# Uber files defense in SF NYE death suit



## franklin (Apr 21, 2014)

Uber files defense in SF NYE death lawsuit. *Who you are really dealing with if you drive for Uber ??*

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2014/05/05/uber-files-defense-new-years-eve-death-driver-was-not-our-employee#.

The dance continues. Reminds me how animals in nature undertake diversionary tactics to distract other animals from their vulnerable young.

Uber's defense filing claims the driver was not an Uber employee and had no reason to interact with the Uber app at the time of the accident. Under Uber's Transportation Services Agreement the driver acknowledges that he was not an employee, agent, joint venturer or partner of Rasier (Uber's subsidiary) for any purpose.

Uber claims that personal insurance should kick in and cover a driver (a claim the personal insurance industry has flatly refused) when the Uber app is off. The lawsuit uses a similar defense, claiming the driver alone was liable. It says he was not providing transportation services through the Uber App, not transporting a rider, not en route to pick up a rider, and not receiving a request for transportation services through the app.

Of course, the driver did have the Uber app on waiting for a fare request, driving around as he waited for a fare request on the app. The lawsuit mentions this but casts it as " he was looking at a "GPS-generated map with his location," and had "no reason" to interact with his phone."

Uber claims an app, by definition, is not liable for such claims. "Plaintiffs' products liability claim is barred," the lawsuit states, "because the Companies primarily provide services, not products."

So let's see, they're not a taxi company because they don't have cars or dispatchers, they're not a transportation company becasue they're really a technology company. And they have no product liabilty for their app because they provide services not products. But they're really a technology company.


----------



## UberOnSD (Mar 23, 2015)

franklin said:


> Uber files defense in SF NYE death lawsuit. *Who you are really dealing with if you drive for Uber ??*
> 
> http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2014/05/05/uber-files-defense-new-years-eve-death-driver-was-not-our-employee#.
> 
> ...


At the end of the day, it will be the rotten lawyers laughing all the way to the bank


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

UberOnSD said:


> At the end of the day, it will be the rotten lawyers laughing all the way to the bank


I think the little girls parents and lawyers would gladly give up every cent of the settlement, if they could get her back.


----------



## UberOnSD (Mar 23, 2015)

observer said:


> I think the little girls parents and lawyers would gladly give up every cent of the settlement, if they could get her back.


The parents, I would agree; the lawyers, not so much.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

UberOnSD said:


> At the end of the day, it will be the rotten lawyers laughing all the way to the bank





UberOnSD said:


> The parents, I would agree; the lawyers, not so much.


And how would the parents get Uber to pay up, if it weren't for the attorney representing them?
Uber said it wasn't their problem because the Driver wasn't on a ride at the time when he ran over the Liu family, killing Sofia Liu. The Driver's personal car insurance didn't cover him cause he was driving for Uber at that time.


----------



## Sacto Burbs (Dec 28, 2014)

And so the whole issue of distracted driving will come up. It seems to me that Uber should not send you a ping when it knows you're not stationary. It is deliberately participating in creating the distracted driver scenario. it is not like the liquor industry, Uber knows if you're moving or not.

The best thing to come out of this for drivers would be Uber requiring the driver to be stationary for three minutes, or whatever the maximum length of time for the traffic signal is before it sends you a ping.


----------



## puber (Aug 31, 2014)

It was established that he just dropped a party in a residential neighborhood and was rushing back to the busy uber area.
Saying that driver was collecting sea shells and had nothing to do with uber is not gonna hold water.
How travis still didn't settle this case?
If he loses officially, there will be more insurance regulations imposed on him(money drain).
It's obviously, stupid of him to **** with people's emotions.


----------



## puber (Aug 31, 2014)

Taxi digital dispatsh system cuts the city into little segments and assigns every driver a position in that sector.
Drivers can see how many cabs in which sector and how many trips it produced in the last 8 minutes. Then they choose if they want to wait and keep their position or move and be the last in digital line in another sector...
This prevents drivers from constantly cruising around the hot spots or parking in red zones. It saves gas too.

This "nearest uber gets the call" bs makes us do crazy shit and create road hazards and accidents.


----------



## Badbeat (Oct 15, 2014)

franklin said:


> Uber files defense in SF NYE death lawsuit. *Who you are really dealing with if you drive for Uber ??*
> 
> http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2014/05/05/uber-files-defense-new-years-eve-death-driver-was-not-our-employee#.
> 
> ...


I read the whole story several times.... And if UBER is telling the TRUTH, that he was not driving with a UBER app user in his car, and was not under a request to pick up, then he was just driving around under his free will. Case closed

If I have no fare, I go home. "If" on my way home I tangle with another object...my bad!


----------



## Walkersm (Apr 15, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> And how would the parents get Uber to pay up, if it weren't for the attorney representing them?
> Uber said it wasn't their problem because the Driver wasn't on a ride at the time when he ran over the Liu family, killing Sofia Liu. The Driver's personal car insurance didn't cover him cause he was driving for Uber at that time.


Actually in this case the Drivers personal insurance did offer up his $30K limit (State minimum liability coverage) as a settlement in the case. Of course that was turned down. But I do not believe they are under any obligation to defend him or represent him. Think he has a criminal lawyer for that anyway.


----------



## LAndreas (Feb 27, 2015)

franklin said:


> Of course, the driver did have the Uber app on waiting for a fare request, driving around as he waited for a fare request on the app. The lawsuit mentions this but casts it as " he was looking at a "GPS-generated map with his location," and had "no reason" to interact with his phone."


I don't mean to weigh in on Uber Good/Uber Bad. I'd just like to state something obvious: this guy really had no business taking his eyes off the road while driving (!) to look at his screen (I understand he wasn't pinged, he checked out the map).
If I cause a wreck because I watch "Monday Night Football" on my handheld device while driving (!), I couldn't quite claim any culpability by ABC/Fox (or whichever network streamed the telecast), could I?

That's Uber's defense here, is it not.

Apart from this guy being a distracted driver, he's also a dimwit: how can you possibly earn money driving around aimlessly while waiting for your next ping. Go to a promising location, put the car in park, wait for the ping.

Sacto Burbs: I am not in favor of requiring Uber to build in safeguards for morons. That would limit incredibly the utility of the Uber app for me when I know how to use it properly.
This guy wasn't very smart, and my sympathy with him is limited. I'd certainly find it unfair if I'd be made to suffer now because that guy did something dumb.

Following that logic, there probably wouldn't be sharp kitchen knifes sold anymore. I'm sure some moron managed to cut his/her fingers of with one. To require the manufacturers to henceforth only sell dull knifes to prevent the occasional moron from losing a couple digits wouldn't be thought of as a very equitable solution for the rest of us, would it?


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

This is the case file for Liu vs Uber.
Uber response is a particularly good read.

http://webaccess.sftc.org/Scripts/M...ME=ValidateCaseNumber&ARGUMENTS=-ACGC14536979


----------



## Sydney Uber (Apr 15, 2014)

LAndreas said:


> I don't mean to weigh in on Uber Good/Uber Bad. I'd just like to state something obvious: this guy really had no business taking his eyes off the road while driving (!) to look at his screen (I understand he wasn't pinged, he checked out the map).
> If I cause a wreck because I watch "Monday Night Football" on my handheld device while driving (!), I couldn't quite claim any culpability by ABC/Fox (or whichever network streamed the telecast), could I?
> 
> That's Uber's defense here, is it not.
> ...


The driver said he was driving towards a busy area.

Uber directs drivers needlessly in the same manner every time they throw up a fake surge. The driver would not have killed the child if UBER wasnt facilitating his ********** service.


----------



## UberOnSD (Mar 23, 2015)

Sydney Uber said:


> The driver said he was driving towards a busy area.
> 
> Uber directs drivers needlessly in the same manner every time they throw up a fake surge. The driver would not have killed the child if UBER wasnt facilitating his ********** service.


So if Uber is banned, there will be no more deaths from traffic accidents. You are amazing. What are this sissies in your government putting in the water down there?


----------



## LAndreas (Feb 27, 2015)

Okay, this thread just turned to shite. Please someone notify the moderator, not sure how to do that.

(I don't want to single out Sydney Uber by reporting on him, but it's prob better if this thread gets locked)


----------



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

Perhaps this will steer the conversation back to something rational:

Here is a quote from University of Santa Clara law professor Robert Peterson:

___________________________

"When is driving "in connection with?" The "Case of the Yoga and Yoghurt" provides a good analogy. The basic rule is that collisions that occur while "coming and going" to and from work are not the responsibility of one's employer. Simple commuting is not within the "scope of employment." When, however, a person uses her automobile for work purposes, the rule completely changes. Judy Bamberger, an employee of an insurance company, used her car during work to visit clients and carry out other work-related chores. On her way home, she decided to stop for yoga and yoghurt. As she made a left turn, she collided with a motorcyclist. Is the employer responsible? "Yes."

In _Moradi v. Marsh USA, Inc_., 210 Cal. App.4th 886 (2013*), *the court of appeal held that her driving fell within the scope of her employment because, since she used her car in her work, going to and from work conferred an "incidental benefit" on the employer. Put another way (although the court did not use these words), it was *in connection with* her employment.

It would seem to follow that if one must use a car in an activity (such as TNC driving), then going to or from that activity is "in connection with" the activity. Because Period One (Log On) is part of a TNC's "online-enabled application or platform," driving to a surge zone with the intention of logging onto the app upon arrival is driving "in connection with" driving during Period One. If this analysis is correct, it again undermines the clarity of the App On/App Off bookends."

- See more at: http://insurancethoughtleadership.c...for-all-states/#sthash.d4FGOogA.Q1pKhEvR.dpuf


----------



## Walkersm (Apr 15, 2014)

Very true Kevin, only difference here is Uber Drivers are independent contractors. That is what uber is banking on that will shield them from liability. If they can establish driving for Uber is Not "inherently dangerous work" then they can be shielded. This is why the Dolan law firm is arguing so much about how much the drivers have to interact with the app as they drive. It's a solid point. Sacto Burbs 3 minute rule mentioned above would be the perfect solution and most likely even shield Uber further from liability since they could say "there is no way you can use our app unsafely.

_by William L. Porter, Attorney at Law_

Many contractors and owners believe that if they hire an independent contractor to perform work and that independent contractor causes injury to others during the performance of that work, then it is the independent contractor alone who will be liable for those injuries. In most circumstances, this is correct. The owner or the contractor will not be held liable for injuries caused by his or her independent contractor. However, this is not always the case.

Under the "Peculiar Risk Doctrine" and California cases interpreting the doctrine, a contractor or owner who hires an independent contractor to do work which is considered to be "inherently dangerous work" can be still be held directly liable for damages when that independent contractor causes injury to others by negligently performing the work.

-------------

The the questions becomes at what point is an Uber driver "performing the work"
The Dolan law firm is arguing having available vehicles on the Uber system is what adds value to the system so anytime the driver is available on the uber system they are adding value and thus "preforming the work"


----------



## LAndreas (Feb 27, 2015)

KevinH said:


> [..] Judy Bamberger, an employee of an insurance company [..] Is the employer responsible? "Yes."
> 
> In _Moradi v. Marsh USA, Inc_., 210 Cal. App.4th 886 (2013*), *the court of appeal held that her driving fell within the scope of her employment because, since she used her car in her work, going to and from work conferred an "incidental benefit" on the employer. Put another way (although the court did not use these words), it was *in connection with* her employment.


All of us who are not livery drivers in the employ of a limo company are self employed when accepting rides through the Uber platform. Hence, supported by what you contribute here, the individual's personal insurance policy is liable (or he himself, if he violated its terms and covenants and caused it to be void) for the damage caused by this distracted driver.


----------



## Walkersm (Apr 15, 2014)

LAndreas said:


> All of us who are not livery drivers in the employ of a limo company are self employed when accepting rides through the Uber platform. Hence, supported by what you contribute here, the individual's personal insurance policy is liable (or he himself, if he violated its terms and covenants and caused it to be void) for the damage caused by this distracted driver.


That's a whole other area of Law LA. If you are an actual Employee of a limo company you cannot magically become an independent contractor for certain jobs. I know that's how it is done and how you are paid but does not mean it is legal in any way.


----------



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

The other argument frequently made is that having the driver app on and displaying the driver's availability to users provides a benefit to the TNC. Passengers do not create a "blind" request regardless of availablility or time. Passengers base their use on what they see on the app screen, the essential difference between E-hailing and placing a phone call to a conventional taxi company. The driver incurs time and expense to provide that benefit and therefore creates a business relationship during period 1. This is one of the primary arguments in the SF case.


----------



## puber (Aug 31, 2014)

LAndreas said:


> All of us who are not livery drivers in the employ of a limo company are self employed when accepting rides through the Uber platform. Hence, supported by what you contribute here, the individual's personal insurance policy is liable (or he himself, if he violated its terms and covenants and caused it to be void) for the damage caused by this distracted driver.


All cabbies in LA are independent contractors and all cab companies pay for accidents with pedestrians. Some of those companies are in bankruptcy all the time to delay paymets


----------



## Walkersm (Apr 15, 2014)

puber said:


> All cabbies in LA are independent contractors and all cab companies pay for accidents with pedestrians. Some of those companies are in bankruptcy all the time to delay paymets


Yea but Uber is not going to just fall in and do what is already being done in the transportation industry. They got to disrupt things. If they can prove you can remove all liability just by directing your workers with an app that is the reason they will be worth 40 billion. No one will ever hire an employee again. We will all just get works via software.


----------



## LAndreas (Feb 27, 2015)

Walkersm said:


> That's a whole other area of Law LA. If you are an actual Employee of a limo company you cannot magically become an independent contractor for certain jobs. I know that's how it is done and how you are paid but does not mean it is legal in any way.


You pointed out that a driver driving around in his/her capacity of an employee does so on behalf of the company, which makes company (co-)liable for any damage caused by mishaps.
As a livery driver employed by a limo company driving the Uber platform, the limo company has liability.

If you're in it on your own time and in self employ as the dude was in the example discussed, you yourself are your employer.

Not Uber.


----------



## Walkersm (Apr 15, 2014)

LAndreas said:


> You pointed out that a driver driving around in his/her capacity of an employee does so on behalf of the company, which makes company (co-)liable for any damage caused by mishaps.
> As a livery driver employed by a limo company driving the Uber platform, the limo company has liability.
> 
> If you're in it on your own time and in self employ as the dude was in the example discussed, you yourself are your employer.
> ...


Oh yes I think I understand what you are saying now. Yes if Mussafar was an employee of a company that contracted with Uber and was being paid as an employee the liability would have stopped at the employing company. But sine he was a direct Independent contractor the doctrine of Peculiar Risk may apply if the court decides that way. The owner of a business cannot be his own employee. Meaning you cannot be an owner and an employee of a company. Thus you cannot be an Independent contractor and an employee at the same time. One or the other.


----------



## LAndreas (Feb 27, 2015)

Walkersm said:


> Oh yes I think I understand what you are saying now. Yes if Mussafar was an employee of a company that contracted with Uber and was being paid as an employee the liability would have stopped at the employing company. But sine he was a direct Independent contractor the doctrine of Peculiar Risk may apply if the court decides that way. The owner of a business cannot be his own employee. Meaning you cannot be an owner and an employee of a company. Thus you cannot be an Independent contractor and an employee at the same time. One or the other.


Yes, I was using the colloquial term "self-employed". That may not be sound legal doctrine, but tax law actually knows the concept. If you have an S Corp or similarly structured loan-out company, you can be your own "employee".

But agreed, let's not get hung up on literal definition of terms..


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

UberOnSD said:


> So if Uber is banned, there will be no more deaths from traffic accidents. You are amazing. What are this sissies in your government putting in the water down there?


The point is that he probably would not have even been driving at that time if not for uber. AND uber encourages us to run to busy areas by using surges. All those emails and texts are proof and could be argued are a form of brainwashing.

If a cab is going to a busy area without a pax their insurance pay.


----------



## UberOnSD (Mar 23, 2015)

Sydney Uber said:


> I'll preface this post with a statement of fact - you're an idiot looking for a stage to give your inner moron an audience. Please don't leave! You can't put a price on the service you provide to all those out there with genuine mental problems. Even Autistic folk who read or see you are given the rare feeling of superiority when in your presence. So keep it up bud!
> 
> You can't possibly have children, the lack of any sympathy to this topic gives that away. i guess i have a unbalanced view on this topic because I have 3 little kids. I hope one day you find a woman stupid enough to marry you and adopt a child together. That's gonna be necessary as you've jerked off any good seed years ago.
> 
> ...


I contend you have reading comprehension issues. My point is that he could have just as easily been playing with a radio or a burger. There have been people killed in car accidents every day before the inventor of Uber was even born.

You would make a good lapdog for a trial lawyer. And the fact that you have three little brats is of no interest to me.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

UberOnSD said:


> I contend you have reading comprehension issues. My point is that he could have just as easily been playing with a radio or a burger. There have been people killed in car accidents every day before the inventor of Uber was even born.
> 
> You would make a good lapdog for a trial lawyer. And the fact that you have three little brats is of no interest to me.


If you make that argument then why do certain jurisdictions make texting while driving a ticketable offense? Or using a phone AT ALL in a school zone? Just because there are many things a driver can do to make him distracted doesn't mean that a company who REQUIRES you to be distracted in order to stay employed (self or not doesn't matter) is not liable for that distraction. Uber requires it by their acceptance rate and encourages it with their texts and surges.

Mcdonalds does not expect you to eat their food while driving. Your radio is under your control and car manufacturers have tried to make it safer by putting controls on the steering wheel etc. They have done the same with Bluetooth in the car for phones.

Uber on the other hand makes it necessary to LOOK at your phone and interact with it and within a short time span. Too little to pull over and think.


----------



## UberOnSD (Mar 23, 2015)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> If you make that argument then why do certain jurisdictions make texting while driving a ticketable offense? Or using a phone AT ALL in a school zone? Just because there are many things a driver can do to make him distracted doesn't mean that a company who REQUIRES you to be distracted in order to stay employed (self or not doesn't matter) is not liable for that distraction. Uber requires it by their acceptance rate and encourages it with their texts and surges.
> 
> Mcdonalds does not expect you to eat their food while driving. Your radio is under your control and car manufacturers have tried to make it safer by putting controls on the steering wheel etc. They have done the same with Bluetooth in the car for phones.
> 
> Uber on the other hand makes it necessary to LOOK at your phone and interact with it and within a short time span. Too little to pull over and think.


Uber does not "mandate" that you look at anything. I have no problem glancing at a phone in the windshield. Cellphone laws were enacted to address people who might not be good drivers to begin with, at the behest of control freaks who cant mind their own business.

I could pull to the side of the road if I need to text.

Accidents happen. Anyone who cant accept that should not go outside.


----------



## Sydney Uber (Apr 15, 2014)

LAndreas said:


> Okay, this thread just turned to shite. Please someone notify the moderator, not sure how to do that.
> 
> (I don't want to single out Sydney Uber by reporting on him, but it's prob better if this thread gets locked)


Apologies to you and others I've offended, you are not the intended targets.

If somebody decides to let me have it unnecessarily- I will give it back in spades. He is a Moron and for his own future development he needs to come to grips with that.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

UberOnSD said:


> Uber does not "mandate" that you look at anything. I have no problem glancing at a phone in the windshield. Cellphone laws were enacted to address people who might not be good drivers to begin with, at the behest of control freaks who cant mind their own business.
> 
> I could pull to the side of the road if I need to text.
> 
> Accidents happen. Anyone who cant accept that should not go outside.


Well half the drivers on the road are below average drivers. Which is why cellphone laws WERE enacted. Because a "poor" driver doesn't need one more distraction. And maybe YOU can glance at your phone and immediately know where that address in that subdivision is in your huge town but most average folks cannot. And that's who uber onboards. And then if they take too long to accept because they need to pull over they have a bad acceptance rate. If the y accept and then pull over and cancel they have a bad cancel rate.

Uber encourages drivers to do something inherently distracting by penalizing them if they don't.


----------



## UberOnSD (Mar 23, 2015)

Sydney Uber said:


> Apologies to you and others I've offended, you are not the intended targets.
> 
> If somebody decides to let me have it unnecessarily- I will give it back in spades. He is a Moron and for his own future development he needs to come to grips with that.


I agree that the thread should be locked. When someone starts calling fellow drivers a moron and then makes reference to kids with disabilities to prove his point, its time to end it.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

UberOnSD said:


> I agree that the thread should be locked. When someone starts calling fellow drivers a moron and then makes reference to kids with disabilities to prove his point, its time to end it.


So you've realized your arguments have no merit!


----------



## UberOnSD (Mar 23, 2015)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> So you've realized your arguments have no merit!


Well fuzzynutz, to you they may have no merit. But to me they do, so you are cordially invited to go take a long walk on a short pier


----------



## Sacto Burbs (Dec 28, 2014)

I hate the Uber ping. It hits a resonant frequency in my body. I flinch every time I hear it. I feel like some threw a sharp rock at my head.

And it bring the thrill of a possible big fare. Talk about sick conditioning.

Never Take Your Eyes Off The Road. Never. Ask any traffic cop. Even checking your blind spot causes trouble.

Those who claim they can glance safely have just not yet hit the point in time where your multi ton leathal weapon hits soft flesh.

So ... any incoming signal into your car is as bad as a sneeze. Glancing is the same as shutting your eyes to the road.

How many little girls have to die before Uber and others are stopped from sending signals onto our cars, providing info on apps while they *know* we are moving ... while we are driving.

(New thread for visual Navigation as the cause for distracted driving needed. )


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

I think Navigation is less of an evil than squinting to see street signs at night and realising you need to move over 3 lanes at the last minute when you don't know the area. Yes staring at a nav screen is not good but if I am really USING the nav I leave the sound on.

Plus before nav folks would drive around trying to look at a paper map.. THAT was worse. 


Sacto Burbs said:


> I hate the Uber ping. It hits a resonant frequency in my body. I flinch every time I hear it. I feel like some threw a sharp rock at my head.
> 
> And it bring the thrill of a possible big fare. Talk about sick conditioning.
> 
> ...


I


----------



## Sydney Uber (Apr 15, 2014)

UberOnSD said:


> I agree that the thread should be locked. When someone starts calling fellow drivers a moron and then makes reference to kids with disabilities to prove his point, its time to end it.


You really are short of detail aren't you? Where in God's name did I refer to kids with disabilities?

I said, You make those Folk with genuine mental problems feel superior. You have found your calling in life and you do it well.

I've met a lot of unproductive, mean as cat shit folk like you in the 30 years of driving. But after I take their money and they shut the door, they're quickly forgotten

But you UberOnSD are different, seeking to leave the driving world a legacy confirming Your moronic insensitive DNA. The little girl is still dead. Killed by a driver carrying out subcontracted services facilitated by a non-authorised Taxi Network.

THis technology/communications company is NO different to Taxi companies /taxi owners around the world who are held liable if a driver (Independent subcontractors or not) is dispatched by them and dangerously carry out their tasks or role. (E.G If a Cab driver is given a destination address and drops pax on opposite on a busy road and pax is hit crossing then 3 parties share responsibility. DRIVER, Taxi Owner & Network).

He was being led back to a UBER busy area, he would not have killed the little girl if Travis Kalanick and his desire to out grow Lyft in the marketplace didn't exist.

In this matter You and UBER are disgustingly blasé of the role the App played in the child's death.


----------



## Lidman (Nov 13, 2014)

franklin said:


> Uber files defense in SF NYE death lawsuit. *Who you are really dealing with if you drive for Uber ??*
> 
> http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2014/05/05/uber-files-defense-new-years-eve-death-driver-was-not-our-employee#.
> 
> ...


The more UBER tries to distance themselves from this tragedy, the more pathetic they look.


----------



## UberOnSD (Mar 23, 2015)

Lidman said:


> The more UBER tries to distance themselves from this tragedy, the more pathetic they look.


This will need to be settled by the courts, not by public opinion.


----------



## frndthDuvel (Aug 31, 2014)

Sacto Burbs said:


> And so the whole issue of distracted driving will come up. It seems to me that Uber should not send you a ping when it knows you're not stationary. It is deliberately participating in creating the distracted driver scenario. it is not like the liquor industry, Uber knows if you're moving or not.
> 
> The best thing to come out of this for drivers would be Uber requiring the driver to be stationary for three minutes, or whatever the maximum length of time for the traffic signal is before it sends you a ping.


One thing to get a Ping while moving. But to allow PAX to text in states where illegal, is wrong. I believe they have taken away that function in Amsterdam as a driver from there has said. They should take it away now, until Arrive has been punched.


----------

