Did you read the New York Times article which I linked above?

My educated guess is that commercial liability insurance is prohibitively expensive for most uberX drivers.

The problem is that the drivers' personal insurance does not cover them when they're charging people for rides. Uber takes the position that if its drivers are merely driving around looking for riders with their Uber app, they are not providing services on the Uber system, and thus Uber is off the hook. The insurance companies take the position that Uber drivers are in fact engaging in commercial activity and providing a service to Uber while actively looking for riders. Thus, we have a problem that the drivers are not insured while looking for fares and, at least in California, are grossly underinsured compared to licensed taxi drivers when carrying passengers.

Guilty as charged. Did not read that article.

What you said here will make sure I will stick with the regular company for my taxi needs.

So, I'm a bit hesitant in doing this, and I hope that I'm not breaking any rules by saying this. I am a Uber X, Lyft & Sidecar driver. I currently drive part-time. I drive maybe 2 or 3 days a week, depending on my schedule at home as well as any consulting contracts I may be working.

I've been a member here at Flyertalk since May of 2012, but I have a low post count since I left my last job in July of this year. More or less I don't fly/rent cars or hotel rooms on a frequent basis. I just come here to read some good stories now.

I have worked in the transportation business/sector, mostly on the IT side for the last 20 years. Prior to that I worked for 2 different messenger companies in the Chicagoland area, and also worked dispatch for one of the 2 companies prior to entering IT full time.

I don't mind answering any questions posted or if you want to ask in a PM, it's up to you. I will say I can only answer questions related to the Chicago/Illinois market.

I will say I am not a representative of Uber, Lyft or Sidecar - I am only an independent contractor / driver. My opinions/views would be my own and would not reflect the official views of these companies. I also won't give you my driver name or vehicle - because I could be deactivated if Uber/Lyft or Sidecar don't agree with my opinions - it's been known to happen.

I could go back and answer some of the questions posted prior to my entry, but it could just get messy. I do hope to be able to answer all questions.

Thank you!

Edit: It's 5am Chicago time, and I'm about to go to bed. I'll answer questions after I get up, it's been a long night. I do apologize for posting this and then running to bed.

They use Disclosures UK for background checks in the UK, the same as taxi companies and other employers use.


I've used Uber in the UK, Australia and Netherlands several times now, X and Black/Luxe.

All experiences have been positive, and nothing remotely as bad as some of my taxi experiences in those countries. I make a point of asking the driver how it's working for them and all have been positive, expect for one busy day-job professional in Perth who had said he didn't make enough money from X to justify his time away from family in the evenings, but was satisfied with his take from Uber Black (he had a late model high spec Jag as his Black car).

This issue wouldn't affect you unless you were hit by an UberX driver while the driver didn't have anyone in his or her car, so avoiding them won't make any difference. Once a passenger is in the UberX car, Uber has a million dollars of commercial insurance that applies. I believe this isn't an issue if you use one of the black cars, since those cars are commercial livery cars and the drivers carry their own insurance on top of whatever Uber provides.

http://blog.uber.com/ridesharinginsurance

The dispute is about what should be covered with no passenger in the UberX car. California is trying to regulate that, and Uber is spending a bunch of money in opposition. I think Uber should be required to insure their drivers at all times, but that's not a reason to avoid the service. The service has still done a tremendous service to the US markets that it serves, and at least in my opinion, is nicer and safer than a taxi.

Insuring their drivers at all times makes no sense, as they're only "working" when they choose to log on and accept a job.

I suspect insurance companies are already developing products to suit these freelance drivers.

The dispute is not about "at all times." It's about the times when Uber drivers are driving around and looking for riders with their Uber apps.

I have a number of questions I'd like to ask you (and other drivers using these services). I can't think of any reason why it'd violate FT terms for you to give factual, polite answers based on your own experiences. I think the bigger concern would be whether any of the services you contract with have required you to sign strict non-disclosure agreements. If you feel comfortable answering questions about your work in the open I suggest you start a separate thread entitled something like "Ask a Uber/Lyft/Sidecar driver", similar to past threads we've had for Q&A with airlines employees.

There was no comparison to where odds were higher in India, but given the rape statistics there, the odds are probably higher than anywhere except for South Africa.

The Uber insurance linked in a previous post includes coverage for when driver is "Logged on and available" .

Yes, but the limits are much lower than when on a trip, and it's secondary to a personal liability policy that may make it a huge administrative burden on an injured party to navigate the claims. I think Uber should be required to provide the full insurance anytime they are operating for Uber, regardless of whether there is a passenger in the car.

Maybe it's different in the USA, but it wouldn't be a "huge administrative burden" in the UK.


And, really, you aren't "operating for Uber" when you log on, but haven't yet accepted a job, surely?

"huge administrative burden" sounds like trying to sort out who or whose insurance coverage pays? Or does it mean a protracted expensive lawsuit by a passenger (read SELF ?) , a lone person against a pocketful of lawyers hired by Uber ?

It would be the insurance companies and their lawyers battling this out, not Uber. I think the difficult part of it would be for people who don't carry their own liability insurance. Normally if you are hit by someone else, you tell your carrier and they (or their lawyers) work it out with the other side's insurance company. But if you have no such insurance (not uncommon in a place like SF, where many people do not own cars), you have to try to work it out on your own. If you are a pedestrian who is hit by someone driving around waiting for a fare, you would likely submit to the driver's personal insurance carrier, but they may deny because the driver was operating as a commercial driver, which is likely outside the scope of personal insurance. Uber's secondary insurance is unlikely to cover all of the injuries given the low limits, leaving the injured party to sort out how to recover from two insurance companies and an individual, all of whom are likely to point at each other for liability. That's not easy, and would almost certainly require a lawyer.

Absolutely. The car is only on the road to operate for Uber. There is a clear link there.