# Retirement of 2005 vehicles in PA



## Montana (Dec 31, 2015)

These ****ing Uber assholes are forcing me to to shop for a newer car . The thing is that there are cities that the required year is 2000 but in PA is 2005 what a bunch of bullshit .. I drive a Pilot and is in immaculate condition I get nothing but wonderful reviews about my suv from riders . I think Uber should come up with a way to visually inspect vehicles for wear and tear instead of just ****ing us over..I have no money to get another vehicle I'm ****ed........!!!!!!


----------



## Fauxknight (Aug 12, 2014)

You should have know for some time that your vehicle was near the limit. If you were making money with Uber you should have enough money to get a newer vehicle, if not, then maybe Uber isn't for you. Your vehicle is 10 years old, it should be paid off or close to paid off, which means you should have been pocketing a decent amount of money and/or you should have good equity in the vehicle.


----------



## Montana (Dec 31, 2015)

I have only been doing this for 3 months and had no idea about the 2005 retirement till only a couple of weeks ago, If I was at least making a decent amount I wouldn't mind getting a newer car but here in Allentown PA there's days that you don't get a ping in 10 hours, there are just too many cars per passenger here in the Lehigh valley , my earnings for last week were less than $300 with an average of 8 hours a day online .. I just think is not fair, if you saw my vehicle you would understand...I and do move around to other towns with the same results..


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Montana said:


> These ****ing Uber assholes are forcing me to to shop for a newer car . The thing is that there are cities that the required year is 2000 but in PA is 2005 what a bunch of b


Please read what you posted. _*Yer' gripe ain't with no Uber, it's with that thar' Commonwealth o' Pennsyltucky*_. Uber is doing only what regulations of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania require that it do.

All the same, thank you for the edge-uh-mah-kayshinnall post. I was not aware that any jurisdiction had imposed an age limit on TNC vehicles. The TNCs do, themselves, and their self-imposed age limits are much looser than are the age limits on taxicabs imposed by the jurisdictions and regulators. In fact, the age limitation thing is part of the cab business' gripe about unbalanced regulation of players in the same marketplace. If a cab can not be more than say, seven years old, why should any jurisdiction permit a TNC vehicle to be more than seven years old? Either regulate all, or regulate none, but if regulate you must, you must regulate every player the same.


----------



## Montana (Dec 31, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Please read what you posted. _*Yer' gripe ain't with no Uber, it's with that thar' Commonwealth o' Pennsyltucky*_. Uber is doing only what regulations of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania require that it do.
> 
> All the same, thank you for the edge-uh-mah-kayshinnall post. I was not aware that any jurisdiction had imposed an age limit on TNC vehicles. The TNCs do, themselves, and their self-imposed age limits are much looser than are the age limits on taxicabs imposed by the jurisdictions and regulators. In fact, the age limitation thing is part of the cab business' gripe about unbalanced regulation of players in the same marketplace. If a cab can not be more than say, seven years old, why should any jurisdiction permit a TNC vehicle to be more than seven years old? Either regulate all, or regulate none, but if regulate you must, you must regulate every player the same.


I guess you're right, but cannot compare a taxi cab to a owner driven vehicle ....then I hope Uber fights this


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Montana said:


> I guess you're right, then i just hope Uner fights this


While Uber has had success in keeping off of it the same overregulation that burdens taxicabs, it has had less success in keeping _*some*_ regulation off of it. What I see happening in the short term is regulation of the TNCs similar to what Maryland or Virginia do. The day will come when the wrong passenger is in the wrong back seat of the wrong TNC vehicle, driven by the wrong driver who is in the wrong place at the wrong time. Everything will go sharply and suddenly south and there will be calls for the TNCs to be as micromanaged by the government as is the cab business.

I suspect that the courts, the politicians, the Fourth Estate and the regulators would put this age limitation in Pennsylvania into the "some" category. Other words that politicians, courts, regulators and the Fourth Estate might use in place of "some" would be "reasonable", "nominal" or "minimal".
There has been a growing trend in this country to impose some regulations on the TNCs.


----------



## Fauxknight (Aug 12, 2014)

So 2 options.

1. Get a job.

2. Trade in the Pilot. It's a nice big vehicle and if you aren't in the hole on it you should be able to trade it in for a more economical vehicle.


The thing is if you are making $300ish on a 40 plus hour work week then it may not be worth continuing with Uber. If you still owe a lot on the Pilot then a trade in may not benefit you up front...though in the long term a more economical vehicle will save you money, whether you continue with Uber or not.

Either way a side job may be in the cards, pizza delivery pays well, is always hiring, and won't care how old your car is. Again, you'll make more money even there with a more economical vehicle.


----------



## EcoboostMKS (Nov 6, 2015)

This is nothing new. Most states require taxi cabs to be 10 years or newer. I guess PA has laws regarding T


Montana said:


> I guess you're right, but cannot compare a taxi cab to a owner driven vehicle ....then I hope Uber fights this


Why not? A lot of taxi drivers own their own cars. Just be happy you can somewhat legally compete with them without having to pay any of the expenses they're forced to pay.

If you want to keep driving for uber, suck it up, and buy a newer car. It's not uber's rules, it's the states that's forcing you to get something new. If it was up to uber, I'm sure everyone would be allowed to drive anything they want.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Montana said:


> cannot compare a taxi cab to a owner driven vehicle ....





EcoboostMKS said:


> Why not? A lot of taxi drivers own their own cars. Just be happy you can somewhat legally compete with them without having to pay any of the expenses they're forced to pay.


Thank you, Ecoboost, I must have glossed over that one. I am slipping.

Oh yes you can compare a taxicab to a privately driven vehicle.

I own my cab. I am the only one that drives it. I do not rent out my taxicab. I do not want anyone else to drive it.

If you are hauling passengers for compensation, you are doing the same thing that a cab driver is doing. You are putting your vehicle through the same abuse that he is putting his. A tyre on a taxicab costs the same one hundred fifty dollars that it costs on a TNC vehicle. A brake job costs the same three hundred dollars on a taxicab that it costs on a TNC vehicle. An oil change on a taxicab costs the same thirty nine dollars ninety five that it costs on a TNC vehicle. As you run up the miles under horrid conditions on crummy streets on any vehicle, be it taxicab or TNC vehicle, parts of which most dealer line mechanics never have heard start to wear out. Those repairs are hyper-expensive. You can put whatever name tag that you will on a vehicle driven for compensation. It is just that. The only difference between my taxi and my UberX car is that the UberX car does not need a goofy looking paint job or a stupid looking light on top of it.

If I would get off my fat tookas, I would take my UberX car to the upholstery shop and have vinyl covers put onto the seats and rubber onto the floors. If anyone in Uberpeopledotnetland has a spare Round Tuit, please send me a PM.


----------



## EcoboostMKS (Nov 6, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Thank you, Ecoboost, I must have glossed over that one. I am slipping.
> 
> Oh yes you can compare a taxicab to a privately driven vehicle.
> 
> ...


Same rules applied to me when I was a taxi driver and I owned my cars. Bought the cars, paid for the meter and radio, paid for insurance, paid all the commercial registration and inspection fees, and it had to be 10 years old or newer. That's what connecticut requires. When those 10 years were up, I sold it and did the whole process over again.

I don't get why people don't think they don't drive taxi cabs as uberx drivers. Sure they get away with murder by not having to do anything their competition on the legitimate taxi side has to do, but they're still the same thing. You're driving around random strangers for money. If the state tells you that you have to get a new car every 10 years, you do it just like everyone else has to do.


----------



## Montana (Dec 31, 2015)

Thank you guys and have a happy new year


----------



## SeattleUber (Aug 30, 2014)

Stupid rule...I have a cherry SUV with 65k on it that will be deactivated in a year...WAY nicer than 95% of any Uber X or XL or black for that matter but once again some stupid arbitrary system takes you out when they should be taking out the 2010 minivans with 280k miles on them...lol Could care less about it as if I'm driving for U in 12 months I have much bigger problems than deactivation...Cheers


----------



## Davetripd (Dec 14, 2015)

Use the rules to your advantage as much as possible. Don't beat the crap out of your nice car, buy something just over the minimum?


----------



## Montana (Dec 31, 2015)

I started building my own personal customer base around a week ago, soon I'll be a my own Uber .... Ill call it MRS Montana Ride Share lol ..couple of riders have my phone number already and I'm offering 20% lower rates than Uber to them, and they all like the idea.
Signed up for square & some wanna pay cash ... we are a group of 10 drivers and we all gonna build on it .. and my 2005 will still be happy to be driving people around 
If we all unite we can control the evil empire that's Uber they say we are partners I sure as he'll don't feel like one.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

SeattleUber said:


> Stupid rule...I have a cherry SUV with 65k on it that will be deactivated in a year..some stupid arbitrary system takes you out when they should be taking out the 2010 minivans with 280k miles on them...lol


The whole age limitation thing is just something to make it easier for regulators, politicians and providers to deal with complaints about beat up vehicles. If you do an arm sweep across the table, you get rid of all of the chipped and dirty glasses. As for the clean and intact glasses that you take with you? You write off those, as, the perception is that they are a smallest of the small minorities.

It would be better if the judgement were made on the specific vehicle, but that would be too much like work.

The result is similar to what the quoted poster is trying to describe. Perfectly serviceable vehicles are removed from service while beat up hoopties are out there, still. I have started to see this in the TNC business. I have seen this in the cab business, for years..



Montana said:


> I started building my own personal customer base around a week ago, soon I'll be a my own Uber .... Ill call it MRS Montana Ride Share lol ..couple of riders have my phone number already and
> 
> I'm offering 20% lower rates than Uber to them, and they all like the idea.
> 
> Signed up for square & some wanna pay cash ... we are a group of 10 drivers and we all gonna build on it ..


Be sure that everyone involved has proper insurance to haul passengers for compensation. Make them provide at least a copy of the Declaration Page and keep it on record somewhere. You may not think that you want to put anything to paper or screen immediately, but at some point, you will see that it will be necessary.

You will find very quickly that if you are charging eighty per-cent of UberX rates, you are not charging enough. Even if you were to put the rates at ninety to one hundred per cent of UberX, you will find that you are not charging enough. In the beginning, you might want to put the rates and ninety-five to one hundred per cent of UberX and push for rendering faster service than does UberX.

I would retain the Safe Ride Fee and use it to purchase a one million dollar umbrella policy. They are not that expensive. The reason for this is:

You have drivers carrying various policy limits. Some carry only state minimums. Some carry 100/300/100. You have a catastrophic scenario such as this: One of your drivers blows a red light and T-bones a 700 series BMW. In this BMW, you have the husband who is driving; his wife, in the front seat, is thirty-two weeks along; in the back seat are two mothers in law in their eighties. I do not know what State Minimums are in Pennsylvania, but here, they are 25/50/10. At any rate, the husband and wife are maimed. The wife goes into labour, the baby dies. The two mothers-in-law die. You are looking at a one-point-five million dollar judgement, _*MINIMUM*_. For how much is the insurance company on-the-hook? Sixty-thousand dollars; that is _*IT*_. Sixty-thousand dollars and the insurance company is done, O-W-T and finished. _* That will not cover even the cost of the BMW.*_

You have an entity, be it formal or informal, that is rendering this service with all of these motor vehicles affiliated with it. The plaintiff's lawyer will be looking to attach those vehicles so that they can be sold to cover more of the judgement. He might get his attachment. Now, you are out of business. If you have that umbrella policy, you are covered for most of it. The plaintiff's lawyer might back off of the rest, as he would have to spend time and money to get it. Either that, or he might settle for less and those in the cooperative could be assessed a reasonable amount of money to pay off the deal.

Another thing to watch is running afoul of State or Local regulators. Yes, I know that Uber is doing it, why can not you? You may be correct, you might even convince me, but, sadly for you, I _*ain't the guy you gotta' convince*_.

As we say on the stage, Break a leg, but do take all care.


----------



## Fauxknight (Aug 12, 2014)

The age limitation at least helps slow the flow of new drivers. No age limitation would mean both twice as many drivers on the road and lower rates, two things no current driver wants.


----------



## Davetripd (Dec 14, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> You have drivers carrying various policy limits. Some carry only state minimums. Some carry 100/300/100. You have a catastrophic scenario such as this: One of your drivers blows a red light and T-bones a 700 series BMW. In this BMW, you have the husband who is driving; his wife, in the front seat, is thirty-two weeks along; in the back seat are two mothers in law in their eighties. I do not know what State Minimums are in Pennsylvania, but here, they are 25/50/10. At any rate, the husband and wife are maimed. The wife goes into labour, the baby dies. The two mothers-in-law die. You are looking at a one-point-five million dollar judgement, _*MINIMUM*_. For how much is the insurance company on-the-hook? Sixty-thousand dollars; that is _*IT*_. Sixty-thousand dollars and the insurance company is done, O-W-T and finished. _* That will not cover even the cost of the BMW.*_


Someone has an over active imagination ;-)


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Davetripd said:


> Someone has an over active imagination ;-)


No, someone has something called "experience".

.......must be a Broncos fan, about what I would expect from one...............................


----------



## Davetripd (Dec 14, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> No, someone has something called "experience".
> 
> .......must be a Broncos fan, about what I would expect from one...............................


A sense of humor? Any other incredibly detailed imaginary scenarios out there people need to be aware of when potentially starting a rideshare company?


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Davetripd said:


> Any other incredibly detailed imaginary scenarios out there people need to be aware of when potentially starting a rideshare company?


The referenced scenario was simply an theoretical illlustration of a "catastrophic" collision. Its purpose was to provide a theoretical example of a catastrophe. Catastrophes do happen. Businesses do need to protect themselves against catastrophes. As a former company official, I have handled them. This is from where I get my "experience".

One of the purposes of an umbrella policy, in general, is to protect against catastrophes. Umbrella policies provide secondary coverage. This means that the primary policy, which is designed to protect against ordinary or usual liabilities, always responds first and covers the losses incurred--up to policy limits. The insured purchases a policy that carries liability limits sufficient to cover the highest amount of loss that would be expected due to usual business activities. Every once in a while, there occurs a loss the amount of which is outside, and, in the case of such losses, more often than not, far outside, the limits of the liability of the primary insurer. This is where the umbrella policy comes into play. The insurers understand that the business has a primary policy to cover usual losses. The insurers understand that catastrophic losses are not frequent. This is why umbrella policies are not expensive, in comparison to standard liability policies. The odds of an umbrella policy's having to respond are far less than those of a standard policy. The standard policy might have to respond several times in a year, while the umbrella might have to respond only once in several years.


----------



## Davetripd (Dec 14, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> The referenced scenario was simply an theoretical illlustration of a "catastrophic" collision. Its purpose was to provide a theoretical example of a catastrophe. Catastrophes do happen. Businesses do need to protect themselves against catastrophes. As a former company official, I have handled them. This is from where I get my "experience".
> 
> One of the purposes of an umbrella policy, in general, is to protect against catastrophes. Umbrella policies provide secondary coverage. This means that the primary policy, which is designed to protect against ordinary or usual liabilities, always responds first and covers the losses incurred--up to policy limits. The insured purchases a policy that carries liability limits sufficient to cover the highest amount of loss that would be expected due to usual business activities. Every once in a while, there occurs a loss the amount of which is outside, and, in the case of such losses, more often than not, far outside, the limits of the liability of the primary insurer. This is where the umbrella policy comes into play. The insurers understand that the business has a primary policy to cover usual losses. The insurers understand that catastrophic losses are not frequent. This is why umbrella policies are not expensive, in comparison to standard liability policies. The odds of an umbrella policy's having to respond are far less than those of a standard policy. The standard policy might have to respond several times in a year, while the umbrella might have to respond only once in several years.


Haha, I just got a laugh about how detailed the scenario was


----------

