# Say bye bye to uberx in California



## Vahansuberx

Uber has been sending the following email to all of it's customers:

"Who would have thought California, the cradle for American innovation, would take the lead in killing it. Governor Brown is committed to leading California into the future, but some in the legislature are anonymously doing the bidding of trial lawyers, big taxi and insurance lobbyists. Their bill, *AB 2293, will be voted on THIS WEEK and would kill ridesharing in the Golden State.*

If you want to keep uberX in California, now is the time to act. You are voting with your wallets every day - choosing Uber for a safe, reliable ride. Call your senators and tell them to stand up for Uber, your transportation options and the state's future - not special interests.*#CAlovesUber*

- Team Uber California"

I think this is the beginning of the end for uberx and thats why they raised the prices for uber black and lowered the prices for uberx. What do you guys think?


----------



## chi1cabby

Vahansuberx said:


> Uber has been sending the following email to all of it's customers:
> 
> "Who would have thought California, the cradle for American innovation, would take the lead in killing it. Governor Brown is committed to leading California into the future, but some in the legislature are anonymously doing the bidding of trial lawyers, big taxi and insurance lobbyists. Their bill, *AB 2293, will be voted on THIS WEEK and would kill ridesharing in the Golden State.*
> 
> If you want to keep uberX in California, now is the time to act. You are voting with your wallets every day - choosing Uber for a safe, reliable ride. Call your senators and tell them to stand up for Uber, your transportation options and the state's future - not special interests.*#CAlovesUber*
> 
> - Team Uber California"
> 
> I think this is the beginning of the end for uberx and thats why they raised the prices for uber black and lowered the prices for uberx. What do you guys think?


By towing the Uber line, Uber drivers would in fact be acting against their own term long-term self-interest. Ride-sharing drivers are all operating in a very risky insurance environment.

Please read CA Dept of Insurance Commissioner Jones report on Ride-sharing insurance, which AB2293 is based uponhttp://scribd.com/doc/217289190

19 States have issued consumer alerts on this issue. That's nearly 40% of all the states! And remember there is no ride-sharing in many states...so I'm sure more advisories to drivers are sure to follow.
http://www.whosdrivingyou.org/insurance-warnings.html

AB2293 has similar Insurance requirements as the the ride-sharing law passed in Colorado. This law requires App On Primary Commercial Insurance starting from 01/15/15. And that is the goal of AB 2293 as well.
http://www.denverpost.com/business/...authorize-lyft-and-ubers-ridesharing-services
The Colorado law was embraced and touted by Uber http://blog.uber.com/regsdoneright

But hey, Uber knows what's best for Uber Drivers, right?


----------



## Orlando_Driver

Taxi companies must of paid people off...


----------



## Vahansuberx

You know what, the hell with uber. If theyre going to be lowering prices, might as well just get the whole thing to end altoghether.


----------



## LAuberX

did you know Yellow cab in Los Angeles is "self insured" ?

one way they get away with driving salvage title cars that most insurance companies won't insure.

Ever file a claim against a "self insured" company? good luck, NOTHING is ever the fault of Yellow cab.

At best they will say it was 50% the fault of each driver, then file a claim against your company based on the false decision they just made, brilliant really.


----------



## Farman vegas

LAuberX said:


> did you know Yellow cab in Los Angeles is "self insured" ?
> 
> one way they get away with driving salvage title cars that most insurance companies won't insure.
> 
> Ever file a claim against a "self insured" company? good luck, NOTHING is ever the fault of Yellow cab.
> 
> At best they will say it was 50% the fault of each driver, then file a claim against your company based on the false decision they just made, brilliant really.


 Same in Las Vegas big taxi here are self insured. My taxi in NYC cost me $14500 a year for taxicab insurance .


----------



## uberdriver

chi1cabby said:


> Please read CA Dept of Insurance Commissioner Jones report on Ride-sharing insurance, which AB2293 is based uponhttp://scribd.com/doc/217289190


Does anybody know where to find the current (as amended) version of AB2293 ? Does it include Recommendation #4 of the CA Dept of Insurance Report ? If it did, that would be fatal. That recommendation stipulates the obligation of Uber, Lyft, etc to notify the driver´s personal insurance company of their intent to drive for a TNC when applying to drive for a TNC. That would essentially mean: If you apply to drive for Uber, Lyft or a similar company, you will be immediately left without regular insurance for your car. This sounds like it only benefits the taxi industry and absolutely nobody else.


----------



## BOSsMAn

So the taxi industry is a special interest but some how this one small made up industry, ridesharing, is not a special interest?

I can't blame uber for trying to keep their business alive (or at least the ridesharing part), but it is a bit silly.


----------



## LAuberX

Rideshare may indeed be a special interest, it is MY special interest, one I need to eat.

follow the money. Insurance requirements / notifications benefit the insurance companies, THAT is where the BIG money is.

ALL Insurance costs more in California, Car, Health or Home. Their lobby is STRONG.

Taxi "regulators" are our biggest enemy here in California, because they can't "REGULATE" us!


----------



## chi1cabby

uberdriver said:


> Does anybody know where to find the current (as amended) version of AB2293 ? Does it include Recommendation #4 of the CA Dept of Insurance Report ? If it did, that would be fatal. That recommendation stipulates the obligation of Uber, Lyft, etc to notify the driver´s personal insurance company of their intent to drive for a TNC when applying to drive for a TNC. That would essentially mean: If you apply to drive for Uber, Lyft or a similar company, you will be immediately left without regular insurance for your car. This sounds like it only benefits the taxi industry and absolutely nobody else.


Here is the latest text of AB 2293.
http://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2293/2013


----------



## UberComic

Uber and Lyft deserve to get shut down for the way they treat their drivers. They had a great idea, but chose poor execution.


----------



## UberPup

Cut our pay, now you're asking for our help??

**** YOU!!!!


----------



## UberPup

They can use the 20% they take from me weekly and hire a lobbyist.

Use the safe ride fee.

When the wage is a fair wage I'll help out.

Until then, I don't recall being a part of a team. 

You want me when you want me, but if you don't need me I am a disposable chess piece, just a pawn.

I have a normal job that pays well.

Just glad I can be a part of the demise.

Ain't karma a *****. 

See how fast karma works.

Greedy ****s deserve it.

Yeah, cut my pay then ask me for help. Idiots.


----------



## Mimzy

It won't go away - they will just comply, whatever the endgame -- and "pass the cost" on to drivers via required UI (UberInsurance) @ some ungodly rate.


----------



## jakob

Pretty much at this point I don't care if it gets shut down, **** uber


----------



## UberPup

jakob said:


> Pretty much at this point I don't care if it gets shut down, **** uber


Agree. Just glad I can be here to watch it.


----------



## KrisThuy

i mean if they do win againts uber does it mean uber will have to come up with insuring their driver the right way? or is it really bye bye?


----------



## jakob

How about Kris forcing you to pay up for your insurance, and you don't want to guess how much commercial insurance is.

It's just funny and political at the same time, governor Brown has taken taxis side because he knows us uber drivers have no voice, and whenever he needs help/votes he knows taxi companies and driver will have his back. This is all LOL


----------



## chi1cabby

KrisThuy said:


> i mean if they do win againts uber does it mean uber will have to come up with insuring their driver the right way? or is it really bye bye?


It will have to provide/buy PRIMARY coverage for drivers during App On No Pax.


----------



## SupaJ

Actually Uber didn't ask drvers' help, they sent an email only to customers (riders).  The reason is obvious and makes complete sense: there are thousands of riders for each driver; customers pay fares; drivers are dispensable; for every complaining driver on this site there are hundreds who are silent (for whatever reason, whether happy or not); customers fell in love with the concept; etc., etc.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Vahansuberx said:


> Uber has been sending the following email to all of it's customers:
> 
> "Who would have thought California, the cradle for American innovation, would take the lead in killing it. Governor Brown is committed to leading California into the future, but some in the legislature are anonymously doing the bidding of trial lawyers, big taxi and insurance lobbyists. Their bill, *AB 2293, will be voted on THIS WEEK and would kill ridesharing in the Golden State.*
> 
> If you want to keep uberX in California, now is the time to act. You are voting with your wallets every day - choosing Uber for a safe, reliable ride. Call your senators and tell them to stand up for Uber, your transportation options and the state's future - not special interests.*#CAlovesUber*
> 
> - Team Uber California"
> 
> I think this is the beginning of the end for uberx and thats why they raised the prices for uber black and lowered the prices for uberx. What do you guys think?


It's a scare tactic. If the bill passes, Uber will have to take on extra insurance, and, by golly, they'll have to raise rates, who'd a thunk ?


----------



## chi1cabby

SupaJ said:


> Actually Uber didn't ask drvers' help, they sent an email only to customers (riders).  The reason is obvious and makes complete sense: there are thousands of riders for each driver; customers pay fares; drivers are dispensable; for every complaining driver on this site there are hundreds who are silent (for whatever reason, whether happy or not); customers fell in love with the concept; etc., etc.


Can you please tell me more about this magical place where "there are thousands of riders for each driver"!
I can't even imagine the surge...a driver's wet dream come true!


----------



## uberdriver

Oscar Levant said:


> It's a scare tactic. If the bill passes, Uber will have to take on extra insurance, and, by golly, they'll have to raise rates, who'd a thunk ?


They will not raise rates. Rates are only moving in one direction, and that is down (next round of rate cuts is slated for November). If the bill passes, the 20% commission charged to UberX drivers will go up, may be to 28% which is what UberXL drivers are paying.


----------



## chi1cabby

uberdriver said:


> They will not raise rates. Rates are only moving in one direction, and that is down (next round of rate cuts is slated for November). If the bill passes, the 20% commission charged to UberX drivers will go up, may be to 28% which is what UberXL drivers are paying.


I disagree. These rates are not sustainable at all. Three months max!


----------



## Googyl

Better for us. If you're driving around waiting to get a rider, why not be covered. I especially don't like that we're not covered when en route to pick up. You're basically on the clock at that point, even if you're not getting paid for the time. "Don't start the trip until they're in the car or give you the go ahead." But what if someone hits me while I'm waiting for the rider to come out?


----------



## uberdriver

chi1cabby said:


> I disagree. These rates are not sustainable at all. Three months max!


I disagree. 

You, and others on this forum, have figured it out that these rates are not sufficient to cover all of the drivers' costs, and thus working for Uber means working at a net loss. But not the tens of thousands of new drivers that sign up to drive for Uber every week. By the end of 2014 Uber expects to have done 2,000,000 background checks.

It will not be three months. More like 3 years. And by then Uber will have moved to a different business model.

As somebody else said on this forum, this is really rideshare. Uber investors are taking Uber drivers for a ride.


----------



## Just Some Guy

chi1cabby said:


> Can you please tell me more about this magical place where "there are thousands of riders for each driver"!
> I can't even imagine the surge...a driver's wet dream come true!


It's called Boston... 500,000 college students, many of which use Uber multiple times per day. But you can still only do so many trips per hour (2 or 3 on average in my experience). So no matter how you look at it, lowering rates lowers our pay.


----------



## David Madrid

I cared before uber stop caring about us Driver's a 20% pay cut 40 a month for phones Service too, our 1 dollar safe rider Just Bend Over And Blindly Follow sheep. But support them so they can make Billions and hire high power Obama advisor's. Don't fret though now that your gonna be on the Walmart pay scale your a a independent contractor woop !


----------



## David Madrid

chi1cabby said:


> Can you please tell me more about this magical place where "there are thousands of riders for each driver"!
> I can't even imagine the surge...a driver's wet dream come true!


----------



## David Madrid

The max is 25 per 5 ride but mostly only 2 but thousands wow


----------



## TrafficSlayer

chi1cabby said:


> By towing the Uber line, Uber drivers would in fact be acting against their own term long-term self-interest. Ride-sharing drivers are all operating in a very risky insurance environment.
> 
> Please read CA Dept of Insurance Commissioner Jones report on Ride-sharing insurance, which AB2293 is based uponhttp://scribd.com/doc/217289190
> 
> 19 States have issued consumer alerts on this issue. That's nearly 40% of all the states! And remember there is no ride-sharing in many states...so I'm sure more advisories to drivers are sure to follow.
> http://www.whosdrivingyou.org/insurance-warnings.html
> 
> AB2293 has similar Insurance requirements as the the ride-sharing law passed in Colorado. This law requires App On Primary Commercial Insurance starting from 01/15/15. And that is the goal of AB 2293 as well.
> http://www.denverpost.com/business/...authorize-lyft-and-ubers-ridesharing-services
> The Colorado law was embraced and touted by Uber http://blog.uber.com/regsdoneright
> 
> But hey, Uber knows what's best for Uber Drivers, right?


Your article on Colorado states that the company or the individual have to have primary insurance coverage during the gap period. That is already in place. I believe that the CA laws will require drivers to have commercial insurance, which is a different monster entirely. Also, the legislation in California requires more insurance (Uber says 20x more) than is required of traditional cabs. The bill truly is a back-room deal between insurance companies, cab companies, lawyers, and their favorite political party, the democrats.


----------



## TrafficSlayer

UberComic said:


> Uber and Lyft deserve to get shut down for the way they treat their drivers. They had a great idea, but chose poor execution.


If you feel that way, then don't drive for them, but don't say that big government should shut down a business simply because you don't like the terms that they give the people working for them, let people decide whether or not to work for them, by forcing businesses to close, you are taking away the ability to make decisions from individuals.


----------



## TrafficSlayer

UberPup said:


> Cut our pay, now you're asking for our help??
> 
> **** YOU!!!!


I will say that if the legislation passes, rates in california will necessarily have to go up, but commissions probably will too. The company will always get their cut.


----------



## TrafficSlayer

chi1cabby said:


> It will have to provide/buy PRIMARY coverage for drivers during App On No Pax.


This creates a problem because it would mean (especially on Uber, where there is no limit to your hours) that a driver can just turn on the app and not have any liability for any accidents, even if he refuses all rides. Carry bare minimum, liability only personal insurance because he's covered by an Uber policy whenever he drives, on personal business or not.


----------



## David Madrid

TrafficSlayer said:


> If you feel that way, then don't drive for them, but don't say that big government should shut down a business simply because you don't like the terms that they give the people working for them, let people decide whether or not to work for them, by forcing businesses to close, you are taking away the ability to make decisions from individuals.


Not everybody likes getting a 20% pay cut out and our 1 dollar safe rider fee gone and charging us a 40 dollar phone fee so if driver's are pissed and want to voice a opinion why are you offended?


----------



## David Madrid

Oscar Levant said:


> It's a scare tactic. If the bill passes, Uber will have to take on extra insurance, and, by golly, they'll have to raise rates, who'd a thunk ?


They can afford it with the 20% pay cut to drivers coming this week.


----------



## David Madrid

uberdriver said:


> They will not raise rates. Rates are only moving in one direction, and that is down (next round of rate cuts is slated for November). If the bill passes, the 20% commission charged to UberX drivers will go up, may be to 28% which is what UberXL drivers are paying.


----------



## TrafficSlayer

David Madrid said:


> Not everybody likes getting a 20% pay cut out and our 1 dollar safe rider fee gone and charging us a 40 dollar phone fee so if driver's are pissed and want to voice a opinion why are you offended?


Again, as a driver, if you don't want to drive for them, if the costs are too high, and it doesn't make sense for you to do so, then don't. But by using force of government to shut down a company as suggested, you take away the freedom of choice of others, both workers and consumers over your own petty gripes that could be remedied simply by not working for them or hiring them. People are whiny *****es.


----------



## David Madrid

TrafficSlayer said:


> Again, as a driver, if you don't want to drive for them, if the costs are too high, and it doesn't make sense for you to do so, then don't. But by using force of government to shut down a company as suggested, you take away the freedom of choice of others, both workers and consumers over your own petty gripes that could be remedied simply by not working for them or hiring them. People are whiny *****es.


Then bend over ***** no grease


----------



## David Madrid

TrafficSlayer said:


> Again, as a driver, if you don't want to drive for them, if the costs are too high, and it doesn't make sense for you to do so, then don't.  But by using force of government to shut down a company as suggested, you take away the freedom of choice of others, both workers and consumers over your own petty gripes that could be remedied simply by not working for them or hiring them. People are whiny *****es.


20% pay cut petty gripe botched what a blog warrior.....coward


----------



## chi1cabby

TrafficSlayer said:


> Again, as a driver, if you don't want to drive for them, if the costs are too high, and it doesn't make sense for you to do so, then don't. But by using force of government to shut down a company as suggested, you take away the freedom of choice of others, both workers and consumers over your own petty gripes that could be remedied simply by not working for them or hiring them. People are whiny *****es.


David Madrid is doing the same thing as you! Expressing his opinion, just like you! And you tag him a whiny ***** for that...Guess it makes you one too!


----------



## TrafficSlayer

David Madrid said:


> 20% pay cut petty gripe botched what a blog warrior.....coward


I don't like the new rates either, but as a driver, I have just shifted how I do things. I don't take pings more than 5 minutes away on non-surge pricing, I concentrate on airport runs that are flat rate, I leave both the lyft and uber apps on even while driving to a ping, and if I get a better opportunity on the way, I cancel and go to the one that will pay more. I don't whine and say that the company should be shut down while I am still driving for them, that would make me a fool for driving for them. "Oh, please Mr. Government, save me from my own stupid decisions!" That is what you are saying.


----------



## TrafficSlayer

chi1cabby said:


> David Madrid is doing the same thing as you! Expressing his opinion, just like you! And you tag him a whiny ***** for that...Guess it makes you one too!


His opinion is a very illogical one. He is saying that he isn't getting a good enough deal from the company that he chooses to work for, so he wants big government to punish the company by shutting them down. He says this while continuing to accept rides from said company instead of just not working for them. What he is doing is seeking validation for his ideas even though the logical thing to do would be to stop working for them if the money doesn't justify the cost and effort. He is being a child saying, "Ice cream is too expensive at Baskin Robbins, I demand that Baskin Robbins be shut down by the government because I can't afford ice cream there" as he continually charges ice cream from Baskin Robbins on his credit card. This is essentially what he is saying. All I am saying is if the ice cream is too expensive, stop buying it there, let other people decide for themselves if they are willing to pay up for Baskin Robbins or not. IOW, let businesses succeed or fail on their own merits. Let the collective decisions of millions spending their own money decide who succeeds or fails. The whole reason that the cab industry sucks so much is that they have been protected by a government who has been forcing competition out and protecting vested interests for decades.


----------



## chi1cabby

TrafficSlayer said:


> I don't like the new rates either, but as a driver, I have just shifted how I do things. I don't take pings more than 5 minutes away on non-surge pricing, I concentrate on airport runs that are flat rate, I leave both the lyft and uber apps on even while driving to a ping, and if I get a better opportunity on the way, I cancel and go to the one that will pay more. I don't whine and say that the company should be shut down while I am still driving for them, that would make me a fool for driving for them. "Oh, please Mr. Government, save me from my own stupid decisions!" That is what you are saying.


Nope! I'm not saying anything to the government. I'm having a discussion on this forum with other interested members.
That's a slippery slope argument...having app on PRIMARY insr would shut down ride-sharing.
Colorado law requires that starting Jan 15. Uber said it was "Regs done right"! Now when CA tries to do that, it's Doomsday for Ride-sharing.


----------



## David Madrid

TrafficSlayer said:


> I don't like the new rates either, but as a driver, I have just shifted how I do things. I don't take pings more than 5 minutes away on non-surge pricing, I concentrate on airport runs that are flat rate, I leave both the lyft and uber apps on even while driving to a ping, and if I get a better opportunity on the way, I cancel and go to the one that will pay more. I don't whine and say that the company should be shut down while I am still driving for them, that would make me a fool for driving for them. "Oh, please Mr. Government, save me from my own stupid decisions!" That is what you are saying.


So it's just a opinion stop crying and calling people names.


----------



## TrafficSlayer

chi1cabby said:


> Nope! I'm not saying anything to the government. I'm having a discussion on this forum with other interested members.
> That's a slippery slope argument...having app on PRIMARY insr would shut down ride-sharing.
> Colorado law requires that starting Jan 15. Uber said it was "Regs done right"! Now when CA tries to do that, it's Doomsday for Ride-sharing.


And that reply was to someone other than you, who did say that they wanted government to shut down Uber and Lyft because he wasn't happy with his paycheck.


----------



## TrafficSlayer

David Madrid said:


> So it's just a opinion stop crying and calling people names.


Opinions exist within a marketplace of ideas. Some are better than others, I pointed out why yours isn't a good one, now the only way you can defend it is to say that its an opinion, it has no logical merits.


----------



## chi1cabby

TrafficSlayer said:


> His opinion is a very illogical one. He is saying that he isn't getting a good enough deal from the company that he chooses to work for, so he wants big government to punish the company by shutting them down. He says this while continuing to accept rides from said company instead of just not working for them. What he is doing is seeking validation for his ideas even though the logical thing to do would be to stop working for them if the money doesn't justify the cost and effort. He is being a child saying, "Ice cream is too expensive at Baskin Robbins, I demand that Baskin Robbins be shut down by the government because I can't afford ice cream there" as he continually charges ice cream from Baskin Robbins on his credit card. This is essentially what he is saying. All I am saying is if the ice cream is too expensive, stop buying it there, let other people decide for themselves if they are willing to pay up for Baskin Robbins or not. IOW, let businesses succeed or fail on their own merits. Let the collective decisions of millions spending their own money decide who succeeds or fails. The whole reason that the cab industry sucks so much is that they have been protected by a government who has been forcing competition out and protecting vested interests for decades.


Again diversion to BIG BAD GOVERNMENT. No point in discussing anymore. Well disagree on this issue.
BTW there are decades of rules and laws that govern every aspect of commerce. I don't see why this bold libertarian experiment called Ride-sharing should be exempt from them.


----------



## David Madrid

TrafficSlayer said:


> And that reply was to someone other than you, who did say that they wanted government to shut down Uber and Lyft because he wasn't happy with his paycheck.


No one is saying shut the company down, there will always have people like you who accept whatever the do and try to shut down opinions by name calling I feel so or for you.


----------



## TrafficSlayer

chi1cabby said:


> Nope! I'm not saying anything to the government. I'm having a discussion on this forum with other interested members.
> That's a slippery slope argument...having app on PRIMARY insr would shut down ride-sharing.
> Colorado law requires that starting Jan 15. Uber said it was "Regs done right"! Now when CA tries to do that, it's Doomsday for Ride-sharing.


Again, the bills are not the same. Colorado does not require commercial insurance from the time the app is turned on, just from the time that a ping is accepted. They are not the same and for the exact reasons that I have been laying out about people turning on the app for insurance coverage only and rejecting all pings.


----------



## TrafficSlayer

chi1cabby said:


> Again diversion to BIG BAD GOVERNMENT. No point in discussing anymore. Well disagree on this issue.
> BTW there are decades of rules and laws that govern every aspect of commerce. I don't see why this bold libertarian experiment called Ride-sharing should be exempt from them.


Uber comic actually said in the 2nd post on this thread that Uber should be shut down. It is not a diversion to big government, it is a direct answer to an opinion expressed. One that DM tried to defend. Obviously though, DM lacks the intellectual wherewithal to understand what he is actually saying.


----------



## TrafficSlayer

David Madrid said:


> No one is saying shut the company down, there will always have people like you who accept whatever the do and try to shut down opinions by name calling I feel so or for you.





UberComic said:


> Uber and Lyft deserve to get shut down for the way they treat their drivers. They had a great idea, but chose poor execution.


Oh no?


----------



## chi1cabby

TrafficSlayer said:


> Uber comic actually said in the 2nd post on this thread that Uber should be shut down. It is not a diversion to big government, it is a direct answer to an opinion expressed. One that DM tried to defend. Obviously though, DM lacks the intellectual wherewithal to understand what he is actually saying.


I could be wrong, but I think UC was being farcical/melodramatic.


----------



## chi1cabby

TrafficSlayer said:


> Again, the bills are not the same. Colorado does not require commercial insurance from the time the app is turned on, just from the time that a ping is accepted. They are not the same and for the exact reasons that I have been laying out about people turning on the app for insurance coverage only and rejecting all pings.


Let me look into this again...I thought CO required App On Primary Insr starting in Jan 15. I will get back to you on that...


----------



## TrafficSlayer

chi1cabby said:


> Let me look into this again...I thought CO required App On Primary Insr starting in Jan 15. I will get back to you on that...


http://blog.uber.com/regsdoneright

According to Uber, the insurance is primary from the "moment that a driver accepts a ride request".


----------



## UberPup

Just Some Guy said:


> It's called Boston... 500,000 college students, many of which use Uber multiple times per day. But you can still only do so many trips per hour (2 or 3 on average in my experience). So no matter how you look at it, lowering rates lowers our pay.


I stay away from the colleges. Jack ass one night called me in 5 minutes away because he didn't want to walk up a hill, coz he was tired. Really? If you're going to do that shit then at least you can do is tip.


----------



## TrafficSlayer

chi1cabby said:


> Let me look into this again...I thought CO required App On Primary Insr starting in Jan 15. I will get back to you on that...


From the text of the bill:

(II) MEETS AT LEAST THE MINIMUM COVERAGE OF AT LEAST FIFTY
THOUSAND DOLLARS TO ANY ONE PERSON IN ANY ONE ACCIDENT, ONE
HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS TO ALL PERSONS IN ANY ONE ACCIDENT, AND
FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE
TO A LIMIT, EXCLUSIVE OF INTEREST AND COSTS, OF THIRTY THOUSAND
DOLLARS IN ANY ONE ACCIDENT; AND
(III) IS ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:
(A) FULL-TIME COVERAGE SIMILAR TO THE COVERAGE REQUIRED BY
COMMISSION RULES PROMULGATED UNDER SECTION 40-10.1-107 (1);
(B) AN INSURANCE RIDER TO, OR ENDORSEMENT OF, THE DRIVER'S
PERSONAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE POLICY REQUIRED BY THE "MOTOR
VEHICLE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT," ARTICLE 7 OF TITLE 42,C.R.S.;
OR
(C) A CORPORATE LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY PURCHASED BY THE
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANY THAT PROVIDES PRIMARY COVERAGE
FOR THE PERIOD OF TIME IN WHICH A DRIVER IS LOGGED INTO THE DIGITAL
PAGE 6-SENATE BILL 14-125NETWORK.

So, the bill sets very low coverage limits while logged in, not accepting a ping, unlike California's proposal. The Colorado bill also gives several options, 2 of which would put the costs on the driver, not Uber.


----------



## chi1cabby

David Madrid said:


> No one is saying shut the company down, there will always have people like you who accept whatever the do and try to shut down opinions by name calling I feel so or for you.


http://www.denverpost.com/News/ci_25907057/Colorado-first-to-authorize-Lyft-and

*Lyft, Uber and other ride-sharing companies will have to obtain permits from the PUC and carry at least $1 million in liability insurance. The companies, or their drivers, will also have to carry primary insurance coverage during the controversial gap period - when a driver is soliciting fares but hasn't been matched with a rider.
*
Apparently you went with what Uber says about its insurance...who you gonna believe...Uber or your lying eyes!

PS: I Do Not post rumors, innuendo, or propaganda...I believe in speaking about facts.


----------



## TrafficSlayer

chi1cabby said:


> http://www.denverpost.com/News/ci_25907057/Colorado-first-to-authorize-Lyft-and
> 
> *Lyft, Uber and other ride-sharing companies will have to obtain permits from the PUC and carry at least $1 million in liability insurance. The companies, or their drivers, will also have to carry primary insurance coverage during the controversial gap period - when a driver is soliciting fares but hasn't been matched with a rider.
> *
> Apparently you went with what Uber says about its insurance...who you gonna believe...Uber or your lying eyes!
> 
> PS: I Do Not post rumors, innuendo, or propaganda...I believe in speaking about facts.


See my post right before yours, I copied directly from the Colorado bill. The bill does not require $1MM coverage during the gap period, and also gives 3 options for that coverage, 2 of the options would come out of the driver's pocket.


----------



## chi1cabby

TrafficSlayer said:


> See my post right before yours, I copied directly from the Colorado bill. The bill does not require $1MM coverage during the gap period, and also gives 3 options for that coverage, 2 of the options would come out of the driver's pocket.


I just the read text of the bill myself. You are correct about the much lower limit during the "gap" period.
But it is primary coverage, nonetheless. 
I think AB 2293 will pass, albeit at lower coverage limits...Bonilla sounded as if she was amenable to changing the numbers.


----------



## Juan Montoya

Uber has already instituted a blanket primary commercial policy that precedes your personal policy for your vehicle. Check your emails. A notice was sent to CA drivers 7/22. As for the Assemble Bill due for vote:

Search Google for AB2293 and you'll see how much of the bill has been 'excised'. 

There's no App Killer here.


----------



## David Madrid

TrafficSlayer said:


> Oh no?


It's not a statement on shutting down uber


TrafficSlayer said:


> http://blog.uber.com/regsdoneright
> 
> According to Uber, the insurance is primary from the "moment that a driver accepts a ride request".


one of the problems is we the driver are not named under uber policy only uber so we the driver are not cover like you think or they would give us card with our name on it, and they won't. So uber is cover for a million dollars true and any loss that affects uber , not the independent contractor who isn't named, there's there fight.....


----------



## David Madrid

TrafficSlayer said:


> From the text of the bill:
> 
> (II) MEETS AT LEAST THE MINIMUM COVERAGE OF AT LEAST FIFTY
> THOUSAND DOLLARS TO ANY ONE PERSON IN ANY ONE ACCIDENT, ONE
> HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS TO ALL PERSONS IN ANY ONE ACCIDENT, AND
> FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE
> TO A LIMIT, EXCLUSIVE OF INTEREST AND COSTS, OF THIRTY THOUSAND
> DOLLARS IN ANY ONE ACCIDENT; AND
> (III) IS ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:
> (A) FULL-TIME COVERAGE SIMILAR TO THE COVERAGE REQUIRED BY
> COMMISSION RULES PROMULGATED UNDER SECTION 40-10.1-107 (1);
> (B) AN INSURANCE RIDER TO, OR ENDORSEMENT OF, THE DRIVER'S
> PERSONAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE POLICY REQUIRED BY THE "MOTOR
> VEHICLE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT," ARTICLE 7 OF TITLE 42,C.R.S.;
> OR
> (C) A CORPORATE LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY PURCHASED BY THE
> TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANY THAT PROVIDES PRIMARY COVERAGE
> FOR THE PERIOD OF TIME IN WHICH A DRIVER IS LOGGED INTO THE DIGITAL
> PAGE 6-SENATE BILL 14-125NETWORK.
> 
> So, the bill sets very low coverage limits while logged in, not accepting a ping, unlike California's proposal. The Colorado bill also gives several options, 2 of which would put the costs on the driver, not Uber.


Uber would hate that.


----------



## nicholsj100

David Madrid said:


> It's not a statement on shutting down uber
> one of the problems is we the driver are not named under uber policy only uber so we the driver are not cover like you think or they would give us card with our name on it, and they won't. So uber is cover for a million dollars true and any loss that affects uber , not the independent contractor who isn't named, there's there fight.....


UberX Drivers are still covered. As long as your Online, you will be covered in a wreck, Uber did update this policy. By law they aren't required to issue insurance cards to drivers, when the insurance company has all vehicles on record with Colorado PUC. At least that's the rule here in Denver. I have a few vehicles with Commercial Livery Limo insurance through Progressive. On my certificate of insurance it says any hired auto is covered under my business. Uber has the same type of insurance for X drivers. Ive also read tons of stories were a Driver was involved in a accident, or was issued a traffic citation while on the system, and these driver say that Uber sends a attorney to represent the driver throughout the whole process. Especially in D.C.


----------



## chi1cabby

nicholsj100 said:


> UberX Drivers are still covered. As long as your Online, you will be covered in a wreck, Uber did update this policy. By law they aren't required to issue insurance cards to drivers, when the insurance company has all vehicles on record with Colorado PUC. At least that's the rule here in Denver. I have a few vehicles with Commercial Livery Limo insurance through Progressive. On my certificate of insurance it says any hired auto is covered under my business. Uber has the same type of insurance for X drivers. Ive also read tons of stories were a Driver was involved in a accident, or was issued a traffic citation while on the system, and these driver say that Uber sends a attorney to represent the driver throughout the whole process. Especially in D.C.


The attorney representation part is true in area where Uber is operating in the regulatory shadows such as in Fl and AZ. 
I have not read/heard of any first hand accounts of Uber's insurance, primary or excess liability coming through. I have heard one hearsay account of the continent collision coverage coming through. There are scores of thousands of UberX drivers...there should be some who step forward to give it their seal of approval by now.
Anyone wanna tell their Uber insurance experience?


----------



## TrafficSlayer

David Madrid said:


> Uber would hate that.


This is the bill that uber endorsed, try to follow the conversation please.


----------



## TrafficSlayer

chi1cabby said:


> The attorney representation part is true in area where Uber is operating in the regulatory shadows such as in Fl and AZ.
> I have not read/heard of any first hand accounts of Uber's insurance, primary or excess liability coming through. I have heard one hearsay account of the continent collision coverage coming through. There are scores of thousands of UberX drivers...there should be some who step forward to give it their seal of approval by now.
> Anyone wanna tell their Uber insurance experience?


I do not have firsthand experience. I did however give a ride to an Uber driver who was hit by another Uber driver because his passenger opened his door into traffic. Uber fixed his car through their insurance and paid the deductible because he was not at fault.


----------



## TrafficSlayer

nicholsj100 said:


> UberX Drivers are still covered. As long as your Online, you will be covered in a wreck, Uber did update this policy. By law they aren't required to issue insurance cards to drivers, when the insurance company has all vehicles on record with Colorado PUC. At least that's the rule here in Denver. I have a few vehicles with Commercial Livery Limo insurance through Progressive. On my certificate of insurance it says any hired auto is covered under my business. Uber has the same type of insurance for X drivers. Ive also read tons of stories were a Driver was involved in a accident, or was issued a traffic citation while on the system, and these driver say that Uber sends a attorney to represent the driver throughout the whole process. Especially in D.C.


DMs problem is that he is severely misinformed.


----------



## David Madrid

nicholsj100 said:


> UberX Drivers are still covered. As long as your Online, you will be covered in a wreck, Uber did update this policy. By law they aren't required to issue insurance cards to drivers, when the insurance company has all vehicles on record with Colorado PUC. At least that's the rule here in Denver. I have a few vehicles with Commercial Livery Limo insurance through Progressive. On my certificate of insurance it says any hired auto is covered under my business. Uber has the same type of insurance for X drivers. Ive also read tons of stories were a Driver was involved in a accident, or was issued a traffic citation while on the system, and these driver say that Uber sends a attorney to represent the driver throughout the whole process. Especially in D.C.


Not true I received a citation for my navigation uber didn't help so that's not true.


----------



## David Madrid

Man who started all this, a lot of info flowing and a lot of name calling


----------



## Moofish

David Madrid said:


> Not true I received a citation for my navigation uber didn't help so that's not true.


I would expect them to help with regulation type issues such as driving without commercial insurance and illegal livery, but any kind of driver error such as parking and moving violations is at the fault of the driver.


----------



## David Madrid

I wasn't at fault and it was removed, but I see your point.


----------



## chi1cabby

*'The future of ride-sharing in California is now truly at stake.' Really?*

*http://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/20...fornia-is-now-truly-at-stake-really/#comments*


----------



## chi1cabby

*Ride-Share Advocates Blast Insurance Bill*
http://m.therecorder.com/module/alm/app/ca.do#!/article/1701240598


----------



## Oc_DriverX

David Madrid said:


> Not true I received a citation for my navigation uber didn't help so that's not true.


I don't understand. How do you receive a citation for your navigation? Did you break some traffic law due to a GPS-nav instruction?


----------



## David Madrid

no he said I was watching videosbut it was my navigation so I had to show it in court


----------



## Stephen Hornbeek

Hi Guys I made a couple videos to share out and help spread the word in California, Texas, and Illinois. Please take a look at the videos and share them out if you think they will help.

This one is for California:





This one is for Texas:





And this Last one is for Illinois:





I hope the videos were helpful. If you need me to make more leave me a note on my youtube channel.


----------



## Stephen Hornbeek

Hi Guys I made a couple videos to share out and help spread the word in California, Texas, and Illinois. Please take a look at the videos and share them out if you think they will help.

This one is for California:




This one is for Texas:




And this Last one is for Illinois:





I hope the videos were helpful. If you need me to make more leave me a note on my youtube channel.


----------



## chi1cabby

Stephen Hornbeek said:


> Hi Guys I made a couple videos to share out and help spread the word in California, Texas, and Illinois. Please take a look at the videos and share them out if you think they will help.
> 
> This one is for California:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This one is for Texas:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this Last one is for Illinois:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope the videos were helpful. If you need me to make more leave me a note on my youtube channel.


Welcome to forum Stephen!
Care to tell us a little bit about yourself please?


----------



## remy

What I gather is AB 2293 is good for drivers. When we turn the app on and login Uber insurance should kick in. Why not? Uber charges us the $10 weekly phone, $1 safe ride, 20% commission. Having this bill pass is a peace of mind for me and you. Uber will continue to screw the drivers regardless. So this bill is the only thing that we can be proud of in case of any accident.


----------



## UberXNinja

chi1cabby said:


> Anyone wanna tell their Uber insurance experience?


Considering all the Uber vitriol going around, if this wasn't working we would know by now from reliable sources. I'm sure there's been more than one Uber accident since July 22.


----------



## chi1cabby

Uber urges CA riders to oppose ridesharing bill, neglects to tell them what bill actually does

http://pando.com/2014/08/20/uber-ur...eglects-to-tell-them-what-bill-actually-does/


----------



## Oc_DriverX

chi1cabby said:


> Uber urges CA riders to oppose ridesharing bill, neglects to tell them what bill actually does
> 
> http://pando.com/2014/08/20/uber-ur...eglects-to-tell-them-what-bill-actually-does/


Ironically, I really didn't learn much about the bill from this story either.


----------



## chi1cabby

Oc_DriverX said:


> Ironically, I really didn't learn much about the bill from this story either.


Found the latest bill language through a link embedded in the Pando article.
I'm trying to make sense of it now...

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml;jsessionid=deb15c25f7b201154500e01b4c15


----------



## chi1cabby

So as far as I can tell, this bill asks for Primary coverage during the gap period. The limits have been reduced. The coverage can be from the company, driver or combination.
The new limits are a lot closer to limits in Colorado law that was praised by Uber and Lyft.


----------



## chi1cabby

Here is my two cents worth:
This bill will be passed and signed into law.
This bill is good for the *Drivers and Ride-sharing*, no matter what the companies now say.


----------



## The Rideshare Guy

chi1cabby said:


> Here is my two cents worth:
> This bill will be passed and signed into law.
> This bill is good for the *Drivers and Ride-sharing*, no matter what the companies now say.


2293 is good for drivers but bad for ride-sharing in general. The whole point of 2293 was to make lyft/uber insurance primary during the insurance gap period (app on, no rider) and when you're with a rider or en route. Lyft and Uber have made their insurance primary for the latter portion of the ride and that should be a majority of your rideshare driving time..

So now the bill is requiring that the same level of insurance be provided when I'm sitting in a parking lot waiting for a request. That is huge overkill imo and it goes against the efficiency that rideshare stands for. I think there are plenty of personal insurers willing to ensure this period of time but it's going to take time to work things out. Insurers have to be 100% sure they're not going to lose money on this.

Ultimately, if 2293 passes it won't be a deal breaker for rideshare like the TNC's claim but it will definitely have a small impact. TNC will have to pay extra for primary insurance during the gap period and they will then pass that on to drivers or passengers. Which one do you think they'll pick?


----------



## chi1cabby

Apparently you didn't see the pic that I uploaded. The limits have been reduced.

Then there is the obvious contradiction in your statement that "2293 is good for drivers but bad for ride-sharing in general." What is rideshare without the driver's?

There are NO insurers willing to sell coverage to the divers...the companies will have to buy the insurance and provide the coverage.
Please click on Commissioner Jones report...the link is in my post at the beginning of this thread.


----------



## The Rideshare Guy

I think those limits have always been the same and what's currently in effect but it's excess not primary. I may be reading this bill wrong since it is pretty confusing but I still see 1 million in liability for all portions of the ride:

_(2) A transportation network company shall also maintain insurance coverage that provides excess coverage of one million dollars ($1,000,000) in total per occurrence to cover any liability arising from a participating driver using a vehicle in connection with a transportation network company's online-enabled application or platform within the time periods specified in this subdivision, which liability exceeds the required coverage limits in paragraph (1).
_
That is the overkill part or am i reading the bill incorrectly?


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA

The Rideshare Guy,

Why are you so against a bill that protects the drivers?

Right now, Uber requires drivers to (potentially fraudulently) submit claims to their own insurance carrier first even though personal policies will not cover you while you are logged into a TNC app. Are you okay with that?

There are many gaps in your insurance where you and your vehicle are not covered right now. Are you okay with that?

Do you really think less people are going to use UberX if they have to pay 25 cents more per mile so Uber can carry proper insurance? They will still be 40% less than a taxi!

The bill will most likely BOOST UberX usage as people will find it less shady.


----------



## chi1cabby

The Rideshare Guy said:


> I think those limits have always been the same and what's currently in effect but it's excess not primary. I may be reading this bill wrong since it is pretty confusing but I still see 1 million in liability for all portions of the ride:
> 
> _(2) A transportation network company shall also maintain insurance coverage that provides excess coverage of one million dollars ($1,000,000) in total per occurrence to cover any liability arising from a participating driver using a vehicle in connection with a transportation network company's online-enabled application or platform within the time periods specified in this subdivision, which liability exceeds the required coverage limits in paragraph (1).
> _
> That is the overkill part or am i reading the bill incorrectly?


Please read the text in the picture I unloaded. That is the most pertinent part of the bill. Or click on the link and scroll to the middle part of the text that comes up to see for yourself.
The limit before the latest revision was $700,000, now it's $300000.


----------



## Sydney Uber

Is it 300k for personal injury cover per passenger? 

How long will that last if someone is put in ICU?

Then rehab costs if someone makes it but is maimed. 

Here i've gotta show current cover of 5million personal 3rd party cover & 20 million property damage cover before I get my Limo license renewed.


----------



## chi1cabby

Sydney Uber said:


> Is it 300k for personal injury cover per passenger?
> 
> How long will that last if someone is put in ICU?
> 
> Then rehab costs if someone makes it but is maimed.
> 
> Here i've gotta show current cover of 5million personal 3rd party cover & 20 million property damage cover before I get my Limo license renewed.


No it's actually $100,000/person, $300000 max per!
And Uber has the driver's and the public fearing that this would be the death knell of ride-sharing!
UberBasterds!


----------



## The Rideshare Guy

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> The Rideshare Guy,
> 
> Why are you so against a bill that protects the drivers?
> 
> Right now, Uber requires drivers to (potentially fraudulently) submit claims to their own insurance carrier first even though personal policies will not cover you while you are logged into a TNC app. Are you okay with that?
> 
> There are many gaps in your insurance where you and your vehicle are not covered right now. Are you okay with that?
> 
> Do you really think less people are going to use UberX if they have to pay 25 cents more per mile so Uber can carry proper insurance? They will still be 40% less than a taxi!
> 
> The bill will most likely BOOST UberX usage as people will find it less shady.


I'm not so against it, I'm on the fence. That is not correct, Uber/Lyft insurance is now primary when you have a pax or are en route to pax, so you go through them first, your personal insurance never even finds out you were in an accident bc the claim doesn't go through them.

Many gaps?? There is one gap, when you have the app on and waiting for a pax. I'm normally parked on the side of the street during this time period, why would I need so much insurance?

I don't think less people will use uberx but eventually when prices settle down, either the price to take an uber will be higher to offset un-needed insurance or drivers will get paid less. That is simple math.


----------



## Mimzy

It still could be a likely possibility that this added coverage, should it pass - gets charged to the _drivers completely_. I'll reserve judgement until it / how it happens. I think it would be highly unlikely that Uber charges the client via fee, and more realistic tack on an increased commission or some sort.


----------



## The Rideshare Guy

chi1cabby said:


> Please read the text in the picture I unloaded. That is the most pertinent part of the bill. Or click on the link and scroll to the middle part of the text that comes up to see for yourself.
> The limit before the latest revision was $700,000, now it's $300000.


I'm agreeing with you, those limits are much more reasonable and they're what uber/lyft offers right now except they'd be primary instead of in excess - that's a good thing. I still see 1 million in liability though.

Bottom line is I want to make more money in the long run so i think there are better ways to fix this. I understand why drivers support this bill but just know that you will get paid less in the future because of it.


----------



## chi1cabby

The Rideshare Guy said:


> I'm not so against it, I'm on the fence. That is not correct, Uber/Lyft insurance is now primary when you have a pax or are en route to pax, so you go through them first, your personal insurance never even finds out you were in an accident bc the claim doesn't go through them.
> 
> Many gaps?? There is one gap, when you have the app on and waiting for a pax. I'm normally parked on the side of the street during this time period, why would I need so much insurance?
> 
> I don't think less people will use uberx but eventually when prices settle down, either the price to take an uber will be higher to offset un-needed insurance or drivers will get paid less. That is simple math.


Not all drivers are sitting in a parking lot all the time between rides. Most are driving to busier spots. You prolly don't need it but most drivers do, because you'd rather scam your personal car insurance provider than have ride-sharing costs go up a couple of cents a mile! But most drivers would rather not be operating in uncertain insurance environment, I suspect, if they knew the details of this amended bill.
I got a simple idea! Just pass a law that requires clearance from your personal car insr provider to be able to do ride-sharing. Then let's see how many drivers would be for this coverage! Enough of this insurance shenanigans and hocus pocus!


----------



## Roberto

This is a no brainer. Anyone opposing this bill is simply confused. This is giving you much better insurance and protecting you when you are looking at their stupid app and trying to find the idiot who dropped the pin in some field in the middle of nowhere and you get into an accident. Who the cost gets passed on to is yet to be decided and depends on labor and demand elasticities (how many drivers there are willing to pay the cost of this insurance and how many passengers willing to pay higher fares) and it will likely be shared by passengers, capitalists and labor.


----------



## chi1cabby

The Rideshare Guy said:


> I'm agreeing with you, those limits are much more reasonable and they're what uber/lyft offers right now except they'd be primary instead of in excess - that's a good thing. I still see 1 million in liability though.
> 
> Bottom line is I want to make more money in the long run so i think there are better ways to fix this. I understand why drivers support this bill but just know that you will get paid less in the future because of it.


That one million is for the backup coverage that TNC's would have to maintain if some drivers own coverage for the gap period lapses . But drivers can't buy coverage for the gap period anyway, the coverage will have to be provided be the companies. So the 1 million clause is moot.


----------



## The Rideshare Guy

Off topic but driving to busier spots doesn't usually work: http://venturebeat.com/2014/08/11/u...teach-drivers-how-to-optimize-their-earnings/


----------



## Roberto

We need to start handing out flyers to get support for this bill. The status quo has drivers committing insurance fraud if they get into an accident while working for Uber and then file with their own insurance. You are engaged in a commercial enterprise and your insurance doesn't cover that!!!


----------



## chi1cabby

Mimzy said:


> It still could be a likely possibility that this added coverage, should it pass - gets charged to the _drivers completely_. I'll reserve judgement until it / how it happens. I think it would be highly unlikely that Uber charges the client via fee, and more realistic tack on an increased commission or some sort.


Remember Safe Ride Fee...that's what it is supposed to pay for...Insurance, Background Checks.


----------



## remy

App On...Uber covers as Primary. 

$10 weekly charge plus cutting fares plus $1 safety ride fee plus no decrease on commission take.


----------



## chi1cabby

The Rideshare Guy said:


> Off topic but driving to busier spots doesn't usually work: http://venturebeat.com/2014/08/11/u...teach-drivers-how-to-optimize-their-earnings/


Actually chasing the Surge doesn't work. Driving to where the work likely is usually works in getting you a fare.


----------



## remy

chi1cabby said:


> Remember Safe Ride Fee...that's what it is supposed to pay for...Insurance, Background Checks.


Exactly! $1 safe ride fee should cover Uber to be Primary when drivers login..isn't it??


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA

The Rideshare Guy,

You (your body) are never covered. Your vehicle is not covered unless you have a passenger in the vehicle. If that app is on and you have an accident, your personal insurance is not obliated to cover you.

Maybe you try to pull over and park, But Im sure you do quite a bit of driving while searching for a ping.

And what happens when you do a drop and then turn the app off to head home. An insurance company can still argue you were on a commercial trip while you are heading home.

Say you hit a Mercedes with the app on, but no passenger in the car. Do you think that $25,000 in property damage coverage is sufficient?

Lots of gaps my friend, lots of gaps.


----------



## Oc_DriverX

This is a bit off the topic, but I am somewhat puzzled why the same legislators (and people in general) don't demand that the minimum insurance limits aren't raised for all drivers? Someone mentions that 300k would go quickly in an ICU. Well, how fast would would the $15k/$30k CA minimum insurance get eaten up? If this is such a beneficial thing for all of society, then where is the clamor to raise the CA minimums for all drivers?


----------



## chi1cabby

Uber is a Libertarian enterprise!
It wants to abide by no existing regulation or laws on transportation!
It wants no new laws or regulations passed restricting its activities!
It wants to do as little as possible in reality, while maintaining its status as Silicon Valley and Social Media Darling!
It's upto the divers to raise their voice to get their fair share and fair treatment in this enterprise! Otherwise they will be kicked to the curb, and a new batch of drivers will be ushered in through the revolving door of this enterprise!
Thank you for reading!


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA

remy said:


> App On...Uber covers as Primary.
> 
> $10 weekly charge plus cutting fares plus $1 safety ride fee plus no decrease on commission take.


WRONG! If the App is On AND you have a passenger in the car, then Uber claims to have some sort of primary coverage. If the app is on and you don't have a passenger... Good luck!


----------



## Roberto

chi1cabby said:


> Uber is a Libertarian enterprise!
> It wants to abide by no existing regulation or laws on transportation!
> It wants no new laws or regulations passed restricting its activities!
> It wants to do as little as possible in reality, while maintaining its status as Silicon Valley and Social Media Darling!
> It's upto the divers to raise their voice to get their fair share and fair treatment in this enterprise! Otherwise they will be kicked to the curb, and a new batch of drivers will be ushered in through the revolving door of this enterprise!
> Thank you for reading!


This. I'm a libertarian myself (voted for Ron Paul and Gary Johnson) but screw not standing up for myself and doing what's directly in my best interest as an employee of Uber. Having that level of coverage would be great and would protect you and your automobile if you get into a bad accident and your next of kin would be taken care of a lot more adequately if you were to be killed on the job.


----------



## Sydney Uber

chi1cabby said:


> No it's actually $100,000/person, $300000 max per!
> And Uber has the driver's and the public fearing that this would be the death knell of ride-sharing!
> UberBasterds!


That's woefully under insured, knowing that hospital ICU costs range from $2500 - $10000+ a day. If someone was badly hurt the insurance company would stop paying out sometime after the 10th day in hospital. Pretty Slack


----------



## Sydney Uber

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> The Rideshare Guy,
> 
> You (your body) are never covered. Your vehicle is not covered unless you have a passenger in the vehicle. If that app is on and you have an accident, your personal insurance is not obliated to cover you.
> 
> Maybe you try to pull over and park, But Im sure you do quite a bit of driving while searching for a ping.
> 
> And what happens when you do a drop and then turn the app off to head home. An insurance company can still argue you were on a commercial trip while you are heading home.
> 
> Say you hit a Mercedes with the app on, but no passenger in the car. Do you think that $25,000 in property damage coverage is sufficient?
> 
> Lots of gaps my friend, lots of gaps.


Limos and Cabs here in Australia need to carry 20 million dollars worth of property insurance. 5 million personal. And that doesn't cover me at the wheel or my drivers


----------



## chi1cabby

Sydney Uber said:


> Limos and Cabs here in Australia need to carry 20 million dollars worth of property insurance. 5 million personal. And that doesn't cover me at the wheel or my drivers


Oh wow!
It's cut rate over here in comparison!


----------



## painfreepc

The Rideshare Guy said:


> Many gaps?? There is one gap, when you have the app on and waiting for a pax. I'm normally parked on the side of the street during this time period, why would I need so much insurance?.


sorry to break this news to you, i have been rear ended in riverside CA while parked on a side street across from grey hound station.


----------



## chi1cabby

Ride-sharing firms shift into overdrive to kill insurance bill

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-capitol-business-beat-20140825-story.html


----------



## chi1cabby

*Ride-Share Insurance Bill Watered Down*
*http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202668030483?*


----------



## Walkersm

That last one has a pay wall to see the article. Got another source?


----------



## chi1cabby

Walkersm said:


> That last one has a pay wall to see the article. Got another source?


That's weird! I'm still able to read the article by clicking on the link on my phone!
Anyway I'd posted the link to the latest bill text and a pic of the pertinent language of the new limits on Friday morning
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml;jsessionid=deb15c25f7b201154500e01b4c15


----------



## OldTownSean

UberPup said:


> Cut our pay, now you're asking for our help??
> 
> **** YOU!!!!


Amen .... With the new rates you might as well drive a cab anyway!

Go ahead, shut uber down.


----------



## chi1cabby

http://sfist.com/2014/08/28/insurance_bill_for_uberlyft_drivers.php


----------



## Gemgirlla

Mimzy said:


> It won't go away - they will just comply, whatever the endgame -- and "pass the cost" on to drivers via required UI (UberInsurance) @ some ungodly rate.


I believe ride share will stay in California but will need to comply with certain regulations in order to do so. Fines and more regulation will mean that they have to pass the cost on to the customer and raise rates, which are way too low right now anyway. Uber (and Lyft) have totally pushed the envelop with respect to the laws/regulations. I used to get mad about this but then realized this is what all businesses do, especially Wall Street and traders. They make their money operating w/in the loopholes until they are closed. Then they find new loopholes or just pay off politicians. With the money behind Uber, I would be shocked if they don't have politicians in their pockets. If they don't yet, they will.

As far as dropping the compensation of the drivers, this is the way of corporate America these days since 2008. Read the news. The working lower and middle class in the US have much less purchasing power now than pre recession days because wages have decreased. In my profession, I am making almost 1/2 of what I made years ago and its gone down every year since 2008 and there are less jobs. Anyone who says our economy has recovered is full of shit. One reason corporate profits are so high is that labor costs have gone down, partly because jobs are shipped off shore but also because American workers are making less. They will pay as little as possible w/o benefits as long as they can get people to work for less. The good thing about ride share is that we are independent contractors and get to deduct a lot of expenses. I get killed in taxes when I work as an employee and receive a W-2. My effective tax rate is much lower for income I earn from Uber. One reason I would hate for drivers to be classified as employees.

Re: the insurance issue, the last I heard about this is that the insurance commission in California was working on designing insurance regulations that would deal with insurance for the ride share industry. Apparently, they won't be out until July of next year. If they were planning on killing ride share in California they would not be focusing on this. Uber was been ordered to provide additional insurance to drivers. I haven't heard anything about this from Uber. There was a post on the board about this last month (and reposted above by chi1cabby ).


----------



## Gemgirlla

chi1cabby said:


> Here is the latest text of AB 2293.
> http://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2293/2013


You're awesome


----------



## Killeen Ubur

This is a Good thing a little regulation will weed out a lot of drivers that means more money for us who abide by the Law...In San Antonio cabs pay $400.00 a year for a permit NTC only going to pay $160.00 less then a cab does. There alway going to be a cheap insurance company we can go to for the coverage. I own a security company here in Texas and my insurance is only $1300.00 a year for a million dollar policy. Just the cost of doing business GROW UP...


----------



## Lou W

Wow this post started way back in August. Guess uberx survived in Cali.


----------



## SydneySuperUber

Vahansuberx said:


> Uber has been sending the following email to all of it's customers:
> 
> "Who would have thought California, the cradle for American innovation, would take the lead in killing it. Governor Brown is committed to leading California into the future, but some in the legislature are anonymously doing the bidding of trial lawyers, big taxi and insurance lobbyists. Their bill, *AB 2293, will be voted on THIS WEEK and would kill ridesharing in the Golden State.*
> 
> If you want to keep uberX in California, now is the time to act. You are voting with your wallets every day - choosing Uber for a safe, reliable ride. Call your senators and tell them to stand up for Uber, your transportation options and the state's future - not special interests.*#CAlovesUber*
> 
> - Team Uber California"
> 
> I think this is the beginning of the end for uberx and thats why they raised the prices for uber black and lowered the prices for uberx. What do you guys think?


Uber clearly need to be taken down a peg or 10! Their home turf being turfed out. Sounds pretty ominous to me. That actually happened yet?


----------



## elelegido

SydneySuperUber said:


> Uber clearly need to be taken down a peg or 10! Their home turf being turfed out. Sounds pretty ominous to me. That actually happened yet?


No, of course not. Ever heard a five year old say, "if you don't give me what I want, I'll hold my breath.... until... until...I DIE!! I WILL!!! Then you'll be sorry!"

Uber - "If this bill is passed, it will finish us!"

Same thing. Exaggeration for effect; nothing more. Shortly after they sent out this childish email, they reached agreement with the regulators and switched to openly supporting the bill.


----------

