

Uber campaign about Oregon ridesharing legislation - JoshTriplett
https://action.uber.org/oregon/

======
JoshTriplett
I'm disappointed that the Uber page doesn't actually link to the bills in
question:
[https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Measures/Overview/HB...](https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Measures/Overview/HB2237)
and
[https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Measures/Overview/HB...](https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Measures/Overview/HB2995)
.

Reading the two measures, though, this seems ridiculous. There are already
laws about driving without insurance; drivers, whether commercial or not,
already must have insurance to drive. What business is it to the state of
Oregon whether that insurance is provided by the ridesharing company or the
driver, as long as at least one of them have it?

Doubly so because the text of the measures explicitly includes companies like
Uber ("engaged in the business of providing for-hire transportation by means
of mobile application software") while excluding taxis and buses ("(b)
“Transportation network company” does not include a legal entity that is
qualified to do business in this state and: (A) That provides taxicab
services; (B) That is engaged in the business of providing transportation
along fixed routes or at regular intervals;". Even if this were a reasonable
step to take for some other reason, it's entirely unreasonable to target
specific companies while giving others a free pass.

Now, on the other hand, if the targeting were dropped, there is _one_ useful
item in the legislation that seems useful based on issues ridesharing drivers
have faced elsewhere: ensuring that the _owner 's_ insurance policy can't try
to deny coverage to the owner when they're driving privately, just because
they also drive for a ridesharing service. That still seems like a matter to
be settled between the owners and their insurance companies, not a matter for
legislation, but it's at least trying to address a real issue.

