# (Updated) UberETHICS | Duplicity In San Antonio



## chi1cabby

*S.A. Mayor working to ease ride-sharing regulations*
http://www.kens5.com/story/news/loc...ter-to-uber-ahead-of-ordinance-date/23950973/


----------



## chi1cabby

*Mayor Taylor said in her letter that she "will ask [her] City Council colleagues to revisit the insurance requirements and delay the applicability of the gap coverage requirement until a conforming insurance product is available or the legislature takes action to set a statewide standard, whichever comes first."

But Uber IS providing Gap Insurance coverage in Colorado to satisfy the requirements of SB 125.*
http://uberxcolorado.com/drive/?page_id=483
*







*


----------



## chi1cabby

*Uber is also providing Gap Insurance coverage in Pennsylvania, per it's temporary licence agreement with PA PUC:*
http://www.puc.pa.gov/pcdocs/1334959.pdf


----------



## chi1cabby

*San Antonio mayor signals support to 'ease' regulations for Uber, Lyft*
Josh Baugh
*http://m.mysanantonio.com/news/loca...ls-support-for-Uber-Lyft-6099220.php#comments*


----------



## chi1cabby

This is what I mean by 
*Driver Advocacy:
















*


----------



## Bart McCoy

in the last tweet, I assume they are talking about damage to your car, and not the car you hit?
and if so, the $1,000 deductible if you have collision coverage is just a myth?


And I thought Uber changed it to being primary when app is on


----------



## Lidman

chi1cabby said:


> *San Antonio mayor signals support to 'ease' regulations for Uber, Lyft*
> Josh Baugh
> *http://m.mysanantonio.com/news/loca...ls-support-for-Uber-Lyft-6099220.php#comments*


 What a wuss this mayor is. Caving into Uber demands.


----------



## Sanjay

*City Council expected to vote on proposed changes to Uber/Lyft ordinance*
W. Scott Bailey
http://m.bizjournals.com/sanantonio...-vote-on-proposed-changes.html?ana=twt&r=full

"One of the key changes proposed is the elimination of a requirement that drivers for ride-sharing companies obtain so-called excess, or* "gap," insurance*, which would cover them in the period between turning on their app and accepting passengers."


----------



## tsogm

Just stumbled across this thread, but I want to point something out. In the "Rasier Software Sublicense Agreement June 21, 2014" (aka contract with its drivers) it says the following:

Additional Excess Coverage. The Company holds a commercial automobile insurance policy with $1 million of liability coverage per accident, as defined in the relevant policy. Subject to its specific terms and conditions, this policy is intended to cover your liability to third parties, on an excess basis, from the time you accept a Request via the Software until the completion of the requested trip. You understand and acknowledge that *your own automobile insurance policy is primary* and that *the Company's policy is excess* to your policy. (boldface for emphasis).

See paragraph iii. In the middle of page 6. You can find the link to it at the very bottom of your Profile page. This is the contract, I believe, that all Uber drivers outside of CA have accepted, whether they realize it or not.

This is also the exact opposite of what they promote in their marketing materials to pax, and what's proposed above. See "Option 3" in the first document chi cabby posted, and Paragraph 2b in the second.

On some webpage on the drivers's portal they sort of split the difference. They write that their insurance "becomes primary" if the driver's insurance won't cover - a laughable attempt at legal sleight of hand. This matters - if your insurance is primary (and it is - you agree to that every time you go online), your insurance comes first. After you've been dropped, theirs "becomes primary". Maybe. Who can tell anymore. Why even try.

BTW I got a rep in my office to "bring this to the compliance team" months ago. I've been assured that "they'll modify that language the next time they update the contract". Pathetic.


----------



## lu181

Uber is covering the passenger and uber. drivers are on your own. All their insurance protects third parties nothing in language of coverage cover damage to your vehicle or medical expenses incurred


----------



## Sanjay

*Uber still calling for full repeal of San Antonio's ride-sharing ordinance*
http://m.bizjournals.com/sanantonio...ng-for-full-repeal-of-san-antonio.html?r=full

*Uber says policy changes still not enough to stay in SA*
http://m.mysanantonio.com/news/loca...protests-ahead-of-council-vote-on-6114552.php


----------



## Sanjay

*Proposed changes to San Antonio TNC Ordinance, to be voted on today:*
https://sanantonio.legistar.com/Leg...4D6547-652E-4D3C-9483-E66219EFF62D&FullText=1

_Insurance Requirements_
The current ordinance requires the following insurance coverage.
*(Gap Insurance)*
• Period One (logged on to the app, not matched with a passenger):
o $50K/$100K/$20K primary liability coverage for bodily injury and property damage
o $200,000 excess coverage
• Period Two (logged on to the app, matched with, or transporting, a passenger):
o $1,000,000 primary commercial liability coverage
o $1,000,000 un/underinsured motorist coverage
*(Collision coverage for Drivers)*
o $50,000 comprehensive collision coverage
Staff is recommending the following changes to the requirements.
• Period One:
o change the insurance requirement from primary to contingent.
o remove the $200,000 excess coverage requirement
• Period Two:
o remove the $1,000,000 un/underinsured motorist coverage requirement
o remove the $50,000 comprehensive collision coverage requirement


----------



## chi1cabby

This is Very Important that Uber Drivers express their indignation on these *BLATANT UBER LIES About Lack of Gap Insurance availability* by Uber_SanAntonio's GM @ChrisNakutis . *The Fact is that Uber is currently providing this coverage to Drivers in Colorado and Pennsylvania,* as I've posted above. If San Antonio City Council approves the TNC Ordinance Amendments, the Drivers will be operating without any Gap Insurance & Collison coverage.

*Please Retweet my tweet to the Mayor & City Council.*


----------



## chi1cabby

Attention San Antonio drivers
@Casandria @Dim


----------



## Casandria

@chi1cabby Thanks for the heads up. There is supposed to be a rally that started about 30 minutes ago and then they're going to walk to the council meeting. No idea how many showed up as we are still dropping kids off at school until 8:30 and have one home sick with an upper respiratory infection. We've had the news on, but nothing thus far. Will watch the meeting live on the laptop when it starts. If Uber leaves, we're totally screwed as nothing else has started for us and donations have totally stopped. I know I shouldn't worry since God has gotten us this far, but I still do; it's just my nature.


----------



## UberCemetery

Its Live now Here

http://www.sanantonio.gov/tvsa/liveontheweb.aspx


----------



## Casandria

You can also watch it on cable. It's a different channel depending on your provider. Channel 99 for AT&T Uverse.


----------



## UberCemetery

They are talking about it now @Casandria @chi1cabby @Dim @Sanjay


----------



## Casandria

This guy is obviously paid by the cab companies.


----------



## chi1cabby

Oh Wow!
What was the Uber Driver's name... The one who just testified and told the unvarnished truth?


----------



## Casandria

I don't think he was a real Uber driver. Maybe he was, but I don't buy it.


----------



## chi1cabby

Casandria said:


> This guy is obviously paid by the cab companies.


Really!
He told the truth, so he's paid by the cab companies?
Unbelievable!


----------



## Casandria

How do you know he was telling the truth? Just because he said it was true doesn't make it true.


----------



## Casandria

I personally have no issues with the fingerprint check, drug tests or the inspections. The fees are what are a hindrance for us and that's the sticking point for Uber, too. I'm all for making sure your driver is safe, we have used Uber, but the fees are what are killing the deal.


----------



## chi1cabby

Casandria said:


> How do you know he was telling the truth? Just because he said it was true doesn't make it true.


He just testified in front of the city council in person, using his real name.


----------



## Casandria

Bill Clinton testified in front of Congress and the world, doesn't make what he said true.


----------



## lu181

chi1cabby said:


> He just testified in front of the city council in person, using his real name.


missed his testimony can you recap what truths were said


----------



## scrurbscrud

tsogm said:


> You understand and acknowledge that *your own automobile insurance policy is primary* and that *the Company's policy is excess* to your policy. (boldface for emphasis).
> *They write that their insurance "becomes primary" if the driver's insurance won't cover - a laughable attempt at legal sleight of hand. *


It is both laughable and Uber sleight of hand. Their coverage is predicated on the driver having valid personal auto insurance.

Wondering how 'valid' any personal auto policy is that specifically prohibits livery in the terms of the policy.

Uber can dump any driver straight on their financial noggin if they feel like it with their verbiage sleight of hand.


----------



## scrurbscrud

The sad part is that the insurance problem is easily solved. Just fork over the SRF to the drivers, providing THEM the financial assistance to obtain satisfactory commercial livery insurance. Problem solved across the board.


----------



## chi1cabby

lu181 said:


> missed his testimony can you recap what truths were said


He testified that he's an Uber Driver.
He has a criminal background, served prison time, And was surprised he passed Uber's background check.
His car is 2001 model year. He checked 2004 as the model year for his car. 
He drove with lapsed car registration.
He let his friend Drive on his account, as the friend was curious about signing up herself to drive for Uber.
He makes $6/Hour after expenses...


----------



## scrurbscrud

chi1cabby said:


> He testified that he's an Uber Driver.
> He has a criminal background, served prison time, And was surprised he passed Uber's background check.
> His car is 2001 model year. He checked 2004 as the model year for his car.
> He drove with lapsed car registration.
> He let his friend Drive on his account, as the friend was curious about signing up herself to drive for Uber.
> He makes $6/Hour after expenses...


*Wow. You mean somebody actually told the TRUTH?*

My bet is that it will go unheard.

Surprise us SA regulatory body.


----------



## Tx rides

Casandria said:


> I personally have no issues with the fingerprint check, drug tests or the inspections. The fees are what are a hindrance for us and that's the sticking point for Uber, too. I'm all for making sure your driver is safe, we have used Uber, but the fees are what are killing the deal.


But should Uber be exempt from fees another black car operator must pay?

Speaking of such...have you and your husband tried hiring on with any of the local black car companies? You'd probably make a good splash by being a driver "team", and you could be driving someone else's car, letting them worry about insurance, etc.


----------



## Casandria

Most Uber drivers aren't doing this full-time and we get paid a lot less.

The issue for us is availability. We still have 4 kids at home and my husband is still dealing with cancer treatment. We can't commit to certain hours. He has to have an endoscopy and dilation with sedation every 2 weeks to be able to continue to eat normally. He has to have a CT scan every other month. I've been on social security disability since 2001. He has a masters in archaeology. Neither one of us are really qualified for being a chauffeur when you compare us to others who are vying for the same job.

We were only driving for Uber until the things we moved here for got going. Hopefully, there won't be too much a lag between the two.

I'm not a huge fan of Uber overall. I don't think they care about the drivers or the riders; they care about their bottom line. That being said, the concept is a very good one and it has helped a lot of people and I don't think that it should leave San Antonio.

All this talk about kids and Uber is really starting to irritate since we're not even allowed to take anyone under 18 without an adult.


----------



## Casandria

Also, forgot to mention that we do get fingerprinted here in Texas when we get our drivers license. I'm not sure if every state does that, but since they do that here, they should just be able to be given our DL number and run the background check without anyone having to come in to get re-printed. Could save a step in all of this.


----------



## Casandria

So, SA called Uber's bluff so we'll see what Uber does now. I'm still a tad confused on when everything actually kicks in since the insurance part is in effect as of 3/1, but the amendments don't kick in till 4/1, but does that mean that the other parts are still in effect now? The rider and driver apps are still up and running so time will tell.


----------



## chi1cabby

*San Antonio City Council votes to ease regulations on Uber, Lyft*
*http://m.mysanantonio.com/news/loca...-need-to-know-about-San-Antonio-s-6115142.php*

*







*


----------



## Casandria

Still doesn't say anything about when they plan to actually leave. Nothing on their own twitter feed or any emails from either company about an actual date to end operations.


----------



## scrurbscrud

Was it really just background checks that threw their deal?

One might think both companies would know that working in a City that is probably over run with illegal immigrants background checks of a sufficient nature would be pretty basic to public safety.


----------



## scrurbscrud

Casandria said:


> Still doesn't say anything about when they plan to actually leave. Nothing on their own twitter feed or any emails from either company about an actual date to end operations.


You can be assured that Uber will continue to let drivers take their chances on the app unless and until a judge demands them to cease and desist. And if a few of you get busted along the way, well, Uber supposedly has your back.


----------



## Casandria

Well, since illegal immigrants are given more privileges than US citizens thanks to Obama, it really is moot on that front. However, I didn't have an issue with the fingerprint checks and I'm not sure that was the main issue for Uber. I think it was the fees they and drivers would be required to pay to operate here. 

The cease and desist was issued last year...


----------



## scrurbscrud

Casandria said:


> Well, since illegal immigrants are given more privileges than US citizens thanks to Obama, it really is moot on that front. However, I didn't have an issue with the fingerprint checks and I'm not sure that was the main issue for Uber. I think it was the fees they and drivers would be required to pay to operate here.
> *
> The cease and desist was issued last year...*


You mean they were still operating after a cease and desist?

I'm shocked. Shocked! 

Any drivers get busted?


----------



## Casandria

I think a few did back in the beginning, but none have for some time. The question is will they start cracking down now? We need to drive to make as much as we can while we can, but is the risk greater now? Lots more gray than there was before.


----------



## scrurbscrud

Casandria said:


> I think a few did back in the beginning, but none have for some time. The question is will they start cracking down now? We need to drive to make as much as we can while we can, but is the risk greater now? Lots more gray than there was before.


You got more balz than me kid.


----------



## Casandria

Nah, just more desperate. Would love to get the LOI back from the other broker and be signing a deal on the new restaurant space than driving this weekend, but nothing happens fast in commercial real estate and until we start construction, we have to have something else coming in.


----------



## chi1cabby

Casandria said:


> I'm not sure that was the main issue for Uber. I think it was the fees they and drivers would be required to pay to operate here.


_Fees_
The current ordinance sets out the following fees, based on task time cost, to ensure adequate revenue to cover the cost of enforcement.
• TNC operating permit and application fee $110
• TNC driver permit $15 (every two years)
• TNC vehicle permit $160 annually per vehicle
Staff is recommending the following change to the requirements.
• Eliminate the three fees listed above
• Establish the following preliminary fee schedule for TNCs, based on the number of drivers each company has registered on their platform, in order to adequately fund enforcement of the ordinance:
*Drivers Annual Fee*
1-10 $625
11-50 $3,125
51-100 $6,250
101-300 $18,750
More than 300 $25,000


----------



## Casandria

Yeah, so Uber doesn't want to pay $25,000 a year to operate here.


----------



## scrurbscrud

chi1cabby said:


> _Fees_
> The current ordinance sets out the following fees, based on task time cost, to ensure adequate revenue to cover the cost of enforcement.
> • TNC operating permit and application fee $110
> • TNC driver permit $15 (every two years)
> • TNC vehicle permit $160 annually per vehicle
> Staff is recommending the following change to the requirements.
> • Eliminate the three fees listed above
> • Establish the following preliminary fee schedule for TNCs, based on the number of drivers each company has registered on their platform, in order to adequately fund enforcement of the ordinance:
> *Drivers Annual Fee*
> 1-10 $625
> 11-50 $3,125
> 51-100 $6,250
> 101-300 $18,750
> More than 300 $25,000


Wonder what the fee would be for 300,000 Uber drivers (in SA only)?


----------



## Casandria

There was a point in the meeting today where the council was trying to clarify how many current Uber drivers there are here and Uber had not given the city manager those numbers despite having been asked for them more than once. 

As frustrated as I am with the whole thing, I really hope they operate a little longer and even better, another company comes along that does things the right way and means it when it says it cares about the drivers and the riders.


----------



## lu181

Obama obama obama cry babies. Gonna blame obama when your car needs brakes too ? Im no obama fan but if you wanna blame anyone you have to blame all of the corruption left and right. We have billion dollar companies getting tax refunds that didn't pay taxes. And we have people who play the system getting 10 k in tax refunds that didn't even make that much all year working. The whole system is corrupt. Keystone is going to save america lol people believe anything they hear instead of making there own opinions based on facts


----------



## Tx rides

Casandria said:


> Also, forgot to mention that we do get fingerprinted here in Texas when we get our drivers license. I'm not sure if every state does that, but since they do that here, they should just be able to be given our DL number and run the background check without anyone having to come in to get re-printed. Could save a step in all of this.


The fingerprinting was a very short-lived abuse of power. I think they ended that last fall


----------



## Casandria

They fingerprint everyone when you get a new license or renew one. It's standard procedure. They use a scanner, not an ink pad.


----------



## Tx rides

Casandria said:


> Most Uber drivers aren't doing this full-time and we get paid a lot less.
> 
> The issue for us is availability. We still have 4 kids at home and my husband is still dealing with cancer treatment. We can't commit to certain hours. He has to have an endoscopy and dilation with sedation every 2 weeks to be able to continue to eat normally. He has to have a CT scan every other month. I've been on social security disability since 2001. He has a masters in archaeology. Neither one of us are really qualified for being a chauffeur when you compare us to others who are vying for the same job.
> 
> We were only driving for Uber until the things we moved here for got going. Hopefully, there won't be too much a lag between the two.
> 
> I'm not a huge fan of Uber overall. I don't think they care about the drivers or the riders; they care about their bottom line. That being said, the concept is a very good one and it has helped a lot of people and I don't think that it should leave San Antonio.
> 
> All this talk about kids and Uber is really starting to irritate since we're not even allowed to take anyone under 18 without an adult.


Don't be so sure about chauffeur qualities  You are both educated, apparently have good driving records, and probably have professional demeanors.


----------



## Casandria

Have you ever been told you're overqualified? It happens a lot. And with being on disability since 2001 for brain damage, I'm not really chauffeur material. We've done really well in restaurants and commercial real estate. Just getting things going again after a brief pause.


----------



## Tx rides

Casandria said:


> They fingerprint everyone when you get a new license or renew one. It's standard procedure. They use a scanner, not an ink pad.





Casandria said:


> Most Uber drivers aren't doing this full-time and we get paid a lot less.
> 
> The issue for us is availability. We still have 4 kids at home and my husband is still dealing with cancer treatment. We can't commit to certain hours. He has to have an endoscopy and dilation with sedation every 2 weeks to be able to continue to eat normally. He has to have a CT scan every other month. I've been on social security disability since 2001. He has a masters in archaeology. Neither one of us are really qualified for being a chauffeur when you compare us to others who are vying for the same job.
> 
> We were only driving for Uber until the things we moved here for got going. Hopefully, there won't be too much a lag between the two.
> 
> I'm not a huge fan of Uber overall. I don't think they care about the drivers or the riders; they care about their bottom line. That being said, the concept is a very good one and it has helped a lot of people and I don't think that it should leave San Antonio.
> 
> All this talk about kids and Uber is really starting to irritate since we're not even allowed to take anyone under 18 without an adult.


As for pay, that is irrelevant. A small operator just starting out still has to pay for those permits. Uber drivers should not be exempt from requirements any other operator must meet, although I wish all requirements could be minimized. Safety regs only, IMO


----------



## Tx rides

Casandria said:


> They fingerprint everyone when you get a new license or renew one. It's standard procedure. They use a scanner, not an ink pad.


They were supposed to halt this

http://kxan.com/2015/02/06/texas-no-longer-collecting-all-10-fingerprints-for-drivers-license/


----------



## Lidman

Uber drivers should get the same treatment Taxi drivers get when it comes to regulations. Uber is not above the law.


----------



## Tx rides

Casandria said:


> Have you ever been told you're overqualified? It happens a lot. And with being on disability since 2001 for brain damage, I'm not really chauffeur material. We've done really well in restaurants and commercial real estate. Just getting things going again after a brief pause.


Yes, I've heard that a time or two.


----------



## Casandria

Employers aren't likely to hire you if you're over-qualified because the odds are that you're just looking for something to tide you over until you get something better and they don't want to waste the time and money training you.


----------



## chi1cabby

Casandria said:


> Most Uber drivers aren't doing this full-time and we get paid a lot less.
> 
> The issue for us is availability. We still have 4 kids at home and my husband is still dealing with cancer treatment. We can't commit to certain hours. He has to have an endoscopy and dilation with sedation every 2 weeks to be able to continue to eat normally. He has to have a CT scan every other month. I've been on social security disability since 2001. He has a masters in archaeology. Neither one of us are really qualified for being a chauffeur when you compare us to others who are vying for the same job.
> 
> We were only driving for Uber until the things we moved here for got going. Hopefully, there won't be too much a lag between the two.
> 
> I'm not a huge fan of Uber overall. I don't think they care about the drivers or the riders; they care about their bottom line. That being said, the concept is a very good one and it has helped a lot of people and I don't think that it should leave San Antonio.
> 
> All this talk about kids and Uber is really starting to irritate since we're not even allowed to take anyone under 18 without an adult.


----------



## Tx rides

Casandria said:


> Employers aren't likely to hire you if you're over-qualified because the odds are that you're just looking for something to tide you over until you get something better and they don't want to waste the time and money training you.


Big difference between overqualified and "obviously temporary". We hire across the spectrum, I've never known anyone "over qualified" to be a chauffeur. Most operators love Professional minded people who want part time of seasonal work because They are typically good for their word, and low maintenance. Anyway, I was just offering a suggestion, definitely not my business


----------



## Casandria

I appreciate any and all suggestions. I will look into companies here who might be as open-minded as you. Most aren't, from my experience.


----------



## Tx rides

Casandria said:


> I appreciate any and all suggestions. I will look into companies here who might be as open-minded as you. Most aren't, from my experience.


We have a retired corporate exec, a retired CSM, Retired gunnery sgt, master sgt, and a former marine arms instructor a few " laid off and seekings", A teacher, and a few with FT jobs elsewhere. They are all equal contributors-just at different times!


----------



## Txchick

Casandria said:


> I think a few did back in the beginning, but none have for some time. The question is will they start cracking down now? We need to drive to make as much as we can while we can, but is the risk greater now? Lots more gray than there was before.





Casandria said:


> I think a few did back in the beginning, but none have for some time. The question is will they start cracking down now? We need to drive to make as much as we can while we can, but is the risk greater now? Lots more gray than there was before.


Be careful! Hide your phone. If you can go to Austin & drive.


----------



## chi1cabby




----------



## scrurbscrud

Wonder if SA will start writing drivers tickets?


----------



## Casandria

Lyft sent something similar. The problem is that no one is going to take Uber or Lyft from any of those areas to downtown when they know they won't be able to get picked up the same way. They will have to stop operating completely here.


----------



## chi1cabby

*Rideshare Revisions Pass: Uber Leaving Town, Lyft on 'Pause'*
*http://therivardreport.com/rideshare-revision-passes-uber-leaving-town-lyft-pause/*


----------



## scrurbscrud

Looks like SA is going to be getting a lot more DUI's coming their way.


----------



## chi1cabby

scrurbscrud said:


> Looks like SA is going to be getting a lot more DUI's coming their way.


If that's the case, the blame lies squarely with Uber. City of San Antonio bent over backwards in revising the ordinance. But Uber didn't want a compromise, it wanted capitulation.

And what about Uber's claims of being concerned with the jobs of it's Drivers? The Drivers who testified yesterday almost unanimously approved the proposed changes to the regs.
But that was not good enough for Uber.


----------



## scrurbscrud

The restaurant and bar industry is going to also take a more than likely big hit as well.


----------



## chi1cabby

scrurbscrud said:


> The restaurant and bar industry is going to also take a more than likely big hit as well.


Sure, if you say so.
Society was essentially a vast wasteland until Uber came on the scene. And that now it's leaving San Antonio, it's "lights out" time...


----------



## scrurbscrud

chi1cabby said:


> Sure, if you say so.


Restaurant and bar industry has had a bit of a resurgence because of ride share, donchaknow?


----------



## Casandria

San Antonio has the second highest DWI rate in the country and the first in the state. I'm honestly not sure if it's due to that many people driving truly drunk or just the over zealous cops here. It quite frankly is a huge revenue stream for the city and they don't have to have cause to pull you over. I honestly think it was a driving force behind the initial regulations because they would lose a crap ton of money if the DWI rate ever actually dropped significantly here. We have checkpoints and roaming checkpoints where they just randomly pull over 10 cars on the highway. If you have a couple of drinks with dinner, as many people do, you will blow over the limit. It doesn't matter if you pass the field sobriety test or if you were driving the speed limit, etc. Uber leaving will increase the number of people drinking and driving, but I honestly don't think it will hurt the restaurant and bar industry that much because rather than not going out and not drinking, they're just going to do it and drive themselves home. You might ask if any might take a taxi and there are a few, but the majority of people won't. It's sad, but true.


----------



## Tx rides

scrurbscrud said:


> Looks like SA is going to be getting a lot more DUI's coming their way.





Casandria said:


> San Antonio has the second highest DWI rate in the country and the first in the state. I'm honestly not sure if it's due to that many people driving truly drunk or just the over zealous cops here. It quite frankly is a huge revenue stream for the city and they don't have to have cause to pull you over. I honestly think it was a driving force behind the initial regulations because they would lose a crap ton of money if the DWI rate ever actually dropped significantly here. We have checkpoints and roaming checkpoints where they just randomly pull over 10 cars on the highway. If you have a couple of drinks with dinner, as many people do, you will blow over the limit. It doesn't matter if you pass the field sobriety test or if you were driving the speed limit, etc. Uber leaving will increase the number of people drinking and driving, but I honestly don't think it will hurt the restaurant and bar industry that much because rather than not going out and not drinking, they're just going to do it and drive themselves home. You might ask if any might take a taxi and there are a few, but the majority of people won't. It's sad, but true.


The major push was for equal regulations, and less burden on personal insurance carriers to absorb risks. Uber/lyft services are not different from any other Car service provider, their risks are as high, their fees, insurance, etc should be the same. These companies have always known this, and sold this BS "RIDESHARE " line across the world. The truth is finally coming out, and they will have to start figuring out how to fill those lofty commitments, to passengers. AND drivers.


----------



## Tx rides

scrurbscrud said:


> Restaurant and bar industry has had a bit of a resurgence because of ride share, donchaknow?


Do you have solid stats to back that up, or was that a little of your tongue in cheek (wise guy!! Lol)


----------



## Tx rides

Casandria said:


> San Antonio has the second highest DWI rate in the country and the first in the state. I'm honestly not sure if it's due to that many people driving truly drunk or just the over zealous cops here. It quite frankly is a huge revenue stream for the city and they don't have to have cause to pull you over. I honestly think it was a driving force behind the initial regulations because they would lose a crap ton of money if the DWI rate ever actually dropped significantly here. We have checkpoints and roaming checkpoints where they just randomly pull over 10 cars on the highway. If you have a couple of drinks with dinner, as many people do, you will blow over the limit. It doesn't matter if you pass the field sobriety test or if you were driving the speed limit, etc. Uber leaving will increase the number of people drinking and driving, but I honestly don't think it will hurt the restaurant and bar industry that much because rather than not going out and not drinking, they're just going to do it and drive themselves home. You might ask if any might take a taxi and there are a few, but the majority of people won't. It's sad, but true.


I'm not sure where you got that statistic, just a year or so ago it did rank in the top 20, but below Houston, Dallas, Austin, and several cities in California, etc.


----------



## Jeremy Joe

lu181 said:


> Obama obama obama cry babies. Gonna blame obama when your car needs brakes too ? ........ people believe anything they hear instead of making there own opinions based on facts


and that's why the country's going down the toilet.

But..wait a sec...other countries are going down even faster....

actually, the American economy is currently doing quite well...at least for those who are upper middle class and rich. The poor and middle class in America are struggling like never before.

Obama cry baby? I hate Obama, can barely even stand the sight of him. But time to end my rant.


----------



## Jeremy Joe

Casandria said:


> Most Uber drivers aren't doing this full-time and we get paid a lot less.
> 
> The issue for us is availability. We still have 4 kids at home and my husband is still dealing with cancer treatment. We can't commit to certain hours. He has to have an endoscopy and dilation with sedation every 2 weeks to be able to continue to eat normally. He has to have a CT scan every other month. I've been on social security disability since 2001. He has a masters in archaeology. Neither one of us are really qualified for being a chauffeur when you compare us to others who are vying for the same job.
> 
> We were only driving for Uber until the things we moved here for got going. Hopefully, there won't be too much a lag between the two.
> 
> I'm not a huge fan of Uber overall. I don't think they care about the drivers or the riders; they care about their bottom line. That being said, the concept is a very good one and it has helped a lot of people and I don't think that it should leave San Antonio.
> 
> All this talk about kids and Uber is really starting to irritate since we're not even allowed to take anyone under 18 without an adult.


I'm so sorry Casandria that you & your husband have to struggle with this Uber BS despite his good education. Tough times in America these days. Hope things get better for you, health wise for your hubby and financially for you both.


----------



## StephenJBlue

IMHO

The city actually bent over backwards to modify the regulations that had been approved in December. They essentially gutted the regulations, yet Uber and Lyft still objected. What's irritating is Uber had said the modified regulations were something they could work with, then they changed their tune. They actually wanted a complete repeal of the regulations and would leave if they weren't. 

They (über) has tried to change the discussion to say it's about the 10-point background check. That's a lie.
It's about the insurance. They simply want to avoid any responsibility.


----------



## scrurbscrud

StephenJBlue said:


> IMHO
> 
> The city actually bent over backwards to modify the regulations that had been approved in December. They essentially gutted the regulations, yet Uber and Lyft still objected. What's irritating is Uber had said the modified regulations were something they could work with, then they changed their tune. They actually wanted a complete repeal of the regulations and would leave if they weren't.
> 
> They (über) has tried to change the discussion to say it's about the 10-point background check. *That's a lie.
> It's about the insurance. They simply want to avoid any responsibility.*


Part lie. It's really the responsibility of the vehicle OWNERS to have proper insurance. It's always been that way.

The people who own the vehicles have an interest in what they protect and insure.

A few decades ago insurance was not a common thing. It never used to be a requirement in all cases. If a person got in an accident and it was their fault, they were directly financially responsible.


----------



## stuber

Again, it's all just a giant complicated Tango. Desperately dancing around the core problem. If you're driving "for hire", then you need commercial insurance. What's so hard to understand? Just raise the fares so that drivers can afford to buy proper insurance. Jeeze.


----------



## Casandria

Jeremy Joe said:


> I'm so sorry Casandria that you & your husband have to struggle with this Uber BS despite his good education. Tough times in America these days. Hope things get better for you, health wise for your hubby and financially for you both.


Thanks. Every time I see someone homeless, I think about how close we were to that and how I have no idea how families who are homeless manage it. I was homeless for 6 months when I was 19 and single and I know how hard that was. Yes, we're struggling, but we aren't struggling nearly as much as many others. We could be a lot worse off than we are so I can't really complain too much.


----------



## chi1cabby

*Uber leaving San Antonio but not entire area*
*http://www.khou.com/story/news/loca...ing-san-antonio-but-not-entire-area/70140452/*


----------



## Casandria

The problem is that all the main places that people go to and use Uber are all within the city limits and people aren't going to use it to get somewhere they know they can't get out of. Heck, we live way outside of the city proper, but they just annexed us and the entire area is fighting it, but right now, we are part of San Antonio. It was already a risk driving here, but anyone who drives after this goes into effect is glutton for punishment. 

Here's a link to a map that shows that I'm talking about. The areas that they are saying they will still be operating in are the tiny little spots marked "Alamo Heights," "Shavano Park," "Castle Hills," "Leon Valley," and "Kirby." It is virtually impossible to be sure you're not picking up in San Antonio proper if you try to pick up in one of those areas.


----------



## chi1cabby

*San Antonio: No Uber, Lyft drivers allowed on city streets*
Drew Joseph
http://m.mysanantonio.com/news/loca...-Lyft-drivers-allowed-on-6142930.php#comments

@Casandria @StephenJBlue


----------



## Casandria

@chi1cabby Thanks for the heads up; you always find the best info!

We had already decided that it would be too risky to drive after April 1. Too many riders dropping a pin in a municipality and then calling to tell you where they really are and I can just see a bunch of those being stings. The city is not happy with their decision to leave since they felt like they bent over backwards to work out a deal for them to stay so I think enforcement will be in full swing once the deadline hits.


----------



## chi1cabby

I'm sure Mayor Taylor is steamed about going out of the way to accommodate Uber & Lyft with amendments to SA Ordinance, and the TNCs turning around and making her looking like the bad guy!


----------



## StephenJBlue

I think the city has had it with those companies. I honestly think that city bent over backwards in an attempt to accommodate the TNCs. Uber and Lyft have acted like petulant children who didn't get their way. I agree with Casandria about their being 'sting' pickups. The companies stating that they would pickup in other local municipalities was just a way to intimidate the San Antonio city council into changing the regulations. As much as I wish we could all be legal and drive here, I have to say that I'm glad Uber and Lyft didn't get their way.

The regulations were not over-burdensome and the are the same regs they follow in other States and Cities. While they might be waiting on the State to pass a new law which would over-ride city regulations, it will be a long wait. I think our legislature only meets twice a year anyway. 

This is all ridiculous. The TNCs could have easily acquiesced and follow the new rules.


----------



## Tx rides

StephenJBlue said:


> I think the city has had it with those companies. I honestly think that city bent over backwards in an attempt to accommodate the TNCs. Uber and Lyft have acted like petulant children who didn't get their way. I agree with Casandria about their being 'sting' pickups. The companies stating that they would pickup in other local municipalities was just a way to intimidate the San Antonio city council into changing the regulations. As much as I wish we could all be legal and drive here, I have to say that I'm glad Uber and Lyft didn't get their way.
> 
> The regulations were not over-burdensome and the are the same regs they follow in other States and Cities. While they might be waiting on the State to pass a new law which would over-ride city regulations, it will be a long wait. I think our legislature only meets twice a year anyway.
> 
> This is all ridiculous. The TNCs could have easily acquiesced and follow the new rules.


Uber always uses the "most restrictive requirements in the land" argument to persuade local voters to force their city to stand down.


----------



## Casandria

StephenJBlue said:


> While they might be waiting on the State to pass a new law which would over-ride city regulations, it will be a long wait. I think our legislature only meets twice a year anyway.


It actually meets every 2 years, but this is one of them and it starts in May so if it goes well for Uber, it will be a short wait; if not, they will have 2 years before they get a second chance at the state level.


----------



## StephenJBlue

Casandria said:


> It actually meets every 2 years, but this is one of them and it starts in May so if it goes well for Uber, it will be a short wait; if not, they will have 2 years before they get a second chance at the state level.


Aha My bad. I knew that!

You know, I really hope it doesn't pass. I want driver's to be okay. But I would love to see their plans get wrenched.


----------



## Txchick

StephenJBlue said:


> Aha My bad. I knew that!
> 
> You know, I really hope it doesn't pass. I want driver's to be okay. But I would love to see their plans get wrenched.


Well if you don't want to pass e-mail your TX senator & house member with info from a drivers perspective.


----------



## Casandria

StephenJBlue said:


> Aha My bad. I knew that!
> 
> You know, I really hope it doesn't pass. I want driver's to be okay. But I would love to see their plans get wrenched.


If it doesn't pass, you can bet they'll be back "negotiating" at the city level. I love the concept of Uber and I don't think free enterprise should be regulated (taxis included), but I don't like Uber the way it is now so what I'd really like is for some other company to come in and do it all the right way. Course, I also write about rainbow ninja unicorn rabbits so...


----------



## StephenJBlue

Yeah, if it doesn't pass, I agree. However, I do think public services such as cabs, and TNCs need some regulation. If you read the history of Taxi regulations and why they did get regulation, it makes sense.

Of course I also think the rates should be set by the municipalities....

Either way, even if it does pass.. according to the bill: 

SECTIONA2.AAThis Act takes effect September 1, 2015.

So... that would be a long wait.


----------



## chi1cabby

*Future of ride-sharing threatened in Bexar County*
(By @ksatCory Twitter)
*http://www.ksat.com/content/pns/ksa...of-ride-share-threatened-in-bexar-county.html*


----------



## Casandria

This is the email they sent drivers yesterday:

As previously announced, the San Antonio City Council has passed a city-wide ordinance that will force us to shut down operations in San Antonio. The ordinance will go into effect on April 1st. On this date, we will turn off the ability to pick up riders in the City of San Antonio. You may have read headlines that Uber driver partners will also be prohibited from dropping off riders in San Antonio even if picked up in other jurisdictions of Bexar County and beyond. We are reviewing the merits of this claim, and we will be in touch when we have further guidance. As of now, our plan is to continue operations in Bexar County as normal.

Shutting down operations in San Antonio is far from ideal and in no way our desire. Unfortunately, the regulatory climate imposed by the San Antonio City Council makes it impossible for ridesharing to succeed while meeting the high standard of service that riders in over 160 cities across the U.S. have come to expect. We will continue working hard to improve this regulatory climate and will reach out soon with ideas of how you can help.

*Next steps*


Stay posted for more detailed guidance in the coming weeks
In the meantime, continue operating as you had planned, but keep an eye on texts and emails from our team for updates
Have no concerns about picking up riders outside of City of San Antonio jurisdiction. Cities like Alamo Heights, Terrell Hills, Leon Valley and all other suburban jurisdictions of Bexar County are not adversely impacted by this ordinance
Feel free to head up to Austin to drive. There is an ever-growing demand from riders that want a safe, reliable means of transportation. Your best bets are during Friday/Saturday nights, morning rush hour and, of course, SXSW. All you need to do is head up there, "Go Online" and start picking up riders 
Lastly, please email [email protected] if you encounter any issues that may be worth us sharing with other driver partners. We want to stay in the loop

Once again, we can't thank you enough for your support. We are honored to have you as partners.

Sincerely,
Henry Carr
General Manager, Uber San Antonio


----------



## StephenJBlue

I really dislike how they state they're are forced to shut down in San Antonio. No one is forcing them to do that. They are making that choice because they don't wish to comply with simple, basic regulations. The same regulations that they've agreed to elsewhere. I find that very irritating.


----------



## scrurbscrud

StephenJBlue said:


> I really dislike how they state they're are forced to shut down in San Antonio. No one is forcing them to do that. They are making that choice because they don't wish to comply with simple, basic regulations. The same regulations that they've agreed to elsewhere. I find that very irritating.


If they are getting by with less oversight in other Texas cities they may be trying to hold onto the lesser standards of compliance already gained in that state.


----------



## Casandria

StephenJBlue said:


> I really dislike how they state they're are forced to shut down in San Antonio. No one is forcing them to do that. They are making that choice because they don't wish to comply with simple, basic regulations. The same regulations that they've agreed to elsewhere. I find that very irritating.


The bill being voted on in May at the state level is what they want so they no longer have to fight battles at the city level. With that on the horizon, there's no reason for them to keep asking mom when dad will be saying yes soon enough.


----------



## Tx rides

Casandria said:


> It actually meets every 2 years, but this is one of them and it starts in May so if it goes well for Uber, it will be a short wait; if not, they will have 2 years before they get a second chance at the state level.


This thing isn't going anywhere, it has three sponsors. Paddie threw it out for attention.


----------



## chi1cabby

StephenJBlue said:


> I really dislike how they state they're are forced to shut down in San Antonio. No one is forcing them to do that. They are making that choice because they don't wish to comply with simple, basic regulations. The same regulations that they've agreed to elsewhere. I find that very irritating.


Uber San Antonio doesn't even wanna acquiesce to the compromise Ordinance because Uber is just waiting for Rep Chris Paddie's, @ChrisPaddie Twitter, Texas HB 2440 to become law.
*Texas TNC BILL Leaves Drivers in Gap Insurance Catch 22*


----------



## scrurbscrud

Casandria said:


> The bill being voted on in May at the state level is what they want so they no longer have to fight battles at the city level. With that on the horizon, there's no reason for them to keep asking mom when dad will be saying yes soon enough.


Statewide laws for TNC may not prohibit cities being able to regulate them on various levels. Kind of new territory. Airports can also direct their own rules over statewide laws.


----------



## StephenJBlue

I've read Texas HB 2440. It is extremely narrow in scope. State rules override Local rules. But since the proposed State rule is so narrow, it still leaves an enormous amount of room for cities to regulate TNCs. Remember that just because the State passes a rule, it doesn't mean that the Cities can't pass rules as well. They can't override the state, but they can pass regulations that the State rule doesn't cover.

For example, the State rules say nothing about rates. So that means a city could pass a regulation controlling the rates TNCs charge. (Not that it will happen).

I think that IF (and I doubt it), the State rules pass, the cities will look for any holes in the State rules and pass regulations where possible.

I also tend to think that the San Antonio council is pissed off at the TNCs and just might make it even more difficult.


----------



## scrurbscrud

City revenue sources play a big role as well. If the city is making big money on DUI's to float their law enforcement costs they may be less inclined to reduce that income stream. TNC's have to be hammering the DUI fines.


----------



## Casandria

You're both right. The city is pissed and I have no doubt they will be setting up stings starting April 1, but there is also going to be a major backlash from the citizens and there is an election coming up.

San Antonio is notorious for DWIs. When we were here on vacation 4 years ago, they pulled us over. Hubby passed all the tests, they arrested him anyway, told me I couldn't even drive the car back to the hotel (where the kids were) because I was "drunk", too and I spent the next 8 hours posting bond, getting the car out of the impound and all the fun stuff that goes with it. They insisted we put one of those breathing things on the car that you have to blow into before you can start it and then they also wanted him to take Anabuse. All this until the case was heard, so much for innocent until proven guilty. $75 a month for the thing on the car and I can't even remember the cost of the medication (he didn't take it, but we filled it). Between the attorney, monthly fees to the city, court costs, etc, it cost us about $20K over 18 months and once the jury acquitted him (they had zero evidence, but refused to dismiss the case), we were still out that money. They don't give it back if you're found not guilty. It's a total racket and a huge source of income for the city,


----------



## scrurbscrud

Good grief! That's the problem with American justice. It is only available if you can pay for it.



Casandria said:


> You're both right. The city is pissed and I have no doubt they will be setting up stings starting April 1, but there is also going to be a major backlash from the citizens and there is an election coming up.
> 
> San Antonio is notorious for DWIs. When we were here on vacation 4 years ago, they pulled us over. Hubby passed all the tests, they arrested him anyway, told me I couldn't even drive the car back to the hotel (where the kids were) because I was "drunk", too and I spent the next 8 hours posting bond, getting the car out of the impound and all the fun stuff that goes with it. They insisted we put one of those breathing things on the car that you have to blow into before you can start it and then they also wanted him to take Anabuse. All this until the case was heard, so much for innocent until proven guilty. $75 a month for the thing on the car and I can't even remember the cost of the medication (he didn't take it, but we filled it). Between the attorney, monthly fees to the city, court costs, etc, it cost us about $20K over 18 months and once the jury acquitted him (they had zero evidence, but refused to dismiss the case), we were still out that money. They don't give it back if you're found not guilty. It's a total racket and a huge source of income for the city,


----------



## Casandria

And you can forget about representing yourself. Most judges were once attorneys and most attorneys have personal sway with judges. Judges don't like you taking away money from their friends so they will generally rule against you.


----------



## scrurbscrud

Casandria said:


> And you can forget about representing yourself. Most judges were once attorneys and most attorneys have personal sway with judges. Judges don't like you taking away money from their friends so they will generally rule against you.


It's only a pity that the judges don't automatically grant attorney fees when people are exonerated in their fights against the municipalities in these matters. They are horribly expensive to fight. I haven't had to engage that fight, but have on other fronts. Justice is an expensive luxury item that few can afford.


----------



## UberCemetery

*Windcrest gives Uber green light*

*http://www.ksat.com/content/pns/ksat/news/2015/03/25/windcrest-gives-uber-green-light.html
*
The way the law stands now, residents using Uber in Windcrest can get picked up in Windcrest and dropped off in San Antonio, but once in San Antonio, they can't get an Uber ride back home.

Starting April 1, Uber will not be allowed to pick up passengers within the San Antonio city limits.


----------



## Casandria

Yeah, they did a press conference yesterday about it all, but the problem is that suburbs are usually on the outskirts of the main city and all of these are within the main city and the odds of a pax not being in one of the smaller cities, but dropping the pin there and then calling or texting a SA address are high and the odds of those being stings are even higher. There were also reports that SA wouldn't let rideshares drive on their roads, but I haven't heard any updates on that. Maybe someone else here has? For us, being so far out of those areas and also not knowing for sure where one city starts and SA ends makes the risks too high. You would lose all the late night weekend and airport runs, too. I also wonder how many people will use Uber to get into San Antonio knowing they can't use it to get out again. I guess time will tell.


----------



## delock51

This is all good to hear. Little by little, the cities around are approving it. As it stands now, atleast we can continue to work. altough limited, it beats driving to Austin and back. Its just a matter of time before San Antonio gives in. Its inevitable..This is the future.


----------



## Casandria

@delock51 I personally think it's too big of a risk to continue until SA itself is on board again. So far, only one other city has approved anything yet and the others aren't set to meet until some time in April. If you do brave it, be sure not to pick up at any address but the one the app gave you because they will be doing stings.


----------



## UberCemetery

*SHARE THIS THREAD.*








https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sha...hics-gap-insurance-lies-in-san-antonio.14609/








https://twitter.com/home?status=htt...hics-gap-insurance-lies-in-san-antonio.14609/


----------



## delock51

I don't doubt they will be doing stings, for that makes sense. And I know there's 3 days left, but I suppose what I'm expecting any time now is an email stating what was said last time but with the new info : The app wont let you pick anyone up in San Antonio, but it will in Windcrest. Once they update their algorithm, it should all be fine. In other words, if somone texts or calls to say they are not at the pin, Ill just tell them to cancel (or ill do it) and request again. I dont even think the app will allow that to happen now that only Windcrest will have to be the origin of the trip. I love how the articles keep ""attacking San Antonio""

"The mayors say they've heard from their citizens, and they feel it's important to encourage competition and technology."

“What San Antonio did is disheartening,” said Windcrest Economic Development Director Tim Maloney, referring to the tighter restrictions that will take effect April 1. “I hope this encourages them to rethink their policy, and we strongly encourage them to work more diligently with Uber.”

“If one kid makes one right decision by calling Uber, instead of driving home after a night of drinking, and one life is saved, are you telling me that’s not worth it?” Maloney asked. “Are you telling me that a good decision should be penalized?

"Uber doesn't have to jump through hoops in Windcrest"

On Thursday, San antonip mayoral candidate Mike Villarreal noted in a campaign newsletter that local leaders missed an opportunity in their dealings with Uber and Lyft to show the country that San Antonio "is taking its place in the 21'st Century"


----------



## Tx rides

delock51 said:


> I don't doubt they will be doing stings, for that makes sense. And I know there's 3 days left, but I suppose what I'm expecting any time now is an email stating what was said last time but with the new info : The app wont let you pick anyone up in San Antonio, but it will in Windcrest. Once they update their algorithm, it should all be fine. In other words, if somone texts or calls to say they are not at the pin, Ill just tell them to cancel (or ill do it) and request again. I dont even think the app will allow that to happen now that only Windcrest will have to be the origin of the trip. I love how the articles keep ""attacking San Antonio""
> 
> "The mayors say they've heard from their citizens, and they feel it's important to encourage competition and technology."
> 
> "What San Antonio did is disheartening," said Windcrest Economic Development Director Tim Maloney, referring to the tighter restrictions that will take effect April 1. "I hope this encourages them to rethink their policy, and we strongly encourage them to work more diligently with Uber."
> 
> "If one kid makes one right decision by calling Uber, instead of driving home after a night of drinking, and one life is saved, are you telling me that's not worth it?" Maloney asked. "Are you telling me that a good decision should be penalized?
> 
> "Uber doesn't have to jump through hoops in Windcrest"
> 
> On Thursday, San antonip mayoral candidate Mike Villarreal noted in a campaign newsletter that local leaders missed an opportunity in their dealings with Uber and Lyft to show the country that San Antonio "is taking its place in the 21'st Century"


On the flipside, however, politicians are having to walk back previous supportive statements. Uber has not shown much integrity, they have refused to honor agreements they made. If Luminol disclosed BS, many city conference rooms would be bright blue. not that BS with City Hall is exclusive to Uber, but it is germane to this thread.


----------



## chi1cabby

*Uber to shutter services Wednesday, ahead of Fiesta*
*http://www.kens5.com/story/news/loc...-services-wednesday-ahead-of-fiesta/70747648/*


----------



## chi1cabby

*Uber Asks San Antonio To Elect Ride-Share Friendly Mayor*
*http://m.sacurrent.com/Blogs/archiv...an-antonio-to-elect-ride-share-friendly-mayor*


----------



## delock51

Everything goes according to plan....


----------



## delock51

"""So if Uber isn't closing the door but is also refusing to operate under existing regulations, what is it doing? Turning the conversation over to the voters. At the bottom of its Boise and San Antonio blog posts, Uber encourages its supporters to sign petitions and turn out for city elections to vote. The Boise petition has garnered 2,178 signatures; the San Antonio one more than 13,000. As _BuzzFeed_'s Johana Bhuiyan observed in February, Uber's millions of riders in the U.S. have "given it some of its best leverage." For evidence, she cites Uber's stunning coup in Illinois, where the company rallied 90,000 customers to petition the governor to veto ride-hailing rules from the Illinois House and Senate (he did) and then publicly released contact information for legislators who might attempt to override that veto. This past January, Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn signed legislation that Uber dubbed "the most progressive" in the U.S. "Uber didn't just win," Bhuiyan writes, "it ran the field."""


----------



## chi1cabby

*Pressure on Taylor to Complete Deal with Uber*
http://m.woai.com/articles/woai-loc...pressure-on-taylor-to-complete-deal-13681764/


----------



## chi1cabby

*Do Uber and Lyft merit more council consideration?*
*http://m.mysanantonio.com/opinion/e...re-council-consideration-6376352.php#comments*


----------



## UberNorthStar

It is _up to the driver_ to make sure s/he is covered, not the company whose platform they are using. Another part of being self-employed.

*Texas Governor Signs Rideshare Legislation*
http://www.pciaa.net/pciwebsite/cms/content/viewpage?sitePageId=41959

June 18, 2015
Texas's Governor Signs Rideshare Legislation
AUSTIN, TX - The Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI) commends Texas Governor Greg Abbott for signing House Bill 1733, which would require transportation network company (TNC) drivers in Texas to have adequate insurance coverage.

"HB 1733 requires TNC drivers to have proper insurance coverage from the time the app is turned on until it's turned off, thereby protecting themselves, their passengers and the public," said Joe Woods, PCI's vice president of state government relations.

HB 1733 is based on the national compromise language and addresses insurance issues only.

"This legislation provides a framework that will help bring clarity and consistency to TNC insurance laws, enhance consumer choice, increase entrepreneurial activity and bring greater stability and confidence to the transportation network industry," added Woods.

The law goes into effect January 1, 2016


PCI promotes and protects the viability of a competitive private insurance market for the benefit of consumers and insurers. PCI is composed of nearly 1,000 member companies, representing the broadest cross section of insurers of any national trade association. PCI members write more than $183 billion in annual premium, 35 percent of the nation's property casualty insurance. Member companies write 42 percent of the U.S. automobile insurance market, 27 percent of the homeowners market, 32 percent of the commercial property and liability market and 34 percent of the private workers compensation market.

###


----------



## UberNorthStar

49mat said:


> Uber's umbrella liability policy for you, your car and any 3rd party damage IS NOT PRIMARY.


According to my insurance agent in the event of an at fault accident on my part,.UBER's liability policy _will cover _injuries to the passengers & other driver, and damages incurred by the other driver. Remember the scenario is Uber driver at fault.

What Uber commercial _does not cover _are the losses both medical bills & property damage for the Uber driver.
Uber wants one to file w/ personal insurance first. Yes the claim will be denied & the policy will be cancelled. Uber then has grounds to deactivate driver b/c driver does not have insurance as well as the fact a claim was filed w/Uber insurance.

One reason I am not an active driver, yet.


----------



## delock51

So it did get approved?


----------



## UberNorthStar

*San Antonio Imposes Strict Rideshare Rules*
*http://www.therivardreport.com/san-antonio-rideshare-vote/*
12 December, 2014

 SA City Council keeps revisiting the ordinance to see if it needs to be "tweaked."

JM2¢W


----------



## delock51

Umm... have you kept to date whats actually happening?

http://www.kens5.com/story/news/201...state-representative-meet-with-uber/30857255/


----------



## UberNorthStar

delock51 said:


> So it did get approved?


Looks like you are answering your question w/your next post.



delock51 said:


> Umm... have you kept to date whats actually happening?


Not really. I live where driving on the Uber platform is legal. 

JM2¢W


----------



## delock51

You're cutting me deep man


----------

