Hey, there! Log in / Register

More than 8,000 Uber, Lyft drivers fail state background checks

Associated Press reports.

Free tagging: 

Ad:

Comments

In other news 8,000 former Boston cab drivers are still looking for work.

up
Voting closed 0

Compare Green & Yellow Cab's new software https://greenandyellowcab.com/ as well as Green & Yellow Cab's new black vehicles.

>"We are fully licensed and regulated by the City of Somerville.
Family-owned and operated for over 35 years.
All of our drivers are licensed by the Somerville Police Department where CORI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Offender_Record_Information and driving records are strictly monitored.
Background checks are strictly enforced.
Our vehicles go through rigorous inspections and are held to the highest safety standards."

up
Voting closed 0

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sammy_White%27s_Brighton_Bowl

After an investigation, the police arrested cab driver Bryan A. Dyer of Somerville.

up
Voting closed 0

1980? decades before today's background checks & the flow of info we now take for granted were even possible?

green cab is great - they're my go-to - totally reliable (fwiw, i've been in Somerville since 1988)

up
Voting closed 0

A CORI check can only see the past. You'd need Tom Cruise for a precog type Cori future check. In other words, the cab companies, background check provider companies, Uber, Lyft and pretty much everyone on the planet cannot predict future behavior so your comment is totally ludicrous.

up
Voting closed 0

Wow.

Felony convictions can vary, but 51 sex offenders?

up
Voting closed 0

can involve a wide variety of offenses, from things as awful as rape and child molestation, to non-predatory things like mooning somebody as a prank or taking a leak in an alley and getting caught. This is one of the primary objections to "Megan's Law" sex offender lists; such lists often include people whose behavior may have been offensive or injudicious but was not predatory.

up
Voting closed 0

I've worked in law enforcement for over 20 years and have never seen registered sex offenders like the ones you described. A quick google search can get you dozens of anecdotes but I'd bet my house that all of theses on this list never had to register because of mooning or taking a leak. Not in MA anyway.

up
Voting closed 0

Come on.

A 1986 case for someone who had to register in Florida, not, MA. I'm not even sure I believe that one, I'll have to look it up tomorrow.

up
Voting closed 0

All I had to do was come up with one. Game, set, and match. You're done.

up
Voting closed 0

Massachusetts is not known as a really tough-on-sex-offenders state," Weeks said. "If they locked up a guy for two months, my guess is there's more to the story."

Paul Mishkin, the Boston lawyer who represented Matamoros in 1986, could not recall details of the case this week, but said it was clear the judge considered the incident very serious.

"He [Matamoros] told his side of the story to the judge, but clearly there was evidence that made the judge disagree," said Mishkin. "A two-year sentence in this incident is a fairly severe sentence. You'd have to think there's evidence to support that."

Like I said, I don't believe it. Even his own attorney didn't believe him lol. Il keep my house for now

up
Voting closed 0

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2007-03-21/news/VOFFENDER21_1_matamo...

Besides, you can appeal sex registry levels in MA. 100% chance he wouldn't have to register today unless there were more. Do you think sex offenders are all honest?

In all seriousness, many states have sex offender issues. Great podcast called "in the dark" goes into a lot of the stuff that should worry you, not click bait stuff you read on the Internet

(Also I said 20 years, and technically I never saw that so I'm still right)

up
Voting closed 0

my high school had a tradition of seniors streaking sometime during the last week of classes. they would wear masks or paper bags with eye holes cut out on their heads.

this tradition ended when one person's bag twisted to the during his run, he tripped and knocked himself unconscious when his head hit the ground. he was arrested for streaking and was forced to register. this happened in 99 in a suburban boston town. he was two years ahead of me and was the brother of my sisters best friend. this is a 100% true story, but i won't provide his name because it is bullshit how much trouble he got into for a dumb prank

up
Voting closed 0

Sorry had to ask.

Unfortunately, this is a crime that would be on the list where you might have to register (depending on the judge). Ive see most time the person doesn't have to register or would be a low level.

up
Voting closed 0

If you are on the sex offender registry---its for a REASON and ANY reason is good enough for me to not want you anywhere near me, children, friends or family.

up
Voting closed 0

51 of 70,000 were sex offenders. Is that too many? Of course, that means 99.93% of all screened were clear of any previous sexual assaults. What do you think the percentage is for MBTA employees? Walmart? No private company had access to full background checks until now.

PS- what about the 7950 people that were banned that may have had something like a DUI or simple assault charge 15 years ago. Should they be banned from driving?

up
Voting closed 0

A single DUI conviction should automatically cancel any possibility of working as a professional driver. You obviously can't be trusted not to put all other road users at risk.

up
Voting closed 0

I'd hope it were zero? Unless it was someone who works in a job that doesn't require them to make decisions regarding people? It would be interesting to find out. Most MBTA jobs require background checks. Wouldn't private companies always have access to sex offender registries since most of them are public anyway? (the 51 aren't broken down by level either).

As for the other 8K who were banned, there are some questions here. What are the standards? If they are the same as Cabs, simple assault charges 15 years ago wouldn't effect it, so I assume they are different or there is more to the story.

up
Voting closed 0

Without dismissing the fact that it's not ok that some scary/unfit people may have been driving for rideshares, I'll still take the 62 year old Uber driver in the story, whose driving arrests were from 30 and 40 years ago, over the last cab driver I had, who took two wrong turns during a 10 minute trip, wasn't wearing his seatbelt, and was smoking the entire trip. And his cab was a piece of junk. Hadn't used a cab in a while, and found myself thinking "Oh right, this is why I use Uber."

Uber has its problems, for sure, but they made the process of being driven from one place to another 100% better and safer, in my experience. If the state can help out by doing deeper background checks than the company is allowed to do, then great. But I hope they handle those who don't pass on a case by case basis.

up
Voting closed 4

was in Cambridge, felt like a wheel was gonna fall off the damn thing and the driver spent the entire ride praising Donald Trump and claiming that "three-thirds" (yes, really) of Uber drivers were illegal immigrants and how Trump was gonna deport 'em all.

up
Voting closed 0

Comments like these are why some people don't like Boston - or maybe, more precisely, why some don't like Cambridge.

I strongly suspect we vote similarly, but your post reads like a bunch of class-bashing, elitist b.s. It drips with glee... do you want recognition for calling out someone less well-spoken or maybe with a lower i.q. than yourself? Let's see, cabbies are backwards, knuckle-dragging, fossil-fuel burning Trump-supporting dinosaurs who are just sooo not as evolved as you are. Did I get that right?

up
Voting closed 0

I agree that Cambridge has its share of elitist people with their heads in the sand, but c'mon. That post was a single anecdote, and nowhere did they imply all cabbies are like that.

up
Voting closed 0

Seriously? What's the use of a single anecdote here if not to tell a story meant to be taken as representative? If the poster saw this occasion/driver as an outlier, there would be no reason to bring it up.

Note also I wrote "comments like these", & the o.p. wrote "cabs still suck" - so yes, to me both posts read like a deliberate attempt to characterize cabs in general.

up
Voting closed 0

We usually take the same two trips on Wednesdays, using Uber. The cost was almost double what it usually is yesterday. I wonder if this is why.

up
Voting closed 0

... I have learned to be very wary of Uber drivers. They double park, block bike lanes, cut in front of me on right hand turns, speed, etc. I rarely have a problem with cabs. Glad to see some Uber drivers taken off the road. I feel safer now.

up
Voting closed 0

I think you've learned to be wary of *Boston* drivers. These behaviors aren't remotely specific to Uber drivers, or any other subset.

up
Voting closed 0

The problem with UBER drivers is that they are picking up and dropping people off in random places, and then changing directions randomly often times blocking lanes and committing traffic violations in the process.

up
Voting closed 0

... to Uber drivers.

up
Voting closed 0

Thanks Adam for posting this. This was my point all along. Ride sharing should have the same security checks as cab drivers and be regulated by the DPU. At least it somewhat levels the playing field. And BTW if you have a bad cab driver complain to the Boston Hackney Division. They do actually pull people off the road. That and if you have read at all about Uber’s sketchy business practices and the way they are squeezing drivers, they are no better than the large cab companies.

up
Voting closed 0

came to town and so many were so gosh darn excited about the service (even with surge pricing). Now it turns out that Uber is a real slimy company (https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2017/04/02/how-uber-uses-psychologi...), with a possible sociopath CEO (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/technology/uber-chief-apologizes-afte...) and, until they were forced to do background checks per our state government regulating the industry, may (probably) of been hiring folks with dubious past criminal histories. Oh, what interesting legal action history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uber_%28company%29

Anyone missing the cabbies yet?

up
Voting closed 0

why would i ever miss the cabbies? they tried to cheat me every chance they could, drove horribly and/or didn't know how to get anywhere in the city, didn't clean their vehicles...

it'd be one thing if they were actually trained and held to a standard, but they aren't. at least with uber you can immediately report any of the above infractions with a few clicks on the app.

the cab industry screwed itself over by not looking to the future. i don't have any sympathy for its demise.

up
Voting closed 0

Sorry but that is wrong. The headline mentions "background checks" does it not

Now lets look at what the background check is:

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2016/Chapter187

Look at definition of background check from link above

driver applicant successfully completed the background check required under section 3 and is suitable to provide transportation network services.

and what are the requirements under section 3

that the applicant has an oversight process in place to ensure that each driver using the applicant’s digital network has, pursuant to section 4, successfully completed a background check, maintains a valid background check clearance certificate, is a suitable driver and has a transportation network driver certificate;

So it refers one to Section 4 for a successful background check

Section 4 disqualifies only for

(vi) does not appear on the National Sex Offender Registry;
(vii) has not had a conviction in the past 7 years for: (1) a sex offense or violent crime as defined in section 133E of chapter 127; (2) a crime under section 24 of chapter 90 or been assigned to an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment or rehabilitation program by a court; (3) leaving the scene of property damage or personal injury caused by a motor vehicle; (4) felony robbery; or (5) felony fraud; and
(viii) has a driving record that does not include more than 4 traffic violations or any major traffic violation, as defined by the division of insurance, in the preceding 3 year period.

and not the list of disqualifying conditions that DPU placed.. that is what the article is based on.. not failure of background checks.. but failure of disqualifying conditions by DPU

http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dpu/transportation-network-company/disquali...

In other words based on the law probably only a few thousand failed. However what is being applied by DPU is not the law.

DPU's disqualifying conditions are a violation of constitutional provisions, exceeded the statutory authority and jurisdiction of the Secretary, was based upon errors of law, made upon unlawful procedure, not supported by substantial evidence, arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of DPU’s discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with the law.

up
Voting closed 0