Opinion
Get Opinion in your inbox -- sign up for our weekly newsletter
Opinion L.A.
Opinion Opinion L.A.
Opinion

Ridesharing companies prevail over taxis in Sacramento -- again

California Legislature drops effort to hobble ridesharing companies with excessive regulations
After tech lobbying surge, California lawmakers settle on reasonable insurance requirements for Uber et al

The pitched battle in the state Legislature between ridesharing companies and taxicabs is over, at least for now, and the smartphone-enabled services have emerged little worse for wear. The clear winner, though, was the California Public Utilities Commission.

At issue was the degree to which the Legislature would overwrite the regulations the PUC had adopted for "transportation network companies" such as Uber, Lyft and Sidecar. One proposal, AB 2293, at one point called for ridesharing drivers to have more than four times as much insurance during idle periods as the PUC had called for -- in fact, more insurance than they would have been required to carry when they had passengers. Another, AB 612, would have imposed a second set of requirements for driver background checks, drug testing and record monitoring on top of the PUC's driver-safety rules.

After weeks of negotiations, the Legislature amended AB 2293 to mandate insurance coverage similar to what the PUC had proposed. The bill also acknowledged that the PUC had regulatory authority over ridesharing companies, effectively telling local taxi regulators to stop trying to impose their own rules. Meanwhile, AB 612 died in committee.

Uber, Lyft and Sidecar dropped their opposition to AB 2293, allowing it to breeze through the Assembly and the Senate as amended. Lobbyists for the insurance industry expressed their satisfaction with the compromise, too. The taxi industry can comfort itself with the thought that the playing field is more level now, at least where insurance coverage is concerned, although not to any greater degree than the PUC would have required.

Some elements of the two bills were reasonable, even welcome. But taken as a whole, the measures (in their most extreme forms) would have made it hard for ridesharing companies to operate, particularly if they weren't already well established. Worse, some tech industry advocates feared that the Legislature would set a precedent for regulating companies in the "sharing economy" -- the ones that let people put their personal assets to limited commercial use -- as if they were no different from the old-line businesses they were disrupting.

The PUC recognized the difference, much to the chagrin of taxi companies. The latter, which are heavily regulated by local authorities, argued that public safety demands that part-time drivers using personal cars be regulated at least as stringently as full-time commercial operators, if not more so. Implicit in those efforts, though, was an attempt to raise the cost of ridesharing for drivers and their passengers, reducing the competitive threat.

Unlike the taxi companies and their allies, insurers weren't looking to hobble ridesharing companies. Instead, they were trying to protect themselves from having to pay claims involving ridesharing drivers who carried only personal insurance policies.

Per the PUC's initial order, ridesharing companies have been required to carry $1 million in liability coverage for "incidents involving vehicles and drivers while they are providing [transportation network company] services." Insurers pressed the PUC and the Legislature to go further, requiring a driver or ridesharing company to provide commercial insurance coverage whenever the driver had the ridesharing app running. This extra coverage would apply even if drivers weren't carrying passengers or en route to pick one up.

The ridesharing companies resisted this mandate, but eventually conceded to a level of coverage close to what a personal auto policy might provide. That's about where the PUC came down in June, when it proposed to require ridesharing companies to provide $300,000 worth of liability coverage for injuries caused during periods when drivers were idle, in addition to the $1 million when they were active. Significantly -- and unlike the more draconian versions of AB 2293 -- the PUC's coverage levels for idle ridesharing drivers are the same as the ones Los Angeles imposes on taxies.

The final version of AB 2293 tweaks the PUC's proposal in a way that's actually helpful to the ridesharing companies. It requires the companies to provide $200,000 in excess liability coverage for injuries, while requiring drivers (or the companies, acting on the drivers' behalf) to cover the first $100,000. The idea was to encourage insurers to develop new policies that cover drivers both when they're on personal trips and when they're running a ridesharing app.

An open question remains about how to figure out which insurance policy provides the extra $200,000 in coverage for drivers who cause accidents on personal trips while multiple ridesharing apps are running on their smartphones. The PUC acknowledged this problem, but left the ridesharing companies to work out a solution among themselves.

With the latest threat from Sacramento behind them, Uber, Lyft and company can return their focus to building their businesses around the world. That, and luring away each other's drivers.

Follow Healey's intermittent Twitter feed: @jcahealey

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • Don't let Sacramento stifle innovative new businesses like Uber and Lyft

    Don't let Sacramento stifle innovative new businesses like Uber and Lyft

    Just as Silicon Valley is a hotbed for innovation, Sacramento is a hotbed for regulation. Those two impulses are clashing now over a new generation of tech companies that uses smartphone apps to connect ride-seekers with drivers. If lawmakers aren't careful, the regulations they're poised to impose...

  • Doesn't the 1st Amendment apply outside the Supreme Court?

    Doesn't the 1st Amendment apply outside the Supreme Court?

    From race relations to abortion to gay marriage, the Supreme Court plays a crucial role in American life. So it's understandable that activists want to demonstrate on the grand plaza in front of the court's building. Such a majestic backdrop lends force to a protest and increases the possibility...

  • The return of the bloviator

    The return of the bloviator

    As Donald Trump surges, so does "bloviate." "The bloviating billionaire" — it's clearly an alliteration whose time has come. But there's hardly a candidate or commentator who hasn't been labeled with the word. Thirty years ago it was dated slang; now it's seen as the prevailing vice of our public...

  • No to the Iran deal means no to U.S. credibility

    No to the Iran deal means no to U.S. credibility

    A striking feature of the debate raging among American politicians over the Iran nuclear agreement is the virtual absence of references to international law. Republican presidential candidates compete as to who among them, if elected president, would be quickest to renounce the agreement, as if...

  • How our healthcare system can be deadly to the elderly

    How our healthcare system can be deadly to the elderly

    The nation's healthcare system is endangering the elderly. But few outside the geriatric medical community seem to notice.

  • Los Angeles could use more COIN

    Los Angeles could use more COIN

    Last month, when Mayor Eric Garcetti and City Council President Herb Wesson announced a tentative contract with unions representing more than half of the city's civilian workforce, budget watchdogs clamored for details so they could analyze the potential financial impact. They're still waiting,...

  • Too many 'ifs' in L.A.'s Olympic projections

    Too many 'ifs' in L.A.'s Olympic projections

    Questions about the financial assumptions in Los Angeles' proposal to host the 2024 Olympic Games are starting to add up. Or, rather, not add up.

  • Back to school, again and again

    Back to school, again and again

    Even in places that remain in touch with the rhythms of agriculture, few seasonal markers prove as heady, reliable and poignant as the reopening of school. Every September the crosswalks ripen with kids in their back-to-school clothes; the long yellow buses harvest our lanes and streets. First...

Comments
Loading
74°