Uber driver deliberately ran down cyclist near wharf, police say…. Is Uber going to run and hide AGAIN !

A bicyclist suffered a punctured lung, broken ribs and a broken collarbone after he was mowed down by an Uber driver Sunday afternoon near San Francisco’s Fisherman’s Wharf, police said.
The driver, 38-year-old Emerson Decarvalho of Daly City, was arrested at the scene on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon, said Officer Albie Esparza, a San Francisco police spokesman.
The trouble started around 1 p.m. Sunday at North Point and Taylor streets when the 45-year-old cyclist, who was not identified, rode up to the passenger side of the Uber car, a black Toyota Camry, and “began yelling at the driver and banging on his window,” Esparza said.
The cyclist was swearing at the driver “and pushed his mirror in” before he rode off, Esparza said.

It’s not clear what prompted the exchange, but the cyclist’s actions apparently set off Decarvalho, who gave chase and slammed into the back of the bike before remaining at the scene as officers and paramedics arrived, police said.

The cyclist, who was knocked unconscious, was taken to San Francisco General Hospital, where he was expected to survive, police said.

“Our thoughts are with the victim of this terrible incident,” Uber spokeswoman Kate Downen said Monday. “We are gathering more information and will assist the authorities in their investigation.”

It wasn’t immediately clear whether the Uber driver had a customer in the vehicle at the time of the alleged attack.

 

Now as we’ve seen and heard in the past, Uber would tuck tail and claim they are not responsible for what happened. They hired this driver, they pay him. What if you were in the car with him. Did they do a background check on this guy, and the insurance. Is there any, or is this going to have to come out of the drivers pockets. Good luck to the victim getting money for damages. But first lets prey the cyclist is going to make a full recovery.

What do you think. Is Uber responsible? Should they do a better job on screening their employees ?

 

allvalleytc.com

 

 

Uber CEO on Driver “Assault”: It’s Not Real and We’re Not Responsible

Late Saturday night, Bridget Todd, a writer, activist, and former lecturer at Howard University, tweeted at taxi dispatch startup Uber that she’d been choked by the driver she’d ordered on Uber’s smartphone app—apparently because he was angry at her interracial relationship. Uber CEO Travis Kalanick’s response, in an emailed warning to his PR team: “make sure these writers don’t come away thinking we are responsible when these things do go bad…”

But despite the even-handed public statement, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick made his attitude towards aggrieved customers clear in an email to his press team, on which I was copied. (It’s unclear if this was intentional: he tends towards passive-aggression.)

In the email, Kalanick blamed the media for thinking that Uber is “somehow liable for these incidents that aren’t even real in the first place.” Kalanick also stressed that Uber needs to “make sure these writers don’t come away thinking we are responsible even when these things do go bad.”

Uber Drivers at it again

A Philadelphia model says an Uber driver beat her in the face over a traffic jam, according to a lawsuit filed in civil court.A Philadelphia model says an Uber driver beat her in the face over a traffic jam, according to a lawsuit filed in civil court. Khelife was cursing at Delp and spit at her window after she mouthed the words “Do not touch my car,” the complaint said.
When she got out of the car, court documents claim, Khelife punched the woman in the face — the force dislocating cartilage in Delp’s nose. She also suffered a puncture wound to the neck after Delp’s earring was pushed through her skin, bruising, a scratch to her inner arm and had her shirt torn, the complaint stated.
The assault was stopped after two bystanders stepped in, court documents said. Police were called and Khelife arrested. He was later charged with Simple Assault, Recklessly Endangering Another Person and Aggravated Assault, criminal court documents show. The criminal case is set to go to trial in January 2015.
The civil lawsuit names both Khelife and Uber and seeks damages in excess of $50,000 on counts of battery, assault, emotional distress and negligent hiring on Uber’s part.

New Orleans City Council puts Uber battle to rest – for now ( But NO Uber X)

Council allows hail-a-car apps

 After months of heated debate, the New Orleans City Council finally voted 4-3 to modify the city’s for-hire vehicle ordinance to allow for hail-a-car app technology, including the San Francisco-based transportation app Uber, to operate within the city limits.

  Under the ordinance passed Sept. 4, luxury sedans and limousines will be able to connect with riders using app-based technology on their smartphones. Drivers also will be able to charge customers according to time and miles, much like a cab, but with a minimum fare of $15 for sedans, $25 for luxury SUVs and $45 for all other limousines. The company’s popular “UberX” service, which competes directly with traditional cabs, will not be allowed.

  Those prices, says Uber’s New Orleans General Manager Tom Hayes, will make New Orleans one of the most expensive Uber markets in the country. Hayes told Gambit he’s happy for the win but added the company would like to reduce those minimum fares.

  Members of New Orleans’ taxicab and limousine industry, which fought Uber at every council hearing, reacted with disappointment and anger. They said that they have complied — and must continue to comply — with city standards for cabs while Uber and services like it will receive an unfair advantage in the market.

  District A City Councilwoman Susan Guidry and District E Councilman James Gray have been the most vocal about what they see as the dangers of UberX, citing insurance concerns and the worry that UberX’s drivers have not been properly vetted by the city.

  ”I feel like we’re letting ourselves in for a world of hurt,” Guidry said. “If we had stronger laws, I’d be more comfortable with this.”

  Former Taxicab Bureau Chief Malachi Hull, who was dismissed by the city in July, was similarly disillusioned. “I think the council is misinformed right now,” he said. “What they’ve just done is remove the consumer protections and the safety provisions that were put in the code previously.” Hull also said that wherever Uber is, UberX operates as well, because so few limo companies are willing to work with Uber.

  District D Councilman Jared Brossett, who introduced the ordinance, closed his remarks during the meeting by saying, “It’s about opportunity. It’s competition for everybody, not just some.” He was joined by Council President Stacy Head, Council Vice President Jason Williams and District B Councilwoman LaToya Cantrell in approving Uber Black.

  No timetable was given for Uber Black’s entry into the market, but a search on Uber’s smartphone app at press time showed no cars operating in the city — yet.

Above The Law…. Really ??

Uber and Lyft Withdraw Opposition to State Insurance Bill (Update)

Update, 2:54 p.m.: Uber and Lyft have withdrawn their opposition to AB2293, according to a spokesman from Assemblymember Susan Bonilla’s office.  Uber spokeswoman Eva Behrend released this statement:

“Californians loves Uber and lawmakers have heard them loud and clear. Common sense has prevailed and the winners are Californians.”

Lyft, in turn, released its own statement: “We have agreed to a compromise that provides clarity for the ridesharing community in California. However, a truly permanent solution must include the creation of modern insurance products tailored for drivers who participate in peer-to-peer transportation.”

Original story:

A hotly disputed assembly bill that would make Uber, Lyft, and their drivers pony up for commercial insurance might soon be headed to the governor’s desk, even though both companies have fought tooth and nail to kill it. 

Assembly Bill 2293 — written by Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla (D-Contra Costa and Solano Counties) — was amended late last night to stipulate that all transportation network companies (or TNCs, meaning companies that provide pre-arranged rides via an app) carry hefty insurance policies that don’t leave any coverage gap for their contracted drivers.

The new policies match numbers that Uber and Lyft brass called for in mid-June. They’ll provide at least $50,000 for death and injury per person, $100,000 for death and injury per accident, and $30,000 per incident for property damage. Companies will also have to provide at least $200,000 in excess liability coverage, and $1 million in uninsured motorist coverage that kicks in the moment a passenger enters the vehicle.

Up until now, Uber, Lyft, and their ilk carried $1 million excess liability policies in accordance with rules set last year by the California Public Utilities Commission, but it wasn’t clear whether those policies would actually cover accidents. Uber has largely absolved itself of responsibility for accidents caused by its chartered town car drivers; those caused by civilians who drive for its sedan service, UberX, present a dicier issue.

Under the current rules, TNC drivers are left to fend for themselves — and many of them don’t know that. If an UberX driver gets in an accident, he or she will call his personal insurance carrier, who will in turn decide whether to process or deny the claim. Often, the carrier won’t know that the driver was using his car for commercial purposes, which can’t legally be covered by personal insurance policies. That puts an unfair burden on insurance companies, and an even worse burden on consumers.

Representatives of the insurance industry, whose members supported AB 2293, say that because UberX, Lyft, and other TNC drivers are putting their personal insurance on the line, their risk is getting spread over all California drivers. That means if accidents increase because more people are driving for TNCs, then everyone else’s rates will go up, too. In essence, the public might have to subsidize these obscenely wealthy companies. 

That’s a scary thought, one that Uber doesn’t want voters to be pondering. In campaign e-mail blasts, it presents itself as a scrappy innovator going up against insurance companies, trial lawyers, and the “big taxi cartel.” In reality, it’s an $18.2 billion venture-funded startup with a vast web of lobbyist connections in the capital. 

AB 2293 was sent back to the Senate Rules Committee yesterday; from there it will be re-referred to the Senate floor. It could go up for a vote tomorrow, or more likely Friday.

---

Uber X is more trouble than its worth. Not only are you not covered, but they’re liars too. If you value your life, and that of the life of your family. Avoid them At all cost. If you want a legitimate App ride for wire, here’s a couple. ToroRide, and Opoli “All car are commercially Insured and PUC regulated” Check the link below

Uber Wants MY support… To continue to break the LAW. I don’t think so !!

Uber wants your vote of support. And it has hired a campaign manager to win you over.

Uber, a fast-growing start-up that promotes private car sharing, announced on Tuesday that it had hired the political strategist David Plouffe to be its senior vice president of policy and strategy. The move further signaled the grand aspirations of companies like Uber, which are challenging entrenched industries and running into resistance from some local governments.

Mr. Plouffe, who ran President Obama’s 2008 campaign, said he planned to run Uber’s communication efforts much like a political race, pushing to woo consumers and regulators alike in the company’s fast-paced expansion across the world.

Uber, which allows consumers to summon private rides via a smartphone app, now operates in more than 170 cities globally, the company said. But it has tussled with regulators in the United States and overseas in its race to gain traction in new cities. The legality of the service was questioned in 2012 when it entered New York City. In June, thousands of taxi drivers in Europe tied up traffic as they protested Uber’s rise.

If the government lets them win and do it they’re way, then no one has to follow the rules. It will be Anarchy

Message to Uber.\: Just play by the rules Uber, and we all win… Other wise, “JUST GO AWAY” !

Things are Changing for Uber…

California regulators have ordered ride-sharing services such as Uber to stop operating at airports, at least for now.

The issue is that companies such as UberX, Sidecar, Lyft, and Wingz do not have permits to do airport pick-ups. The companies employ citizen drivers at airports in San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.

“We have heard numerous complaints that (our) safety rules are being ignored,” Michael Peevey, president of the California Public Utilities Commission, wrote on Wednesday in a letter to the companies, according to the Chronicle.

Peevey also said the vehicles lack the proper “trade dress” and proof of insurance, the Chronicle reports.

According to ABC7 in the San Francisco area, authorized taxis also have to pay a $4 fee for their airport fares.

Regulators said if the ride-sharing companies don’t stop operating from the airports within two weeks, their permits will be revoked, completely shutting them down.

Uber… It’s Just a Matter of Time !!

Uber’s Battle Against Its

Drivers Continues

It may seem like a simple fare cut. But UberX’s latest price drop is the latest in a series of skirmishes between the ride-sharing firm and the people providing those rides.

UberX, the low cost version of the popular ride-sharing app, is now cheaper in New York City than a taxi. That’s good news for customers, who will save $2 on a ride. But it’s bad news for uberX drivers, who have caused trouble for the company that seems ambivalent, at best, about them.In an announcement (by way of blog post) Monday, Uber said: “From Brooklyn to the Bronx, and everywhere in between, uberX is now the most affordable ride in the city.” The change, the post advised, is only in effect for a limited time, but “the more you ride, the more likely we can keep them this low!” New York Magazine’s Kevin Roose noted that such price-slashing experiments in other cities have lasted for a few months.

In the post, Uber referred to drivers as “partners.” This is something Uber does to advertise itself to people who might sign up to provide rides for the firm. But when it comes down to how the company actually treats these people it purports to be in partnership with, things appear to be quite different.

When Uber faced regulatory problems regarding its Uber Taxi service (a regular taxi, but hailed via the Uber app), and it was forced to stop offering the option to customers, Uber drivers were reportedly tricked into coming into Uber HQ, where they were then fired. “Multiple drivers said Uber called them into headquarters, claiming they needed to come by in order to get paid and would get a cash bonus for showing up. When the cabbies came in, Uber surprised them by asking for the device back [note: drivers are given a smartphone so that they can use the app], informing them that taxi service was no longer available in New York.” (Uber Taxi has since been welcomed back to NYC.)

And CEO Travis Kalanick himself has expressed a desire to get rid of Uber’s beloved “partner” drivers altogether. “The reason Uber is expensive is not the car, it’s the other dude in the car. When there’s no dude in the car, the cost of taking the vehicle somewhere becomes cheaper than owning a vehicle. And then car ownership goes away.” Dude I would like to get rid of entirely, “partner”–same thing.

In its Monday post, the company acknowledged concerns about uberX drivers, writing: “what we’ve seen in cities across the country is that lower fares mean great demand, lower pickup times and more trips per hour – increasing earning potential and creating better economics for drivers. What does that mean in the long run? They’ll be making more than ever!” I’m sure they will just be rolling in it.

And forget about kindness to drivers who are not working for Uber. In January, Uber decided to show a rival company, Gett, who the ride-sharing boss is by creating fake accounts with Gett, ordering rides, and then canceling them. Sam Biddle of Valleywag reported that Uber’s general manager in New York personally “ordered and cancelled at least twenty Gett rides.”

Uber referred to drivers as “partners.” But when it comes down to how the company actually treats these people it purports to be in partnership with, things appear to be quite different.

Reached for comment regarding uberX’s new low rates, a spokesperson for the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission provided The Daily Beast with a very polite statement: “with shared economy and new technologies offering riders more transportation options, we are committed to maintaining high standards for safety and consumer protection. As long as services meet those standards, the consumer can choose which service best serves their needs, whether based on price, vehicle type, base location, or something else entirely.”

But others are not so kind. Uber has found itself in battles with Big Taxi and regulators across the country. To combat hostility, Uber has armed itself with political consultants, lobbyists, and is even in the process of hiring an actual campaign manager. Still, all the political muscle in the world won’t be able to quash concerns about safety. And uberX, in particular, has raised some red flags.

It was an uberX driver who hit and killed a six year old San Francisco girl on New Year’s Eve. The family of the girl is suing Uber, who claims it’s not liable for damages because the driver did not have a passenger in the car.

It was an uberX driver who was charged with fondling a passenger in Chicago in March.

And it was an uberX driver who was accused of physically assaulting a passenger in San Francisco just last month. That driver has a felony conviction.

Reached for comment about the background check process for uberX drivers, a spokesperson for Uber said it is “rigorous” and “leads the industry.” Asked, then, how a driver with a felony conviction could have slipped through the cracks, the spokesperson said “this driver had a clean background check.” Which seems a little south of rigorous.