1. The fundamental difference about Uber (that I think is implicit to proponents but gets lost in the actual discussion), is that you're using a well-known public-facing party to request the service in the first place. This has wide ranging benefits for consumer protection (not that it solves everything, but most taxi regulations exist because you've traditionally had to trust the first guy that drives by in a yellow car, or an informally run dispatch station). Specifically in relation to your point, Uber has a strong incentive to make sure drivers are licensed (and if not, their business insurance sure does).
2. Maybe two years ago, I was in the car when my friend got pulled over for driving "without" a license (MA RMV SOP is to suspend licenses without notifying). He passed a clearly visible state trooper (going under speed limit, ofc) stopped two lanes over. Five miles later, he's being pulled over because the trooper had run his plate and saw that the vehicle was owned by someone with a suspended license. Whether it's technology or simply an overabundance of cops, those quaint days of enforcement directed only at drivers that stick out are pretty much over.
Uber's drivers are, I believe, 1099 contractors. If an Uber driver operates unsafely, the driver and Uber simply sever the relationship, and the driver goes somewhere else.
I'm not sure I buy the story about being pulled over for a suspended license, for a bunch of reasons:
* Over the last 10 years, I've driven more on suspended licenses than valid ones (I'm a very safe driver but I suck at getting my plate sticker updated and suck even worse at actually paying the resulting tickets). I've never been pulled over for having a suspended license, or even heard of someone being pulled over for that.†
* The police in Illinois and, I assume, most other states have strict rules about when they can pull people over (the "primary" and "secondary" offenses). If your car is compliant and you aren't committing a moving violation and you're wearing your seatbelt, what grounds does an officer have to pull you over? Consider that cars are often driven by people other than their owners.
* There are too many valid reasons you can be pulled over. Tail light out. Sticker's a month out of date. Improper lane change. "Not wearing seat belt".
Are you sure you're not confusing "suspended license" with "suspended tags"? Driving on suspended tags will get you pulled over quickly. Illinois will suspend your plates for things like toll violations.
I stand by my assertion: if you're a good driver, and your car is compliant, you're probably pretty safe driving on a suspended license. There is a pretty low probability of getting a relatively stiff ticket, and that's about it. Make sure your plates are good.
† I get pulled over, mind you. Just not for having a suspended license.
But the customer remains with Uber. And it's not like taxi drivers drive safe - I rarely take taxis, yet I once had a taxi driver who simply went through a red light after I casually remarked "this light is always red".
Really, you don't "buy" the story? Well it happened, in point of fact. Maybe telling you that said friend works at that binary analysis company in Burlington will provide enough of a connection to let you be convinced that I'm not just making up stories on the Internet for kicks?
This was at night, simple driving with no other cars around. I'm pretty sure the cop actually said that his probable cause was that the owner of the car was unlicensed. We switched places at the cop's direction (after he checked my license) and I drove the car for the rest of the trip.
The cop could have simply been done stopping, caught up to us (their standard speed is 110mph), and lingered next to us to idly run the plates. But at the time it really felt like the plate must have been automatically captured as we drove by.
I very very much doubt you'd just make something up. I'm just saying there are alternate explanations that make more sense. Happy to be wrong; still stand by my analysis. :)
The attention could have been due to racial profiling, but that would require the cop to have seen the driver in the dark at 60mph - still requiring deliberate effort in the first place. The cop could have just been passing us, which gets him closer but requires assessment from the rear to notice the in-progress DWB. But also the way he came up really didn't read as a dwell-and-pass. What are other alternate explanations?
Furthermore it's not really a matter of IF cop cars have automated license plate scanners, it's a matter of WHEN. And then if the law allows a presumption that the owner is driving, which is perhaps the only thing saving you from even more tickets in IL. :)
Alternate explanation: the cop was going to pull you over anyways, for whatever reason ("improper lane change" is a synonym for "I need to write someone a ticket now"), and, once he did so, he ran the plates like the police always do when they pull someone over... and poof! there's his ticket to write.
Comments
1. The fundamental difference about Uber (that I think is implicit to proponents but gets lost in the actual discussion), is that you're using a well-known public-facing party to request the service in the first place. This has wide ranging benefits for consumer protection (not that it solves everything, but most taxi regulations exist because you've traditionally had to trust the first guy that drives by in a yellow car, or an informally run dispatch station). Specifically in relation to your point, Uber has a strong incentive to make sure drivers are licensed (and if not, their business insurance sure does).
2. Maybe two years ago, I was in the car when my friend got pulled over for driving "without" a license (MA RMV SOP is to suspend licenses without notifying). He passed a clearly visible state trooper (going under speed limit, ofc) stopped two lanes over. Five miles later, he's being pulled over because the trooper had run his plate and saw that the vehicle was owned by someone with a suspended license. Whether it's technology or simply an overabundance of cops, those quaint days of enforcement directed only at drivers that stick out are pretty much over.
Uber's drivers are, I believe, 1099 contractors. If an Uber driver operates unsafely, the driver and Uber simply sever the relationship, and the driver goes somewhere else.
I'm not sure I buy the story about being pulled over for a suspended license, for a bunch of reasons:
* Over the last 10 years, I've driven more on suspended licenses than valid ones (I'm a very safe driver but I suck at getting my plate sticker updated and suck even worse at actually paying the resulting tickets). I've never been pulled over for having a suspended license, or even heard of someone being pulled over for that.†
* The police in Illinois and, I assume, most other states have strict rules about when they can pull people over (the "primary" and "secondary" offenses). If your car is compliant and you aren't committing a moving violation and you're wearing your seatbelt, what grounds does an officer have to pull you over? Consider that cars are often driven by people other than their owners.
* There are too many valid reasons you can be pulled over. Tail light out. Sticker's a month out of date. Improper lane change. "Not wearing seat belt".
Are you sure you're not confusing "suspended license" with "suspended tags"? Driving on suspended tags will get you pulled over quickly. Illinois will suspend your plates for things like toll violations.
I stand by my assertion: if you're a good driver, and your car is compliant, you're probably pretty safe driving on a suspended license. There is a pretty low probability of getting a relatively stiff ticket, and that's about it. Make sure your plates are good.
† I get pulled over, mind you. Just not for having a suspended license.
But the customer remains with Uber. And it's not like taxi drivers drive safe - I rarely take taxis, yet I once had a taxi driver who simply went through a red light after I casually remarked "this light is always red".
Really, you don't "buy" the story? Well it happened, in point of fact. Maybe telling you that said friend works at that binary analysis company in Burlington will provide enough of a connection to let you be convinced that I'm not just making up stories on the Internet for kicks?
This was at night, simple driving with no other cars around. I'm pretty sure the cop actually said that his probable cause was that the owner of the car was unlicensed. We switched places at the cop's direction (after he checked my license) and I drove the car for the rest of the trip.
The cop could have simply been done stopping, caught up to us (their standard speed is 110mph), and lingered next to us to idly run the plates. But at the time it really felt like the plate must have been automatically captured as we drove by.
I very very much doubt you'd just make something up. I'm just saying there are alternate explanations that make more sense. Happy to be wrong; still stand by my analysis. :)
The attention could have been due to racial profiling, but that would require the cop to have seen the driver in the dark at 60mph - still requiring deliberate effort in the first place. The cop could have just been passing us, which gets him closer but requires assessment from the rear to notice the in-progress DWB. But also the way he came up really didn't read as a dwell-and-pass. What are other alternate explanations?
Furthermore it's not really a matter of IF cop cars have automated license plate scanners, it's a matter of WHEN. And then if the law allows a presumption that the owner is driving, which is perhaps the only thing saving you from even more tickets in IL. :)
Alternate explanation: the cop was going to pull you over anyways, for whatever reason ("improper lane change" is a synonym for "I need to write someone a ticket now"), and, once he did so, he ran the plates like the police always do when they pull someone over... and poof! there's his ticket to write.