“A spokesman for San Francisco-based Uber derided the citations as ‘an abuse of power and a deliberate attempt to protect an entrenched industry’.”
More like fighting abuse of state codes and regulations and a deliberate attempt to protect the public. It’s all a matter of semantics, just like “on-demand ride-sharing service” and “inadequately insured gypsy cab”.
How is fining a person for not complying with the law an abuse of power? Especially if they don’t have liability insurance on their auto. The police are protecting the public.
I doubt Uber is complaining when the police fine a gypsy cab driver for the same things.
Why is it Uber and the like do not have to abide by the law? They are a taxi service plain and simple. Uber..do the right thing abide by the law, buy insurance to protect your drivers and passengers. The 1 million liability coverage is a start. Inform your dirvers they are at risk for law suits and working for someone else for the rest of their lives.
Don Moe SR
President
Insurance Management Co
Lynnwood, WA
He’s right, they’re resisting technological change all to the detriment of the customer. The cab industry, limo companies, even public transit are all threatened by alternate services that will cut into their paychecks so rather than competing in the market and drawing customers by merit, they use the abusive power of the state to stop these advances. I wouldn’t be surprised if they are actually out threatening drivers or damaging vehicles, that’s the kind of people they are. Like union thugs and tax vampires, but they will get theirs in time because technology will march forward whether their primitve minds like it or not.
I have not read of any municipal government, public utilities commission, state department of insurance, taxi company or limo service taking issue with the use of a smartphone app to schedule for-hire transportation. What all of the aforementioned entities do care about is the type and limits of liability insurance that “ride-sharing” companies must have in place in order to operate. The government entities want the public to be protected, and the taxi and limo companies want to see the “ride sharing” companies subject to the same liability insurance requirements for carrying passengers for hire as they are. What’s so hard to understand about that?
Stop hiding behind the “technological change” red herring, Ben. Allowing new players to enter a service industry at the expense of reduced consumer protection is not societal “advancement” in any way, shape or form.
I work in a small agency in NC, and we handle a lot of the local small cabs & limos in the area.
The main complaint that the drivers have here is not technology, they are actually for it. It’s a matter of a regulated industry having to compete against one that is not being regulated. Taxi’s in NC are subject to rates set by the local municipality with a rate per mile or per minute waiting. UBER drivers, without a meter in their vehicles, are not subject to those rates. As a result, UBER will undercut the local taxi business during off-peak hours. During peak hours or holidays, UBER has a little mentioned clause that allows them to charge up to 10x their normal rate. So a ride on after closing time for the bars that would cost you $25.00 by taxi might end up as $300 if you hopped a ride with an UBER driver. This is what most of my drivers are complaining about. They either want the same freedom of rates, or have UBER comply with local taxi rates.
Regarding limits of coverage, in NC for-hire vehicles that carry 15 or fewer people are required to maintain $1.5M CSL limits of liability (cabs are less due to some odd legislation) so if the vehicle is not registered as a taxi (they get a plate that says taxi on it) then they are considered for-hire. Right off the bat, that means the UBER commercial policy is in violation of state law. If the UBER driver happens to cross state lines, then the Federal law kicks in and they require the same $1.5M CSL coverage for for-hire passenger transportation <16 passengers. And now the UBER driver is in violation of FEDERAL law.
Oh, and NC requires continuous coverage. So the on-again/off-again coverage that UBER provides doesn’t actually meet state law for commercial use for-hire vehicles.
He’s right, they’re resisting technological change all to the detriment of the customer. The cab industry, limo companies, even public transit are all threatened by alternate services that will cut into their paychecks so rather than competing in the market and drawing customers by merit, they use the abusive power of the state to stop these advances. I wouldn’t be surprised if they are actually out threatening drivers or damaging vehicles, that’s the kind of people they are. Like union thugs and tax vampires, but they will get theirs in time because technology will march forward whether their primitive minds like it or not.
Ben – You must be either a Rep for Uber, or an Uber driver. While I am not hoping for an accident, I can’t wait to see how Uber fares in court the first time there is a major accident involving an Uber driver carrying passengers. My insurance experience leads me to believe Uber is going to be found liable for not telling their passengers they are not adequately covered… Time will tell, but I suspect in short order, Uber will either get in line with the Taxi services who are providing an honest service while protecting their customers, or they will be left behind. You can mention “technology” as if it were some new word all you wish. It doesn’t change the fact Uber is ultimately going to be held responsible for not carrying enough liability insurance, then for not sharing this information with Customers.
Keep in mind – When a State wants you shut down, and you keep giving them the middle finger, the state ALWAYS wins in the end.
There is a case. An Uber driver in San Francisco, app on…passenger, killed a small child a year ago when re ran she and her family over in a crosswalk saying he had a green light but ignoring the fact that in CA pedestrians in a crosswalk have the right of way. He is still awaiting trial. Uber says no coverage from them as he had no call or passenger. It may be a while before all the stuff comes out and still don’t know if his personal policy will respond.
an Industry Rally at the Sheraton For Lauderdale 1825 Griffin Rd for Monday Night at 7pm. The next morning Feb 10th Broward County hears a motion to make Uber a Common Carrier so they would have to have the same insurance and background checks we havean Industry Rally at the Sheraton For Lauderdale 1825 Griffin Rd for Monday Night at 7pm. The next morning Feb 10th Broward County hears a motion to make Uber a Common Carrier so they would have to have the same insurance and background checks
“A spokesman for San Francisco-based Uber derided the citations as ‘an abuse of power and a deliberate attempt to protect an entrenched industry’.”
More like fighting abuse of state codes and regulations and a deliberate attempt to protect the public. It’s all a matter of semantics, just like “on-demand ride-sharing service” and “inadequately insured gypsy cab”.
How is fining a person for not complying with the law an abuse of power? Especially if they don’t have liability insurance on their auto. The police are protecting the public.
I doubt Uber is complaining when the police fine a gypsy cab driver for the same things.
Why is it Uber and the like do not have to abide by the law? They are a taxi service plain and simple. Uber..do the right thing abide by the law, buy insurance to protect your drivers and passengers. The 1 million liability coverage is a start. Inform your dirvers they are at risk for law suits and working for someone else for the rest of their lives.
Don Moe SR
President
Insurance Management Co
Lynnwood, WA
PS We have a market for Uber drivers here in WA, the premium starts at $29K, that should tell the Uber company and others what is at risk.
Don Moe
President
Insurance Management Co
Lynnwood, WA
He’s right, they’re resisting technological change all to the detriment of the customer. The cab industry, limo companies, even public transit are all threatened by alternate services that will cut into their paychecks so rather than competing in the market and drawing customers by merit, they use the abusive power of the state to stop these advances. I wouldn’t be surprised if they are actually out threatening drivers or damaging vehicles, that’s the kind of people they are. Like union thugs and tax vampires, but they will get theirs in time because technology will march forward whether their primitve minds like it or not.
I have not read of any municipal government, public utilities commission, state department of insurance, taxi company or limo service taking issue with the use of a smartphone app to schedule for-hire transportation. What all of the aforementioned entities do care about is the type and limits of liability insurance that “ride-sharing” companies must have in place in order to operate. The government entities want the public to be protected, and the taxi and limo companies want to see the “ride sharing” companies subject to the same liability insurance requirements for carrying passengers for hire as they are. What’s so hard to understand about that?
Stop hiding behind the “technological change” red herring, Ben. Allowing new players to enter a service industry at the expense of reduced consumer protection is not societal “advancement” in any way, shape or form.
I work in a small agency in NC, and we handle a lot of the local small cabs & limos in the area.
The main complaint that the drivers have here is not technology, they are actually for it. It’s a matter of a regulated industry having to compete against one that is not being regulated. Taxi’s in NC are subject to rates set by the local municipality with a rate per mile or per minute waiting. UBER drivers, without a meter in their vehicles, are not subject to those rates. As a result, UBER will undercut the local taxi business during off-peak hours. During peak hours or holidays, UBER has a little mentioned clause that allows them to charge up to 10x their normal rate. So a ride on after closing time for the bars that would cost you $25.00 by taxi might end up as $300 if you hopped a ride with an UBER driver. This is what most of my drivers are complaining about. They either want the same freedom of rates, or have UBER comply with local taxi rates.
Regarding limits of coverage, in NC for-hire vehicles that carry 15 or fewer people are required to maintain $1.5M CSL limits of liability (cabs are less due to some odd legislation) so if the vehicle is not registered as a taxi (they get a plate that says taxi on it) then they are considered for-hire. Right off the bat, that means the UBER commercial policy is in violation of state law. If the UBER driver happens to cross state lines, then the Federal law kicks in and they require the same $1.5M CSL coverage for for-hire passenger transportation <16 passengers. And now the UBER driver is in violation of FEDERAL law.
Oh, and NC requires continuous coverage. So the on-again/off-again coverage that UBER provides doesn’t actually meet state law for commercial use for-hire vehicles.
He’s right, they’re resisting technological change all to the detriment of the customer. The cab industry, limo companies, even public transit are all threatened by alternate services that will cut into their paychecks so rather than competing in the market and drawing customers by merit, they use the abusive power of the state to stop these advances. I wouldn’t be surprised if they are actually out threatening drivers or damaging vehicles, that’s the kind of people they are. Like union thugs and tax vampires, but they will get theirs in time because technology will march forward whether their primitive minds like it or not.
Don: At $29K min. prem. I would look for another carrier or ask that carrier to look for another actuary.
Ben – You must be either a Rep for Uber, or an Uber driver. While I am not hoping for an accident, I can’t wait to see how Uber fares in court the first time there is a major accident involving an Uber driver carrying passengers. My insurance experience leads me to believe Uber is going to be found liable for not telling their passengers they are not adequately covered… Time will tell, but I suspect in short order, Uber will either get in line with the Taxi services who are providing an honest service while protecting their customers, or they will be left behind. You can mention “technology” as if it were some new word all you wish. It doesn’t change the fact Uber is ultimately going to be held responsible for not carrying enough liability insurance, then for not sharing this information with Customers.
Keep in mind – When a State wants you shut down, and you keep giving them the middle finger, the state ALWAYS wins in the end.
There is a case. An Uber driver in San Francisco, app on…passenger, killed a small child a year ago when re ran she and her family over in a crosswalk saying he had a green light but ignoring the fact that in CA pedestrians in a crosswalk have the right of way. He is still awaiting trial. Uber says no coverage from them as he had no call or passenger. It may be a while before all the stuff comes out and still don’t know if his personal policy will respond.
an Industry Rally at the Sheraton For Lauderdale 1825 Griffin Rd for Monday Night at 7pm. The next morning Feb 10th Broward County hears a motion to make Uber a Common Carrier so they would have to have the same insurance and background checks we havean Industry Rally at the Sheraton For Lauderdale 1825 Griffin Rd for Monday Night at 7pm. The next morning Feb 10th Broward County hears a motion to make Uber a Common Carrier so they would have to have the same insurance and background checks