Quantcast
Don't Miss
Home / Featured News / Illegal, but here to stay: Rideshare companies say they won’t leave Arizona

Illegal, but here to stay: Rideshare companies say they won’t leave Arizona

In this photo taken Friday, March 14, 2014, Jerad Bernard hands out cards to passersby offering one free ride through the Lyft ridesharing service in Seattle. In a fight pitting upstart technology and traditional business, app-based car share companies and traditional taxis are fighting for supremacy in Seattle. The taxi industry say companies like Uber and Lyft undercut their businesses because they are not regulated. Uber and Lyft say they provide services and convenience that taxis sorely lack. (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson)

In this photo taken Friday, March 14, 2014, Jerad Bernard hands out cards to passersby offering one free ride through the Lyft ridesharing service in Seattle. In a fight pitting upstart technology and traditional business, app-based car share companies and traditional taxis are fighting for supremacy in Seattle. The taxi industry say companies like Uber and Lyft undercut their businesses because they are not regulated. Uber and Lyft say they provide services and convenience that taxis sorely lack. (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson)

Rideshare companies like Uber and Lyft aren’t leaving Arizona, even though their drivers will continue to receive tickets for illegally operating a taxi service after Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a bill that would have legalized rideshare businesses in the state.

HB2262 would have defined rideshare companies like Uber and Lyft as something other than taxis and subjected them to a different, looser set of regulations than taxi companies.

In her veto letter, Brewer wrote that she nixed the bill because it would not have subjected rideshare drivers to pre-employment drug tests, as taxi drivers are required to undergo, and because the insurance structure for the rideshares create “gaps in insurance coverage that (would result) in a financial risk to (rideshare) drivers, passengers and other motorists.”

Without the law, rideshare companies are operating in Arizona illegally, according to the Arizona Department of Weights and Measures, which regulates taxi companies in the state. That’s because though their drivers provide transportation-for-hire services, the companies don’t carry the same mandatory insurance as taxis are required to carry, and the drivers do not have commercial drivers’ licenses.

Providing transportation services for hire without those qualifications can lead to civil penalties of between $200 and $500 for each violation, according to Shawn Marquez, director of compliance programs for the Department of Weights and Measures.

“They’re transporting people, [but] they don’t have commercial insurance, they don’t have commercial plates. At this point, they’re not legal. They are considered right now just pirate [taxis],” Marquez said.

Uber and Lyft, however, claim that they are not subject to the regulations governing taxis. The companies argue that because they are technology companies, and not transportation companies, they do not fall under the same regulations as taxi businesses, and are neither expressly allowed nor prohibited by state law. Both companies have operations in both Phoenix and Tucson.

Rideshare companies like Uber and Lyft use a smartphone application to connect passengers in need of a ride with people who are willing to drive them to their destination in their own personal car — for a fee. The companies set the price of the trip based on time and distance traveled and a supply and demand rubric that charges the passengers more during busy times. The companies keep a percentage of the charge, and the rest goes to the driver.

The companies claim that because they do not own the cars and are merely connecting those who have an extra seat with those who need a ride, they are not a transportation company and are not subject to the same rules as taxi companies.

But following the veto of HB2262, Marquez said the department will continue citing rideshare drivers for not having the proper insurance or licenses needed to operate a vehicle for hire.

“We’re out there weekends, nights, holidays, [and at] sporting events making sure that taxi services and limousines are all playing fair, and in the course of those inspections on the street, if we run into these guys, we’re going to handle them just as we have,” Marquez said, noting that local police are also ticketing the rideshare drivers.

Marquez said the Department of Weights and Measures alone has issued between 20 and 50 tickets to rideshare drivers, but catching them in the act is difficult because drivers communicate quickly on social media to warn each other of areas where the department is watching. Adding to the difficulty, he said the companies have started asking passengers to sit up front in order to avoid detection as a taxi.

After the veto of the bill that would have legalized the booming business model, Lyft spokeswoman Paige Thelen repeated the rideshare industry’s opinion that the practice does not fall under any Arizona regulations.  She said that, even though the rideshare bill was vetoed, the company has no plans to move out of Arizona.

“We will continue to stand strong as a community and do everything possible to ensure that we will have a path worked out to allow ridesharing to thrive in Arizona,” Thelen said. “We’re still evaluating the next step now, but we’re continuing to operate.”

That is contradictory to the message the rideshare companies put out during legislative hearings on the bill, where they warned that not passing the bill would result in the loss of jobs, with the implication being that they would pull up their stakes and leave.

Uber’s Phoenix general manager Steve Thompson did not return calls about whether the company would continue operating in Arizona. But in an email blast after the veto, the company sent a message that “ridesharing as we know it is dead in Arizona… However, all is not lost… Uber will work in the coming months with the state of Arizona to find a permanent home for ridesharing.”

Uber communications person Lane Kasselman would not speak on the phone, but said in an email that the company is still “evaluating our options” about how to proceed since the bill was vetoed. Uber continues to operate in Arizona.

Ignoring attempts to shut them down is not uncommon for Uber and Lyft, which have started operations in numerous cities without gaining prior approval from transportation regulators, and have declined to cut off their services in many of the cities after regulators issued threats.

In some cases, persistence has paid off. Thelen cites the case of California, where Lyft was served a cease and desist order and a $20,000 fine, but the company continued operating and negotiated with local regulators on a new set of rules for the companies, which are now legally licensed by the state of California.

She said Lyft is trying to work with regulators at the Department of Weights and Measures to find a compromise that would legalize their ongoing operations in the state.

In the meantime, Thelen said Lyft drivers in Arizona shouldn’t be worried about getting ticketed for illegally operating a taxi service. The company pays the fines and legal fees for its drivers who are ticketed for illegally operating a commercial transportation vehicle, and remains in close contact to let them know that the company has their backs “100 percent,” she said.

But Marquez warned that often, the department finds that drivers aren’t even aware that what they are doing is illegal, because the companies have misled them: “These companies come in and [tell drivers], ‘Hey, we’ve looked at all the laws on the books and you’re perfectly legal. None of these apply.’”

Thelen said that’s untrue, and drivers are aware of the risks.

“They’re up to speed on our stance on our operations in Arizona, which is that we do not think that our model falls under current regulations,” she said, noting that drivers are aware that there is a possibility that they could be ticketed.

But Marquez said the Department of Weights and Measures isn’t giving up. He said there are still avenues that the department is looking at to crack down on the companies rather than going after the drivers one-by-one, which simply isn’t effective.

“The bill was vetoed last week, and one of the things we didn’t want to do was go in and kick the doors down, but, certainly, discussions are taking place right now internally about what we’re going to be doing,” Marquez said.

14 comments

  1. Bank robberies. Illegal. BUT – if you put a pink mustache on your face – you can do it! And get away with it!
    Pay no taxes too! Free money. Ride-sharing is a classical example of crime paying off with authorities being
    confused by an iPhone app that kid could write in a day.

  2. Hopefully Uber is also helping pay the increase of insurance rates for the drivers that are getting ticketed for operating illegally.

  3. ‘you dont need to see his identification’

  4. REGULATION NATION, here we go again, seems anytime some company or individual creates a way of earning , regulation nation steps in.

    how did that work with the handymans exemption in this state of conservative regulators ???

    ITS ALL ABOUT THE $$$$$$$

  5. Figure out ur issues and let thes c poor drivers earn a luving. They’re not out doing wrong just need proper guidance. This is a brilliant an inn I vative idea that’s revolutionizing the industry faster than it ever had before I n histiry. Can companies only wish they thought of the future and didn’t put all there stock into the bewspaper. Things change for the better. Font stop change in responsible manners if it’s for the better good.Esp in providing jobs to our citizens in the unfortunate economy where in. I the cab companies need to throw in the towel and catch up with instead of prolonging the inevitable.

  6. Not to mention HOW MANY of our loved ones LIVES HAS THESE COMPANIES already SAVED??? they literally save thousands upon thousands of people from getting a DUI every single night and countless lives every single day! if our governor or any taxi company can try to stop something thstllat saves lives snd helps people follow the law avoiding duisbor sccidents as well ad getting people home safely.. ulthenbtherebjust plain outvtir m9neyvand nit public saftey and thete bette r intetests. There are so many other companies out there that will drive patrons home from clubs that have no commercial licenses driving golf carts that could very ally kill people in an accident and all kinds that have no restrictions or governing upon. Yet professional companies such as user is being look at negatively for being smart empathetic to others andeemployees. They are fullfilling a supply and demand that others companies can not in a waythat eexudes n promotes class comfort and saftey.. keep up the good work you’ve created jobs for people when not else had opportunities and have Le given people that self respect and confidence that a job gives be and full fills up heart not soul. Thank you so much for all you’ve done for everyone involved customeso to the staff and families etc. God blesd

  7. Excuse my spelling as i do apologize. My auto- type feature changes every single word I type. Still figuring out this new phone… thanks for listening:-) any support u may give is appreciated more than you know as it’s literally changed several close friends and family members lives for the better. . They’re not rich by any means but there aren’t words that can properly explain the hope and positivity they now have being able to work 10 to 12 hr shifts 6x/ wk daily just to get by. Its not easy for them but its a job and enough to make them happy. Thank you for the positivity and hope u brought in all our lives which pales in comparison of All the lives plus the countless you’ve already saved and will cintinue to.. God is with us. Governor we need your help and support which is why we continue to believe in you since the beginning.. Thank you

  8. WHY CORPORATE TRAVEL MANAGERS SHOULD AVOID UBER

    Unacceptable and Unnecessary Exposure to Adversary Litigation

    Dear Travel Manager:

    When you arrange transportation for a client, employee, visitor
    or family members of any of those, you not only have an implied
    obligation to perform due diligence in selecting the service, but
    a direct and specific obligation and responsibility for their safety.

    That Town Car transporting your people is in fact an agent of your
    corporation acting on behalf of and at the direction of your department.
    Anything and everything that may happen will be your complete and
    total liability and responsibility.

    When you sign a contract with UBER, you specifically acknowledge
    that UBER accepts no liability or responsibility for anything that
    happens, and further that the transportation arranged may be in a
    vehicle that is unlicensed, unsafe or unsuitable for the transportation
    of children. (Exact words)

    Exposure to Risk 1) Let’s say you have a visitor, a high-level attractive
    female executive from a company whose account you are eager to secure.
    This is an actual account of a woman’s experience of being raped by
    an UBER driver: (Want him to drive for your client?)

    Uber Driver Arrested For Rape: Anouar Habib Trabelsi Arrested, Not Charged With Sexual Assault Of Female Passenger In Washingt

    Exposure to Risk 2) An UBER Town Car transporting your employee
    on an official company trip to make a presentation is involved in a
    fatal accident en route, similar to the one below, (Scroll down) where
    a six year old girl was run over and killed by an UBER driver and her
    mother was grievously injured and has needed several operations.
    Her medical bills so far exceed $650,000.

    UBER’s insurance has proven to be ineffective at best and evasive
    and worthless in several instances. The attorneys for the families of
    the people killed will not waste much time in discovery determining
    who was leasing the car and directing it at the time of the accident.
    If that happened to be your corporation, you will experience some
    enormous bad publicity and a huge settlement that goes to the favor
    of the people injured and killed by YOUR CHOICE of transportation.

    PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE EMAIL, ALL THE WAY TO THE BOTTOM

    First, let’s look at the advantages of using an established, licensed
    Limousine Service instead of a freelance UBER person using his
    family car or SUV to make beer money on the side.

    1) Insurance. Limousine companies are required by law to have
    first-dollar coverage and be in effect 24/7/365.

    You can have your company listed as an additional insured on
    these policies. (Impossible with UBER).

    2) Chauffeur Background Checks. Again, by law, all chauffeurs and
    drivers for regular licensed services have mandatory and regular
    drug tests, fingerprints and full FBI background checks.
    (UBER does none of that)

    3) Distracted Driving. Professional chauffeurs know the city and know
    where they are going before they pick you up. An UBER driver is always
    watching his UBER smartphone screen and his GPS instead of the road.

    4) Hours of Service. Is your UBER driver nodding off from lack of sleep?
    UBER has no oversight of its contracted vehicles in the field. Again,
    regular licensed services are regulated by law and their drivers can
    only work a certain number of hours per day.

    5) Licensed Chauffeurs. Licensed companies are required by law to have
    chauffeurs get Chauffeur Licenses and/or Commercial Driver Licenses
    (CDL’s). UBER’s only requirement is a plain vanilla basic driver’s license.

    Again, did YOU perform due diligence in selecting safe transportation
    for the people you are responsible for?

    READ MORE: This stuff is real IMPORTANT.

    6. The UBER Insurance Umbrella Revisited
    Uber, on behalf of UberX, has conducted a major media blitz claiming an umbrella insurance coverage that drops down to cover drivers and/or passengers in the event of an accident when the TNA operator’s insurance carrier denies coverage. Uber has labeled this coverage as the best in the industry. Uber fought public release of all but the most elemental provisions of this supposed elaborate and generous coverage, and then only under cloaks of secrecy to select public officials. However,

    any search of the literature turned up dire warnings to the public about the reliability of such policies. Indeed, the noted local legal scholar, Gail S. Kelley, pointed out in a July, 2013 article in Structural Engineering Magazine that the drop down coverage of an Umbrella policy was generally denied when the underlying insured failed to comply with the provisions of the underlying policy. This is exactly why coverage was being denied for the private vehicles being used in livery services. And Regulators from both the California and Ohio had issued stern warnings of gaps in liability coverage by the drop downs of the Umbrella policies carried by the likes of Uber and Lyft.
    The shroud of secrecy was lifted when an anonymous source sent the San Francisco Bay Guardian a copy of the Uber Umbrella policy issued by James River Insurance Company (JRI). The S F B Guardian immediately published this copy of the Uber policy on the web for public viewing. Some of the early comments were of interest. Ohio Insurance Director Mary Taylor stated in a consumer alert issued on April 16th that “While TNC’s may provide liability insurance, they may not provide medical payments coverage, comprehensive, collision, uninsured and underinsured motorists coverage, or other types of coverage to fully protect the TNC drivers and passengers”. Amy Bogner, a spokesperson for the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation, issued concerns stating “We are looking at solvency of companies – if they have enough surplus to pay out claims”. Finally, John Madiedo, president of the Professional Insurance Center in Tampa, pointed out that the supposed Uber Umbrella policy was secured through a series of shell corporations, all with the first name of Rasier, none of which had any assets and none of which had contracts with any of the Uber drivers. According to Madiedo, “Rasier doesn’t do anything: it has no drivers … It’s a ring around the rosie”. (See “Some Doubt Ride-Sharing has it Covered Liability Wise” by Mike Salinero, Tampa Tribune, April 20, 2014). JRI is frequently referenced in the Financial Media as a ‘start-up’.
    According to published media reports, Uber is moving quickly to fill gaps in the alleged deficient policy it has so publicly touted as the best in the industry. Based upon the above warnings, most notably those published by Salinero, a cursory review was conducted of the published Financial Statements of James River Insurance Company (JRI), and the policy issued to the Rasier, LLC’s on behalf of Uber. While these comments are neither definitive nor exhaustive, they should shed light on exactly how the public may have been misled by Uber.
    JRI is a Commercial Excess Casualty Insurer with a home address in Richmond, Virginia. As a casualty insurer, JRI is not authorized to issue insurance on private non-commercial vehicles. JRI is privately held by the offshore Bermuda Corporation, 055488 Franklin Holdings. Offshore Corporations are often known for being difficult to attach assets in the event of a dispute.
    JRI had total assets at EOY 2013 of a mere $470.2 million. In comparison Geico, who is authorized to issue insurance policies on private, non-commercial vehicles, had total assets at EOY 2013 in excess of $28 billion. JRI had a credit rating issued by Best of A- compared to that of A++ for Geico. While this may appear to be a comparison of apples and oranges, one is reminded that Geico is nothing more than our little home grown company located out on Western Ave.
    As Casualty Insurer, JRI’s primary revenue source is expected to be insurance premiums. In 2013 JRI wrote $35.9 million in insurance premiums. This is down from $41.5 million written in 2012, a decline of 18% in one year.
    The Web published copy of the policy issued on behalf of Uber by JRI had the premium amount blackened out. However, an examination of the detailed schedules to the JRI financials sheds some interesting parameters on what that policy appears to have cost Uber. In 2013 JRI had premiums written of $568,669.00 for “Commercial Auto Liability”. In 2013 JRI further wrote premiums of $2,924.00 for a commercial category “Auto Physical Damage”. This is a combined total of commercial auto premiums written for JRI of $571, 593.00 for the year 2013. No premiums were written for any category of auto coverage by JRI in 2012.
    It may be reasonable to infer, given that the issuance of a Commercial Auto Insurance Policy by JRI is new to JRI in 2013, and that the Uber policy was priced at an upper limited of $571,593.00 dollars. In order to understand the absurdity of such a minimal premium, this premium would cover the total premiums on DC’s estimated fleet of 7,000 taxicabs for little more than two weeks. UberX is alleged to have had 7,000 vehicles in operation in the Metro area at the end of 2013 and currently an estimated 10,000 vehicles. Nationwide, it would be reasonable to infer that Uber now dispatches an estimated 45,000 UberX vehicles. At DC Taxicab insurance rates, an annual premium of $571,593.00 would provide coverage for the nationwide Uber fleet for about 3 days, not a full year.
    While attempting to read an insurance policy is like swatting at bats in the dark with bare hands, a couple of interesting curiosities did emerge. First, the Uber policy drop down is not a million dollar drop down. The drop down is $50K for an individual with a total of $100K per incident for bodily injury; and a $25K per incident for property damage. This carries a $1,000.00 deductible. Second, JRI will pay only after the liability limits under any liability bonds or policies have been exhausted by payments of judgments or settlements. This appears to suggest that any party processing a claim has a long road to travel before they can access the JRI coverage. Third, any judgment for damages arising out of a ‘suit’ brought without JRI’s written consent is not binding on JRI. A plain language reading of this suggests that to seek recovery of damages against JRI, you have to have JRI’s written consent to sue JRI. How convenient. Fourth, any suit brought must be served on the Company Attorney in Sacramento California. How convenient for the residents of the District of Columbia.
    It is difficult to conclude that the fantastic Uber Umbrella drop down policy is anything more than a sham. Similarly, the Lyft and Sidecar policies need to be made available to the public and subjected to public scrutiny. In any event, none of these policies should serve as a starting point for mandating insurance coverage applicable to any ‘for hire’ vehicles permitted to operate on the public roadways of The District of Columbia.

    MORE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT UBER INSURANCE:

    The Situation in Illinois:

    Very few of the Illinois Senators bought or even understood why Uber, Lyft and Sidecar didn’t want coverage when someone was essentially working ” app on “to ” app off”. The California situation with the Uber defense in the little girl”s case was not appreciated. Also, no one understands why these guys don’t want drug testing.The safety issue trumps all in our fight. Even the Libertarians agreed on the safety issues. After all everyone is worried about their kids in these cars. The legitimacy of the Uber insurance policy was brought into play. First because of the waivers everyone signs and then because the James River annual report for 2013 points out that they took in only 2.5 million in premiums for commercial cars which is very strange given that these guys have over 60,000 cars on the road or around $41.00 per year for insurance premiums.The same report also pointed out that James River paid out only $33,000 dollars in settlements in 2013. If the policy is like any other and has real coverage these numbers would not be anywhere near the coverage results. In Chicago alone, for 6800 taxis the Insurers pay out around $30,000 per day.So something is clearly wrong with this policy.

    In any event, I am at 239 514 7329

    Pat Corrigan
    Yellow Group
    Chicago

    ————————————————————————————————————————–
    KEEP READING:

    UBER FATAL ACCIDENT: Points of Law

    There are several points of law that need to be looked at in the wake of
    the tragic accident on New Year’s Eve when six year old Sophia Liu was killed by a negligent UBER driver who has since been indicted on Felony Manslaughter by
    Auto charges.

    UBER DENIES ANY RESPONSIBILITY. Here is their official statement:

    http://sfcitizen.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Capture2-copy.jpg

    UBER ACCIDENT SCENE PHOTOS

    http://search.aol.com/aol/image?q=sophia+liu+san+francisco&v_t=comsearch51

    VICTIM’s FAMILY WANTS UBER TO PAY. Also Memorial Fund details

    http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=9383769

    FIRST POINT OF LAW:

    UBER says they are not liable for the fatal accident because they didn’t have
    a paying client in the back seat at the time.

    This is like “Cracker Jack Box” Pizza delivery insurance. Little or no liability.
    (More on this later).

    In actuality, UBER has no insurance. The California PUC ordered them to have one million per incident, but UBER has “Appealed” the decision.

    Here’s the deal: Limo Operators found out the hard way on a Department of Labor ruling that if a chauffeur takes a Town Car home in order to do an early morning run, if he is “Subject to doing a job” then he is on the clock and must be paid overtime and be subject to Hours of Service for CDL drivers and/or crossing a State Line.

    So, using this legal precedent, any UBER driver is “Subject to doing a job” by
    virtue of being in permanent possession of an UBER-Issued phone. UBER needs to have (Like the rest of us) 24/7/365 Active Insurance OVER AND ABOVE any insurance the car and driver may have.

    If any California operators know a good Personal Injury attorney, they should refer them to the Liu family. Uber has a net worth of $4 billion and posted an after-tax net income of $275 million last year, a very sweet plum ripe for the plucking.

    SECOND POINT OF LAW

    Uber says they “Have a zero tolerance policy on drugs” and that “Our drivers are thoroughly background checked before we hire them”.

    TOTAL LIES AND BS

    In the article below, it is factually documented that UBER Driver Daveea Whitmire was a convicted felon and had done in time in prison for being a drug dealer and had a long rap sheet. It went on to say that former California regulators were appalled that UBER was allowed to use Hirease for a $15 one-click criminal background check instead of the full FBI/DOJ Livescan with fingerprints and NCIC checks.

    Under the loosely-written California PUC Regulations, UBER could even do an in-house one phone call to the sheriff. The California PUC regulations on UBER are like letting the fox guard the henhouse. Anything goes. Neither UBER nor Lyft have ever drug tested or fingerprinted a single driver anywhere in the USA.

    Take the time to read this article. It will dispel any delusions you may have about
    UBER’s “Thorough background checks”.

    http://pando.com/2014/01/06/exclusive-uber-driver-accused-of-assault-passed-zero-tolerance-background-check-despite-criminal-history/#!
    THIRD POINT OF LAW
    UBER says “We are just an APP and not liable for the actions of our drivers”
    Not so. In the following article in FORBES magazine, it is pointed out that Dominos Pizza lost a $32 million dollar lawsuit when a pizza delivery boy hit a car and killed the wife of a man and permanently disabled the husband. The jury decided that the pizza delivery boy was driving excessively fast to stay in compliance with the national chain order of “All pizzas must be delivered in 30 minutes”. UBER drivers must arrive precisely when Google Maps says they “Could” not taking into account weather or construction delays. Drive fast or get a bad review. Exact same legal precedent. Read the article, get educated.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2014/01/08/big-liabilities-for-uber-sidecar-and-lyft/
    FOURTH POINT OF LAW
    California Texting While Driving Law
    The driver in the fatal accident may well have been texting UBER at time he killed Sophia Liu. Real Limousine Chauffeurs go from job to job with full knowledge ahead of time from their dispatcher. UBER drivers drive aimlessly around belching emissions and clogging traffic while waiting for a “Ping” from UBER and then their eyes are glued to the phone while they compete for the run while they are zooming down the Ventura Freeway. Was he texting UBER? In your lifetime you will never know as everything UBER does is highly encrypted and no one in authority in California has the cojones to ask to see the records. Bad, bad, bad.
    http://www.dmv.ca.gov/cellularphonelaws/

    FIFTH POINT OF LAW

    ARE DRIVERS EMPLOYEES OR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS?

    UBER’s Travis Kalanick is a known lawbreaker and tax evader so it would make sense he would claim all drivers as Independent Contractors. He also gets to ignore FICA, witholding, Obamacare, Workers Comp, Hours of Service, etc, etc.

    Could all his drivers pass the 21-Point IRS Independent Contractor smell test? I don’t think so. If you go a whole year and work only for one person, you are an employee. UBER specifies appearance, behavior and service levels and that is micromanagement. UBER is even “Arranging” for drivers to buy cars from them. FEDEX Ground found out the hard way about that mis-step.

    Why does USDOT, USDOJ, IRS, FMCSA, FTC all give UBER a “Get out of jail free card”? Does anybody but me smell a rat?

    SIXTH POINT OF LAW

    UBER: “We are not a transportation Service, we are just an APP on a telephone”

    Well, let’s see:

    1) UBER inspects vehicles
    2) UBER runs (Sort of) background checks on drivers
    3) UBER specifies level of service, appearance and behavior
    4) UBER advertises for customers
    5) UBER collects the money and pays the drivers
    6) UBER dispatches specific vehicles and designates routes
    7) UBER fires drivers for bad service (Or trying to organize or complain)

    Seems like Danny DeVito did all this during the TV Show “Taxi” in the 70′s.
    That was a transportation company. How is UBER any different?

    SEVENTH POINT OF LAW (The real law!)

    In the wake of the terrible tragedy of UBER’s killing of a six year old girl, UBER CEO and multi-millionaire Travis Kalanick loudly denies any responsibility whatsoever even as the police report at the scene is still being written on the clip board.

    ARE THERE ANY WOMEN in Travis Kalanick’s life? Apparently not. Most of the mothers, wives, sisters and daughters I know would be slapping his face so hard he would be knocked across the room while they demanded he stand up and act like a man and take responsibility for this grotesque monstrosity of a transportation service he built that resulted in the death of a six year old girl.

    Travis Kalanick is the poster child for all that is wrong with corporate America.
    Greed, corruption, bribing of public officials, falsifying public documents, lying to Federal Agents, egregious abrogation of responsibility, he operates as an incorrigible reprobate in a pervasive moral and ethical vacuum. Need another example of the completely socially irresponsible scum that UBER is? Neither UBER nor Lyft have even one wheelchair accessible vehicle anywhere in the USA.

    I encourage you to go see the movie “Wolf of Wall Street”, based on actual events.
    When you see the main character Jordan Belfort (His real name) lying, cheating and stealing, you can blink your eyes and see Travis Kalanick. There were scenes
    of wild parties at the stockbroker’s office. Go to UBER’s Facebook page and see
    his employees dancing the “Baker” at UBER HQ in San Francisco. Life imitates art.

    FINALLY, The Biggest Understatement of 2014 (So Far)

    UBER, Lyft and Sidecar need more regulation (Really?No)

    http://m.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Uber-Lyft-and-other-ride-sharing-services-need-5129399.php

    Hope all this has been helpful. Please share with all your limo buddies and any
    regulators who have not been bought off yet. Getting UBER in your marketing area is like getting Aids, Herpes, Malaria or Tuberculosis. Once you have it, you will never get rid of it.

    Joe L. Jordan, Editor
    Limoinsider Report
    14173 Northwest Freeway #166
    Houston TX 77040

    713 680-3181
    713 893-0208 FAX

    http://www.limoinsder.net
    editor@limoinsider.net

  9. If you do want to try a lyft. Use coupon code bao21 and you’ll get $25 for a free ride.

  10. Lyft is a GREAT service. Gov. Brewer, Yellow Group and Linoinsider, can all take a long walk off a short pier.

  11. My friend used a Lyft app (similar to Uber) to help me go to a Doctor’s appointment. My friend came with to continue on and shop nearby. The Lyft driver realized that going to the Dr. plus shopping would take a couple of hours, before a return trip would be needed. Two hours later, we got a return ride (this time from Uber-X). When we got back to my friend’s house EVERYTHING WAS GONE!!! He had been burglarized to the tune of $24,000.00 in possessions, and the Lyft driver has not been found to this day. Police are looking for him with no cooperation from Lyft. Figure out the rest…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Scroll To Top