Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: [OT] Uber driver kidnaps child; Uber offers mom $10 rebate
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2025 17:37:32 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 141
Message-ID: <vu6drm$33a64$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vu5l3g$1pvur$1@dont-email.me> <vu60p5$2o0pc$1@dont-email.me>
 <vu646n$1pvur$4@dont-email.me> <vu6a3r$2u6i5$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2025 23:37:59 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e670996f4bc84a28a50da837578d0d38";
	logging-data="3254468"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19oCsivRxDFYPZvnTr4tREMSfp+4mq0U6A="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:URBOqk2kemh8mb139XI0FCkpPu0=
In-Reply-To: <vu6a3r$2u6i5$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-CA
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 250421-6, 4/21/2025), Outbound message
Bytes: 8785

On 2025-04-21 4:34 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>> 2025-04-21 1:54 PM, Adam H. Kerman:
> 
>> . . .
> 
>> I wonder when the driver finally realized he had a leftover passenger
>> aboard? I'm guessing it was when the police finally found him otherwise
>> he'd surely have taken the kid back home on his own. Perhaps he didn't
>> have another customer, went home, and locked the car without realizing
>> it had a kid in it.
> 
> I've been wondering the same thing. Whilst driving off without realizing
> the girl was still in the vehicle wasn't kidnapping, once he became
> aware, if he took no steps to return to the child's home, at some point
> it's going to become a crime.
> 
Exactly. If the guy went home and then to bed, leaving the kid in the 
car not knowing it was there, well that's one thing and hard to find 
culpability. But if he realized the kid was there before he left the car 
and did nothing, that's another story. I could picture him contacting 
Uber for instructions and waiting to hear back. That situation could be 
so unusual that it would take Uber a while to figure out what to do and 
maybe the police rolled up while that was still playing out. (I'm 
picturing someone at Uber trying to find a binder with policies in it 
that covered that case and not being able to track it down right away.) 
That might be enough to exempt him from charges too, even if it seems 
obvious to us that he should just have gone back to the kid's house.

Maybe he was worrying about getting into trouble with Uber if he doubled 
back? I'm guessing that they have trackers on the vehicles that are 
contracted with them and maybe doubling back would be seen in an 
unfavourable light. It might simply be perceived as incompetence and 
count against the driver.

Hmm. I've never taken an Uber or Lyft but taxis always collect payment 
at the end of the ride. If Uber and Lyft follow that same model, then I 
have to wonder if the mother had already paid as she got out of the car? 
I assume she must have or the driver would have waited for payment. But 
maybe Uber and Lyft, knowing the pickup point and destination, 
pre-calculate the fare and ding your credit card before they even arrive 
at the pickup point so that the driver doesn't have to wait for payment 
at the end. (I can see where the driver would like that since there's no 
chance the customer would stiff them at the end of the trip.)
>>> . . .
> 
>>> Here's an even scarier thought. Was there insurance while the child was
>>> in the vehicle?
> 
>>> Some Uber and Lyft drivers rent vehicles, which means that commercial
>>> insurance is in effect at all times. But if the driver is using a
>>> personal vehicle, his own insurance prevents him from acting as a
>>> commercial driver. All personal insurance policies prohibit this.
> 
>>> The way it works: Driving to and from the start and end of the trip
>>> booked through the platform, there is no commercial insurance as this is
>>> limited to the time between pickup and dropoff. The driver's personal
>>> insurance isn't in effect as the insurance company will argue that, at
>>> least during the time between receiving the call and heading to the
>>> pickup point, the driver is in commercial service even though Uber and
>>> Lyft don't cover this period. Having left the dropoff point and until
>>> the driver receives the next call, it's harder to argue that personal
>>> insurance isn't in effect.
> 
>>> Nevertheless, no one's personal insurance covers this scenario, in which
>>> the child never exited the vehicle.
> 
>>> The insurance carriers for both commercial and personal liability will
>>> fight against a claim if, say, the child were hurt. That also means the
>>> driver was driving illegally without insurance, and his personal assets
>>> are at risk in judgment.
> 
>>> Obviously Uber or Lyft can be sued, but the judgment will also go
>>> against the driver unless the settlement from the platforms includes the
>>> driver's liability.
> 
>>> Everything about using one's personal vehicle in commercial service
>>> without commercial insurance is beyond idiotic as it can leave you
>>> bankrupt.
> 
>> I will assume that you are correct about the way insurance works in your
>> own country but I think it's different in Ontario.
> 
> I doubt that very much. The risk of commercial driving is entirely
> different than the risk of personal driving. It's reasonable to assume
> that personal insurance excludes coverage for commercial driving.
> 
>> (Side question: isn't insurance law a state-level matter in the US rather
>> than a federal matter? If so, then Illinois may have much different
>> rules than other states.)
> 
> There's actually federal law denying the ability to sell coverage across
> state lines. Insurance companies form subsidiaries in each state they
> sell coverage in. There's enough "interstate" aspect to insurance that I
> don't see why such restrictions apply. There's plenty of disbenefit to
> in state risk pools. Certain medical specialties, for instance, have
> very high cost liability. Obstetrics has huge liability. In small
> states, the high cost of malpractice insurance due to the tiny risk pool
> is great enough to keep many doctors from practicing in these states,
> leading to shortages. This isn't a matter of consumer protection.
> 
> At the same token, states that don't experience wildfires aren't in the
> same risk pool as California.
> 
Here in Canada, every province has its own insurance system with 
different requirements about coverage. In some provinces, like BC, all 
the car insurance is issued by the government as I understand it. In 
Ontario, there are many private insurance companies and no government 
insurance at all. I don't know how the actuaries pool risks but I'm 
assuming its on a provincial basis. That means tiny PEI or even tinier 
(in population) Yukon/NWT/Nunavut are going to have much smaller pools 
than Ontario, Quebec or BC.

>> I've seen questions on forms about what kind of driving you do
>> and whether it is commercial or not but I don't *think* you have to get
>> different insurance if you do a mix of personal and commercial driving:
>> you just pay a higher premium. I've never driven my own vehicle for
>> commercial purposes so I can't begin to guess how much more the premium is.
> 
> I don't know how blended coverage like that works, but there's
> absolutely going to be a commercial policy. Tradesmen (who are often
> independent contractors and not employees) will drive their own pickup
> trucks or panel vans to job sites because they are carrying tools and
> equipment, and may be delivering supplies that they themselves will be
> installing. That requires commercial coverage. But there will be plenty
> of times they drive their pickup for personal driving, say on a hunting
> trip or just personal errands. I'm sure the actuaries have a way to rate
> the risk and figure out an appropriate rate.
> 
> But no commercial liability coverage at all? No vehicle owner should be
> in that position as he's personally exposed to liability from commercial
> use of the vehicle.
> 
>>>> . . .
You may well be right about all of that. I'll try to remember to find 
out how that works in Ontario the next time I renew insurance. I've 
actually toyed with the idea of delivery pizza or something like that as 
a side hustle.

-- 
Rhino