Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by CraigRo 542 days ago
This is terrible. Taxis don't require fingerprints.

This drives up the cost of providing a service for a population that doesn't have much money to begin with. It is ostensibly safer, but that value has not been quantified. On the margin, it will encourage kids to take less safe forms of transit (e.g. drunk friend) due to higher costs and reduced availability.
4 comments
quest88 538 days ago
The second sentence says they do require taxis. Please read the article.

"The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) issued a ruling Thursday that requires taxi and ride-hail drivers who are carrying unaccompanied minors in the state to pass a fingerprint background check"

link
tantalor 538 days ago
Read the article:

> California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) issued a ruling Thursday that requires taxi and ride-hail drivers who are carrying unaccompanied minors in the state to pass a fingerprint background check

So, yes this does apply to taxis.

link
HWR_14 542 days ago
How much can it possibly drive up the costs? My guess is practically not at all.
link
hedora 538 days ago
It reduces the supply of drivers that are capable of getting another job.

We live in an area where uber/lyft charge below driver cost for rides, and it has created a public safety issue.

The roads near our house are mildly challenging, and almost all drivers that do come here should have their drivers licenses taken away. We don’t have this problem for in-town trips.

Anyway, more experienced / smarter drivers will probably realize they don’t want the incremental income from teenagers. Uber/lyft will either have to increase the price of those trips, mandate fingerprints for all, or car accidents involving teens in ride share cars will go up.

link
sdwr 542 days ago
It's a lengthy, private, 1 on 1 interaction with a complete stranger. I've seen nothing but (minor) problems on the uber and lyft subreddits about male drivers and young solo female passengers.

More robust processes protect everyone.

link
parineum 542 days ago
> More robust processes protect everyone.

Nobody would argue against that.

They'd argue that the cost isn't worth it or that the protection is not needed or wanted.

link