Yeah, I thoroughly debunked this already. Requiring drivers to carry insurance that contractually doesn't cover the activities in question is the same as having no requirement at all.

^THIS^

The same arguments that always come up. "Cabs suck" and "Uber makes a lot of money" are not persuasive justifications for why Uber gets to ignore the laws that govern their trade; particularly when they're endangering the public in the process and those laws were put in place to prevent that very thing.

Secondly, I challenge your assertion that Uber IS "making money hand over fist". Uber has RAISED a ton of money, that is proven, and they generate a ton of REVENUE, but they haven't PROFITED a cent. As I stated previously, they are only profitable in 2 cites (from most reports) and according to this piece, generate the bulk of their revenues in a mere 10 cities of the 270 they currently service.

"That's not to say the company is profitable. It spends tons of money on marketing tactics to recruit new users and drivers."

http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-...#ixzz3Squ1s9m7

Exactly. You don't earn a profit by paying for your all customers through promotions and paying for all your workers by guarantying income for shortfalls. They've lowered their rates everywhere a few times already. The drivers are fleeing en mass (and new, willing to work for less,) drivers are replacing them. (Uber CSR confirms this in thread*) It's not a sustainable model. It appears to be moot for Uber, however.

As I said previously, Uber is in FULL ON changing consumer behavior mode right now. This is something they are succeeding with huge at the moment. This very thread is a prime example of that. Changing consumer behavior is not cheap. This is a huge investment. And Uber has much bigger aspirations than Livery Service, anyway. This is only the tip of the iceberg for this company.


*I urge you and anyone else interested to read this thread. A recently divorced Uber Customer Service Rep (the people interacting with customers & drivers through email) started his own AMA on the aforementioned UberPeople.net ...It offers some fascinating, and rare, and brief, insight into the mind of the beast.

http://uberpeople.net/threads/ex-ube...nything.14285/


Lastly, when you spoke of the transportation business, there was a "we" there. It could read like a proverbial "we" but it could also read as personal for you. And you seemed to know something of Uber's policy's. You wouldn't be an Uber driver perchance? If so, in the interest of a fair debate you should probably disclose this fact. And I'd have some questions for you as well...

I think I missed this before sorry.

Yeah CP or Bellagio flamingo entrances would be the closest drop off points and from GC that's about $7. You could walk it. I used to walk it for NYE back in the day and what not. Maybe a 20min walk. People walk it everyday. Not the majority, but some do. Over the freeway yes but there is a path for you.

they don't have Uber where I live, unfortunately. and the cab companies have a horrible monopoly. they sometimes don't answer the phones from 10 pm to 2 am and people often wait 2 hours. the local university tried to do a designated driver program where kids could call a sober student and pay a couple bucks a ride. the cab companies squashed that. there was a very public DUI accident where a prominent young athlete was killed so there's been a lot of debate about ways to alleviate the crowd at bar close. i think Uber would be a perfect solution for the consumers. i've used it in multiple cities and my experiences have been so positive i won't ever choose to take a cab again.

this is how things gets changed. do you think we could out lobby the cab companies to get the ordinances changed to allow ride sharing for money? not gonna happen. but if Uber comes in and starts hitting them in the pocketbook, the issue will be forced to be addressed by the politicians and then hopefully the courts. not that they'd win every case. they clearly have issues to sort out. but i think most courts would allow them to operate in some fashion because it's what people want.

there's no waste. if a driver can't get rides, he clocks out. if he's already got a perfectly good working vehicle. why should he drive a second car for a cab? as a rider, all it does is give me more options. if i don't trust Uber, i don't get the app. i don't see how anybody can be upset about Uber operating in your town unless they're taking money out of your pocket.

As was already stated Uber does not currently operate anywhere in NV., due to a recent preliminary injunction. When they did operate it was only for 4 weeks or so and they didn't attempt to service the Strip whatsoever. That was their own choice, I guess you could say.

Any rhetoric spewed regarding Uber operating on the Strip has only been speculatory, on both sides.

As for me, I just so happen to know a thing or two about this. The nature of Uber's platform is, imo, not conducive to loading 1000's of people from one location at one time. One person needing to find one specific vehicle and one driver needing to find one specific passenger is inherently less efficient than the first person taking the first available vehicle and so on and so forth. Picture the same number of people you will see in the cab line at LAS on a busy Friday night all needing to find their Uber car. It would be chaos. It would take forever. There would be a lot of accidents. etc.

So somebody said, well no problem, we can just have all the uber cabs line up in a line and Uber riders can just get in the first one. Ok, so, a taxi cue then? ...On most occasions, with the overabundance of cabs we have in LV to begin with, there are always taxi's lined up ready to load you it's just a matter of the logistics involved with loading the 500 people into the 500 cabs that got there before we did. That said, LAS moves about as well as the current situation allows. I can't tell you how many times people get in and say, "when I first saw that line I thought it was ridiculous...but it moved pretty fast" and I say "I know, there are cabs here bro it's just a matter of getting everyone loaded up who go there before you."

I've tried to pick up a regular of mine at the LVCC at showbreak during CES and it is a near impossible task. It's a madhouse in there and those security guards are not letting you hang out anywhere or just mill around looking for your passenger. And your passenger won't be able to explain to you where he is because invariably it's his first time there, or if it's not that he'll be "just inside" and will "come right out" when you get there. Sure he will. ...It's much more efficient with regards to traffic and saving time and all sorts of other reasons to just say, let's put 500 cabs down here and 500 cabs over here and people can line up and we'll load um 3 wide and try and get everybody out of here as soon as possible.

Now, with regards to a pick up at the Harrahs on a tuesday, for instance, you could certainly argue that Uber could fit that role just fine. It's be no real different then just picking up your friend lets say. So ok I guess?? It depends on to what extent it's happening I suppose, and I'm not sure what they would say about it, but believe me the hotels themselves WILL have something to say about it in one way shape or form. They also have contracts with Limo companies that may have a say in how that goes.

What I proposed from day 1, and I will still propose, because the Uber platform does have it's benefit for those far from the epicenter who need transportation service, that Vegas cabs removed ALL of the restricted medallions from service, move ALL of the A Cab company on the STrip and ALL of the Deluxe company on the the STrip and all the cabs can service the epicenter as that is more efficient and let Uber service everything else. West of Decatur, everything East of Eastern, South of Sunset and North of 95. That's a good compromise I believe and as it were that's pretty much the same area Uber was servicing when they were here anyway. This is assuming of course, they properly run their business like every other damn cab in town. No more funny business.




A lot of people do that. And I see all the time in the early morning people waitngi on those benches for their ordered shuttle to arrive and they finally give up and jump in the cab line. I don't know much about the pick up part except that I hear alot of people complain about it.


Yeah I get it man. It's a son of a bitch. The best thing I can say to you about that is that it really comes down to; are laws that protect us from ourselves justified? You're probably against seatbelt and helmet laws too, I would venture. And you have a right to feel that way of course. But realize that though you had a positive experience, and your probably would every time, and 99.9 percent of the time there is sans incident. But in that .1% of the time that something happens our community needs to know who's wearing the big boy pants. We live in a far too litigious society to be romantic with these things. This is, ahem, why the rules were put in place to begin with. Decades ago, it's all right there in the minutes you don't have to take my word for it. 50 years before Uber was invented. Cab companies were entirely too cavalier back then to the point it was time for an intervention and some oversight. People think these laws were put in place to protect the cab companies?? My gosh. This was an incredible burden on cab companies, as it is today.

So per the libertarian, free market point of view I would pose to you the same question I asked the other guy: How many injured parties need to go without compensation and without recourse before we know which providers are willing to wear the big boy pants? How many girls need to get raped and how many kids need to get run over and told to **** off before you will say, ok somebody needs to be responsible?

Two fantastic questions.

Who can verify that the insurance situation is what it's purported to be?

And just who are we purchasing this insurance from anyway?

Right, that's kinda the point. It's one of many points.


Well it's a little bit different that if my employer's insurance was dropped, (or the required COH to self insure dropped below the minimums) the TA would be down at our yard confiscating all of our medallions and keeping them until the issue was resolved.

Also any personal auto insurance that's been dropped for any reason will be sent to file at the DMV, so any officer pulling you over will know your insurance is no good (regardless of what your card might say) anyway. The question is, does Uber monitor this same information for all of their drivers and subsequently deactivate drivers of theirs who come up on the list? I wonder.


Raiser. You mean Raiser is purchasing supplemental insurance. And would that be the insurance that's from that firm in Bermuda? Could you tell me what good this insurance has done for the family of Sophia Liu?

Anecdotal evidence is the ultimate U mad bro

if riders were so concerned about insurance they wouldn't be riding. a little bit of regulation could easily iron out the kinks and allow Uber to operate without the cab companies crying foul.

literally the only people complaining about Uber is the competition or jilted drivers

...and folks like me, whose comically-inept UberX driver gets into an utterly avoidable accident on the freeway. (Cliff's notes: he enters a freeway on-ramp, doesn't see that metering lights are on, looks back for oncoming traffic to merge, misses stopped SUV right in front of him, would have rear-ended at a solid 40mph had I not yelled "stop" in time to mitigate some of the damage.)

So he rear-ends this SUV at 15-20 mph, and not once does the guy ask if I'm ok. He yells "oh, *****! my car! My car!" We were both fine, as was the woman driving the SUV. His Yaris, though, got roughed up pretty bad.

As I'm waiting for another car (this time, an Uber town car) to pick me up, the driver tells me he's only covered under a personal policy -- not only did Uber encourage drivers to use their personal policy but at the time (last October) they forbade purchase of commercial policies, even if drivers had the wherewithal and desire.

I think my driver knew he was at risk of being stuck with the bill himself because he knew his personal insurance wouldn't cover it. So his lack of concern was understandable.

--

I won't touch UberX with a 10-foot pole ever again, because their "ride-sharing" model seems to me to be (1) an effort to dodge regulations through the magic of semantics -- MrFunk put it so well I won't repeat it here, and (2) offload the risk inherent in operating a cab/livery service on the individual drivers.

I am, however, under the impression that their black car service is dramatically different than UberX, at least in terms of how they're insured and checked. (This, at least, is what the guy Uber dispatched to pick me up told me.)

Some modest regulatory changes could help in terms of addressing this gap, but Uber walks like a taxi service and talks likes a taxi service (although their dispatch is *much* more efficient in places where cabs aren't plentiful). So Uber should play by the same rules, even if their drivers are just part-time.

So I'm one guy who won't ride (uberX) because of insurance concerns. But I know many, many others will persist. Their choice.
--

Finally, a plea to MrFunk to fire up the blog again. Twitter's fine and good, but it just doesn't do your writing talent justice.

This is just one piece of anecdotal evidence. I'm not going digging through Google to find horror stories envolving cabs, but they exist as well.

I agree there needs to be some structural changes but you clearly acknowledge that-the business model has clear advantages and its up to individuals to make their choice if the benefits worth the risk.

This is how policies change. You can't wait years to lobby for institutional change before you launch a business. Just do it better and the market will react. That's why Uber will win

Or perhaps we as consumers are just uneducated on the subject. After reading this thread it has dawned on me that it's pretty damn stupid to ride Uber just to save a few bucks. It never occurred to me that Uber drivers wouldn't have insurance covering their passengers. WHY DO THEY NOT HAVE INSURANCE COVERING THEIR PASSENGERS?!?!

I acknowledge that anecdotes do not add up to data. And I would also stipulate that I've ridden with some frightening cab drivers.

But Uber's advantage appears to lie in three places: (1) superior dispatch via their app, esp. in areas where taxi coverage is thin, (2) generally cleaner cars (not a small consideration, btw)...

...and (3) the idea that being part of the "sharing economy" exempts them from having to provide key consumer protections. Which, really, it doesn't, or at least shouldn't.

But they are very adept at working the refs.
Caveat emptor, I guess.

4. It's half the price of a cab

5. It's tougher to longhaul the passengers

6. You can rate the drivers and the consequences for poor ratings are very real

and to answer your other question yes, UberBlack is different. Those drivers have to have a livery number.

b/c Uber buys it for them, as i've said multiple times. MD chooses to dismiss the policies b/c they're not from america or b/c he thinks you're going to get caught in some sort of insurance limbo where neither pays. i can't speak to what has happened in the past, but i know that all rides now have supplemental insurance.

wrt #3, i agree that it shouldn't. but if they can provide those protections (which really shouldn't be that hard. it's basically paperwork and nominal processing fees) with their service and still maintain their clear advantages (price, cleanliness, price, ride distribution, availability, price) then they should ldo be able to operate.

and you don't get the regulatory part changed by trying to lobby politicians. you get it changed by going out and kicking their butt with a better business model and force them to react. they may be taking advantage of loopholes, but lol if we had to shut down every business for that.

can anybody account for the extra price taking a cab? does it all go to insurance/fees? of course not. the bulk of that extra price goes to the owners of the cab company. giving them a little bit less money and giving it back to the consumer (or a part time driver just trying to make a buck on the side) seems like robin hood **** to me

Wow, ok so this seems to be a major deflection. Sophia Liu was a pedestrian that was hit and killed by an Uber driver. Uber claims that it is not liable because the driver was not transporting passengers at the time. Whether or not the driver was actually performing work for Uber at the time seems to be the crux of the issue, but regardless it doesn't seem to have anything to do with Uber providing insurance nor is it relevant to passengers being insured.

I don't really see a difference between this Uber driver running over someone and Jim Bob random guy running over someone in their personal vehicle. Either way the guy has personal auto insurance. Neither is relevant to me as a consumer.

All indications are that Uber does actually provide insurance for it's passengers now. Hmmmmmmmmmmm....

right so is an Uber driver "working" when he's accepting rides but still waiting for a fare? is he working when he's on his way to pick up? prolly a grey area, but you're right, neither is a concern for the consumer.

A deflection? A DEFLECTION??


And you are ok with this??

Surely this much is true...but we'll come back to this is a second...


Regardless is a poor word choice because it's not regardless. If we determine the driver was "working" vs if we decide he isn't "working" then clearly this will have a major bearing on who's responsible for what. So then, that is what we need to decide...

If an Uber driver had a regular 9-5 gig and he just drove for uber on his off time, for example, and he was driving at 830am en route to his real job, and he wasn't "on duty" per the Uber system, but in the same car he ubers in, and he hit and killed somebody, I think we would all agree that Uber corp would not be relevant to such a claim in any way shape or form in that situation.

However this was not the case. Here are ten facts that I hope weigh heavily for you as you decide if this Uber driver was "working" or not.

1. The accident occurred on NYE
2. The driver was "on duty" on the Uber system.
3. The driver struck 3 peds Killing Sophia & seriously injuring her Mom&Brother
3. He stated he was an Uber driver at the scene
4. He stated he had "accepted" a fare and was en route to pick them up
5. He was texting on his phone at the time of the accident
6. He was texting the...wait for it.....Uber rider he was on the way to pick up.
7. Uber instantly declared themselves un-responsible.
8. The drivers car insurance carrier promptly determined the insured was using the vehicle for commercial purposes and as that activity is prohibited per the insurance policy contract they denied the claim and revoked the policy.
9. The driver is going to stand trial for manslaughter.
10. Sophia's Mother and Brother' medical bills will in all likelihood become burdens of the State to say nothing of the fact if either or both of them end up on disability.

The family is now suing Uber (and the driver) (and Raiser) as their only recourse. It is a perfect storm of a case too. A horrible tale, but a perfect plaintiff. And Uber Co. is so far entrenched in this "we're not responsible," and "we're a technology company" nonsense they can't settle this case. Not now. They can't have this precedent right off the bat. So all signs point to them going to court, and in the words of Lt. Caffee, they are going to lose, and they are going to lose HUGE.

Any legal eagles on this board care to weigh in, without knowing any (more) details or special circumstances, on if Uber has any chance of avoiding liability in this case?

No worry though, Uber has supplemental insurance! I read that somewhere. Yeah, it kicks in when and if the drivers insurance doesn't cover anything. Wait no that's Raiser, sorry. Raiser.


I strongly urge you to reconsider this position.

Look at if from another angle. Let's take a hypothetical, perhaps even typical Uber driver example from above and say that guy drives his car (A) 300 miles a month to and from work and other common personal use. Let's say he drives (B)300 miles a month on Uber's system to and from fares, available for hire etc but NOT loaded with a passenger. And let's say he drives (C) 150 miles loaded with a Uber passenger(s).

So, thus...

A:300 Miles covered by his personal insurance carrier
B: 300 Miles, not covered by his personal insurance, not covered by Uber.
C: 150 Miles covered by his Uber insurance*

As you can see, we have that 300 miles in the middle there where we have a vehicle on the road which has, at best, a highly questionable insurance situation going on. And at worst absolutely no coverage for any person or any property whatsoever. And by the sounds of things, you all are ok with this. You guys are ok with incident pedestrians getting run over and then everybody tells them to **** off.

The Jim Bob you mentioned does NOT drive these additional 450 miles a month. He does NOT have an abundance of passengers eg. potential claimants, in his vehicle ever. This is why they ask you what you use your car for when you get auto insurance. It's relevant without question. The exposure increase is immense.

Lastly on this point, no one ever mentions the Uber driver himself. He's more screwed then anyone. My brother, actually. The proverbial "he", is going to be a party to a lawsuit every single time and just the cost of defending yourself in this type of action will bankrupt anyone. He also now has a totaled car, and as Uber requires newer cars probably a car note as well and he'll only get salvage for it. And those are the least of his problems. ...Some lady in Vegas when Uber was on was driving a new(er) BMW and raving on twitter about how awesome her ride was and how awesome Uber is and come get a ride with her and all that. I mean, this is the same person that just signed a contract to start her own business and where her insurance is primary, she hasn't called her agent to discuss this new venture and any implications that may apply as a result of it. Meanwhile she's driving a $60K car and probably has a nice house and maybe even some assets or some cash in the bank taboot....all it takes is to look the wrong direction at the wrong moment. I've seen it a million times already. Just one split second, one honest mistake and she is going to be in a world of hurt. You can literally lose everything. Uber drivers own their own businesses? To that I would say, you should act like it then. It's unconscionable to be so cavalier about these risks and call yourself the owner of a business. You want to be a member of this community and you want to profit from this community and then not be responsible when you or your agent is negligent or malicious? It's crazy talk. This is day one stuff guys.

I'll offer a concession. I'm prepared right now to absolve Uber of any liability and consider them a tech co forever if you all will concede that the Uber driver's business IS a transportation company and as such he needs to adhere to the regulations that govern his trade in his market. Like I said, somebody has to wear the big boy pants, so you can decide whom it shall be.

(also *) ...And it's nature is highly suspect. But that's another matter for another time. But, let's assume this were true for a second, isn't this also a not so subtle proof that I was right? Uber drivers don't have insurance?

Surely if we flipped the situation around just for fun and instead of an Uber driver killing a pedestrian let's imagine it was a taxi cab that killed a 6yo girl. But it's not like he's really a cab then right? I mean he's wasn't loaded. He coulda just been going to get some lunch or something. He's not a taxi then. No way the cab company should be responsible for that! Right guys?

Uber drivers are operating unlicensed cabs, period. Whether Uber the company is responsible for that by providing the drivers with infrastructure, I don't know, nor care much. But every Uber ride is a cab ride. Hard to argue otherwise.

I think that an Uber ride is the same thing as a cab ride. It's how we regulate those rides that needs to change. And I think that Uber is the best available mechanism for that change. Till autonomous cars anyway

Am I the only one who feels like the taxi vs. Uber argument has run its course?

I for one am interested in your thoughts on Shoe's post. Thanks for doing the thread. Any interesting rides recently?

Yeah I misspoke there when I said the infinity sign was the only way you would be able to determine it was an automated car. I've seen them in action and all the stuff you're talking about. Surely the they will work to streamline the look those things as they get closer to market. You're right though there will be some obtuse looking radar unit on the roof for some time probably.

Did you see the video where they take the blind guy out for a "drive"? It's pretty cool **** man. For a blind man to be able to hop in his whip and head downtown for some ice cream at his whim is pretty powerful stuff. Imagine we're going to eradicate all vehicle related deaths basically overnight. No more DUI's, no more Sophia Liu's. Automation has already paid huge dividends in the aviation biz and I expect it to be ten fold with regards to automobiles. Riding in a car is by far the most dangerous activity we pursue on a daily basis, this may actually even increase our life expectancy. Crazy.

Worth noting that initial legislation requires the car to have a traditional drivers seat and the operator must ride in that seat and be responsible for any instantaneous manual overrides that the situation may demand.

I didn't forget about that. I just skipped ahead because I wanted to drop some knowledge on the Sophia Liu thing. The short of Shoe is that dude is more spot on than he even knows....I'll do that one now.