OMG:
https://support.uber.com/hc/en-us/ar...s-an-accident-

Some people are impervious to fact.

"Rideshare providers carry personal insurance policies. However, there’s a commercial insurance policy for ridesharing with $1 million of coverage per incident."

How nice that "there's a policy", but how do you know if your driver carries said policy?????

<i>How nice that "there's a policy", but how do you know if your driver carries said policy?????</i>

Because the policy is provided by Uber. It is not up to the driver to carry it.

But the drivers are "independent contractors", aren't they?

Buyer beware, since you've agreed to the Uber terms:

"You agree to indemnify and hold Uber and its officers, directors, employees and agents, harmless from any and all claims, demands, losses, liabilities, and expenses (including attorneys' fees), arising out of or in connection with your use of the Services"

"YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIRD PARTY TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS PROVIDING TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REQUESTED THROUGH UBERX MAY OFFER RIDESHARING OR PEER-TO-PEER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AND MAY NOT BE PROFESSIONALLY LICENSED OR PERMITTED. IN NO EVENT SHALL UBER'S TOTAL LIABILITY TO YOU IN CONNECTION WITH THE SERVICES FOR ALL DAMAGES, LOSSES AND CAUSES OF ACTION EXCEED FIVE HUNDRED U.S. DOLLARS (US $500).

Exactly what insurance does the taxi company provide, and what fine print do they have?

Exactly, Tab. Fear mongering is easy with anything new, but people accept all kinds of hidden risks every day without a peep.

A friend of mine was hit by a city bus and substantially injured. You don't want to know how little the city carried in insurance, or how poorly vetted the driver had been.

BTW, I have hit the yellow triangle on TG's posting. This is the first time I have done this on a travel board. You can challenge my opinions or facts but do not, ever, challenge my integrity.

I took Uber and Lyft once each (with the free credits you get for the first ride).

I enjoyed both rides.

However, knowing the liability terms, I'm very reluctant to take them again. I'm also not pleased with Uber's business activities.
That said, I've definitely met cabbies that I'd rather not have, as well as some great ones too.

Ride Sharing vs. Traditional Taxis: How do Injury Insurance Claims Compare (bolding mine)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christ...b_5273964.html

<i><i>While there are still concerns over Lyft and Uber's personal property coverage for the driver, the bottom line is that the passenger in a Lyft or Uber vehicle often has more coverage available than if he or she was injured in an identical situation but in a taxi cab. <b>In some states like Florida, that coverage can be more than 400 percent greater than the taxi cab's comparable coverage.</b>

Be critical of the dire warnings of "buyer beware" regarding Lyft and Uber services, at least in regards to if you should ride in a Lyft or Uber car. If you a passenger, Lyft and Uber have got you covered</i>

<i>And there have been allegations of racism of UBER drivers in Boston and one assault with a hammer in SF.</i>

This is just fear mongering.

MDonehere, Do whatever you like, of course, but I think you're being a bit thin skinned. You've made a couple of insulting comments here yourself but the dialogue managed to continue without hissy fitting.

<I>Most NYC cabbies are now either Muslim or Hindu</i>

You seem to think Uber drivers are not a diverse lot. they certainly are in Boston.

<I>I have no financial or familial interest in any NYC cab or any cab anywhere, whatsoever.</I>

I'm just trying to find a reason for your one-man disinformation campaign. You started this thread based upon a faulty premise. It was pointed out that you are mistaken on the facts. You refuse to acknowledge your mistake. You label anyone that disagrees with you as a name-caller. What is an observer to think? The most rational assumption is that you have a financial interest in seeing Uber fail, because any other reason is downright illogical.

But I'm glad your posts are done out of willful ignorance rather than greed. Duly noted.

<I>And there have been allegations of racism of UBER drivers in Boston and one assault with a hammer in SF.</I>

Please provide links to the racism allegations. Nothing comes up on the Google. I would note, FWiW, that Boston is simply a racist place. I once had a cabbie (yes, a real cabbie) call Chinatown "Ch**ktown" and then go on a lengthy discussion of their food and how industrious those "sla**s" were. It was okay though because 1) he had a medallion and 2) he was actually being complimentary.

This notion that Uber drivers are <shocker> reflective of the larger population while cabbies are not is silly and another example of your misinformation campaign.

<I>one assault with a hammer in SF.</I>

Are you suggesting that no cabbie has ever committed a crime?

<I> It sickens me the way you paint cabbies with elitist dismissiveness</I>

Pointing out that cabbies stink is not elitist. And it isn't dismissiveness. It is an acknowledgement of reality. Uber wouldn't thrive if people didn't prefer the service to a taxi. The problem for taxis is that I have never met anyone that has actually used Uber that prefers taxis.

I think attacking one's integrity is different than saying one's facts or opinions are incorrect. It is a disgraceful and baseless way to conduct yourself here or anywhere.

But as noted earlier and ignored, of course, to suit one's narrative, is the fact there is no official agency to as remedy for discrimination or disputes.

As far as insurance and liability is concerned:

It seems some UBER and LYFT cities they are using insurance on non-admitted paper. I am sure TG knows what that means but the benefit of others, it means the state insurance agencies have much lower standard of scrutinization. Non-admitted insurance is used for hard to place entities like carnivals and high risk rides.

Additionally they have a "hold harmless" clause in there accepted terms. That means, in this case, you cannot bring a civil action against corporate UBER for the actions of a driver.

Too bad people like TG, don't know insurance and the law when they make claims from their arrogance rather than knoweldge.

I thought you were done with this thread. Twice.

IMD... To be clear, you are calling Uber liars, correct? Just want to make clear who is questioning the integrity of others. If you are calling Uber liars, might I suggest you take these concerns to the authorities?

But, I shouldn't have questioned your integrity. I usually try to remember Occam's Razor and, in this case, I should have assumed you are simply willfully mistaken rather than assuming any intent for your lack of knowledge.

Next March DC Taxi Commission will test drive an app similar to ones Lyft and Uber use. People will still be able to hail taxis from the street, something Uber and Lyft cannot do.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...their-own-app/

No one attacked your integrity, IMD, and no one called you names. You were disagreed with. But now you have attacked the integrity of other posters and called them names. I agree that you are being thin-skinned.

obxgirl, what you're reporting is pretty much what I would hope would happen: taxi companies need to learn from Uber and improve their service. They have enjoyed a monopoly for so long that they stopped caring about customer satisfaction altogether.

To bring this back around to travel, I think cities that depend on tourism--and show me that doesn't!--have realized that they need to better regulate Uber without shutting it down, whilst encouraging cab companies to up their game. This only makes sense.

San Francisco already has a taxi-only app, called Flywheel. I wonder if U er's limitation of liability clause has been tested

Thanks, sf7307, I'll be in San Francisco next week. I'll download it. Looks like a lotta rain in the forecast.