6 ms·

> Background checks are a canard. How do the cab companies check the background of someone from Uzbekistan? In other words, "Hey, Uber hires known felons and i

> Background checks are a canard. How do the cab companies check the background of someone from Uzbekistan? In other words, "Hey, Uber hires known felons and its okay because I can think of a scenario where background checks fail." By that logic, stop visiting the doctor, using seat belts, or any safety device known to man because it can fail for some non-0 fraction of the time. > U/L do carry insurance for their drivers when they're driving a passenger, and it's probably more than the regular cab companies carry (which is why SF Yellow cab is going bankrupt: they weren't insured for enough for one of their incompetent drivers, according to the article) http://www.propertycasualty360.com/2015/02/09/uh-ohuber-has-some-coverage-issues http://www.propertycasualty360.com/2015/02/09/uh-ohuber-has-... http://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/ubers-yawning-insurance-gap#.edxlxR64w http://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/ubers-yawning-insurance... http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrycampbell/2015/10/07/why-are-so-many-las-vegas-uber-drivers-lying-to-their-insurance-companies/2/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrycampbell/2015/10/07/why-are... > Drivers can answer no and effectively lie to their insurance company (while also committing insurance fraud) but still receive coverage, or they can say yes and they would be immediately denied coverage. Additionally, they could even be dropped from their policy for disclosing that they are a rideshare driver. > Since it’s not really in Uber’s best interest to disclose the lack of collision coverage during Period 1, many drivers don’t discover that they’re not covered until it’s too late. I’ve been researching rideshare insurance options in Nevada since Uber went live and spoken with hundreds of Uber drivers yet we haven’t been able to find a single insurance carrier willing to insure rideshare drivers. Some carriers offer a commercial policy but the cost is prohibitive at $3,000-$5,000 a year. > Meanwhile, risk-averse insurance companies have been excruciatingly slow to adapt to this new and innovative form of transportation. I maintain an up to date list of insurance options by state for Uber drivers on my site and you’ll notice that Nevada is not currently on that list. There literally isn’t a single option for drivers which unfortunately is somewhat typical. A majority of states in the US still don’t offer a rideshare friendly personal insurance or hybrid policy for Uber drivers which means a whole lot of drivers are forced to lie to their insurance carriers or find a different line of work. There are some pretty significant gaps in that coverage that shift the burden to drivers, depending on the state. In fact there is an entire business built around the fact there are massive holes in that policy: https://www.metromile.com/uber/ https://www.metromile.com/uber/ > Traditional auto insurance policies may not provide clear coverage for drivers who participate in ridesharing programs. The partnership between Uber and Metromile means you’re insured 24/7, whether you’re using your car for personal use or driving with Uber. Now, Metromile offers complete clarity to Uber driver partners. The difference with Uber is the driver gets fucked instead of the Taxi/Uber company. > As for health insurance, from what I've read a lot of cab drivers aren't full-time employees either, so they also don't get health insurance, or benefits. I'm not even going to bother with this one. I've pointed out enough holes already.

simoncion 11y ago
> In other words, "Hey, Uber hires known felons and its okay because I can think of a scenario where background checks fail." You say this like it's a bad idea to hire people who were convicted of felonies who've served their time and are now out of jail. > There are some pretty significant gaps in that coverage that shift the burden to drivers, depending on the state. > In fact there is an entire business built around the fact there are massive holes in that policy: That "entire business" is "an auto insurance company". Funny that. You see "massive holes". I see "the market at work". Do you wish to force insurers to take on risks that they can't take in a fiscally responsible way? Anyway. In CA, folks who drive for nontraditional taxi services like Lyft and Uber have access to (and are required to carry) coverage while transporting a fare, coverage between the time they accept that fare and the time that they pick up that fare, and all other times they are operating their vehicle. [0][1][2] As with all things political, it will take far too long for this to become the policy everywhere, but it's pretty much inevitable. To analogize: just because many Red States like Alabama refused to accept no-strings-attached Federal subsidization of Obamacare premiums for their poor, and refused to use no-strings-attached Federal money to expand Medicare to cover those who fall into the "Medicare gap" doesn't mean that those programs are bad, or a disaster. It's just a fact of life that many politicians love to play football with other people's livelihoods. [0] http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/05/29/a-look-at-farmers-new-insurance-for-california-uber-and-lyft-drivers http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/05/29/a-look-at-farmers-new-in... [1] http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/10/12/lyft-drivers-car-insurance-policy-metlife/ http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/10/12/lyft-drivers-car... [2] http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Fatal-accident-tests-Lyft-s-1-million-5867623.php http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Fatal-accident-tests-...
- fweespeech 11y ago
  > You say this like it's a bad idea to hire people who were convicted of felonies who've served their time and are now out of jail. Yes, because its a good idea to put them in a position of power right after they are out of jail. Did you not bother to read the link to the drunk girl who stupidly got into a car with one of these guys? One of the main arguments proponents make about these services is driving people who have been drinking home and people in strange places home. "Hey this one situation is risky, we shouldn't let them do X because there are clear instances of bad things happening because they pick up impaired passengers." isn't even close to saying "HEY NO ONE HIRE FELONS". If you want to engage in childish strawman arguments that have nothing to do with the problem I'm discussing, go troll someone else. > Anyway. In CA, folks who drive for nontraditional taxi services like Lyft and Uber have access to (and are required to carry) coverage while transporting a fare, coverage between the time they accept that fare and the time that they pick up that fare, and all other times they are operating their vehicle. [0][1][2] > But drivers have been incurring all sorts of risks when they use their personal vehicles for TNC work. During Period 1, Uber and Lyft do not offer collision (coverage for when the policyholder is at fault), comprehensive (for fire, theft and other damage), underinsured motorist coverage or medical payments. (They also do not offer those coverages for the succeeding periods, unless drivers carry them on their personal policies). > The new insurance is offered by Farmers as a supplement — called an endorsement — to drivers’ personal auto policies, and it will cost an additional 8 percent of their premium. A smaller insurer, MetroMile, already offers individual ride-service insurance, but it’s exclusive to Uber drivers. That insurance costs a base rate plus a per-mile charge. Yes, your article agrees I'm correct despite you arguing with me for some bizarre reason(?) The drivers themselves need to buy supplemental insurance or there is a gap in coverage during Period 1.

simoncion 11y ago

> In other words, "Hey, Uber hires known felons and its okay because I can think of a scenario where background checks fail." You say this like it's a bad idea to hire people who were convicted of felonies who've served their time and are now out of jail. > There are some pretty significant gaps in that coverage that shift the burden to drivers, depending on the state. > In fact there is an entire business built around the fact there are massive holes in that policy: That "entire business" is "an auto insurance company". Funny that. You see "massive holes". I see "the market at work". Do you wish to force insurers to take on risks that they can't take in a fiscally responsible way? Anyway. In CA, folks who drive for nontraditional taxi services like Lyft and Uber have access to (and are required to carry) coverage while transporting a fare, coverage between the time they accept that fare and the time that they pick up that fare, and all other times they are operating their vehicle. [0][1][2] As with all things political, it will take far too long for this to become the policy everywhere, but it's pretty much inevitable. To analogize: just because many Red States like Alabama refused to accept no-strings-attached Federal subsidization of Obamacare premiums for their poor, and refused to use no-strings-attached Federal money to expand Medicare to cover those who fall into the "Medicare gap" doesn't mean that those programs are bad, or a disaster. It's just a fact of life that many politicians love to play football with other people's livelihoods. [0] http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/05/29/a-look-at-farmers-new-insurance-for-california-uber-and-lyft-drivers http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/05/29/a-look-at-farmers-new-in... [1] http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/10/12/lyft-drivers-car-insurance-policy-metlife/ http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/10/12/lyft-drivers-car... [2] http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Fatal-accident-tests-Lyft-s-1-million-5867623.php http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Fatal-accident-tests-...

fweespeech 11y ago
> You say this like it's a bad idea to hire people who were convicted of felonies who've served their time and are now out of jail. Yes, because its a good idea to put them in a position of power right after they are out of jail. Did you not bother to read the link to the drunk girl who stupidly got into a car with one of these guys? One of the main arguments proponents make about these services is driving people who have been drinking home and people in strange places home. "Hey this one situation is risky, we shouldn't let them do X because there are clear instances of bad things happening because they pick up impaired passengers." isn't even close to saying "HEY NO ONE HIRE FELONS". If you want to engage in childish strawman arguments that have nothing to do with the problem I'm discussing, go troll someone else. > Anyway. In CA, folks who drive for nontraditional taxi services like Lyft and Uber have access to (and are required to carry) coverage while transporting a fare, coverage between the time they accept that fare and the time that they pick up that fare, and all other times they are operating their vehicle. [0][1][2] > But drivers have been incurring all sorts of risks when they use their personal vehicles for TNC work. During Period 1, Uber and Lyft do not offer collision (coverage for when the policyholder is at fault), comprehensive (for fire, theft and other damage), underinsured motorist coverage or medical payments. (They also do not offer those coverages for the succeeding periods, unless drivers carry them on their personal policies). > The new insurance is offered by Farmers as a supplement — called an endorsement — to drivers’ personal auto policies, and it will cost an additional 8 percent of their premium. A smaller insurer, MetroMile, already offers individual ride-service insurance, but it’s exclusive to Uber drivers. That insurance costs a base rate plus a per-mile charge. Yes, your article agrees I'm correct despite you arguing with me for some bizarre reason(?) The drivers themselves need to buy supplemental insurance or there is a gap in coverage during Period 1.