Uber Violence: Dangerous History Before Kalamazoo

KALAMAZOO, MI – For those keeping tabs on ride-hailing companies — and there are many skeptics, from competitors complaining they don’t face the same regulatory hurdles to critics who say drivers aren’t vetted closely enough — an on-duty Uber driver’s alleged killing spree that mortally wounded six and gravely injured two others in Kalamazoo Saturday was a tragedy in waiting.

The San Francisco-based tech startup, widely regarded one of the most successful in recent years, has been hounded with complaints that it doesn’t properly vet its drivers — or protect them against passenger violence.

Uber’s chief security officer, Joe Sullivan, said in a conference call with reporters Monday that there are no plans to change vetting policies and that there were no “red flags” to hint at the violence that set the western Michigan town on edge Saturday.

Jason Dalton, 45, was charged Monday with six counts of open murder, two counts of attempted murder and multiple felony firearms charges after he allegedly went on an hours-long killing spree, picking off victims between fares Saturday night before he was captured early Sunday morning.

SEE ALSO

• Accused Kalamazoo Uber Shooter Charged with 6 Counts Murder
• 6 Dead in Uber Driver’s Random Killing Spree in Kalamazoo: Police

Uber has confirmed that multiple customers called to complain that Dalton was driving dangerously and erratically the night of the shooting spree, but Sullivan said in the conference call that Dalton had an Uber rating of 4.73 on a 5.0 scale.

In an email to Patch, Gary Buffo, president to the National Limousine Association said the tragedy “highlights how the current operating procedures of ride-hailing services fail to protect passengers, drivers and the public at large.”

“As we now know from first-hand accounts, this driver was acting irrationally and operating his vehicle erratically not only in the hours leading up to and between these senseless shootings, but also in the days and weeks prior,” he said.

Added NLA co-founder Scott Solombrino, also in an email to Patch:

“The fact that a service is app-based does not make it an exception to the rule. A company that knows and interacts with its employees and/or drivers is able to flag problematic behavior. Without a reliable method of contact to report concerns about drivers and ride experiences, I fear that we will continue to see disastrous consequences as a result of a lack of due diligence and basic communications standards. In this case, no new laws are even required, just a reliable method to monitor, respond and react to situations as they arise.”

To be fair, Buffo and Solombrino aren’t unbiased observers, given how much on-demand ride companies have cut into limo drivers’ business. An example of the huge rift between regulated taxi and limo companies and ride-hailing companies is found in a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan earlier this year by a southeast Michigan limousine service owner.

SEE ALSO

• Limo Company Sues Uber for Racketeering

And neither is the public awareness campaign “Who’s Driving You,” an initiative of the the Taxicab, Limousine & Paratransit Association, bias free. But its curation of news stories involving Uber and Lyft drivers since 2013, most of them in the United States, is chilling. Here’s a rundown:

• Alleged sexual assaults and harassment incidents by Uber and Lyft drivers: 53
• Alleged assaults by Uber and Lyft drivers: 22
• Imposters: 15
• Drunken driving and other offenses: 14
• Reports of felons behind the wheel: 9
• Deaths from Uber and Lyft accidents: 6
• Alleged kidnappings by Uber drivers: 5

More than 380 cities around the world use the smartphone app-based service whose drivers are independent contractors. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology named Uber, which has $10 billion in backing by private investors and a book of business valued at $50 billion, one of the 50 smartest technology companies of 2015.

Uber said earlier this month that it will spend $28.5 million to settle two massive class action lawsuits that alleged customers were misled about safety procedures and fees. Other litigation is still pending, including a lawsuit by district attorneys in San Francisco and Los Angeles who argue that despite its avowed background checks, several felons were hired.

» Data curated by FindTheData

» Data curated by FindTheData

» Photo via Flickr