As we all know, state Public Utility Commissions were created to protect the citizens from certain monopolies and from unscrupulous people and companies who would prey on the citizenry without the benevolent oversight of the PUC's.
Taxi companies have traditionally been regulated by the PUC's, who "ensure," in their cumbersome, inefficient way, that rates are not outrageous, the taxi companies are not putting dangerous vehicles on the road, and that the drivers and their employers have been adequately insured or funded to meet any financial liabilities that might arise out of their operations. You might say that the PUC involvement increases the cost somewhat.
Into this situation, we have a couple of internet-based, smart-phone-using companies that allow micro-entrepreneurs to provide "taxi service" to desirous citizens who contract for their services using a smart phone app. The drivers are happy, and from all indications the passengers are satisfied with the service, and the little advantages that it provides (cheaper fares, intersting interactions, easy payment, and the ability to screen a driver for previous customer satisfaction).
But alas, conventional personal auto insurance specifically excludes coverage for paid transport of humans and stuff. Therefore, if a Uber or Lyft driver has an accident while transporting a paying customer, the insurance will not cover that liability. The driver would be PERSONALLY responsible, and one guesses that such people are rather impecunious, as a rule, otherwise they wouldn't be doing this for money. Hence, a seriously injured or damaged person could be left without compensation from the responsible party(ies).
And alas again, the cost of commercial carrier insurance would be prohibitively expensive for the individual drivers, and possibly for even the "parent" companies. Obtaining such insurance might even result in the "fares" being comparable to the licensed carriers who are now operating.
Other issues arise: For example, would the commercial insurance have to be in effect ONLY when the driver is carrying a passenger, or all of the time. It seems that many if not most of the drivers are just doing this for a couple hours per week. Clearly, they could not afford to carry full-time coverage.
My libertarian self says this is all bullshit and the PUC's should just leave it alone. But on the other hand, this is PRECISELY the reason why PUC's exist. Someone has to make sure that the public is not put in danger of large numbers of uninsured taxi drivers traveling around the fruited plain.
Consider: If you had to choose between taking a "Yellow Cab" to your destination at a relatively high cost, or saving a few bucks in exchange for having to sign a WAIVER of claims against the driver and his "employer," which would you choose?
Another factor to consider is that one of the reasons why Lyft and Uber are getting business is that the conventional cab companies are not as reliable as they could be, and even refuse to service some neighborhoods, at least that is the case here in Pittsburgh. The PUC prohibits that, of course, but it does happen.
I'm torn.
Taxi companies have traditionally been regulated by the PUC's, who "ensure," in their cumbersome, inefficient way, that rates are not outrageous, the taxi companies are not putting dangerous vehicles on the road, and that the drivers and their employers have been adequately insured or funded to meet any financial liabilities that might arise out of their operations. You might say that the PUC involvement increases the cost somewhat.
Into this situation, we have a couple of internet-based, smart-phone-using companies that allow micro-entrepreneurs to provide "taxi service" to desirous citizens who contract for their services using a smart phone app. The drivers are happy, and from all indications the passengers are satisfied with the service, and the little advantages that it provides (cheaper fares, intersting interactions, easy payment, and the ability to screen a driver for previous customer satisfaction).
But alas, conventional personal auto insurance specifically excludes coverage for paid transport of humans and stuff. Therefore, if a Uber or Lyft driver has an accident while transporting a paying customer, the insurance will not cover that liability. The driver would be PERSONALLY responsible, and one guesses that such people are rather impecunious, as a rule, otherwise they wouldn't be doing this for money. Hence, a seriously injured or damaged person could be left without compensation from the responsible party(ies).
And alas again, the cost of commercial carrier insurance would be prohibitively expensive for the individual drivers, and possibly for even the "parent" companies. Obtaining such insurance might even result in the "fares" being comparable to the licensed carriers who are now operating.
Other issues arise: For example, would the commercial insurance have to be in effect ONLY when the driver is carrying a passenger, or all of the time. It seems that many if not most of the drivers are just doing this for a couple hours per week. Clearly, they could not afford to carry full-time coverage.
My libertarian self says this is all bullshit and the PUC's should just leave it alone. But on the other hand, this is PRECISELY the reason why PUC's exist. Someone has to make sure that the public is not put in danger of large numbers of uninsured taxi drivers traveling around the fruited plain.
Consider: If you had to choose between taking a "Yellow Cab" to your destination at a relatively high cost, or saving a few bucks in exchange for having to sign a WAIVER of claims against the driver and his "employer," which would you choose?
Another factor to consider is that one of the reasons why Lyft and Uber are getting business is that the conventional cab companies are not as reliable as they could be, and even refuse to service some neighborhoods, at least that is the case here in Pittsburgh. The PUC prohibits that, of course, but it does happen.
I'm torn.
Last edited:
