Nguyen: What You Need to Know Before Signing Uber Petition
Thursday, August 06, 2015
Essentially, the bill proposes that the Department of Public Utilities have complete oversight of all aspects of ride-sharing companies including, but not limited to: driver, vehicle, and insurance qualifications; pricing; modes of delivering service; and requiring companies to pay annual “assessments” based on their profits.
The Uber email reads, in pertinent part: “Taxi special interest groups are trying to pass a statewide law to force Uber out of Massachusetts. . . with more than a dozen different provisions that will destroy the Uber you know and love.” The email goes on to “summarize” the reasons why the bill is “wrong for Massachusetts.” Uber alleges that the bill is designed to: (1) “make it hard for drivers to partner with Uber”; (2) “prevent YOU from getting a ride where you live and work”; (3) “increase how long you wait and the price you pay”; and (4) “limit your transportation choices across Massachusetts.”
Uber does not provide a link to the proposed bill in the email.
I have taken the liberty of reading the bill. While some of Uber’s claims are true, some are definitely exaggerated and/or omit key information for which I think the public has a clear interest. House Bill No. 3702 does set forth much stricter guidelines for Uber and all other ride-sharing companies, however, perhaps not all of them are bad. Let’s walk through the four points listed above.
Allegation: The bill will make it hard for drivers to partner with Uber.
Drivers have to submit to random drug tests.
All ride-sharing vehicles have to be younger than 5 years-old and have to be certified as a “livery vehicle” and carry commercial automobile insurance with a minimum of $1,000,000 in bodily injury coverage.
Allegation: The bill will prevent people from getting a ride where they live and work.
Drivers may only pick up fares that they have prearranged through the mobile app. They may not pick up random people who are hailing them like a taxi.
Drivers may not pick up fares at any property managed by an airport or authority, unless previously authorized to do so.
Drivers may not wait around in any public way for fares to come in.
Allegation: The bill will increase the time people wait and the price you pay.
The bill requires that ride-sharing companies submit all of their pricing calculations to the DPU for approval. There is no indication as to what the range of those rates will be, but they will probably be raised so that taxi companies can compete.
However, the bill does away with surge pricing. I repeat, the bill does away with surge pricing. This means that regardless of what the supply and demand is at any given time, Uber may not raise its pricing. There is a carve-out for an “emergency situations” in which case, Uber may raise its pricing but no more than twice its normal rate.
The bill does give the DPU the authority to make an annual “assessment” against a ride-sharing company based on the company’s operating revenues in Massachusetts – in other words, create a sort of tax on profits. This type of overhead will likely be felt by customers in pricing.
Allegation: The bill will limit people’s transportation choices across Massachusetts.
Like I said, some of this stuff is good and some of it isn’t. Look, I love Uber. And honestly, I think it’s perfect the way it is now (except for, of course, the surge pricing) and I may very well sign Uber’s petition. I just think that everyone who is considering signing the petition, like any other time you sign anything in your life, should be informed.
AiVi Nguyen is a trial lawyer with the Law Firm of Bowditch & Dewey, LLP in Worcester.
Related Articles
- Nguyen: Uber As We Know It May Be Gone Forever
- Nguyen: Goodell’s Final Decision: Does the Punishment Fit the Crime?
- Nguyen: Compensating the Victims of the Germanwings Tragedy
- Nguyen: Blurred Lines Indeed: Did The Jury Get It Wrong?
- Nguyen: MLB Hacking Scandal: The Cardinals’ Potential Legal Exposure
- Nguyen: Pay to Play Investigation of Craft Beer Industry Comes to a Head
- Nguyen: How Will The Law Protect Caitlyn Jenner Against Discrimination?
- Nguyen: Appealing the Suspension: Brady’s Play Options
- Nguyen: Asian Americans Seek To Abolish Affirmative Action At Harvard
- Nguyen: Sentencing Tsarnaev To Death: The Burden Of Proof
- Nguyen: Does Prohibiting A Scandalous Trademark Infringe On The Right To Free Speech?
- Nguyen: Spanking Your Kids: The Parental Privilege Defense
- Nguyen: The Hope Solo Saga: U.S. Soccer and Domestic Violence Allegations
- Nguyen: Fans are Tired of the “Baseball Rule” and Demand Safety
- Nguyen: The Ashley Madison Hack - Why Users Should Probably Still Be Worried
- Nguyen: The Civil Suits Against Aaron Hernandez
- Nguyen:The Email Scandal: Did Hillary Clinton Break The Law?
- Nguyen: Same Sex Marriage Before the Supreme Court: What is at Stake?
- Nguyen: Tsarnaev: The Cost Of A Death Sentence Versus Life Imprisonment
- Nguyen: Understanding the Logic of the Same-Sex Marriage Decision by SCOTUS
- Nguyen: Does Your March Madness Work Pool Break The Law?
- Nguyen: Getting Robert Durst “Confession” Recordings Into Evidence at Trial
- Nguyen: Boston Marathon Bomber’s Jury: How Did We Get Here?
- Nguyen: Hernandez Did Not Need To Pull The Trigger To Be Found Guilty Of Murder
Follow us on Pinterest Google + Facebook Twitter See It Read It