the right path forward is to continue to improve the level of transparency and accountability that’s built-into our service and the processes available for screening drivers. Instead of relying solely on flawed databases that are known to have information gaps, our technology makes it possible to focus on safety before, during and after every trip.

When so many people’s lives are deeply affected by their inclusion in a potentially faulty database, it’s important that the public has the time and ability to analyze what’s in it and how it’s being used. We hope the DOJ and FBI not only grant these groups’ well-warranted request for an additional 30 days to comment on its proposal but also, consider the quality of the database and whether or not people should know how it may affect their lives.

From Jay Aiyer, in the Chronicle:

Historically, taxis have been one of the most heavily regulated local industries. City governments have restricted everything from the number of taxi licenses issued to whether a driver can use a cellphone while operating a vehicle. The list can be quite long and intrusive. Ride-sharing companies often argue that these regulations are unnecessary. After all, no other industry is subject to this level of restriction. Municipalities place no restrictions on the number of fast-food restaurants, nor do they require background checks for cable employees entering people’s homes. So why vehicles-for-hire?

The simple reason is the quasi-public function they serve. While private businesses, vehicles-for-hire serve a distinct public transportation function that is unique and still necessary in our society. They are an extension of the city in welcoming visitors, transporters of last resort for transit-dependent populations, and a critical safety valve for impaired drivers. They are simply not the same as a fast-food franchise or the cable company. They are a critical part of a community’s transportation network.

If we accept the need for some restrictions, the obvious question is: what kind? Public safety, access protections and insurance requirements seem obvious. We have a high expectation of safety and security when using a vehicle-for-hire, and having fingerprint-based criminal background checks to determine basic eligibility to drive is important. But even those restrictions should be relatively limited.

While we can agree we don’t want those convicted of serious crimes driving, we need to be more flexible to allow individuals who have paid their debt to society to be employed. Similarly, having broad insurance requirements is a critical need to ensure general public safety and avert catastrophic medical costs. We can’t have accidents with uninsured passengers or drivers. Finally, there should be no debate over the need to protect access to transit services. All people, regardless of neighborhood, should have access to vehicle-for-hire services.

So let’s talk about fingerprints for a minute here. Everyone agrees that there are some people we would rather not have driving cars we pay to ride in. We do background checks, which include checks of criminal records, to try to identify these people that we want to exclude. Fingerprints are an obvious entry point to this data. I presume there are others, for if not then I’m honestly unsure how Uber and Lyft can claim to check these records, but assuming there are then the argument we’ve been having is mostly about whether this is the most effective way of looking at arrest and conviction information.

The discussion we should be having comes back to that question about who we want to keep out of the driver’s seat. Ideally, that should involve a risk assessment of some kind. Not all criminal records are created equal. Violent crimes are a big red flag, but it’s also reasonable – our national conversation about drug reform notwithstanding – to prefer to not have people with drug convictions serve as drivers. There’s also a difference between being arrested and being convicted, and between recent arrests and those that happened ten, twenty, thirty years ago. How do we assess this information and come to reasonable, consistent decisions about who we grant permits to and who we refuse them to? And if we’re going to argue about what if any role fingerprints should have in this process, then it would greatly help to know how Uber and Lyft arrive at their conclusions about those who apply with them. What are their criteria for determining who’s in and who’s out? If they want us to trust them, we need to know that.

As I say, this is the discussion we should be having. It’s hard to do in an environment where a key stakeholder refuses to engage beyond “let us do it our way or we’re outta here”, but that’s where we are. To be sure, the current process mandated by the city could be improved, to make it more convenient and less time-consuming for would-be drivers. I don’t know the specifics so I’ll skip the part where I make suggestions, but I’m sure if Uber or anyone else wanted to make their own to the city, they would be amenable to them. It would help if Uber backed down from the ultimatum first, of course. You know, as a show of good faith. I for one would like to see Uber and Lyft and some other competitors operate in Houston. I’d also like for us to come to a consensus about who we do and don’t want doing the driving. I feel like if we can do this, the rest will follow. Who’s with me?

In the meantime, the State House Committee on Business and Industry is holding a hearing in Austin on Wednesday at 10 AM to discuss the sharing economy. Uber General Manager Sarfraz Maredia has been asked to testify, as have representatives from Houston and Dallas. A livestream of the hearing can be seen here. I’ll be very interested to see the reporting on this.

Related Posts:

3 Comments

  1. Bill Daniels says:

    What I would prefer to see is the same regulation for ride sharing companies that taxi companies have. Does this mean there should be less regulation for cab companies? Perhaps.

    The free market ought to sort this out without much government interference. If Uber or Yellow cab hires someone that commits a crime while on the job, the resulting lawsuit should hurt the respective company enough that they work harder to make sure the problem does not reoccur.

    I also wonder how all the “ban the box” supporters feel about these government mandated background checks. At some point, offenders have to re-enter society, and if we bar them from virtually all types of employment, we are contributing to their recidivism.

  2. Joshua ben bullard says:

    Sylvester Turner takes huge campaign contributions from big taxi ,in Houston we have 2400 taxi medallions and 2000 are owned by one man,so every time you take a taxi in Houston Sylvester turner gets a piece of the action, by the time I am done with him they will.call him one term ,turner.Houston has the most monopolized taxi medallion market in the world, not just the nation but world wide.#onetermturner

  3. […] Joshua ben bullard on What do we really want from rideshare regulations? […]