California Officials to Vote on Ridesharing at August Meeting

What you want to know:

• The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) could tighten its insurance regulations for transportation ne2rk organizations (TNCs) like Uber, Sidecar and Lyft


• Proposed modifications include 1) requiring commercial coverage to be in impact when TNC drivers are seeking for consumers and 2) requiring further types of coverage for TNC drivers


• The CPUC could vote on the regulations in its August meeting

---

Insurance coverage specifications for Lyft, Uber and Sidecar drivers might get tighter when the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) votes next month on adjustments to how it regulates the app-primarily based rideshare services. The smartphone-based solutions — technically named “transportation ne2rk businesses” (TNCs) — let drivers use their personal individual autos and smartphones to discover and drive passengers in require of a ride.

Taxicab drivers, rideshare drivers and rideshare passengers gave sometimes-heated public comments on the proposed modifications at Thursday’s meeting of the CPUC. The public hearing period lasted far more than an hour.

Michael Peevy, president of the CPUC, said from the meeting’s outset that a vote wouldn’t take place Thursday but could at the commission’s subsequent meeting in August.

Proposed alterations to CPUC regulations incorporate escalating the amount of insurance coverage that TNCs have to sustain and requiring that coverage be in effect while the driver has the app open and is waiting for a buyer.

CPUC commissioner Catherine Sandoval said the lead-up time to the August vote would permit the CPUC to meet its obligation to “make proof-primarily based choices.”

“I believe the fundamental query right here is: are the newly proposed levels of insurance … well-calibrated to the threat?” she mentioned, referring to proposed changes to regulations that the CPUC released in June.

Peevy said that the CPUC’s initial regulations, issued final September, had been California’s “move into a void” of rules for the ridesharing industry.

“We tried to create an successful regulation that didn’t throttle or kill a nascent business but also need some safeguards for the public,” he mentioned Thursday. “I think we’ve done that.”

CPUC commissioner Carla Peterman mentioned that the current proposal “will enhance the current circumstance,” but added that the insurance market lacks the kinds of coverage that would completely address the gaps in protection that come along with TNCs.

“Our insurance items are not yet evolved for someone who has a personal automobile and makes use of it in commercial activities,” she said.

State lawmakers are also grappling with how to regulate the budding industry.

Proposal Beefs Up Insurance coverage Needs

Presently, the CPUC requires at least $ 1 million in industrial liability coverage in the event of a crash. The coverage applies to “vehicles and drivers whilst they are providing TNC services,” according to the CPUC.

The CPUC’s most current proposal not only adds to those insurance coverage specifications — by requiring other kinds of coverage like medical payments, comprehensive, collision, and uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage — but also calls for the industrial policy to be in effect while the driver is waiting for a match.

The CPUC is proposing to break up “TNC services” into 3 periods that are defined as follows:

Period One: Begins when the TNC app is opened and the TNC driver is waiting for a match

Period 2: Begins when the match is accepted but the passenger is not however picked up

Period 3: Begins when the passenger enters the vehicle and continues till the passenger “safely exits the automobile”

The current regulations had “made clear that coverage was mandatory during periods 2 and 3.” The latest proposal, according to commissioners, “clarifies that coverage is also mandatory in the course of period one particular.”

Lawmakers are also creating legislation based on a 3-period breakdown of TNC rides in a piece of legislation called AB 2293. The bill passed the state Assembly in Might, with amended versions passed out of 2 Senate committees. Legislators will most likely revisit the bill when the session reconvenes in August.

Ridesharers Want Help for Well-liked Service

CPUC’s Thursday meeting brought a glut of supporters for TNC solutions, numerous of them drivers and riders themselves. Wanda Crane, a decades-extended resident of San Francisco, mentioned that she switched from the taxi sector to driving for Lyft since the latter was a “dependable, price-successful service.”

“Drivers want to have insurance coverage. I consider this is a fantastic compromise,” she mentioned about the CPUC proposal.

But some other rideshare supporters weren’t extremely supportive of the new regulations. Rideshare advocate Bryan Barton took to the podium to urge supporters to “fight these regulations.”

“They will destroy this sector,” he mentioned.

Cab Drivers Emphasize Public Security

Thursday’s CPUC meeting also brought many taxicab drivers and representatives to the public comment portion, where they aired unsavory anecdotes about TNC drivers.

San Francisco cabdriver Barry Taranto told commissioners that “I hate working Friday, Saturday nights,” when more TNC drivers are on the streets hunting for fares.

That practice, Taranto said, is technically against existing CPUC guidelines, as TNC automobiles are not properly insured to roam streets so that they can be hailed by possible passengers. Taranto also mentioned that Uber and Lyft drivers “sit in pickup zones” that are reserved for taxis and shuttles.

“We do things a lot more safely than they do,” he said.

Yet another cab driver, Ed Healy, also urged the commission to contemplate public security.

“This is 1 of the principles of insurance: commercial operate is more harmful than individual perform,” Healy stated. “These TNCs perform far more of their time for the duration of the most dangerous instances [on the road].”

Other taxicab representatives challenged the way that TNCs are at present essential to be insured, calling it “on-or-off insurance” that leaves worrisome gaps in protection.

Photo courtesy of Raido Kaldma

California Officials to Vote on Ridesharing at August Meeting