Illinois Governor Vetoes Bills Attacking Ride-Sharing Services Like Uber

Effort to regulate them out of existence as much as possible

Gov. Pat Quinn vetoed two bills Monday that would have placed statewide regulations on the ride-share industry that competes with taxis, saying the bills "would have mandated a one-size-fits-all approach to a service that is best regulated at the local level."

House Bill 4075 would have set standards for vehicle safety, including  requirements for insurance coverage and rules that would have made the dispatchers of the vehicles liable for damages in accidents while the drivers are using their personal cars for ride sharing.

It would have allowed car insurers to deny coverage to ride-share drivers at the times when they were using their vehicles for ride-share work.

Quinn also vetoed House Bill 5331, which contained ride-share regulation language as well.

Comments

[Knarf Yenrab!]

"would have mandated a one-size-fits-all approach to a service that is best regulated at the local level."

"Illinois" must be a typo.

[bassjoe]

/ does a quick check on Google...

He's a Democrat, apparently. You don't often hear such language come out of the "left" side of our political duopoly. (Not that the "right" side actually means it all that often...)

[derpules]

Make no mistake, Gov Jello is a card carry liberal. And slightly retarded.

[DaveSs]

My guess is that the real reason for the veto was encouraged by Chicago cabbies.

There was a lot in that bill that prohibited local jurisdictions from enacting stricter rules on ridesharing than the State imposed.

[DaveSs]

That is of course assuming my five minute review of bills is accurate.

[bassjoe]

Uber probably should be responsible if one of its drivers has an accident; that seems basic and such responsibility should not be waivable by the customer or driver as such a waiver should be seen as unconscionable (especially for the customer). Whether such responsibility should be mandated by the state is a different question.

[Claimsadjuster]

"It would have allowed car insurers to deny coverage to ride-share drivers at the times when they were using their vehicles for ride-share work."

"Ride share work" - this is the semantic game that Uber plays. UberX and Lyft are not ride sharing - they are for hire vehicles that are ferrying passengers around for profit. No insurance company in its right mind is going to knowingly accept the risk of a taxi like service on a non-commercial policy. This is just insurance fraud.

[Harun]

I believe Uber already demands drivers get commercial insurance now.

I also really doubt this is really going to make cabs suddenly competitive.

Its like Comcast allowing in Google Fiber. Comcast simply does not have institutional culture to compete.

[Harun]

http://blog.uber.com/uberXridesharinginsurance

In fact they have more insurance than some taxis.

Uber must have had fun negotiating for a deal that big. Its like Amazon's box order.

[ricbee]

Taxis are becoming more & more necessary,the more the merrier.

[ricbee]

Even a stopped idiot is right once in a while,this is Quinn's day in the sun.