 In August, Gov. Pat Quinn vetoed HB 4075 and HB 5331 — which would have imposed
state wide regulations on rideshare providers — saying these types of rules
should be decided upon locally.
“The principal of home rule is an important one,” Quinn said in a statement
released in August. “I am vetoing this legislation because it would have
mandated a one-size-fits-all approach to a service best regulated at the local
level.”
But one of the bill’s sponsors, State Rep. Mike Zalewski, D-Riverside, who on
Monday filed a motion to override the veto, said he believes leaving the
rule-making up to municipalities could be confusing.
“When you have a hodgepodge of different rules for different municipalities, you
create confusion, misunderstanding of the law,” he told the Illinois News
Network this week. “(We) need uniform, comprehensive statutes that, again, isn’t
burdensome, but protects consumers and protects passengers.”
Opponents of the bills insist they rules are burdensome and serve to protect the
taxi industry from competition while proponents cite pubic safety as a primary
concern.
“This bill puts a lot of red tape and restrictions on (ridesharing)
unnecessarily and it’s really about protecting taxi owners from competition,”
said Chris Taylor, general manager of Uber Illinois. “… Uber supports common
sense legislation and measures that are reasonable. This bill is really more
about restricting competition than anything else.”
Two components, in particular, keep both sides of this issue at odds: insurance
requirements and driver licensing.
Rep. Zalweski said the basic components of the legislation require rideshare
companies to hold commercial insurance policies, provide universal background
checks and require drivers who decide to drive full time hold industry-specific
licenses.
“We’re not trying to stifle innovation but we want to make sure we’re protective
of our constituents,” he said.
[to top of second column] |
 Taylor, on the other hand, insists Uber and other rideshare
companies have taken appropriate steps to ensure their drivers are
adequately insured and trained. Uber carries $1 million of primary
commercial liability insurance that kicks in any time a driver is on
the job. Drivers undergo extensive background checks and training.
Taylor also said a move to apply special licensing requirements
to rideshare drivers would remove the flexibility drivers often cite
as a reason the job is appealing. He also said it would discourage
drivers from taking on more hours which would, in turn, reduce the
drivers on the road and push prices up for consumers.
“If they lost a shift at the factory or knew it was St. Patrick’s
Day and there was a ton of demand, they love that flexibility and
the ability to earn a good income,” Taylor said. “(Licensing
requirements would mean) fewer cars on the road because not everyone
is going to be willing to go through that process.”
Rep. Zalewski insist the bill would not provide an undue burden on
rideshare companies.
“Ultimately, my feeling about the bill is it was a good piece of
legislation that’s comprehensive without being burdensome that will
ensure the safety of passengers who choose to use an innovative
brand of transportation,” he said.
In September, Uber announced it would expand its Chicago regional
headquarters. The plan is set to create more than 400 new jobs by
the end of 2016. What is ultimately decided in the upcoming veto
session, however, could change all that.
“If the veto is overridden, we’ll have to reevaluate,” Taylor said.
“That will change the way our business functions and so we’ll try to
keep going as much as we can, but it’s going to put the breaks on a
lot of growth for us.”
— Reporter Greg Bishop contributed to this report
[This
article courtesy of
Watchdog.]
Click here to respond to the editor about this
article.
 |
