Uber has not publicly demonstrated it actually does the police background checks that SF cab drivers are forced to undergo as a condition of being able to carry passengers.
Uber has steadfastly refused to obtain the one million dollar insurance coverage that cover vehicles driven by San Francisco taxi drivers whose companies are required to carry one million in insurance to protect passengers from others fault. Instead, Uber, whose profits come from placing people in cars, using surge pricing while ignoring regulations to protect consumers, has sought to shift the responsibility to protect the passengers that creates its profits from placing in Uber cars to the drivers.
Uber has a simple obligation to protect the people it is charging for the “privilege“ of riding in a vehicle with less insurance than the cabs driven by a SF taxi driver on the same streets.
But Uber refuses to acknowledge that part of the privilege of profiting from serving the public is the responsibility to protect its customers. Simple rules apply; adequate insurance and proper background checks.
Why is a company with 18 billion in capitalization so opposed to having proper insurance and proper background checks?
I wonder how many Uber riders know they are riding in a car driven by someone who may have not been vetted by San Francisco Police, and will not likely have adequate insurance if they are injured?
Uber users, next time you make use your Uber hookup, ask for verification that the driver passed a police background check and has one million in insurance like a San Francisco taxi driver.
On September 27, 2014, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that an Uber driver pled not guilty to charges of assault with a deadly weapon and battery with serious injury for allegedly hitting a passenger with a hammer. This is the second such charge involving an Uber driver as another driver allegedly assaulted a passenger in June 2014
Will Uber standup and protect the injured, as the law would require of the cab companies?
Click here to read the full article: Uber Driver Accused of Hammer Attack on S.F. Rider
According to the article, Uber spokesperson Eva Behrend said, “Safety is Uber’s No. 1. Priority.”
Really?
Then why doesn’t Uber have the same insurance as SF taxi drivers?
With 18 billion in capitalization, it sure has the money. Maybe safety really isn’t Uber’s No. 1 Priority.
A group of San Francisco taxi drivers, who have undergone police background checks, drive cars with meters that have regulated rates to prevent consumer gouging, have the statutorily required insurance to protect passengers as well as third parties in the event of an accident, and drive vehicles that have undergone periodic safety checks, all of which is required by law, are suing Uber on the basis it is a transportation company who has gained an unfair advantage by not complying with the law (e.g. not having insurance, not having the expense of inspecting and maintaining vehicles, or complying with other statutory requirements), and taken customers from the cabbies who are following the law. (See San Francisco Superior Court No. CGC 12-526017)
If you would like more information on this case, please contact The Brandi Law Firm at [email protected].
Trademark Notice
Uber is a registered trademark of Uber Technologies, Incorporated. The use of this trademark is solely for product identification and informational purposes. Uber Technologies, Incorporated is not affiliated with this website, and Uber Technologies, Incorporated has no affiliation with The Brandi Law Firm. Nothing on this site has been authorized or approved by Uber Technologies, Incorporated.