Uber Drivers Forum banner
1 - 20 of 49 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,962 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
A lot of drivers feel that what Uber does to them is criminal, but now I'm talking about REAL criminals. People with criminal convictions that Uber knowingly employees. There are 3 types. Let's call them the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.
  • The Good are the majority of drivers with non-violent criminal records. They have no bad intentions towards PAX, despite the many questionable PAX behaviors that we all observe.
  • The Bad are a small minority of drivers with non-violent criminal records. They are actively scamming PAX in various ways, that occasional become violent.
  • The Ugly are drivers with violent criminal records who have fabricated fake identities that got past Uber's background checks, which never included fingerprinting. Uber probably has a pretty good idea who they are using standard police profiling techniques, yet does nothing.
There are increasing media reports of drivers attacking PAX are mostly due to "the Bad" and "the Ugly". Those few are hurting the reputation and potential income of both "the Good" and the vast majority of drivers without criminal records! :mad:

Why has Uber does this? Profit, of course. Why does Uber fight so hard against including fingerprinting? Because it would significantly decrease the driver population. Less drivers means less profit. How much? Only Uber knows for sure and they will never tell, unless forced. In fact, Uber entirely pulled out of Austin, Texas rather than pay the additional cost of fingerprinting and be forced to deactivate a lot of money-making drivers. And once done in Austin then other cities might demand the same from Uber. A lose-lose-BigLose for Uber, regardless of the fact that it would increase PAX safety.

More recently, Uber is likely hoping that allowing drivers with non-violent criminal records could not be worse than allowing divers with violent criminal records to fabricate fake identities that got past background checks, which never included fingerprinting. It was obvious to anyone with a drop of common sense, you, me, Uber, the police, etc. that this would inevitably cause more safety problems for PAX.

However, Uber management's intent was to "widen the money pipe" by increasing the number of drivers on the road. Uber could suck dollars out of PAX that much faster, which Uber management respects about as much as drivers. Does Uber management dream that they could implement autonomous PAX concurrently with autonomous cars? Yes, obviously! ;) Fortunately, autonomous PAX is still more of a dream than autonomous cars. Or maybe that is a fanciful project even more secret than "Flying Uber"? :D

Increasing profits was and is more important to Uber management than any increase in negative media reports of drivers attacking PAX. Let alone an actual, objective decrease in PAX safety. Both could be explained away by doing what Uber has always done best, lie. No big surprise, there are dozens of threads on this forum documenting Uber's lies. :mad:

Uber might have gotten away with it too, except for the many other scandals concurrently in the media. This has magnified public perception of decreased safety riding Uber. Which effect is greater on profits? Decreasing PAX confidence or "widening the pipe"? Only Uber knows for sure and they will never tell, unless forced. What do you think?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
105 Posts
Your angst about this issue is that youre worried about passenger safety? Uber's reputation for being a safe ride? That there are too many drivers cutting into your share of the business?

I agree that there should be some protections for the passengers, both for their actual safety and so that the public perceives uber as relatively safe, but I havent seen any evidence that its not relately safe or that its perceived not to be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
A lot of drivers feel that what Uber does to them is criminal, but now I'm talking about REAL criminals. People with criminal convictions that Uber knowingly employees. There are 3 types. Let's call them the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.
  • The Good are the majority of drivers with non-violet criminal records. They have no bad intentions towards PAX, despite the many questionable PAX behaviors that we all observe.
  • The Bad are a small minority of drivers with non-violet criminal records. They are actively scamming PAX in various ways, that occasional become violent.
  • The Ugly are drivers with violent criminal records who have fabricated fake identities that got past Uber's background checks, which never included fingerprinting. Uber probably has a pretty good idea who they are using standard police profiling techniques, yet does nothing.
There are increasing media reports of drivers attacking PAX are mostly due to "the Bad" and "the Ugly". Those few are hurting the reputation and potential income of both "the Good" and the vast majority of drivers without criminal records! :mad:

Why has Uber does this? Profit, of course. Why does Uber fight so hard against including fingerprinting? Because it would significantly decrease the driver population. Less drivers means less profit. How much? Only Uber knows for sure and they will never tell, unless forced. In fact, Uber entirely pulled out of Austin, Texas rather than pay the additional cost of fingerprinting and be forced to deactivate a lot of money-making drivers. And once done in Austin then other cities might demand the same from Uber. A lose-lose-BigLose for Uber, regardless of the fact that it would increase PAX safety.

More recently, Uber is likely hoping that allowing drivers with non-violent criminal records could not be worse than allowing divers with violent criminal records to fabricate fake identities that got past background checks, which never included fingerprinting. It was obvious to anyone with a drop of common sense, you, me, Uber, the police, etc. that this would inevitably cause more safety problems for PAX.

However, Uber management's intent was to "widen the money pipe" by increasing the number of drivers on the road. Uber could suck dollars out of PAX that much faster, which Uber management respects about as much as drivers. Does Uber management dream that they could implement autonomous PAX concurrently with autonomous cars? Yes, obviously! ;) Fortunately, autonomous PAX is still more of a dream than autonomous cars. Or maybe that is a fanciful project even more secret than "Flying Uber"? :D

Increasing profits was and is more important to Uber management than any increase in negative media reports of drivers attacking PAX. Let alone an actual, objective decrease in PAX safety. Both could be explained away by doing what Uber has always done best, lie. No big surprise, there are dozens of threads on this forum documenting Uber's lies. :mad:

Uber might have gotten away with it too, except for the many other scandals concurrently in the media. This has magnified public perception of decreased safety riding Uber. Which effect is greater on profits? Decreasing PAX confidence or "widening the pipe"? Only Uber knows for sure and they will never tell, unless forced. What do you think?
How is it possibly for the "ugly" to fabricate their information to pass a background check. What evidence do you have
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
I don't want criminals driving for Uber. More than once, I've had female riders tell me horror stories about male Uber drivers getting all creepy on them and making passes etc. I ask if they reported it and they tell me no cause they just wanted to forget it etc, But that just makes me sick. If it ever comes up I tell them they need to report. Sadly, I'm not sure Uber would even permanently kick these guys off the platform. Once Uber learns the police weren't involved they would probably put these creeps right back out there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,962 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 · (Edited)
I wonder if any of the victims of "the Bad" and "the Ugly" have considered a lawsuit against Uber (or Left) for failing to do adequate background checks on these drivers?
Yes. Been done. Ongoing. More lawsuits will be filed in the future.
Your angst about this issue is that you're worried about passenger safety? Uber's reputation for being a safe ride? That there are too many drivers cutting into your share of the business? I agree that there should be some protections for the passengers, both for their actual safety and so that the public perceives uber as relatively safe, but I havent seen any evidence that its not relately safe or that its perceived not to be.
In addition to the angst that my sensitive soul may have for my fellowman, the more personal consideration is the safety of members of my family that use Uber. There is plenty of evidence that Uber is not safe if you pay attention to the increase in related media reports. I am also concerned there are too many drivers because that diminishes my income, that of other individual drivers in my region, plus the number and intensity of surges in my region. :mad:
How is it possibly for the "ugly" to fabricate their information to pass a background check. What evidence do you have
I do not need any evidence. Forging official documents has existed for as long as there have been official documents. Don't you watch spy movies? :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
566 Posts
My contention is there are too many drivers and passengers. Uber is trying to be a mass transportation service when it should be more like a club. Uber is a luxury that most passengers treat like they're entitled to a seat in your car. The crappiest drivers and pax should get kicked off the system. You're entitled to a cab, the bus, or train...not an Uber ride. Team up new drivers and pax and let them sort themselves out before getting up to elite status.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,511 Posts
Why does Uber fight so hard against including fingerprinting? Because it would significantly decrease the driver population. Less drivers means less profit.

More recently, Uber is likely hoping that allowing drivers with non-violent criminal records could not be worse than allowing divers with violent criminal records to fabricate fake identities that got past background checks, which never included fingerprinting. It was obvious to anyone with a drop of common sense, you, me, Uber, the police, etc. that this would inevitably cause more safety problems for PAX.

What do you think?
"Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security"


We're living in a freakin' Police State! We don't need fingerprinting, we need civil servants to do their jobs properly!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,962 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
"Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security"
Yep. I also like Ol' Ben's
  • "The problem with common sense is, it isn't."
  • "Common sense is something that everyone needs, few have, and none think they lack."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
If you have a criminal past and have served your time and have not violated the law since then why not be afforded the opportunity to drive... 2ndly those same crjminals you speak of could be your pax and then what... just like the white guy I picked up who asked if it was okay to snort his cocaine in my backseat... wth... yeah I felt uneasy and couldn't wait to get his crack head ass out my car...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,511 Posts
If you have a criminal past and have served your time and have not violated the law since then why not be afforded the opportunity to drive... 2ndly those same crjminals you speak of could be your pax and then what... just like the white guy I picked up who asked if it was okay to snort his cocaine in my backseat... wth... yeah I felt uneasy and couldn't wait to get his crack head ass outa my car...
Well . . . the guy was being civil about it. I mean, if it was me, I'd just snort it. Do it with a hankerchief in my hand, it'd look and sound like I was lowing my nose . . . n'ah mean??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,162 Posts
If you have a criminal past and have served your time and have not violated the law since then why not be afforded the opportunity to drive... 2ndly those same crjminals you speak of could be your pax and then what... just like the white guy I picked up who asked if it was okay to snort his cocaine in my backseat... wth... yeah I felt uneasy and couldn't wait to get his crack head ass out my car...
I agree. There's reports on drivers out there but I don't see drivers as being the Main issue, Uber need to step up and need a better approval process for riders and that include having there pic and at least the general area where they are going. I'm definitely for safety for riders but we the drivers are really the ones getting screwed.... It is what it is.

These passengers that we pick up need to either wait or do there illegal drugs before getting into our cars, Its just that simple. We pick up a lot of people and it's not fair to other passengers seeing left over drug baggies, white powder residue or whatever, Uber hires a lot of drivers and saturate the markets, Lower the drivers pay and always increase there pay, I'm fair and professional with my passengers but I'm firm and don't take no bull$hit either.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,173 Posts
Fingerprinting is a waste of money. The FBI charges $50 to do fingerprints, and they make you do it every five years. It's a hustle. I'm licensed by the state in my other job and have to go through this. I always ask them if fingerprints change.

Why is it a waste for Uber? Because anyone can hop behind the wheel if they have access to an account. Uber knows it and uses the facial recognition thing. But what if a guy registered as his buddy, but used his own photo?

I'm surprised Uber didn't just agree to fingerprints, then charged drivers $100....lol

And what about driver safety? Why aren't pax fingerprinted? Everyone worries about crazy drivers, yet drivers are the victim 10 to 1.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,162 Posts
I work for the school system for the city in my market and we are also finger printed, Background and a reference check, My city isn't number one in crime but I picked up a few shady passengers and so far I kicked out 2 that use uber and 1 from Lyft.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,962 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Fingerprinting is a waste of money. The FBI charges $50 to do fingerprints, and they make you do it every five years. It's a hustle. I'm licensed by the state in my other job and have to go through this. I always ask them if fingerprints change.
No one expects fingerprints to change over 5 years. However, during that period, a driver may have acquired a criminal record or serious driving conviction that Uber has no other way to know about.
Why is it a waste for Uber? Because anyone can hop behind the wheel if they have access to an account. Uber knows it and uses the facial recognition thing. But what if a guy registered as his buddy, but used his own photo?
A state-issued photo ID is required for a driver to register. Raise your hand if you believe that the driver-submitted pic used for verification is ever checked against the stored photo-ID pic.
I'm surprised Uber didn't just agree to fingerprints, then charged drivers $100....lol
You laugh, but that is exactly what I expect to happen :(
And what about driver safety? Why aren't pax fingerprinted? Everyone worries about crazy drivers, yet drivers are the victim 10 to 1.
Such an optimist. Still believe that Uber may care about drivers or their safety? Uber does little or nothing to lower risks for drivers. The theory is that after the fact, the cops can use the credit card associated with a trip to track down the perpetrators of attacks on drivers. Note: the cops would find a dash-cam recording far more useful.

However, that will not work if a rider's stolen cell phone is used to request an Uber then attack the driver after arrival. Drivers do not get a pic of the PAX, unlike the PAX who gets a pic of the driver.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,162 Posts
Fingerprinting is a waste of money. The FBI charges $50 to do fingerprints, and they make you do it every five years. It's a hustle. I'm licensed by the state in my other job and have to go through this. I always ask them if fingerprints change.

Why is it a waste for Uber? Because anyone can hop behind the wheel if they have access to an account. Uber knows it and uses the facial recognition thing. But what if a guy registered as his buddy, but used his own photo?

I'm surprised Uber didn't just agree to fingerprints, then charged drivers $100....lol

And what about driver safety? Why aren't pax fingerprinted? Everyone worries about crazy drivers, yet drivers are the victim 10 to 1.
I can't agree more, We the drivers are really the ones who are getting screwed, Compared to bad drivers I pick up a hell of a lot of crazy passengers, Uber don't really care about our safety....Its about profit and passengers.

It's crazy that uber is testing and accepting cash in other markets but against tipping in the App, Accepting cash can put us in a situation dangerous and we might as well be compared to taxi drivers....What's next with this dysfunctional company?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
No one expects fingerprints to change over 5 years. However, during that period, a driver may have acquired a criminal record or serious driving conviction that Uber has no other way to know about.

A state-issued photo ID is required for a driver to register. Raise your hand if you believe that the driver-submitted pic used for verification is ever checked against the stored photo-ID pic.

You laugh, but that is exactly what I expect to happen :(

Such an optimist. Still believe that Uber may care about drivers or their safety? Uber does little or nothing to lower risks for drivers. The theory is that after the fact, the cops can use the credit card associated with a trip to track down the perpetrators of attacks on drivers. Note: the cops would find a dash-cam recording far more useful.

However, that will not work if a rider's stolen cell phone is used to request an Uber then attack the driver after arrival. Drivers do not get a pic of the PAX, unlike the PAX who gets a pic of the driver.
I don't think there is a way to by pass a uber background check. I tried to refer a friend to drive a yr ago but he was denied because of his DUI. So background check works
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
504 Posts
Drivers to them are disposable, period. You would think they would try to help the good drivers but nope. Even if half of drivers stopped working, tons of others will replace.

Only way to destroy uber is if no pax request rides...Which is pretty improbable since they enjoy the convenience and price.
 
1 - 20 of 49 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top