Slashdot Mirror

>> Uber provides insurance covering you while providing ridesharing.

There's a wonderful grey "on call" area in there too that appears to have gotten some people in trouble:
https://www.policygenius.com/b... (search ahead to "CPUC’s first step in regulating TNCs")

It appears that some insurance companies are working on getting you options for this, but it's not available in all states yet: https://www.policygenius.com/b...

And you're going to continue to pretend that insurance companies haven't cancelled the policies of Uber drivers?

It is true that the insurance situation and legality of operations is most decidedly NOT what comes out of the reality distortion field Uber tells people.

The second half of this article is more bold in suggesting that Uber is misleading drivers by suggesting that their regular insurance policy will cover them at all times that Uber's policy does not. If there were a regulated training/screening program as for traditional taxi drivers, of course, there wouldn't be a single driver so foolish as to believe a cab company that makes such outrageous implications.

Not sure where you live, but where I live, taxi's have to pay taxes. They have to pay social security. They have to pay for meters. They have to pay for insurance with passengers. Also for extra technical testing of the cars. And also for the taxi stands.

If you cut all that out, it is obvious that itwill be cheaper. Illegal, but cheaper. Just as if I would run a sweatshop. Illegal, but cheaper.

I'm willing to accept that the cars might be nicer (though not inspected regularly for passenger service purposes), response time might be better. The issue that bothers me is insurance. , and what happens when an Uber driver is in an injury accedent, and where the liabilities land:

The insurance secret that Uber doesnâ(TM)t want you to know
Leaked transcript shows Geicoâ(TM)s stance against Uber, Lyft
Uber Advises Drivers To Buy Insurance That Leaves Them Uncovered

People think that taxi licencing is all about monopolies and cartels, but there are many other valid issues that regulation addresses.

My question is how insurance companies are dealing with it.

For the most part, apparently, they're hanging drivers out to dry.

Uber may claim their insurance will cover you for an accident while you have passenger, but no insurance company in the world will cover you - or Uber - if it is determined that the driver is operating illegally at the time.

And at that point, not only are you responsible for the damage to your car, and the other guy's, but also for any medical bills for passengers in either car, as well. I'm not sure my personal health insurance would cover me if I were a passenger in an illegal taxi when injured.

"Where I live, to be a cab you need a commercial drivers license"

Which is just a note that you have given the state extra money, of no actual value to anyone.

Unless you count criminal or legal liability, and then it's really important.

"proper insurance"

Which Uber provides.

Sorry, but bullshit:

It's a question that strikes at the heart of how these companies self-identify. If they are just facilitating a relationship between a third-party driver and a user, as they claim they do as "technology companies," then they shouldn't be liable for much, if anything.

That leaves much of the insurance burden on the drivers, who are using their own personal cars and their own personal car insurance (PCI). What these drivers may not know, however, is that their PCI policy may not cover them if they're driving for Uber, Lyft, or any other "ride-sharing" app.

They are the ones making claims which aren't supported in law.

Basically you've done no research and don't know what the hell you are talking about, but don't let that stop you from complaining.

No, I've heard actual Uber spokespeople talking to the media, because they're trying to come into the city where I live.

They keep saying "oh, we don't need commercial licenses" and "we don't need to do that". The problem is that they're full of shit and can't unilaterally decree they're not covered by the law.

Having heard their arguments about why the law doesn't apply to them, or why they're special because they're not a cab company but a software company ... I'm forced to conclude they're willing to operate outside of the law, and seem to think they can be the ones to decide what laws and regulations apply to them.

Sorry, but that's completely delusional. All they are is an app which allows for pirate cabs, which they somehow think exempts them from legal oversight.

That's pretty much bullshit.