Editor’s note: This commentary is by Rep. Jean O’Sullivan, a Democrat who represents Burlington in the Vermont House. She is a member of the House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development.
[U]ber, known for its abrasive and bullying tactics in other states, has set its sights on Vermont. The Vermont House and Senate worked for two years on a bill that would regulate Uber and other transportation network companies’ insurance obligations to the state, as 46 other states have done. A squabble broke out with Uber over whether or not a policy should cover out-of-pocket medical expenses for passengers and the driver. Uber threatened to “leave the state” if the Legislature forced them to cover passengers’ costs in the event of an accident. The two chambers disagreed on the policy, but Sen. Dick Sears of Bennington helped the conference committee between the two chambers to agree unanimously to require $5,000 worth of coverage. And despite Republican conference committee members agreeing to this compromise language, the bill died at the end of session. Why? Because House Republican leadership ignored their appointee to the conference committee and caved to Uber
What are the Republicans afraid of? Uber threatened to leave the state if this law was passed, but Lyft, its primary rideshare competitor, had no problems with it at all. And we all know Uber’s business model does not include giving their main competitor free rein over an entire market.
The fact is, the public should be protected from underinsured commercial drivers. Vermonters are now at risk, unlike the other 46 states that choose to protect their citizens. An individual driver’s automobile insurance ceases coverage the instant the driver logs into Uber’s or another transportation network company’s application. This bill would have protected Vermonters from underinsured drivers, but Republicans allowed Uber to bully them into blocking it.
House Republicans using this clause of the bill to kill it prevents a whole raft of other good consumer protection measures, as well. Because Uber didn’t want to pay for a $5,000 insurance policy, Vermonters lose the ability to determine background checks on drivers. We cannot set the time limit to hiring someone with a driving under the influence conviction. We cannot inspect transportation network company’s records. We cannot enforce administrative penalties for infractions we cannot impose. We cannot study the entire issue of statewide vehicles for hire. How do our legacy taxi companies survive in this “disruptive” business model? We cannot study whether “surge” pricing is fair or price gouging. This is a very high price to pay for Republican obstinance.
