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.

---