• Skip to main content

Levinson and Stefani Injury Lawyers

Client-first legal representation for injury victims. Injured? Free Consultation:

(312) 376-3812

  • Home
  • About Us
    • Attorneys
      • Ken Levinson
      • Jay Stefani
      • Vanessa A. Gebka
    • Practice Areas
      • Truck Crashes
      • Bus Collisions
      • Auto Accidents
      • Child Injuries
  • Firm News
  • Library
    • Articles
    • Cases
    • Law
    • Video
  • Blog
  • For Lawyers
    • Focus Groups
  • Free Case Review

ridesharing

Uber Vows to Make AV Test Data Public and Boost Safety Efforts After NTSB Backlash

October 22, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

After the National Transportation Safety Board blamed Uber Technologies Inc.’s policies for a fatal 2018 crash involving a self-driving vehicle, Uber has promised to prioritize publicizing safety information regarding its self-driving technology efforts.

Uber updated its voluntary safety assessment, sent to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on August 28th, with its new pledge. This is the company’s first effort against criticism regarding its autonomous driving program since the NTSB first published its beliefs about the first fatal pedestrian accident involving a self-driving vehicle–one of Uber’s–in Tempe, Arizona in 2018.

“We support the idea of transparency and making the public understand what we do,” said Uber’s Advanced Technologies Group head of safety, Nat Beuse. This new voluntary safety assessment is a “complete update” regarding what Uber originally told regulators in 2018.

The March 18th, 2018 incident involved an inattentive Uber safety operator in an autonomous vehicle that hit and killed a 49-year-old pedestrian crossing a dimly-lit roadway. The vehicle was in self-drive mode while the safety operator sat behind the wheel. 

This accident caused nation-wide backlash against self-driving cars, although police say the vehicle was operating for testing purposes only.

The NTSB declared that the driver had failed to act safely while distracted by his or her cellphone, and that Uber was at fault for having subpar safety risk assessment procedures, inadequate vehicle operator oversight, and a lack of any mechanism addressing complacency by operators.

Cell phone distraction or otherwise tuning out has been considered a major issue surrounding AV technology, and more researchers are studying just how much advanced driving systems create worse human drivers. Still, many AV supporters believe any current issues will be solved once self-driving tech improves to the point where, hopefully, car crashes will be eliminated.

In its assessment, Uber points out current “enhancements,” such as a new “Safety Case Framework” it claims will allow for open-sourced peer reviews. Additionally, the company said new internal safety management regulations and an independent Safety and Responsibility Advisory Board will be put in place.

Still, safety advocates have spoken against the Trump Administration’s implementation of voluntary approaches to self-driving vehicle regulation, saying voluntary reports are more like marketing brochures instead of formal regulatory filing submissions.

After Uber’s fatal incident, the legislation being considered in Washington to boost the number of autonomous vehicles manufacturers could produce began being heavily debated. All self-driving car testing was suspended by Uber for four months, and its Arizona driverless testing program was also shut down, causing the layoffs of 300 employees.

Currently, 23 various companies have made public their own self-driving safety assessments, including Apple Inc., Ford Motor Co, General Motors Co., Lyft Inc., Mercedes-Benz AG, Toyota Motor Corp., and Waymo. Uber is one of a few that have begun updating voluntary assessments, Beuse noted.

Advocates of consumer safety are using this example to push for stricter self-driving car regulations and more frequent consumer-focused safety assessment reports. Many have also criticized government agencies for being too lenient on the firms working to improve vehicle autonomy, and on voluntary reporting itself.

“It’s nice that Uber has decided this is the right time to update its so-called report, but a consumer-focused agency would have long ago mandated all driverless vehicle manufacturers regularly submit useful safety details regarding their public road tests,” said Center for Auto Safety executive director, Jason Levine.

The major problem with autonomous vehicle testing is weak federal oversight, said Ensar Becic, an NTSB project manager. He explained that even a regulated, basic self-driving vehicle test, “be it an obstacle course, a perceptual test, or tangible requirements such as testing for miles or adherence to development standards” is not common enough for safe, widespread testing.

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration’s automated vehicle guidance has just 12 testing safety suggestions, and although the NHTSA encourages AV companies to submit self-assessments regarding these 12 elements, few do. Additionally, the AV guidance has no given metrics for autonomous driving system developers to understand whether or not they have effectively achieved all safety goals related to those 12 areas.

Although NTSB members are glad Uber is currently cooperating with the investigation after the incident’s findings were released late last year, they believe Uber has an overall “ineffective safety culture” that led to the fatal crash.

Lyft’s New Driver Center Points to Chicago’s Future Challenges

April 1, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

In January of 2020 Chicago’s rideshare tax on companies such as Uber and Lyft officially went into effect. After Mayor Lightfoot announced the highest tax in the nation on such companies, many believed Uber and Lyft would largely focus on other metropolitan areas for the time being. With an added $3 fee for trips that start or end in downtown, riders in the Loop are now finding themselves with much more expensive trips. All of this, of course, was to provide incentive for riders to take public transportation and to curb downtown traffic; however, many see this merely as an attempt for the City to make more money, which it has already stated will generate roughly $40 million annually, $2 million of which the Chicago Transit Authority will receive to improve bus lanes throughout the city.

While it is evident that Chicago needed to make adjustments to curb downtown traffic, it appears that this drastic increase in taxes could very well have the opposite effect on traffic. For instance, at the time of the announcement of the rideshare tax, Curbed Chicago stated “Uber pushed hard against them, arguing the tax is solely a revenue play and won’t alleviate congestion . . . it’s in favor of comprehensive congestion pricing that would tax delivery vehicles, trucks, and taxi cabs in addition to ride-hailing services.” This type of plan would follow closely with what New York City passed in 2018, in charging a tax for Manhattan rideshare vehicles and cabs putting both transit options on equal footing. The issue here is that while traffic has largely gotten far worse due to the adoption of rideshare services, the future of taxi use in cities is looking more and more bleak. This is obvious, though. The more our society adopts advancing technology and understands how to streamline well-established businesses, the likelier it becomes that older business models become obsolete. This is the issue that many see with Chicago’s new tax. In addition to passing the tax, Lightfoot lowered the license renewal fee for taxi drivers, clearly showing who she believed is to blame for the congestion issues. She’s not wrong either; however, we are now beginning to see that residents of Chicago may very well value paying extra for their own ride own, rather than cramming into a packed train each day.

This is no way serves as an endorsement for Uber or Lyft or ridesharing altogether. In fact, we have written many times regarding the issue that companies such as these bring when it comes to who is liable in an accident. Further, Lightfoot and the city of Chicago are right to provide options that attempt to decrease traffic and get more people using public transportation. Not only would this provide safer roads for all parties, but it would allow many to entirely ignore the dangers and issues that arise from severe traffic congestion altogether. Instead, we must acknowledge that while Lightfoot’s tax is progressive and surely appeared well-intentioned, rideshare companies are massive corporations that are not only well-connected, but well-funded and such measures by the City will only be met with attempted “solutions” by the companies that such a tax greatly effects.  

“Driver Centers” May be the First Sign of More to Come from Rideshare Companies

In late February, Lyft officially opened its Chicago Driver Center, which marked the 6th location in the United States. The Driver Center, a hub for drivers to visit to receive discounted auto maintenance as well as be assisted with any Lyft-related questions regarding the business, is located at 1020 N. Elston Ave. According to Block Club Chicago, the new Driver Center is 22,500 sq. ft. and has roughly 30 employees at the location. The new center speaks volumes to the hold that rideshare companies now hold within not only the economy, but our everyday culture. Like it or not, Uber and Lyft are capable of ensuring that no matter what types of legislation is brought against them, they have the money and power to continue expanding their resources.

Unfortunately, while cities must enact legislation to curb issues plaguing high density areas, we are likely going to see Lyft and Uber remain in the Loop for good. True, people are likely less willing to pay a $3 additional charge to take a Lyft from work downtown to their destination; however, Chicago presents the unique aspect of having weather that plays a significant factor. Those with the means to already take a Lyft or an Uber as their daily mode of transportation likely are going to continue doing so. What’s more, the tax is not going to curb the amount of rideshare drivers in the city. Sure, there may be fewer people looking to take a Lyft, but Chicago is a massive city with a very complex infrastructure. While we should be happy Lightfoot and the City decided to take progressive steps to curb an issue that will only get worse, it looks like Lyft and Uber are only going to work even harder to now expand and ensure a presence in Chicago.

London Transit Refuses to Renew Uber’s License

December 19, 2019 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

LONDON – On November 25th, London’s transit authority announced its refusal to renew Uber’s operating license.

This shutdown comes after London transport officials have scrutinized the tech company more closely than ever, following concerns about imposter drivers and overall passenger security.

According to Transport for London, there has been “a pattern of failures” that placed passengers and their safety at risk, which is a main reason it decided not to extend Uber’s license. Uber has had a tough relationship with London transport, and the regulator finally decided to let the license expire on November 25th after it found unauthorized drivers were carrying out thousands of rides.

“At this stage, TfL can’t be confident that Uber has the robust processes in place to prevent another serious safety breach in the future,” said London Mayor Sadiq Khan in a statement.

Back in 2017, Transport for London had already once revoked Uber’s license before, but had its decision overturned when Uber appealed it and was granted a 15-month license. TfL decided to extend it by another two months, but with an additional 20 conditions.

Regarding the most recent choice to fully revoke Uber’s operation throughout London, TfL said it came to the conclusion after Uber’s systems “seem to have been comparatively easily manipulated” by drivers.

“While we recognize Uber has made improvements, it is unacceptable that Uber has allowed passengers to get into minicabs with drivers who are potentially unlicensed and uninsured,” said TfL’s director of licensing and regulation, Helen Chapman. “We cannot be confident that similar issues won’t happen again in [the] future.”

A recent change to Uber’s operating system made for one of these major issues, when it allowed unvetted and unauthorized drivers to upload their own photos to other existing drivers’ accounts.

Because of this, at least 14,000 Uber trips took place where these imposter drivers–who would appear to be the driver that was actually booked–were able to pick up passengers on uninsured trips.

Some of these drivers were not only uninsured, but also unlicensed. According to TfL, it had previously revoked the driver’s license of one of these particular unauthorized Uber drivers.

Additionally, Transport for London also found another serious breach, in which dismissed or suspended drivers were able to make a new account on the app and pick up passengers once again. 

Uber has fired back, saying that because TfL found the company fit to operate in its most recent license renewal, its current decision is “extraordinary and wrong.”

“We understand we’re held to a high bar, as we should be. But this TfL decision is just wrong,” said Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi over Twitter. “Over the last two years, we have fundamentally changed how we operate in London. We have come very far–and we will keep going, for the millions of drivers and riders who rely on us.”

Uber has 21 days from the license expiration to file an appeal, which the company says it intends to do. During the appeals process, it can continue to operate as usual.

In hopes of making changes for the better, Uber said on top of continuing to audit each of its London drivers–which it has been doing over the last two months–it plans to launch a “facial matching process” across its verification system, which is currently powered by Microsoft. This will work by requiring drivers to take selfies periodically for the system to compare with their account photos. They will also have to actively prove their identity by smiling, blinking, and/or turning their head.

If the appeal is denied, it will be an enormous setback for the company, which underwent a $1.15 billion loss last quarter. Shares fell by more than 5% in premarket trading, and Khosrowshahi forecast that Uber wouldn’t turn a profit until 2021.

“If Uber ultimately was not able to operate in London, it will be a ‘seismic blow’ to the company’s European operations,” said Dan Ives, managing director at Wedbush Securities. He added that it “could have a major ripple impact across other European cities,” and that imposter driver problem is not limited to Europe. He said investors should be aware.

For instance, American safety advocates have been criticizing Uber for having less-thorough background checks on its drivers than traditional taxi companies have, as Uber doesn’t check its drivers’ fingerprints.

This isn’t the only instance where regulators have the upper hand over the rideshare company. 

On top of California’s recent legislation which required companies to treat rideshare drivers as employees rather than as independent contractors (making Uber provide health and other benefits on top of insurance for its drivers), New York has enacted a minimum wage for Uber drivers (which the company meets by raising prices for customers), and New Jersey’s labor department has claimed Uber misclassified drivers as independent contractors and recently sought over $640 million from the company.

Chicago Announces New Plan to Reduce Downtown Congestion

November 1, 2019 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

On October 18th, City officials announced two new initiatives to reduce downtown congestion and increase the use of Chicago’s bus system. Through the new initiatives, Mayor Lori Lightfoot announced that ride-share apps will see an increase in fees, specifically downtown and in the surrounding areas. Additionally, Lightfoot announced the city would be adding additional bus-only lanes throughout the city to incentivize public transportation.

Both of the announcements follow what has been a long-awaited response by Chicago’s administration to curb the significant increase in ridesharing occurring throughout the city, which has clearly had a negative effect on the use of public transportation for downtown commuters. After the announcement,  Curbed Chicago provided a breakdown of how Uber and Lyft users would be affected by the new initiative. For starters, “the new proposal would decrease the amount for shared trips to 65 cents and increase single rides to $1.25.” In doing this, the city is hoping to clearly incentivize riders to think about carpooling. However, this isn’t nearly as aggressive as Chicago’s special downtown zone fee, which will see the single trip fee increase $2.28 to $3.00. Curbed Chicago goes on to explain that “the downtown zone fees would apply between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. and the proposed downtown area includes the Loop, River North and a portion of the West Loop. The boundary streets include: Lake Shore Drive, Roosevelt Road, Desplaines Street, Van Buren Street, Ashland Avenue, Grand Street, North Branch Canal, North Avenue.” 

Overall, these are drastic announcements by the city. No matter the public policy at hand, commuters are likely to not take too lightly to a two dollar increase in taxes and fees for every ride they try and catch in the downtown area. For many, especially those living in nearby neighborhoods, there is going to be dissatisfaction. With that being said, we can only hope that such a decision will bring positive results not only for traffic congestion, but for rider and pedestrian safety as well. As we have written countless times, traffic congestion brings unwarranted dangers to those in the city. For example, it was announced in the 2019 Urban Mobility Report that Chicago commuters lost a total of $1,307 annually due to traffic congestion, which was the result of vehicle damage, wasted gasoline, and many other factors associated with increases in traffic. More shocking, according to TRIP, the National Transportation Research Nonprofit, traffic congestion studied as recently as 2016 showed that the trucking industry lost a total of $74.5 billion due to the operational costs associated with traffic. All of this establishes that while it may appear absurd and a downright overreach to drastically increase taxes and fees associated with ridesharing in Chicago, there is far more at play then giving the city money for failing to take public transportation. We should hope that driver safety and vehicle costs are one of those primary factors.

Chicago’s New Bus Initiative

Along with the new fees for ridesharing comes an initiative to revamp and give an incentive to the public in taking the bus system. “The Bus Priority Zone Program will bring bus-only lanes, queue jump signals, and better traffic light timing to some of Chicago’s highest ridership routes,” writes Curbed Chicago. As a result of the $20 million dollar plan, the goal is to remove “slow zones, bottlenecks, delays, and bunched up buses that come one right after the other.”

Curbed Chicago also had the opportunity to speak with the Executive Director of Active Transportation Alliance, an organization that advocates for providing safe walking, bicycling, and public transit options in communities. Executive Director Melody Geraci stated that “transportation is the great but invisible connector between people and opportunity. We don’t think about it as much as we think about affordable housing, or access to grocery stores and jobs but all of those things are only connected if we have a great transportation system.” Geraci went on to state that since 2008, Chicago had also seen its bus ridership decrease by 28 percent. Ultimately, this goes hand in hand with the issues that traffic congestion brings as well. Commuters do not want to sit in traffic on a bus filled with other people they don’t know. They would much rather be in their own vehicle or be driven, if they have the means to do so. With that being said, the city’s approach to enhance the bus experience throughout the city will certainly bring positive results if done correctly. For starters, we will all be better off with fewer cars on the road. It will not only help with increasing the air quality in downtown, but it was increase traffic safety. For us, that is the most critical aspect of this new plan. If the city initiates these proposals and traffic does decrease as a result, we should see that as a huge win for Chicago. The better chance of keeping vehicles and drivers off the road, the better position drivers are to get to their destination safely.

Chicago Mayor Considering Upping Fees for Ride-Share Passengers

October 20, 2019 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

CHICAGO–For her 2020 budget, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot is planning to possibly implement higher fees for riders of solo Uber and Lyft trips, and wants to keep rates lower for those taking a pool. 

This announcement comes two weeks before her first budget address, where she will explain her plans to remedy the $838 million deficit for the city in 2020.

On many occasions, Lightfoot has discussed issuing a tax on all drivers entering certain zones in the Chicago metropolitan area in an attempt to raise revenue for the city and decrease traffic congestion. She also hinted recently that for the 2020 year, this tax may take the form of an additional fee on ride-share app passengers entering the central business district.

In her August “State of the City” speech, Lightfoot said these plans come as a way to “address rampant congestion” and to “solve the problem of traffic, pollution, and other issues while simultaneously bringing in a fair share of funding.”

Last Thursday, she told WLS-AM 890 that this new plan will likely include a break in fees for riders who opt for Lyft and Uber pooling options (where ride-share drivers pick up multiple passengers in the same direction), because those services will add less to congestion than rides transporting single-passengers.

“We definitely have heard, and we are considering, because we’ve gotten requests and input on giving a break to those folks that are using pool transportation and charging more for single-occupancy rides,” said Lightfoot. “We’re certainly looking at that.”

However, Lightfoot does acknowledge the difficulty in getting the state legislature to pass these new taxes, as lawmakers are set to meet for only six days during the fall–and for now, the focus on tax structure changes for Chicago lies primarily elsewhere. “The veto session is going to be really, really short,” she explains, “and we’ve got two very big priorities, which is casinos and a real estate transfer tax.”

Lightfoot also says she is even more skeptical about getting state lawmakers to approve the sales tax she has been aiming for in regards to high-end services.

Currently, Chicago city fees on Uber and Lyft trips come out to 72 cents per ride, plus another $5 for rides beginning at destinations with heavy traffic, such as McCormick Place, Navy Pier, and Chicago airports.

With a recent surge in driving around the city, transit rates have been flat while vehicle ownership is decreasing. Some transportation experts believe congestion pricing is an “untapped resource” for Chicago revenue.

“There are certain areas where congestion is getting intolerable,” said Joseph Schwieterman, DePaul University transportation expert. “[We] have to do something. It’s just going to get worse, and congestion pricing is well-suited for that.”

Several other large cities around the globe have found congestion pricing to be effective and lucrative, including London, Stockholm and Singapore. New York City is following suit, with fees coming into place for those traveling below 60th Street in Manhattan by 2021.

But, will fees charged to Uber and Lyft passengers work in the same way, pushing commuters to choose more public ways of transit and thus decreasing overall city traffic?

It seems to be the way of the metro-future. Los Angeles transportation officials have been working toward a tax on Uber and Lyft rides in Los Angeles County, which is part of a much larger plan to begin better managing city congestion as well as to fund transportation projects to be fully implemented before the 2028 Olympic Games.

What’s more–funds being funneled into city revenue by public transit tend to decrease when Uber and Lyft are more easily accessible. A 2018 study of travel patterns showed that 60 percent of city locals would have traveled by foot, bike, or transit if ride-hailing services had not been as available.

Los Angeles’ public transit ridership has plummeted by 20 percent over the last few years, despite billions of dollars being spent on new rail lines. Uber and Lyft are believed to be one of the biggest factors contributing to this issue, and it’s safe to assume the case is comparable to that of Chicago.

With a tax on rides that will deter solo ride-share travelers, that will also bring in revenue for city infrastructure funding, it appears these new fees will come into play much sooner than later.

New Law Makes Uber and Lyft Drivers Official Employees with Company Benefits

September 27, 2019 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

A new law in California could transform companies like Uber and Lyft by classifying their drivers as employees rather than independent contractors.

This month, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed new legislation stating that many “gig economy workers,” like those of the rideshare apps, would now be reclassified as employees–an update that will most likely completely change the business models of tech companies such as these.

Regarding the bill signing, Newsom called it a “landmark legislation for workers and our economy.” It is  clear the bill will have a tremendous impact–especially when more than 1% of the United States workforce drive with Uber and Lyft.

The new law is set to go into effect in January, and will allow drivers to work as official employees, making available to them benefits including minimum wage, unemployment and disability insurance, as well as union rights.

Newsom wrote in his letter to California lawmakers that the bill is an “important step” toward fighting against the “hollowing out of our middle class.” He also says reclassifying contractors will create a significant rise in income equality for the middle class.

Drivers often choose the rideshare driving lifestyle because of its flexibility; however, independent work includes challenges–such as higher levels of stress regarding earnings stability, insurance protections, and the ability to have your voice heard by the companies that hired them.

Additionally, in the case of Lyft and Uber driver-related accidents, lines around coverage have been blurry, as it is often unclear whose insurance policy would apply–the at-fault driver’s or the company’s? Generally, when an innocent passenger or other driver is hurt, financial responsibility comes from the driver at fault and their personal insurance. 

This can create difficulty, especially if the driver happens not to have a policy with enough to cover initial hospital bills. Becoming an employee of the company would deem the company itself liable for covering the costs.

However, Lyft and Uber have been lobbying against the measure.

In an open forum for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dara Khorsrowshahi, chief executive of Uber Technologies, along with Logan Green and John Zimmer, co-founders of Lyft, plead against the reclassification, saying it would “pose a risk to [their] businesses.”

“First, most drivers prefer freedom and flexibility to the forced schedules and rigid hourly shifts of traditional employment,” they said. “Second, many drivers are supplementing income from other work.”

Their argument is that this kind of flexibility for drivers would become impossible under regulations of becoming official employees of their respective companies.

Even after the bill was passed on September 11th, Uber stated it would still not be classifying its drivers as employees under the new law, saying its “drivers’ work is outside the usual course of Uber’s business.” 

Uber claims this is because its drivers pass the “ABC” test–that they A) are free from control and direction of the company, B) their work falls outside the company’s usual business, and C) they work in an independent business that is of the same kind as the company’s–and therefore can be considered independent contractors. regardless of the new law.

As soon as the bill was expected to push through, Uber said it would be looking into “several legal and political options” to be able to continue classifying drivers as contractors. One of these initiatives includes a statewide ballot initiative, which is planned for next year. 

It is also still unclear how exactly the law will affect Uber, Lyft and their drivers when put into practice. Currently, it includes exemptions for workers who set their own rates and hours, such as hairstylists, freelance writers and real estate agents.

Hundreds of rideshare app drivers are part of the group Gig Workers Rising, which had been protesting throughout California in favor of the bill. The group defines itself as a “campaign supporting and educating app and platform [for] workers who are organizing for better wages, working conditions and jobs,” and is comprised of rideshare drivers, delivery workers and couriers.

“American history is full of shameful examples where powerful industries exploited workers in pursuit of greater profits,” said presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren in an op-ed for the Sacramento Bee. “In many industries today, it takes the form of worker misclassification.”

Other candidates have supported workers’ demands along with the bill, including Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, and Pete Buttigieg.

  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Go to Next Page »

Levinson and Stefani Injury Lawyers in Chicago / Attorney Advertising