Peter Schorsch
A concept of “deal” implies that each side gets “something.” Not so with Uber and the taxi industry.
So far, in all negotiations, Uber has stuck to everything they want, yet offering little (or nothing) in return.
From the onset, Uber’s arrival in Florida quickly became a matter of ignoring the existing rules, beginning with an all-out campaign to change local ordinances. What resulted was some early successes in municipalities like Jacksonville, Broward, and Sarasota (where the city deregulated the taxi industry altogether).
On the other hand, in places like Orlando, ordinances were changed drastically, but not entirely in favor of Uber. As a result, ride-sharing just ignores the rules, and Orlando doesn’t enforce them.
In Miami-Dade and Tampa, Uber continues to operate despite rules. And, in the end, they get what they want anyway.
After a while, taxi companies slowly realize the barriers to entry — regulations limiting the number of cars, fares, permits and so on — have all fallen by the wayside.
In response, taxis refuse to stand still, remaining firm on several issues: background checks, fingerprints, and insurance requirements for ride-sharing companies.
However, now that many municipalities have dropped the requirement for background checks, taxi companies are taking the last stand: insurance.
With legislation to legalize Uber, Lyft and other ride-sharing services statewide, what do they get in return?
Quite a lot, it seems.
The list of demands is long, indeed. Legitimizing the Uber business model throughout Florida would include preemption from local regulations, settling long-standing issues with Miami-Dade County, fixing the Hillsborough County Public Transportation Commission, allowing Uber X to operate at Orlando International Airport, and so on.
In Hillsborough County, Commissioner Victor Crist is looking to join forces with state lawmakers looking to abolish the Hillsborough PTC — primarily state Sen. Jeff Brandes of St. Petersburg and Rep. Jamie Grant of Tampa — in exchange for taking on regulation to legalize ride-hailing companies.
“If we don’t address it at least on small-scale basis, next year at this time we could be addressing it on a much bigger scale basis along with cabs, limos, tow trucks and ambulances,” Crist told The Tampa Tribune. “Sometimes a little heat is better than a whole big fire.”
Legislatively, Uber is also pressuring Tallahassee to seek relief from state laws about taxis/vehicles for hire, while removing any legal ambiguity on whether they are actually taxis. No city or county permits are required while taxis still have to pay. With no geographical limitations, Uber products would be granted access to airports, without the background checks or fingerprinting required for taxis and other vehicles for hire.
The proposed Uber legislation includes favorable language for independent contractors, liability relief as a common carrier, no vehicle inspections and lower penalties for violations. There would be no local enforcement actions, as well as a single point of regulation and limitation of audits.
That’s not all.
Under the proposals, Uber would not be required to provide insurance while working off the app, and — unlike taxis — would provide lower insurance “between trips,” with insurance company-negotiated liability language.
What does it Uber get in return?
Ride-sharing companies would be required to pay just 1 percent gross revenue to the state for local enforcement — assuming the police would even make the effort to enforce the rules. There would also be a list of drivers provided to enforcement, one that would not be made public.
For their part, taxi industries are only asking for a level playing field, with the option to operate like transportation network companies. (In the case of MEARS, which owns its own cars, it means that if they wish to create their own TNC, they can.)
From the beginning, taxi companies have been willing to give in on preemption, an issue that symbolizes 95 percent of what Uber is asking. They’re also seeking a public database of TNC drivers, a requirement Uber steadfastly refuses.
So, in essence, taxis get nothing in the “deal,” on top Uber getting its way locally.
That’s why taxis are standing firm, saying no.
Uber is taking the position of waiting until next year to get what it wants, with everything off the table. The opinion is that the taxi industry must be the “nice guys” and get out of the way.
However, time isn’t on Uber’s side, as the end of next Session is 15 months away. In that time, a Florida lawsuit on insurance remains pending.
In the case of insurance, here’s an example of the language Uber is putting forth:
$50,000/$100,000/$25,000 of contingent coverage between trips — During the time that a ride-sharing partner is available but between trips, most personal auto insurance will provide coverage. However, the driver is also backed by an additional policy that covers driver liability for bodily injury up to $50,000/individual/accident with a total of $100,000/accident and up to $25,000 for property damage. This policy is contingent to a driver’s personal insurance policy, meaning it will only pay if the personal auto insurance completely declines or pays zero. This policy meets or exceeds the requirements for 3rd party liability insurance in every state in the U.S.
What does it mean by “most?” Apparently, what the insurance doesn’t include (even though “most” will), Uber will cover up to $100,000. For taxis, that same limit is $250,000, a requirement that they have been under for more than 20 years.
At that point, Uber considers the time between trips as personal, not commercial. In contrast, when a taxi meter is off, either “between trips,” off duty, or otherwise, coverage remains at the same $250,000.
In the eyes of taxi companies, driving both an Uber and taxi around the airport — waiting, looking and approaching a fare — is considered a commercial activity. With more activity, they say, there’s more risk.
For the past two years, the taxi industry can be compared to a mountain climber searching for a firm grip on a slippery slope. Last year it was fingerprints; this year it is insurance.
State Sens. Tom Lee, Jack Latvala and David Simmons have been sympathetic to the plight of taxi industries. While Senate President Andy Gardiner may be term limited, these others will return next year.
That leaves the taxi industry with a Hobson’s choice: Accept something they don’t like in 2016 or get it crammed down its collective throats next year — which is no deal at all.
