Absolutely the Last Comments to the CPUC on Rulemaking on Ridesharing

My final comments summarized my views on insurance for the CPUC.

But first I want to link to a few articles. One is from the The International Association of Transportation Regulators (IATR) and lists some actions being taken against the rogue apps in other parts of the county. The other is an article in the Examiner by an attorney Christopher B. Dolon that was passed onto me by omnivorous reader and ace cab driver David Schneider.

Insurance

Before getting to their one millions dollar insurance policies let’s look at what kind of insurance policies Lyft and Sidecar advise their drivers to carry.

“Sidecar requires community drivers to carry liability insurance coverage as mandated for all drivers by the state in which they drive. Before you start ridesharing with us, we will check to make sure you have valid coverage as required by your state, but it’s up to you to get that insurance for yourself. No special insurance coverage is usually needed for carpool/rideshare use of your vehicle, but you should check your car insurance coverage to ensure that ridesharing or carpooling is not excluded. Sidecar does have a Guarantee Program that could cover you if your insurance is denied or exhausted.”

However, what Sidecar does, in the words of Kara Cross Chief Council for the Personal Insurance Federation of California, (5)

“… is not ridesharing, but instead using a private passenger vehicle for a livery service. This is clearly not covered under a standard (personal liability) policy; if an accident occurs, coverage would not exist.”

In other words, nobody who rides in, or drives, a Lyft or a Sidecar vehicle is covered by personal liability insurance. Since few, if any, of these drivers carry commercial insurance, drivers and customers usually are not be insured all.

But what about those million dollar guarantees? Since the CPUC is hiding the policies from public view all we can do is speculate.

First a question: If Lyft and Sidecar really gave complete coverage to their drivers, why wouldn’t they show their policies to the public?

Both companies make conflicting claims about their policies. In it’s terms, Lyft describes its policy thus:

“So long as Drivers are in compliance with this Agreement (including but not limited to the Driver Representations and Warranties provided below), Lyft procures insurance that provides Drivers with excess automobile liability insurance up to $1,000,000 per occurrence. The policy offers excess liability protection over a Driver's existing insurance while such Driver is transporting Rider(s) on a trip arranged through the Lyft Platform. The policy coverage is limited to liability only and does not provide coverage for collision, comprehensive or wear and tear damage to a Driver's vehicle.”

At the CPUC hearings on ridesharing, on the other hand, Lyft attorney Kristen Svercheck stated that the policy gave complete coverage which would make their insurance a fleet policy, not an umbrella.

Sidecar engages in similar double-talk.

$1 Million Insurance

Sidecar provides drivers with a $1 million per incident insurance policy. Every ride is covered from beginning to end.

What does “beginning to end” mean?

How does the Excess Insurance Policy work?

“Drivers in California now have $1,000,000 of excess liability coverage per accident with no deductible. The policy covers all claims relating to bodily injury or property damage that the driver is legally responsible for and that is not covered by the driver’s primary insurance policy. Drivers are covered from the time they accept a ride and are en route to pick up a passenger until the passenger is dropped off at his/her “intended and scheduled” destination.”

It’s not clear whether this is an umbrella or not.

What is the difference? An umbrella policy covers over and above the amount of the driver’s own insurance. In most cases, this would mean that the first $30,000 would be covered by the driver’s policy, and anything over that would be covered by the excess policy.

Since Lyft and Sidecar drivers are not actually covered by the personal liability policies that the NOETS claim is adequate; the drivers are at best carrying a $30,000 deductible. At worst, they have no insurance at all.

I longer doubt the existence of the million-dollar polices. The CPUC says that they have seen the polices, but they will not say what the coverage is.

Lyft writes:

“As with any personal auto insurance policy, additional insurance terms, limitations, and exclusions apply.”

Without, of course, letting us know what those exclusions are or where we can find out about them.

Sidecar goes Lyft one better:

“These payments are subject to certain conditions, limitations and exclusions, the details of which can be found in our Program Terms, available from Sidecar upon request.”

Is it necessary to point out that there is no link to the Program Terms? I wrote to Sidecar on Facebook yesterday and asked them,

“Can you send me a list of the exclusions and limitations on your million dollar insurance policy? If you can’t send them yourself, where can I write to get a list of the limitations and exclusions to your million dollar policy?” (6)

Surprisingly, although they immediately erased my questions from their Facebook thread, they did write back to me, eliciting the following exchange:

Travis replied:


Hi Edward,



“Thank you for contacting Sidecar Support. I also see that you have previously inquired about this topic.



Our commercial auto policy is completely unique and was custom created for our community to protect our community. (See www.side.cr/safety for details.) The policy covers damage up to a million dollars per accident (1) where the damage is greater than the limits of the driver's personal policy or (2) where the driver's personal insurance denies coverage for the driver's participation in Sidecar.


This is what we share with both our drivers and the Sidecar ride-sharing community.



Have a nice day.”




Travis
Support Specialist
Sidecar (Side.cr)
"My Ride is Your Ride"
JUN 14, 2013 | 02:45PM PDT


To SideCar
 JUN 15, 2013

Hi Travis,




“In other words, your drivers and the Sidecar ridesharing community don't get to share the limitations, exclusions and conditions of your policy either.”



Ed Healy

This is typical of the kind of cat and mouse con games these people play. They claim to carry insurance and then decline to show the coverage even to their own drivers.

Let me ask one more time:

Would people that truly carried the insurance coverage that John Zimmer and Sunil Paul claim they have refuse to show their polices to the public?

ETA??? The Universal App???

It's hard to know what's going on right now with ETA and the Universal App except that the "haves" want to make sure that the "have nots" get even less than they have now. But isn't that just the way of the taxi business - and the world?

The squabbling reminds me of a conversation I had over a beer last year with former cab driver and Taxi Advisory Council member Bill Minikel (photo).

Bill said that the way cab companies were reacting to Uber reminded him of a science fiction movie where the earthlings were so involved fighting each other that they didn't notice a gargantuan space ship hovering above the earth about to wipe out civilization.

An even better analogy today. The invaders have already zapped half the planet and our fearless leaders still think that the only way to fight them is to pursue the same self-indulgent policies that attracted the aliens in the first place.

Divided and ready to be conquered.

Flywheel at the Town Hall

Ever since Flywheel took over Cabulous six months ago, they've done wonders marketing and expanding the use of their product. A faithful core of customers has begun to use the app. Many people are switching back to taxis from Uber.

However, Flywheel has started pursuing policies that are undermining its successful flourish. One of these is its insistence on only accepting payment through its app on smartphones and refusing to take cash. Another is its draconian practice of holding drivers out of service if they cancel a ride for any reason whatsoever - despite the fact that a major reason for such cancellations is the inaccuracy of the app's GPS system.

The new management also has an attitude problem.

• When Flywheel came to sign up drivers at Desoto, one young recruiter kept nervously calling everybody "man" and adopting an antiquated, hip lingo whenever he spoke to a driver. He obviously thought that he needed to speak to us in our native, ghetto tongue because we wouldn't be able to understand English.
• I spoke to another recruiter about being shut off their system for a week. "It's because you've been bad," he said. He was only half joking.
• When Flywheel announced their nixing of non smarphone payment options, they claimed they'd done surveys of both customers and drivers, and that everbody enthusiastically embraced the idea. I met one of the women who did the survey and she said that, yes, most of the customers liked the idea. But nobody did a driver survey. If they had, they would've found out that 80% of the drivers like the cash option. Does Flywheel believe that we're so stupid that they can tell us what we think?

In sum, Flywheel is being run as an top-down organization that treats cab drivers less like customers than like the students at the Catholic Military High School (appropriately named "Cretin") that I (left photo) got myself thrown out of fifty years ago.

On top of this, the app has features that make it difficult to use. Instead of automatically calculating the price of the ride, the driver has to punch in the figures. This slows everything down and naturally leads to mistakes. Furthermore, the customer interface is not intuitive. Many of my passengers have trouble figuring out how to call or send a message to the driver. This can be a major problem because of the aforementioned GPS inaccuracy. I once was given an address at 1800 Divisadero when the order was actually at 2700 Sutter - four blocks away; five if you take one-way streets into account. This was their most spectacular miscalculation but major errors are common. 

I called up Director Chris Hayashi and, without going into too much detail, told her that there were problems with the app and asked her if she could arrange a sit-down meeting with Flywheel's brain thrust. What I had in mind was something like the ballpark workshop. What we got instead was Vice President of Marketing Jason Dewillers (lead photo).

At the Town Hall

Hmm, I made that sound like a put down, didn't I? Not fair. Vice President Dewillers was articulate, personable and well spoken. He listened carefully to the opinions of people in the room. He also told us that Flywheel had already corrected a major problem with the app. Kudos.

Dewillers actually agrees with cab drivers that Flywheel should allow a cash pay option. Unfortunately, he said that he was voted down on this by the majority of their board. So, as much as I enjoyed his presentation, I would have preferred talking with the board members who are anti-cash.

Why not talk to them now?

• Regular Flywheel customers have told me that they are going to quit using your app even though they like the service because of the anti-cash dictum. Some are people in cash businesses like waitressing or bartending. Others don't want every transaction in their lives tracked.
• The customers I talked with were more than willing to pay you a fee for the use of the app. So all you'd have to do is put a credit card on file and charge them for the ride no matter which option they choose.
• There are also drivers who only want to accept cash. Of course, there is a potential problem of a driver insisting on cash from a customer who wants to pay via the app but I can see two solutions for this:
• Have the app notate how the rider wants to pay when the order is put out.
• Put the driver out of service if he or she accepts a ride with the auto pay option and later insists on Cash.

Flywheel certainly has no difficulty holding people out of service. Dewillers told us that he turned the app off for two customers who'd paid cash and two drivers who had demanded to be paid in cash. Indeed, they almost cut me off. 

For some reason (possibly a miscue by me) the app wouldn't allow me to put the figures in for a ride. No matter what I tried, the app would not flip to the input page. I finally cancelled the ride and took cash. The next morning, I listened to a voice mail where a young Flywheel techie threatened to fire me.

Is this a workable economic model?

• Is it wise to limit the number of your customers and drivers that use the app?  Especially when your company is trying to gain market share.
• Is it smart to turn down cash when it would give you a competitive edge on Lyft, Sidecar and Uber?
• I've been using the Cabulous/Flywheel app since it came out and I've probably taken as many orders as anyone. I've also talked several hundred of my passengers into trying your service. Do you really want to rid yourselves of drivers like me because we take cash once in a while?

As irritating as the "no cash"policy is to many drivers, this annoyance is minor compared to their feelings about Flywheel's punitive urges. At one point, Dewillers wistfully spoke of Lyft's ability to discipline their drivers, forgetting that Lyfters have little choice for making money except taking dispatched orders.

My feeling on this subject is that there are no end of venues for discipline in San Francisco and that Flywheel brain-thrusters would be better off availing themselves of these services than threatening taxi drivers who, if they'd think about it, are their most essential customers.

A number of taxi drivers won't even consider trying the app because of Flywheel's punitive policies. Others, like myself, are simply using the app less frequently. I'm not going to take a call unless I'm certain that the GPS won't lead me into gridlock.

Almost all drivers want Flywheel to modify its decree. The most popular idea is to have a time limit where the driver can cancel the ride without penalty. The passenger has two minutes to cancel. Giving the driver one minute to do so would probably solve most of the difficulties. However, it appeared to me that Dewillers wasn't interested in this solution.

To be fair, taxicabs create a problem for app makers that Lyft, Sidecar and Uber don't pose. The so-called NOETS do steal flags from time to time, but they make far more money by taking dispatched orders. With taxis, whether a call is better than a flag depends on the situation. What an app maker (or anybody trying to build up a dispatching service) does not want are too many drivers taking orders then canceling, which loses business.

In my opinion, the best solution is the one-minute cancellation option coupled with creating a culture of drivers who realize that taking orders builds up the business and thus, in the long run, makes them more money. As it turns out Dewillers had a different solution in mind at the Town Hall which, needless to say, he didn't bother to discuss with us.

What's wrong with it?

When I went to work last Tuesday, the Flywheel app was no longer giving cross streets. It simply gave the complete address of the order.

This is what happens when you put a gaggle of geeks in a room who know technology but don't fully understand the complexities of the problem to which they are applying it. I'm sure they thought they'd come up with a brilliant and elegant solution. It takes care of the GPS difficulties while allowing Flywheel to maintain its culture of punishment.

"Elegant" and "brilliant,"  are not the words that popped into my mind when I realized what Flywheel had done, and the ones that did are better left unsaid. This "solution" is bad on so many levels that I don't where to begin. Let's start with first idea that pops into my head:

• A certain type of driver will decline the order then rush to pick it up anyway and make the customer pay cash.
• This will create no-goes for the drivers who take the orders and annoy many of the customers.
• And, Flywheel won't even know who did it: they won't even know who to chastise.
• It doesn' t actually cure the GPS accuracy problem. It makes it worse. The GPS often gives the wrong address. At least we used to have some idea of what neighborhood the order was in. Now there's no clue. 
• Asperger's syndrome geniuses may be more common in the taxi business than in other professions but there still are probably less than two dozen San Francisco cab drivers who can match up street numbers with cross streets for the entire city.
• So many streets start off at angles from Market or Columbus and the like that is little uniformity in the numbers.
• It's difficult to remember where the numbers on minor streets start or finish.
• It's hard to know where many alleys are without the cross streets.
• Of course I do know where the numbers are on many major cross streets so I can tell you that 1700 Vallejo crosses Franklin and that 3000 Baker is close to Chestnut. But what are the numbers at Vallejo & Baker and where is 1800 Baker?
• I count 11 (or is it 12) streets between Franklin & Baker so it's 2800 or 2900 Vallejo.
• I had an order on 1800 Baker and guessed Pine for the cross when it was actually California. One block wasn't much of a difference in this case, but it could've been if it was a one-way street.
• I suppose that doing arithmetic all night could be a good method for fighting off Alzheimer's but is it something I want to do or should be doing when I'm driving a cab?
• Knowing the cross streets is essential. It determines the routes that a diver can take at various times of day. It means getting to an order faster and easier.
• Giving the cross streets is supposed to be a function of a taxi app. Are we supposed to use our own GPS to discover where the numbers are?

Flywheel doesn't have worry about firing me.

I'm about to fly off on my own. I'm pretty much done with them. They've accomplished the almost impossible feat of alienating one of their biggest supporters - me. I've made a living for thirty years without their app. I don't need the aggravation.

From now on, I'll only take orders when I know exactly where they are, and I'll blow off the rest. And, the ride will have to be very close because I won't know whether some other driver is already racing to it or not. Currently, I don't accept hails longer than 5 minutes away downtown and 8 minutes away in the neighborhoods. I'll probably cut that time in half.

One thing is certain: I hope that Hayashi changes her mind about making Flywheel and Taxi Magic the only games in town. Talk about being between a rock and hard place! Taxi Magic doesn't even have tracking and the biggest company supporting their app charges their drivers a fee to use it. Does the Director of Taxis Services actually expect these guys to make San Francisco cabs competitive with Uber?

I think it's essential to leave the field open to other apps so that we can bring in a company that has the brains to develop their software in conjunction with the people who use it. Then we'll finally have a taxi app that both customers and cab drivers will want to use.

ETA, are You Going the Way of OTA?

Regular readers of my blog know that I've been a fan of Open Taxi Access (OTA) and Cabulous (now Flywheel) ever since John Wolpert of Upstart Mobile introduced us to the concept and the app two and a half years ago.

To  recap and clarify:  OTA promised to be a universal app that would put all San Francisco taxis on a smart phone map. In that way, customers would be able to see all the available cabs instead of just those belonging to one company or another. The benefits to drivers would also be immense. They would no longer drive near orders without knowing it. They would not race to an address only to see their customers riding away in a different colored taxi.

I have yet to meet either a cab rider or a driver who was not excited by this idea. OTA was even passed by TAC two years ago only to be shelved when John Lazar of Luxor Cab reputedly told Nat Ford, then Director of the MTA, to kill it.

Director Chris Hayashi recently resurrected the idea under the name of Electronic Taxi Access (ETA). The bid to create the architecture was awarded to Frias Transportation Infranstructure (FTI) who sent Chief Information Officer James Wisniewski up from Las Vegas to implement the platform. Then, about two weeks ago I ran into Hayashi and Wisniewski and was told that the plan was changing. Instead of having several apps connecting via the FTI platform, a company would need at least one thousand customers would be allowed to operate in San Francisco, leaving only Flywheel and Taxi Magic in the mix.

With this in mind Director Hayashi decided to devote a portion of the last Town Hall meeting to ETA and Flywheel and recruited Jason Dewillers (photo) from Flywheel for the task.

Tomorrow: ETA and Flywheel.

Final Comments on the CPUC Rulemaking on Ridesharing I

This is the first of two posts on the final thoughts that I turned into the California Public Utilities Commission. Please excuse the weird formatting. This program goes bonkers whenever I bring in text from another source and I'm sure as hell not going to re-type the whole thing.

I doubt that I've worked harder writing anything. Nor do I feel that I've written anything more useless. The hearings appeared to be fixed from start to finish. It's hard to argue otherwise when the CPUC made back door deals with Lyft and Uber, who they were supposed to be regulating, before the hearings even began. And, according to Sidecar guru Sunil Paul, his company made a secret deal with the CPUC after the hearing ended but before any decisions are officially announced.

What we took part in, then, was theatre not law. The play had it's moments but, at the end of the day when the curtain finally goes down, all we'll remember is that it was a second-rate farce written by schmucks of lies and hustling signifying very little.

Revised Final Comments on Rulemaking on Ridesharing

Public Safety

The concept of allowing non-professional drivers to use their personal vehicles as taxies is an inherent danger to public safety. The risks are: uninsured or under-insured drivers and vehicles, untrained and/or sub-par drivers, and unsafe, poorly maintained cars. The CPUC, in fact, would be legalizing the above if it were to validate the pseudo ridesharing services of Lyft, Sidecar and others. It would be impossible to regulate. To legalize one private car as a faux taxi would be to legalize them all, and, in the process, raise the personal insurance rates of every driver in the State of California.

In addition, Lyft and Sidecar operate their services in a manor that is designed to deceive, mislead and manipulate, not only the general public, but their own drivers. The very business model of these companies is based on a deliberate misuse of words and an intentional misreading of the ridesharing rules in order to avoid insurance and other laws that are designed to protect, not only the general public, but California transportation businesses and its workers.

Is it true if you say it’s true?

In this section I’m going to compare some public statements with the “terms and conditions” that both the drivers and passengers of Lyft and Sidecar have to sign before they can either driver or ride in one of the vehicles.

The terms are hard to find on their websites and virtually impossible to read if they are downloaded on a smartphone because they print out to over twenty pages at 12pt type. Although Lyft and Sidecar cover themselves by saying that everyone should read the terms, I’ve yet to meet a Lyft or Sidecar driver or a customer who realized that they had waived their rights to sue and agreed to the following statements when they downloaded their apps:

From Lyft terms: (1)

You and We agree that any legal disputes or claims between the Parties that cannot be resolved informally will be submitted to binding arbitration in California. The arbitration shall be conducted by the American Arbitration Association, or any other established ADR provider mutually agreed upon by the parties. Any judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof.

In the event that You have a dispute with one or more Users, You agree to release Lyft (and Our officers, directors, agents, subsidiaries, joint ventures and employees) from claims, demands and damages (actual and consequential) of every kind and nature, known and unknown, suspected and unsuspected, disclosed and undisclosed, arising out of or in any way connected to such disputes with other Users or to Your use of the Lyft Platform or the Services. If You are a California resident, You waive California Civil Code Section 1542, which says: "A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which, if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor."

From Sidecar terms: (2)

ALL CLAIMS MUST BE BROUGHT IN THE PARTIES’ INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, AND NOT AS A PLAINTIFF OR CLASS MEMBER IN ANY PURPORTED CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDING, AND, UNLESS WE AGREE OTHERWISE, THE ARBITRATOR MAY NOT CONSOLIDATE MORE THAN ONE PERSON’S CLAIMS. YOU AGREE THAT, BY ENTERING INTO THIS AGREEMENT, YOU AND SIDECAR ARE EACH WAIVING THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY OR TO PARTICIPATE IN A CLASS ACTION.

  

I repeat that neither Lyft nor Sidecar go over their terms and/or agreements with their drivers and certainly not with their passengers.

Contrast this with my interview with the Personal Manager of Desoto Cab, Greg Cochran. I sat across from him at his desk while we went through Desoto’s nine-page agreement.

I’d read a clause, ask a question if necessary, then we’d both sign off on the clause.

I learned that I was fully covered for liability by both Desoto’s insurance and Worker’s Compensation. I had to put down a $500 insurance deposit, which will be returned after one year if I don’t have a “Fault Accident.” There was nothing in the contract that would keep me from taking legal against them if I thought it necessary. Before signing the agreement, I read and initialed the following.

NOTICE: BY SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT, YOU VERIFY THAT YOU HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY AND OTHER ADVISORS BEFORE SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT, AND THAT YOU HAVE FULLY READ, UNDERSTAND AND AGREE O THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH THEREIN.

Both Lyft and Sidecar pressured me to download their apps (and thus sign their terms) as soon as possible when I interviewed with them over the phone and later in person before I could possibly have had any chance to see an attorney or other advisor.

Cochran also discussed my resume and my professional driving experience with me, subjects that held no interest for Lyft or Sidecar at all.

Both companies make unsubstantiated claims about their vehicle and driver safety.

Sidecar

“We Know Our Drivers

We meet every driver in person and conduct a mandatory orientation session.”

“Vehicle Quality

We maintain a standard vehicle quality level.”

My own experience was quite different. (3)

I've had many careers in my life but my interviews at these companies marked the first times that I've ever applied for a job and not been asked what skills or experience qualified me to do the work.

Sidecar conducted an online video interview with me. The most profound question they

asked was,

“If you were to be a car, what kind of car would you be? And why?”

There was no “in person” interview at Sidecar. Instead, I attended Sidecar U for an hour and a half where most of the time was devoted to explaining how to use the app and noting the best times to drive. The fact that Sidecar was not liable for auto insurance was briefly mentioned and driving safely was encouraged.”

There was no mechanical inspection of the car.

Justine Sherrock, a journalist who drove for Lyft, had these experiences with her Lyft "training." (4)

“Our training focused on using the app, signing up for work hours online, and being friendly. In teams of two, we sat in chairs side by side (Lyft riders are supposed to sit shotgun), acting out welcoming and fist-bumping the rider, making small talk during the mock drive, and using the app on tester phones. We never actually got in a car.

Lyft’s vehicle safety inspection, which it claims is stricter than those of taxicab services, consisted of checking that my car was clean inside and out and having me demonstrate that my break lights, blinkers, and headlights worked. They copied my driver’s license and insurance card and photographed my license plate — there was no need, they explained, to see my registration as long as I had the sticker.

Unlike at a cab company, there was no driver safety test or quiz on city geography. They didn’t check references or ask for a résumé. I don’t think they even Googled me. “

According to Sidecar’s website “Safety is our #1 priority.”

“All drivers are pre-vetted for safety, all rides are GPS tracked and everyone who rides is covered by our unique $1 million dollar insurance policy. We have many additional features in place to help maintain your safety and security.”

“How do I know that Sidecar passengers are safe?

“Safety is our #1 priority. All passengers are required to enter their personal information (including credit card info) prior to joining the community, and they are rated by drivers after every trip. This helps keep everyone honest, visible and safe.”

“How do I know my community driver will be safe, friendly and reliable?”

“Safety is our #1 priority. All community drivers not only must have a valid driver's license, insurance and a good car in working order, but we also run background checks, conduct interviews and use GPS technology to track every trip. Passengers are not anonymous; Sidecar takes steps to ensure passenger identity and accountability for a

safer driving experience. We have a robust community rating system. People with low ratings are removed from the community. Any driver who doesn’t meet Sidecar’s safety, performance, or courtesy standards will be deactivated. Your ratings give Sidecar drivers yet another reason to provide friendly, safe and reliable rides.”

Sidecar’s “terms,” however, express a total lack of concern for anybody who doesn’t own stock in Sidecar.

“No Warranty OR Guarantee Provided as to Driver or Passenger Safety. Sidecar has taken commercially reasonable steps to collect information from its Drivers, including proof of automobile registration and insurance, and has used commercially reasonable efforts to conduct Driver background checks. This however, is not to be deemed a warranty or guarantee, either express or implied, for the safety of a ride, the reliability of a Driver, a ride or the Driver’s vehicle, or for anything else, and Sidecar expressly disclaims all warranties as to its Drivers and Passengers. You should take all reasonable steps in determining whether to accept a ride from Driver or give a ride to a Passenger.

In no event will Sidecar be responsible for any damages (including personal injury, death, property damage, lost time or wages, etc.) Resulting from or related to a ride facilitated by the Service, or for resolving any disputes between you and another user. You hereby agree that your use of the Service is at your sole risk.”

On Facebook, Lyft claims:

“Lyft is your friend with a car. Download Lyft in the App Store or on Google Play and request an instant pickup from a friendly, background-checked community driver for less than the cost of a cab.”

On its website, Lyft adds:

“It’s all about community. Passengers and drivers rate each other after every ride. If you rate a driver below 4 stars, you’ll never be matched with that driver again. If a driver's

average falls below 4½ out of 5 stars, they are removed from the Lyft community. It's our way of maintaining high-quality standards.”

Lyft’s terms, on the other hand, show the real concern that the company has for its drivers and passengers - that is to say, ZERO.

“WE DO NOT SCREEN THE PARTICIPANTS USING THE SERVICES IN ANY WAY. AS A RESULT, WE WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES, DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL AND/OR CONSEQUENTIAL, ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF LYFT OR THE SERVICES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, TO DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF COMMUNICATING AND/OR MEETING WITH OTHER PARTICIPANTS OF LYFT OR THE SERVICES, OR INTRODUCED TO YOU VIA LYFT OR THE SERVICES. SUCH DAMAGES INCLUDE, WITHOUT LIMITATION, PHYSICAL DAMAGES, BODILY INJURY, DEATH AND OR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND DISCOMFORT.”

“LYFT HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER FOR THE ACTIONS OR CONDUCT OF DRIVERS OR RIDERS. LYFT HAS NO OBLIGATION TO INTERVENE IN OR BE INVOLVED IN ANY WAY IN DISPUTES THAT MAY ARISE BETWEEN DRIVERS, RIDERS, OR THIRD PARTIES. RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DECISIONS YOU MAKE REGARDING PROVIDING OR ACCEPTING TRANSPORTATION REST SOLELY WITH YOU. IT IS EACH RIDER AND DRIVER’S RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE REASONABLE PRECAUTIONS IN ALL ACTIONS AND INTERACTIONS WITH ANY PARTY THEY MAY INTERACT WITH THROUGH USE OF THE SERVICES. LYFT MAY BUT HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY TO SCREEN OR OTHERWISE EVALUATE POTENTIAL RIDERS OR USERS. USERS UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT THAT LYFT HAS NO CONTROL OVER THE IDENTITY OR ACTIONS OF THE RIDERS AND DRIVERS, AND LYFT REQUESTS THAT USERS EXERCISE CAUTION AND GOOD JUDGMENT WHEN USING THE SERVICES. DRIVERS AND RIDERS USE THE SERVICES AT THEIR OWN RISK.”

As far as I know these companies (and others like them) are the only forms of transportation that make passengers sign away their rights to sue and be covered by the company’s liability insurance before getting on a vehicle. Would you get in a bus, a cab, a train or an airplane where you had to agree beforehand in writing to “USE THE SERVICE AT YOUR OWN RISK?”

On the other hand, now that you’ve read these exclusions will you get into a Lyft?

Of course, Lyft and Sidecar claim that they are only “software platforms” but this is a specious argument. You can’t be run over by software. There is something like 2,000 vehicles acting like taxis on the streets of San Francisco that wouldn’t be out there if Lyft and Sidecar didn’t exist. These cars are driven by men and women who have been vetted (however badly) by the bogus ridesharing companies, and who pick up customers via Lyft and Sidecar’s apps.

These apps can get you killed. The people who produce, market and own them need to be regulated.

Part II in a few.