Discussion in 'Insurance' started by Kaz, Oct 20, 2014.
The vast majority of cars being driven only have one occupant....the driver.
I actually looked into commercial insurance. Crazy Expensive!
What did you find out?
That I couldn't afford it. So far, $500+ per month.
My general beef with the whole insurance thing with Uber is this blatantly false representation of what 'most' personal auto insurance companies cover, which I found to be an utter lie by asking my own personal auto insurance company, from Uber's website:
"What about a driver’s time between trips?
Most personal auto policies cover the period of time when a driver is between commercial trips and not carrying a passenger. However, we have also recently added a separate commercial insurance policy that went into effect on March 14, 2014 in order to add commercial liability coverage to this period of time between trips and eliminate any ambiguity."
This to me is nothing but a lie, flat out, period. If the insurance company that a driver is with says otherwise, it doesn't matter what Uber says.
That is the essence of misrepresentation. In actuality the exact opposite is true, and it is pretty easy to call and find out from the horses mouth. Then Uber goes on to say, well, we got this covered. Again, a misrepresentation. Yes, Uber's policy is probably sufficient in some ways, no doubt, in the ways that are strictly stipulated. None of that has ANYTHING to do with the terms and conditions of the drivers personal auto insurance coverage. That factual information can only come from the drivers personal auto insurance coverage. And, my personal auto insurance coverage said my entire personal auto insurance is VOIDED entirely by participating in ride share.
Uber has employed a deceiving sleight of hand that can easily be discovered by asking the personal auto insurance carrier. Their representation is meaningless and outright deceptive.
Most personal auto insurance is VOID by participating in ride share as a driver. Do you see this fact ANYWHERE in Uber's material? No. Why?
Well, in the world of ride share, according to Uber representatives, if this information has to be disclosed to personal auto insurance companies IT WOULD PLACE AN UNDUE BURDEN on the drivers:
"Henry Gustav Fuldner, Uber’s risk management chief, testified Tuesday that the company does not plan to require its drivers to notify their personal insurance companies they are driving for a ride-sharing company. “We are not party to that agreement,” Mr. Fuldner said, “and such notification would be unduly burdensome.” "
[From a hearing in Penn.]
Uh, yeah, it would be burdensome to have your personal auto insurance VOIDED wouldn't it? Pretty big burden. Undue? What in the world are the insurance regulators even thinking? What in the world is Uber even thinking? Why are they making the call for a driver obligation? They aren't. As you note from his statement, 'we are not a party to that agreement.' Well, why are you making claims that 'most auto insurance companies cover' when the fact is they are VOIDED?
This lie has gone unchecked by the entire U.S. political and regulatory agencies. Why is THAT? Don't citizens and drivers at least deserve to be TOLD THE TRUTH and NOT LIED TO BLATANTLY in public?
Who in the hell are these guys kidding?
Most personal auto insurance COVERS?
Uh, no, not even close.
Some seem to have an accurate grip on facts:
"Whether an Uber driver’s personal insurance is available to passengers remains in doubt. Any personal driver insurance policy excludes coverage if a driver is charging passengers money for the trip, said John Madiedo, president of the Professional Insurance Center in Tampa.
Madiedo said that’s one reason Uber drivers should have to carry commercial driver insurance like cab and limo drivers.
“Personal auto insurance is not intended to cover people who are using their vehicle for commercial purposes,” said Madiedo, whose company specializes in covering public transportation vehicles."
And drivers can get the identical statement of FACT from their own personal auto insurance company.
Jeff, you are not an idiot. You are spot on correct. Anyone with a slightly successful car service will agree with your assessment. Uber/Lyft/etc have done well at convincing PASSENGERS they are on to something new...exciting...innovative...etc. but the truth is: it is a dispatch system. A JIT dispatch system which has set an unmatchable expectation of a car just around the corner where ever you are, cheaper than ever. This model does nothing to reduce the risk of accidents, in fact, by recruiting inexperienced, untrained chauffeurs/cabbies , it actually increases the likelihood of accidents. It also increases the cost of business, because you have built in an indefinite amount of wait time in order to have a car "just around the corner".
(It seems the target market "pi$$es" themselves if they have to wait 10 minutes or more)
These increases must be covered somehow, some way. Currently, it appears to be covered by the drivers, or passengers left paying up to 10 times surge rates. Neither of those options can survive long term. Our company could provide transportation around-the-clock, parking in wait, circling a few choice spots (if it were legal) but we would only do this during peak seasons, otherwise, we would go broke paying our drivers to be idle waiting for a Ping during slow periods. This is nothing new, we've always known this.
We wouldn't have had a driver saturation problem if the government would have just let us all DRIVE DRUNK! The big role that ride share plays is keeping people from getting pinched and having their lives ruined over having a couple wines or beers for dinner and then paying $15,000 fines, getting raped by the insurance companies and losing their jobs.
It would be good to be paid enough to take the overflow with proper protections. To me an average UberX part time driver stands just as much risk or MORE than the previous drunk drivers. They just hope they don't have it happen to them. The risk has just been transferred off the drunks and onto the naked insured Uber driver. The system will predatorize us soon enough too. They all need the cash and will find a way to get it, just like Travis.
Well, in all fairness, the drunk driving excuse is how they managed to snowball so many city councils. In reality, most of us know that is a load of crap, it is hard to imagine that there are that many drunks departing hotels to go to the airport, or arriving at the airport to go to a hotel ;-)
And that is the point.
Uber(and no doubt Lyft+Sidecar) are pushing rates down to gain market share.
Part of the plan is to ensure drivers commit Insurance Fraud.
As then they don't need to factor in the high Insurance costs.
The more you look.
The more it looks like a Ponzi scheme.
$500 a month seems reasonable.
And compares with prices for similar Ins in the UK.
Many drivers pay around £3000/4000 a year.
Even basic coverage that only covers pax and any other parties involved in an incident not any of your own vehicle damage (3rd Party Only in UK) can easily run to £200 a month.
I implore all UberX to gey their Insurance sorted correctly.
Apart from ShooUber he can do what he likes as he or indeed she is an abusive amd ignorant fool.
yep...that be about average.
Most Domestic policies will not cover you if you "use your insured vehicle for hire or reward. This is a can of worms that's about to open here in Australia and woe betide when the fraud prevention bodies start cracking down big time. Not a case of if but when.
Yeah, it's gonna happen here too. When Mr. Big Britches tried to roll out a fleet of ride for hire across the globe this particular issue got sidelined and all the regulatory rules got tossed aside. But they'll catch up. In the end if ride share wants to play, it's gonna cost somebody.
There wouldn't be nearly as many people involved in this gig if Travis was honest you know. Forced commercial, even at reduced rates, WILL thin the driver herd without any doubts. Just hope you aren't one of the poor schmucks that insurance companies/regulators will point to in a bad accident gone viral like the guy in Cali that ran over the little girl. I feel sorry for that poor bastard. Hopefully Uber will cover his ass for P.R. purposes, but when that starts happening in every state, look out below.
Actually it's not. I've been able to get quotes for less. When you subtract what you're already paying for insurance and insert the cost of a real policy, it's just not that bad for a full time driver to be covered. Part time. Not a chance at these rates. And UberX even full time won't be nearly as attractive either.
The driver flood will stop.
Pretty pathetic business plan ain't it?
Enticing citizens into fraudulent behavior never seems to work out once the press gets ahold of it. The sad part is that driver awareness and financial desperation is currently the 'driving' force. I think the politicians like it too because it keeps the starving masses problem somewhat mitigated so we don't attack them.
With the winter coming up, I am getting really concerned with the insurance coverage. No amount of surge is worth it if I get into an accident and risking my insurance drooping me. I do not trust uberx insurance to cover me in case of accident
No seriously. This part of ride share is a service. You might also consider that the masses of this country are so freakin' poor that a lot of people can't even afford a car. I'm sure you've heard the recent numbers on median income? It's just ridiculous. 1/2 the people in this country make less than $23 grand a year. How the hell anybody can survive on that is beyond me.
You shouldn't even be on the road without suitable coverage if you have any respect for not getting devoured by the system. Every last one of you knows that being on the road a lot more than you normally are exposes you to a huge amount of additional close calls. That's one of the reasons I started digging into this. I'm in 2-3 close shaves every week for gods sake from all the yahoos out there driving drunk.
Well they aren't hauling the poor here, when camping in front of the airport or Four Seasons during F1. The truth is, with their ridiculous surges, drivers will probably clean up during the festivals, they have gone about the entry into this market in such an underhanded manner, they are taking money out of local drivers pockets. (They bring in people from other cities) they completely lied to the Circuit of the Americas morons ( they told them they have a fixed rate) so COTA is allowing them to bypass the crap the rest of us have to endure. We are booked solid, but some of the smaller companies are not, and we have talked to several who are ready to throw in the towel and go underground in order to remain competitive. Ultimately, they will be at an advantage when the insurance regulations are adjusted in the city. I am confident that will happen within the next year or so. It is only going to take a few accidents for the CITYIOTS (my new label for the council!!) to wake up.
As for us, and many companies like us, we plan to reject the reservation minimums, and offer instant hails during peak seasons, and we will probably advertise our full insurance and 24x7 live customer service. We just have to get past the airport's transition period because we are not going to give up our spot on the limousine line prematurely.
Once we are in full competition with these TNC companies, we will keep syphoning their higher end riders who resent 4-6x surges even though they have the disposable cash. Then we will syphon the passengers who have followed the news and learned more about the insurance gaps. We have already heard from a couple of hotels that they will advise their guests to call us or others before using this service. They don't want these cars on their property without full commercial insurance.
We've already syphoned a few of their potential drivers, who had enough good sense to read the fine print and recognize the risk. One of them will be spending three days with a visitor; earning hourly rates, in a vehicle we own, insure, and even cleaned for her. Now THAT'S TCOB! Client AND driver!
Don't get me wrong here. I can certainly appreciate the real threat ride share poses to established cab co.'s
But cab co's should also understand that there is no way in hell they can financially justify sopping up excess demand. This is where Uber will beat taxi hands down every single time. That's where the real issue is for the public.
The cab co's JUST CAN'T GET ER DONE. That's a monetary fact. Can't be done. The overflow demand demands ride share. I'd just like to see it done a little better for driver protections. There is undoubtedly a public benefit. The public themselves say so. And I know so from the user end as well. Where I live you still couldn't get a cab without a very long wait time anywhere out of high demand areas. Ain't gonna happen. Even in off times you'll wait 2 hours if you're far enough out and most of the time they will no show.
Separate names with a comma.