4 ms·

Do you have any conclusive evidence that the laws 'protected' both sides in a superior manner than Uber does? Edit: If you'd like to down vote fine, but please

Do you have any conclusive evidence that the laws 'protected' both sides in a superior manner than Uber does? Edit: If you'd like to down vote fine, but please also provide evidence for/against their/my claims. To be against data, or the asking of evidence is to be ignorant.

dogma1138 11y ago
How about that they at least mandate appropriate insurance coverage and give you a fixed statue in law as a paying passenger? Not to mention that under UBER you might be stuck in a legal limbo in which you can't sue the driver for damages in case of an accident without proving gross negligence while can be still sued by the 3rd party for being involved in the accident in the 1st place under the "joint adventure" precedent.
- dylanjermiah 11y ago
  Again, do you have evidence for your claims? I have no way of knowing if that's true.
  - dogma1138 11y ago
    What type of "evidence" do you want? In the UK you need to have a PSV to legally carry paying passengers all of the UBER drivers i had didn't had it (it's a sticker on the car window with the license number). https://www.gov.uk/psv-operator-licences/overview https://www.gov.uk/psv-operator-licences/overview In the US passengers can be sued for damages when being involved in car accidents and cannot sue the driver unless they are paying passengers (which UBER doesn't qualify since it is not a licensed transport service) http://personal-injury.lawyers.com/auto-accidents/when-you-are-responsible-for-the-accident.html http://personal-injury.lawyers.com/auto-accidents/when-you-a... Whats worse is that since the passenger solicited the trip they can be made as the "cause" of the accident in civil suits when there was no gross misconduct on the side of the driver. There is no easy way to obtain insurance information about UBER drivers, and unlike taxis in which the token ("car") owner is also liable in a law suit you cannot sue the car's owner if it is other than the driver with UBER in such cases when the car doesn't have proper insurance or wasn't maintained properly. On the other hand you can get the insurance information for any taxi easily e.g. from NYC. http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/industry/vehicle_insurance_info.shtml http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/industry/vehicle_insurance_... The list can go on and on and on, UBER was playing it fast and loose with the law by pretty much ignoring it and shifting all of the responsibility on it's users and drivers. The users don't know anything heck they don't even know that they might be breaking the law in certain places. The drivers well the drivers don't care UBER exploited places where getting a taxi license was expensive due to regulation as well as an economy in the toilet which presented them with a large user base needing additional income. Public transportation is messy yes, but it's also heavily regulated and for a good reason because when it's not people can get hurt very quickly. GL getting a taxi license with a DUI under you belt or while being on the sexual offenders list, but you can still drive UBER.... The same way no one would use an UBER like service to get a doctor if they knew they could get a med-school dropout or some alcoholic that lost his practice due to malpractice suits however they are perfectly fine with getting into a car with a stranger at 2am knowing that unlike a registered car hire service or a taxi they weren't screened, it's not recorded in public records available to the local police and that they aren't covered by insurance and can be named in a law suit if anything happens during that trip. Oh and this is without even getting into other things like UBER pissing over employment and taxation laws, doesn't verify that drivers do not work over the maximum amount of hours allowed by law, do mandated pit stops on long trips, maintain their cars etc... My personal experience using UBER in London: Driver hitting a cyclist and "contemplating" a hit and run. Driver selling out weed out of his car. Driver who was clearly working for at least 10-12 hours falling a sleep at the wheel. Driver who was also working for just-eat or some other food delivery service carrying pizza and curry and asking me if i don't mind him stopping on the way. Driver who had an open can of beer in the central console (didn't enter that ride). I don't use UBER anymore i use the black cab / car service hire apps depending on the time of day and the location they aren't considerably more expensive (less than 10% on average unless you'll take a very long ride) and they are all registered businesses with all the due diligence required.
    - tzs 11y ago
      > In the US passengers can be sued for damages when being involved in car accidents and cannot sue the driver unless they are paying passengers (which UBER doesn't qualify since it is not a licensed transport service) The second part of that is only relevant in Alabama. The other 27 states that have or once had automobile guest statutes that prohibited passengers from suing their driver over negligence had, by 1996, either repealed them or limited them to cases where the passenger and driver were relatives. Here's a good overview: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Guest+Statutes http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Guest+Statutes For a nice look at the history of these laws, up to 1974, here's a nice Columbia Law Review article from 1974: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3946&context=clr http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic... I'm also not convinced that the risk of passengers being sued in an Uber-type situation is more than negligible. From what I've been able to find, passenger liability usually only happens in these circumstances: • The passenger did something like provide alcoholic drinks to the driver before the trip, and then the driver's intoxication caused the accident. • The passenger owns the car, and knew that the driver was incapable of operating safely, but went ahead and let him drive anyway. • The passenger did something that reasonably directly led to the driver's negligence. A couple examples. (1) passenger tells the driver it is safe to back out of a driveway, and the driver relies on this rather than checking himself, and the passenger was wrong [1]. (2) 16-year old, at urging of similar aged friends, takes family's car for a ride in rainy weather. At urging of friends, drives faster and faster. Loses control at 100 mph and hits a tree. Driver and two passengers wearing seat belts survive, one passenger not wearing seat belt killed. Surviving passengers liable with driver for their role in in convincing driver to drive like an idiot. I haven't come across an example where merely being a passenger in a car where the driver does something negligent subjected the passenger to liability. [1] That's a scary one. I would expect most people as passengers have tried to help out a driver that way at sometime, often at the driver's request, without realizing that they may be opening themselves up to liability if they err.
remarkEon 11y ago
I don't think the parent comment was making a normative statement either way, rather just suggesting that "move fast and break things" is not a good way to go for things that fly in the sky.
- dylanjermiah 11y ago
  I don't believe so. When someone says 'shifting risk to x and profit to management' they clearly are not suggesting what you're suggesting. No where do I see a general statement at all. You cannot be exempt from providing evidence when you make a claim like that.

dogma1138 11y ago

How about that they at least mandate appropriate insurance coverage and give you a fixed statue in law as a paying passenger? Not to mention that under UBER you might be stuck in a legal limbo in which you can't sue the driver for damages in case of an accident without proving gross negligence while can be still sued by the 3rd party for being involved in the accident in the 1st place under the "joint adventure" precedent.

dylanjermiah 11y ago
Again, do you have evidence for your claims? I have no way of knowing if that's true.
- dogma1138 11y ago
  What type of "evidence" do you want? In the UK you need to have a PSV to legally carry paying passengers all of the UBER drivers i had didn't had it (it's a sticker on the car window with the license number). https://www.gov.uk/psv-operator-licences/overview https://www.gov.uk/psv-operator-licences/overview In the US passengers can be sued for damages when being involved in car accidents and cannot sue the driver unless they are paying passengers (which UBER doesn't qualify since it is not a licensed transport service) http://personal-injury.lawyers.com/auto-accidents/when-you-are-responsible-for-the-accident.html http://personal-injury.lawyers.com/auto-accidents/when-you-a... Whats worse is that since the passenger solicited the trip they can be made as the "cause" of the accident in civil suits when there was no gross misconduct on the side of the driver. There is no easy way to obtain insurance information about UBER drivers, and unlike taxis in which the token ("car") owner is also liable in a law suit you cannot sue the car's owner if it is other than the driver with UBER in such cases when the car doesn't have proper insurance or wasn't maintained properly. On the other hand you can get the insurance information for any taxi easily e.g. from NYC. http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/industry/vehicle_insurance_info.shtml http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/industry/vehicle_insurance_... The list can go on and on and on, UBER was playing it fast and loose with the law by pretty much ignoring it and shifting all of the responsibility on it's users and drivers. The users don't know anything heck they don't even know that they might be breaking the law in certain places. The drivers well the drivers don't care UBER exploited places where getting a taxi license was expensive due to regulation as well as an economy in the toilet which presented them with a large user base needing additional income. Public transportation is messy yes, but it's also heavily regulated and for a good reason because when it's not people can get hurt very quickly. GL getting a taxi license with a DUI under you belt or while being on the sexual offenders list, but you can still drive UBER.... The same way no one would use an UBER like service to get a doctor if they knew they could get a med-school dropout or some alcoholic that lost his practice due to malpractice suits however they are perfectly fine with getting into a car with a stranger at 2am knowing that unlike a registered car hire service or a taxi they weren't screened, it's not recorded in public records available to the local police and that they aren't covered by insurance and can be named in a law suit if anything happens during that trip. Oh and this is without even getting into other things like UBER pissing over employment and taxation laws, doesn't verify that drivers do not work over the maximum amount of hours allowed by law, do mandated pit stops on long trips, maintain their cars etc... My personal experience using UBER in London: Driver hitting a cyclist and "contemplating" a hit and run. Driver selling out weed out of his car. Driver who was clearly working for at least 10-12 hours falling a sleep at the wheel. Driver who was also working for just-eat or some other food delivery service carrying pizza and curry and asking me if i don't mind him stopping on the way. Driver who had an open can of beer in the central console (didn't enter that ride). I don't use UBER anymore i use the black cab / car service hire apps depending on the time of day and the location they aren't considerably more expensive (less than 10% on average unless you'll take a very long ride) and they are all registered businesses with all the due diligence required.
  - tzs 11y ago
    > In the US passengers can be sued for damages when being involved in car accidents and cannot sue the driver unless they are paying passengers (which UBER doesn't qualify since it is not a licensed transport service) The second part of that is only relevant in Alabama. The other 27 states that have or once had automobile guest statutes that prohibited passengers from suing their driver over negligence had, by 1996, either repealed them or limited them to cases where the passenger and driver were relatives. Here's a good overview: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Guest+Statutes http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Guest+Statutes For a nice look at the history of these laws, up to 1974, here's a nice Columbia Law Review article from 1974: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3946&context=clr http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic... I'm also not convinced that the risk of passengers being sued in an Uber-type situation is more than negligible. From what I've been able to find, passenger liability usually only happens in these circumstances: • The passenger did something like provide alcoholic drinks to the driver before the trip, and then the driver's intoxication caused the accident. • The passenger owns the car, and knew that the driver was incapable of operating safely, but went ahead and let him drive anyway. • The passenger did something that reasonably directly led to the driver's negligence. A couple examples. (1) passenger tells the driver it is safe to back out of a driveway, and the driver relies on this rather than checking himself, and the passenger was wrong [1]. (2) 16-year old, at urging of similar aged friends, takes family's car for a ride in rainy weather. At urging of friends, drives faster and faster. Loses control at 100 mph and hits a tree. Driver and two passengers wearing seat belts survive, one passenger not wearing seat belt killed. Surviving passengers liable with driver for their role in in convincing driver to drive like an idiot. I haven't come across an example where merely being a passenger in a car where the driver does something negligent subjected the passenger to liability. [1] That's a scary one. I would expect most people as passengers have tried to help out a driver that way at sometime, often at the driver's request, without realizing that they may be opening themselves up to liability if they err.

remarkEon 11y ago

I don't think the parent comment was making a normative statement either way, rather just suggesting that "move fast and break things" is not a good way to go for things that fly in the sky.

dylanjermiah 11y ago
I don't believe so. When someone says 'shifting risk to x and profit to management' they clearly are not suggesting what you're suggesting. No where do I see a general statement at all. You cannot be exempt from providing evidence when you make a claim like that.