Uber Continues Its Contempt for the Law and Lawmakers with UberPool & Xchange Leasing

Uber has announced two new programs that are actually already in effect (meaning they are going on now) despite that fact that they are both illegal: Uberpool and Xchange Leasing. Using leased cars for TNCs is currently illegal under the law and the Uberpool measure is in committee in Sacramento and has yet to be voted upon.

These were two major subjects about which cab drivers spoke at the CPUC hearings yesterday. The drivers would like  enforcement of the laws that are on the books.

These speeches were treated by the commissioners with the usual vacant stares.

It should be needless to mention that people riding in vehicles engaged in illegal activities would probably be uninsured in case of an accident but, such facts have never impressed a commissioner before, why would it do so now?

Oh – yes! Uber claims that this is a sample of their "providing transportation so inexpensive and reliable, people can actually sell their cars." 

Now, if they can get the 160,000 people currently driving for Uber (not to mention the new leased vehicles) off the streets Uber might really do something to improve the environment.

As it is, this is a classic case of Uber pissing on the back of the public and calling it rain.

Merry Christmas and a Happy Holiday

Two women from SantaCon wish you a very,  Merry Christmas.

I can only double their cheer. Because I'm beginning to think that the taxi business isn't going to tank after all.

 The world is beginning to get it. The press is beginning to write what we've been saying all along.

But Uber's bs never stops. I don't know which is my favorite quote from the techie snake-oil sales folks:

The South Koreans are paying a bounty to anyone who reports an Uber driver "operating illegally within the city limits. The Seoul government will pay anyone who reports a case of an unlicensed driver carrying paying customers up to 1 million won (a little more than $900)."

Uber's response? "... Uber does not believe it is appropriate for authorities to seek to punish drivers who are trying to make a living through this service," Uber spokeswoman Evelyn Tay said in a statement.

And, "Uber vowed to cooperate with South Korea's legal system, saying it was "confident that its service is legal in the country." Another way of saying that Uber understands Korea's laws better than they do.

But I think the following quote tops everything because in a rare moment of honesty Uber spokesperson Taylor Bennet said that they don't fingerprint because "it takes too long." "It's a very long process, it could take up to months," Bennet said. "Our hires can happen in days time."

Well that clear that up. It's just what we've always said: Uber thinks that its customers will have to put up with an occasional hammer attack or rape in order to boost Uber's bottom line.

The most interesting thing about the statement is that Bennet apparently thinks that his explanation is morally and legally acceptable. He's been hanging with Travis way too long.

But read some recent stuff for yourself. It indeed could be a happy New Year.

http://www.cnet.com/news/uber-indicted-in-south-korea-two-weeks-after-official-launch/?tag=nl.e703&s_cid=e703&ttag=e703&ftag=CAD090e536

http://www.cnet.com/news/whos-really-taking-you-for-an-uber-ride/

http://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/ubers-yawning-insurance-gap?utm_term=.hjL2x9r7P#.lb4n3yWVa

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2014/12/san-francisco-los-angeles-uber-business-practices.html

http://qz.com/312537/the-secret-to-the-uber-economy-is-wealth-inequality/

http://www.enhancedinsurance.com/lyft-out-of-an-uber-mess/#comment-233324

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2014/12/18/uber-lyft-driver-insurance/

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2014/12/uber-lawsuit-philadelphia-taxi-companies.html?ana=e_du_pub&s=article_du&ed=2014-12-24&u=vwWEuefhF4TZ/9cKX4tsOKh3Evs&t=1419462898

The Proposed Decision of CPUC Commissioner Michael R. Peevey

I think I've fallen behind a lot of people in that I'm just beginning to read the decision now. Thus, I'm in no position to make misleading comments on a subject I don't fully understand. In short, I'm not ABC or the Bay Citizen or the SF Weekly.

I can tell you that the item is targeted to appear on agenda 3321 for the Commission's Business Meeting on 9/5/2013 but it may appear later. A binding decision may be made then or later, and the Commission "may adopt all or part of it as written, amend or modify it, or set it aside or prepare its own decision."

We thus have until at September 5th to influence the final judgement. Best to read the document yourselves. Me being me, I'll probably be giving you my thoughts on this sooner than later.

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/SearchRes.aspx?docformat=ALL&DocID=73350686

CBS coverage at the Protest = halfway decent for a change.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/07/30/cab-drivers-hold-noisy-rally-at-san-francisco-city-hall-to-protest-rideshare/

100,000 Uninsured Rides and Counting: Undercover at Lyft and Sidecar

Lyft (photo shows phone salespeople recruiting drivers at Lyft headquarters) and Sidecar are venture capital startups that advertise themselves as car-pooling services that use smart-phone apps to connect people who need rides with drivers in the community “who have extra space in their cars.”

Both companies claim to do intensive evaluations of drivers, including criminal background checks and thorough inspections of the vehicles that provide transportation services through their apps. They also tell their drivers that their cars "do not need to be covered by commercial liability insurance.”

I decided to check out their hype because I’m the ideal person to do so. I’ve been an insurance underwriter, a driving instructor, a blogger, and I’ve logged over a million miles as a cab driver. My research included talking to representatives from the top ten rated insurance companies, interviewing people who have been Lyft or Sidecar drivers or customers, and applying for a driving position at the two companies. Both Lyft and Sidecar initially approved me but later changed their minds when I started asking them detailed questions about their contracts and insurance.

What I learned was that almost every claim that they make is either misleading or false. Their interviewing process is a joke. They don’t ask for social security numbers and they don’t fingerprint the applicants so they can’t be conducting criminal background checks. Nor do these companies make mechanical inspections of the cars. In the case of Sidecar, they don’t even look at the vehicle. Most importantly, insurance companies consider neither Lyft"s or Sidecar's ridesharing services so their cars are required to carry commercial insurance. Since most of their cars don’t, they are uninsured vehicles.

In reality then, Lyft and Sidecar are illegal transportation for hire services that use double-talk to exploit the underemployed, and subvert laws and regulations designed to protect drivers, passengers and the public. Furthermore, when drivers and passengers accept the terms of service necessary to download their apps, they waive their rights to sue Lyft or Sidecar in perpetuity. Their passengers also agree to come to the legal defense (at their own expense) of Lyft or sidecar if the companies are sued for negligence.

If you were to be a car, what kind of car would you be and why?

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?”

The other Sidecar questions were:

“Who are you and why would you make an awesome Sidecar community driver?” 

“Where are some of your favorite places to hang out and why?”

“How did you hear about us?”

During a phone interview, Lyft representative Chris did ask me if I’d ever had a DUI or a criminal record. He then returned to in-depth community ridesharing form to finish up with:

“How would your friends describe your personality?”

“Do you smoke in your car?”

“For a more important question, who would you most want to ride in your car for ten minutes?”

Both companies did check to see if my driver’s license was valid and my auto insurance was up to date. They also looked at my vehicle ownership card. Neither company fingerprinted me or asked for my social security number - necessities for doing a criminal background check.

I had an “in person” interview at Lyft that lasted three minutes. There was no training session. An interviewer/inspector, who looked more like a fashionista then a mechanic, glanced at my car. She sat in the front seat to see if it was clean and made sure that the lights and turn signals worked before taking my photograph standing next to the car. She did not drive the car or ride in it, check the tires, check the VIN #, open the hood, look under the car or do any kind of mechanical inspection.

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. The instructor proudly told us that Sidecar now had over five hundred vehicles in San Francisco.

I was told to upload a photo (left) of my car to their website where they must have done the mechanical inspection because they certainly didn’t do so in person.

On the basis of these intensive interviews, I was approved along with three other divers at Lyft and with eighteen others at Sidecar.

Next: If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, will it bark if you call it a dog?  The art of double-talk and a look at Lyft's and Sidecar's insurance, or lack thereof.