Hacker News Reader

Comment by josho | Hacker News Reader

Agreed, but I also hope that the regulators catch up and make sane decisions to correct the current environment. For example, at the forefront of my mind is the need for consumers and the state to have assurances that the drivers of these services have commercial insurance. Or that it truly is a ride-sharing lookup, not a taxi service.

I'm sure there are other issues that need sorting, but as an outsider much of the taxi industry's regulations seem like they can be modernized for a post uber/lyft world.

View on HN

"assurances that the drivers of these services have commercial insurance."

I'm not sure about the situation in California but I looked into how taxis were insured in Maryland and it turns out they basically don't have insurance. They are only required to have a certain amount of cash in an account that acts like insurance if something happens. I believe the amount was around $30,000 which is very very little if something legitimately serious were to happen. Which is why I find it funny when people think taxis are some how better insured than ride share services.

I believe bonds in lieu of insurance are commonly allowed across the US, though maybe not for taxis?

As the fleet size increases, the amount of the bond goes up as well -- essentially giving companies the choice of self insuring. I'd be surprised if many independent operators were self-bonded.

And of course, it's not like the minimum insurance requirements are great across the board either.

> And of course, it's not like the minimum insurance requirements are great across the board either.

The alternative is something like Toronto where personal car insurance costs upwards of $300 a month for a 23 year old male with no tickets or accidents because the minimum coverage is so extensive.

What? They must have insurance, and the state minimum is $30,000 per person.

> The Maryland General Assembly approved the increase in April, slightly upping legal minimum insurance coverage to at least $30,000 per person and $60,000 per crash.

Yeah, but they have a special program for Taxi's that allow what they call "self-insurance" where the taxi is insured by a bond or letter of credit with the MVA.

In most places you can self-insure as a rich individual driving a personal car too.

When there is an accident, injured parties go after rich people, like the expression "deep pockets", and juries aren't sympathetic to them. Rich people are advised to get (and can afford) insurance more than middle class people.

The same applies almost everywhere in the US and not just to taxis - if you can pay a cash bond at the DMV, you can ride without insurance.

> The same applies almost everywhere in the US and not just to taxis - if you can pay a cash bond at the DMV, you can ride without insurance.

Exactly. And that's amazing. I don't want to pay any insurance, I can self-insure and pay with my own bond if I'm caught into an accident.

Yup, the difference between a taxi and an individual though is the taxi company will create an individual llc for each taxi so if a given taxi is in a bad accident they will just bankrupt that llc and try to skip out on paying anything.

Absolutely. I'm not advocating that we do away with the regulatory system, but that those drafting the rules look at startups like Uber/Lyft as signals and catalysts for change as opposed to reflexively treating them as threats on the system that Has Been And Always Shall Be. The world is changing rapidly, new needs and demands emerge, others die, and the red tape should be in constant reapplication, in tow.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com