More than 8,000 ride-share drivers flunked Mass. background checks

Re:More than 8,000 ride-share drivers flunked Mass. backgrou... by dogma1138 on Wednesday April 05, 2017 @05:00PM (#14045585)

Yes but that is a different issue that has little baring on this case.

If you would not be able to pass a CBC and hold a taxi license you should not be driving people around.

If you think edge cases are an issue then it's an issue with the criminal justice system not background check.

There will always be extreme cases because you need to draw a line at some point.

You might find it acceptable for an 18 year old to have sex with your 16 year old child, how about 19? 20?

Public urination can land you on the list but it's pretty rare compared to actual sexual assault cases.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:More than 8,000 ride-share drivers flunked Mass. backgrou... by tsukikage on Thursday April 06, 2017 @06:29AM (#14049353)

Uber's entire business model is pretty much to cut in on traditional licensed taxi services by lowering the entry requirements for their drivers, on the assumption that customers prefer that risk/cost tradeoff. If you are more risk averse, you're not their customer - you use a traditional taxi.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:More than 8,000 ride-share drivers flunked Mass. backgrou... by bingomad123 on Friday April 07, 2017 @01:39PM (#14061788)

I am personally fine to ride with a driver who was convicted of anything as long as he has served his/her time. I consider the debt paid and believe in second chances.

If traditional Taxi drivers want to use "our drivers are safer than Uber" as a competitive advantage then let them be but I don't see why Uber should be forced into some arbitrary check as long as the riders know their options.

[ Parent | on HN ]