It's a reasonable objection, but Uber does run background checks. In some cities it exceeds the thoroughness of what cab companies do. The fingerprint/FBI background is cost prohibitive - hence the push for the requirement by competitors.
More importantly, it's wholly unnecessary. It could be seen no other way unless 1) there's evidence that Austin Uber driver crime substantially exceeds that of cab drivers and 2) an extensive background check would do anything to solve that problem.
And it's always in their best interest to run proper background checks and strive for safety - publicized incidents could destroy their brand.
Safety is the central smokescreen "issue". With their ratings system, app ride tracking and safety alerts, Uber far exceeds what any cab company does on the back end. Cab companies may hire a driver who never was a criminal, but don't account for someone becoming a criminal. Uber does.
Originally Posted by michaelbolton
I think you drank the Kool-Aid the rideshare lobby was selling. A fingerprint background check is supposed to cost about $40, also the city was paying the cost, according to the pro-prop 1 ads.
If you trust a dot-com company to do proper background checks and security on their own, you haven't been paying attention. Especially once the initial furor dies down, and when you get several companies competing.
Of course, you can't trust the government background checks, either, but even without Prop 1, the ridesharing companies can still do their background checks.
There was nothing at all in Prop 1 that increased safety to the public. The better safety was 100% lies. Whatever background check the companies were planning on doing if Prop 1 passed, they can still do after Prop 1 was rejected.
I'm not saying the city's ridesharing is the right way. I'm saying that the Prop 1 campaign was a total pack of lies.