# New Ohio Rideshare Law



## Tim In Cleveland (Jul 28, 2014)

http://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/solarapi/v1/general_assembly_131/bills/hb237/EN/05?format=pdf

My interpretations:

Requires primary insurance that provides:
When logged in and available
$50K/$100K with $25K property insurance
While "engaged in transporation company services":
$1,000,000 bodily injury/death
The policy may be arranged by either the driver or TNC but if the driver does not have such coverage amounts, the TNC must provide it.
Such policy MAY NOT REQUIRE the driver's personal insurance to first deny the claim.
The driver must have proof of such insurance, electronic version is acceptable and must disclose that he was logged in or completing a rideshare assignment should an incident occur.
Personal insurance policies are specifically allowed to exclude coverage during any period of rideshare activity.
Lenders are allowed to FORCE such coverage if proof of it's existence is not shown. Lenders must be notified that such vehicle is being used for rideshare activities.
Prior to allowing a driver to operate, the TNC must conduct a multi-state/multi-jurisdictional background check. Conduct a search to make sure the driver is not a sexual predator. The must check the validity of the driver's license and obtain a driving history.
Drivers must be 19 years of age.
No more than 3 moving violations in the last 3 years. May not have a DUI or commission of a felony as a driver OR RIDER , fraud or robbery in the last 7 years.
TNC must prohibit drivers from operating while under the influence of ANY amount of alcohol or drug of abuse (excludes prescriptions unless they carry a warning about operating a vehicle).
The TNC must provide a way for handicapped riders to request accessible vehicles and may not charge more for such services.

Specifically says drivers are NOT employees (positively no limits set on the control the TNC can exert, no differentiation from employees) unless specifically hired as an employee outside the normal hiring process.
The name of the TNC must be displayed on the vehicle (I'm thinking officers can say a "U" logo is not enough as they don't say Uber).

Final version dropped a stipulation that it is illegal for drivers to collect payment outside the TNC's electronic system. It is now allowed if authorized by the TNC.


----------



## Wyatt (Apr 17, 2014)

Ohio...nuff said


----------



## Tim In Cleveland (Jul 28, 2014)

It looks like there was heavy input from TNC's and Cab companies on the final draft. Totally shafts drivers by calling them independent contractors and providing no definition of what the difference is. It's a stripping of rights.
They could at least force passengers to use their real names. Let's start giving a hoot about the safety of the drivers.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Tim In Cleveland said:


> My interpretations:
> 
> Such policy MAY NOT REQUIRE the driver's personal insurance to first deny the claim.
> 
> ...


I must agree with not requiring the personal insurance to deny the claim. If the TNC is going to put forth a policy, let the policy do what it is supposed to do. All that the TNCs were doing was playing with the money.

Requiring proof of insurance is nothing new or unusual.

Many loan contracts contain a provision that a vehicle will not be used to transport for compensation. Violation of that provision could be interpreted as fraud. What a lender usually does is call the loan rather than initiate prosecution for fraud. The provision against transportation for compensation usually contains language that allows the lender to call the loan or prosecute for fraud, although most lenders choose the former and repossess, if the borrower can not pay off the loan.

There is nothing wrong, in principal, with a background check. Cab drivers have had to submit to some kind of law enforcement background check for years. In the District of Columbia, you must submit to an FBI check to secure a hack licence. The jurisdiction simply wants to make sure that armed robbers, sexual predators, frauds and other insidious characters are not driving around their citizens and people who visit or do business there. There have been drivers of poor moral character who have gotten by the background checking firms utilised by TNCs. These private firms do not have access to information to which Law Enforcement Agencies have.

Prohibition against alcohol and drugs is a National Standard for drivers for compensation. In fact, it goes for all drivers, regardless of whether they are compensated, or not.

Requiring accessible vehicles has been on the increase, of late. More and more jurisdictions are requiring that even private firms, even those that use only contractors and do not have employees, see to it that handicapped are accommodated.



Tim In Cleveland said:


> They could at least force passengers to use their real names. Let's start giving a hoot about the safety of the drivers.


Is there a provision that specifically states that passengers are not required to give actual names? Or are you lamenting the lack of a provision that would require such. This is simply a question. I want to know the answer, I intend no criticism.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Tim In Cleveland said:


> It looks like there was heavy input from TNC's and Cab companies on the final draft. Totally shafts drivers by calling them independent contractors... It's a stripping of rights.


According to THIS ARTICLE in the Cincy Enquirer, the Ohio legislation permits TNC drivers to unionize and benefit from collective bargaining. That means that drivers, while still benefitting from the flexibility of working when and where they want, will also have the ability to negotiate for pay rates. I beleive the city of Seattle is the only other place in the country that specifically permits drivers to organize.


> They could at least force passengers to use their real names. Let's start giving a hoot about the safety of the drivers.


Passengers ARE required to provide their 'real names' to the TNC, which can make their identitiy available to law enforcement if necessary. There is absolutely no reason a TNC driver needs access to my duaghter's 'real name'.


----------



## Tim In Cleveland (Jul 28, 2014)

You haven't read all the stories about Uber refusing to reveal names to police officers asking? They tell them to get a court order. I'd like to be able to sue someone who damages my car even if Uber doesn't feel like giving out the name. It's hard to file a claim against *1 (Yes, some riders have such nonsense listed as their name).


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Tim In Cleveland said:


> You haven't read all the stories about Uber refusing to reveal names to police officers asking? They tell them to get a court order. I'd like to be able to sue someone who damages my car even if Uber doesn't feel like giving out the name. It's hard to file a claim against *1 (Yes, some riders have such nonsense listed as their name).


Been there and done that (and still have an open case in the Cle prosecutors office).
Still, I'd rather it be a hassle for me as a driver then to put my daughter (or yours) at risk.
I am perfectly capable of introducing myslef to a pax by name - and asking for theirs.


----------

