Okay, that subject line is clickbait. It's TRUE but it omits a lot of
detail. Here's the story:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/uber-drives-off-with-child-1.7513379

So, an Uber driver *did*, in effect, kidnap a 5 year old but it was
entirely inadvertent. (Mind you, the story fails to say just when the
kid woke up and realized something was amiss although it obviously did
because it was in hysterics when the mom got to the Uber.)

Uber's emergency protocol leaves a LOT to be desired. The procedure
calls for police to fill out a form and then wait for Uber to react but
there is NO INDICATION of how long that will take. Somehow, that message
needs to be read by someone who then has to decide how to respond (or
even IF they will respond since they should probably do something to
verify that someone claiming to be the police really IS a police
officer). I've personally built forms that generate messages which then
turn into properly addressed emails and sit in someone's inbox until the recipient notices them, which is appropriate for things like customer
inquiries on a website. Is that what Uber does too? Or does the message
go immediately to a well-trained live human being with decision-making
power on a 24x7 basis? The former would be entirely inappropriate for an emergency situation but it would definitely be cheaper so I can imagine
them building their system that way. I can definitely imagine the police
not wanting to bother with something like this unless there was a solid guarantee that the form would be seen and acted upon IMMEDIATELY.

I hope the mother's insistence on real improvements to the Uber
emergency protocol has the desired effect otherwise this could easily
happen again with perhaps more tragic results. There have been a number
of incidents over the years where sleeping children were left on school
buses because the driver didn't notice that they were there, including
one where a sleeping special needs child who was left in a bus for hours
and was traumatized as a result along with its parents.

And that prompts me to suggest a policy that we used on our school buses
which Uber drivers could follow starting immediately: make sure every
passenger has gotten out of the vehicle before you drive away. If that
means getting out of the car and looking in each door, so be it. It's
only a car: how long can it take? That alone practically precludes a
similar event from ever happening again. (I suppose there's still a
chance that a very small child could fall asleep, slip into the footwell
and half under the front seats and not be noticed, particularly if the
child is wearing dark clothing at night.) Where I worked, failing to do
this kind of check and then reporting to the dispatcher that you had
done it was a major disciplinary event; drivers, even excellent ones,
were virtually always fired if a child was actually left in the bus.


--
Rhino

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

Okay, that subject line is clickbait. It's TRUE but it omits a lot of
detail. Here's the story:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/uber-drives-off-with-child-1.7513379

So, an Uber driver *did*, in effect, kidnap a 5 year old but it was
entirely inadvertent. (Mind you, the story fails to say just when the
kid woke up and realized something was amiss although it obviously did >because it was in hysterics when the mom got to the Uber.)

Ok, there was no kidnapping, but gah, that kid must have woken up at
some point and you'd think the driver would have driven back to their
home.

I love how there's a form for the cops to fill out, but none for the
girl's mother. "Fill out the left luggage form and we'll get back to you
in three days."

. . .

I hope the mother's insistence on real improvements to the Uber
emergency protocol has the desired effect otherwise this could easily
happen again with perhaps more tragic results. There have been a number
of incidents over the years where sleeping children were left on school
buses because the driver didn't notice that they were there, including
one where a sleeping special needs child who was left in a bus for hours
and was traumatized as a result along with its parents.

And that prompts me to suggest a policy that we used on our school buses >which Uber drivers could follow starting immediately: make sure every >passenger has gotten out of the vehicle before you drive away.

Yes. Even if the driver weren't thinking of the children, the fact that
there were 4 kids, that's a hell of a lot a paraphenalia. Obviously the
parents will be making multiple trips to retrieve everything. Obviously,
the driver had to make very sure the parents had completely unloaded the vehicle.

This guy has no business being a for-hire driver.

Here's an even scarier thought. Was there insurance while the child was
in the vehicle?

Some Uber and Lyft drivers rent vehicles, which means that commercial
insurance is in effect at all times. But if the driver is using a
personal vehicle, his own insurance prevents him from acting as a
commercial driver. All personal insurance policies prohibit this.

The way it works: Driving to and from the start and end of the trip
booked through the platform, there is no commercial insurance as this is limited to the time between pickup and dropoff. The driver's personal
insurance isn't in effect as the insurance company will argue that, at
least during the time between receiving the call and heading to the
pickup point, the driver is in commercial service even though Uber and
Lyft don't cover this period. Having left the dropoff point and until
the driver receives the next call, it's harder to argue that personal
insurance isn't in effect.

Nevertheless, no one's personal insurance covers this scenario, in which
the child never exited the vehicle.

The insurance carriers for both commercial and personal liability will
fight against a claim if, say, the child were hurt. That also means the
driver was driving illegally without insurance, and his personal assets
are at risk in judgment.

Obviously Uber or Lyft can be sued, but the judgment will also go
against the driver unless the settlement from the platforms includes the driver's liability.

Everything about using one's personal vehicle in commercial service
without commercial insurance is beyond idiotic as it can leave you
bankrupt.

If that
means getting out of the car and looking in each door, so be it. It's
only a car: how long can it take? That alone practically precludes a
similar event from ever happening again. (I suppose there's still a
chance that a very small child could fall asleep, slip into the footwell
and half under the front seats and not be noticed, particularly if the
child is wearing dark clothing at night.) Where I worked, failing to do
this kind of check and then reporting to the dispatcher that you had
done it was a major disciplinary event; drivers, even excellent ones,
were virtually always fired if a child was actually left in the bus.

That's reasonable.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-04-21 1:54 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

Okay, that subject line is clickbait. It's TRUE but it omits a lot of
detail. Here's the story:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/uber-drives-off-with-child-1.7513379

So, an Uber driver *did*, in effect, kidnap a 5 year old but it was
entirely inadvertent. (Mind you, the story fails to say just when the
kid woke up and realized something was amiss although it obviously did
because it was in hysterics when the mom got to the Uber.)

Ok, there was no kidnapping, but gah, that kid must have woken up at
some point and you'd think the driver would have driven back to their
home.

I love how there's a form for the cops to fill out, but none for the
girl's mother. "Fill out the left luggage form and we'll get back to you
in three days."

I was impressed that the police immediately mounted their own search and successfully found the Uber with the kid still in it. They could have
said they didn't have the manpower to do a search like that or that they
were too busy dealing with crime (or protecting pro-Hamas demonstrators elsewhere in the city) but they stepped up and got it done. I don't know
how many police were actually searching but I'm guessing it would have
taken several if Uber refused to give them ANY information on where the
car might be.

I wonder when the driver finally realized he had a leftover passenger
aboard? I'm guessing it was when the police finally found him otherwise
he'd surely have taken the kid back home on his own. Perhaps he didn't
have another customer, went home, and locked the car without realizing
it had a kid in it.

. . .

I hope the mother's insistence on real improvements to the Uber
emergency protocol has the desired effect otherwise this could easily
happen again with perhaps more tragic results. There have been a number
of incidents over the years where sleeping children were left on school
buses because the driver didn't notice that they were there, including
one where a sleeping special needs child who was left in a bus for hours
and was traumatized as a result along with its parents.

And that prompts me to suggest a policy that we used on our school buses
which Uber drivers could follow starting immediately: make sure every
passenger has gotten out of the vehicle before you drive away.

Yes. Even if the driver weren't thinking of the children, the fact that
there were 4 kids, that's a hell of a lot a paraphenalia. Obviously the parents will be making multiple trips to retrieve everything. Obviously,
the driver had to make very sure the parents had completely unloaded the vehicle.

This guy has no business being a for-hire driver.

Here's an even scarier thought. Was there insurance while the child was
in the vehicle?

Some Uber and Lyft drivers rent vehicles, which means that commercial insurance is in effect at all times. But if the driver is using a
personal vehicle, his own insurance prevents him from acting as a
commercial driver. All personal insurance policies prohibit this.

The way it works: Driving to and from the start and end of the trip
booked through the platform, there is no commercial insurance as this is limited to the time between pickup and dropoff. The driver's personal insurance isn't in effect as the insurance company will argue that, at
least during the time between receiving the call and heading to the
pickup point, the driver is in commercial service even though Uber and
Lyft don't cover this period. Having left the dropoff point and until
the driver receives the next call, it's harder to argue that personal insurance isn't in effect.

Nevertheless, no one's personal insurance covers this scenario, in which
the child never exited the vehicle.

The insurance carriers for both commercial and personal liability will
fight against a claim if, say, the child were hurt. That also means the driver was driving illegally without insurance, and his personal assets
are at risk in judgment.

Obviously Uber or Lyft can be sued, but the judgment will also go
against the driver unless the settlement from the platforms includes the driver's liability.

Everything about using one's personal vehicle in commercial service
without commercial insurance is beyond idiotic as it can leave you
bankrupt.

I will assume that you are correct about the way insurance works in your
own country but I think it's different in Ontario. (Side question: isn't insurance law a state-level matter in the US rather than a federal
matter? If so, then Illinois may have much different rules than other
states.) I've seen questions on forms about what kind of driving you do
and whether it is commercial or not but I don't *think* you have to get different insurance if you do a mix of personal and commercial driving:
you just pay a higher premium. I've never driven my own vehicle for
commercial purposes so I can't begin to guess how much more the premium is.

If that
means getting out of the car and looking in each door, so be it. It's
only a car: how long can it take? That alone practically precludes a
similar event from ever happening again. (I suppose there's still a
chance that a very small child could fall asleep, slip into the footwell
and half under the front seats and not be noticed, particularly if the
child is wearing dark clothing at night.) Where I worked, failing to do
this kind of check and then reporting to the dispatcher that you had
done it was a major disciplinary event; drivers, even excellent ones,
were virtually always fired if a child was actually left in the bus.

That's reasonable.

Of course it's a bit tricker with Uber since I assume they don't talk to
a live dispatcher but are directed entirely via an app. Still, I imagine
they require the driver to report that the trip is completely and he's available for another run so that process could include him ticking a
box on a form that says he checked to make sure all passengers and
belongings were out of the car. That should have the same effect as
reporting to a dispatcher. (Of course it's entirely possible/likely that ticking the box could be done without first doing the check but if
ticking the box was treated as a strict requirement which would get you
fired if you were found NOT to have checked the car, then that should do
the job of forcing the actual check to be done.)

--
Rhino

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

2025-04-21 1:54 PM, Adam H. Kerman:

. . .

I wonder when the driver finally realized he had a leftover passenger
aboard? I'm guessing it was when the police finally found him otherwise
he'd surely have taken the kid back home on his own. Perhaps he didn't
have another customer, went home, and locked the car without realizing
it had a kid in it.

I've been wondering the same thing. Whilst driving off without realizing
the girl was still in the vehicle wasn't kidnapping, once he became
aware, if he took no steps to return to the child's home, at some point
it's going to become a crime.

. . .

Here's an even scarier thought. Was there insurance while the child was
in the vehicle?

Some Uber and Lyft drivers rent vehicles, which means that commercial >>insurance is in effect at all times. But if the driver is using a
personal vehicle, his own insurance prevents him from acting as a >>commercial driver. All personal insurance policies prohibit this.

The way it works: Driving to and from the start and end of the trip
booked through the platform, there is no commercial insurance as this is >>limited to the time between pickup and dropoff. The driver's personal >>insurance isn't in effect as the insurance company will argue that, at >>least during the time between receiving the call and heading to the
pickup point, the driver is in commercial service even though Uber and
Lyft don't cover this period. Having left the dropoff point and until
the driver receives the next call, it's harder to argue that personal >>insurance isn't in effect.

Nevertheless, no one's personal insurance covers this scenario, in which >>the child never exited the vehicle.

The insurance carriers for both commercial and personal liability will >>fight against a claim if, say, the child were hurt. That also means the >>driver was driving illegally without insurance, and his personal assets
are at risk in judgment.

Obviously Uber or Lyft can be sued, but the judgment will also go
against the driver unless the settlement from the platforms includes the >>driver's liability.

Everything about using one's personal vehicle in commercial service
without commercial insurance is beyond idiotic as it can leave you >>bankrupt.

I will assume that you are correct about the way insurance works in your
own country but I think it's different in Ontario.

I doubt that very much. The risk of commercial driving is entirely
different than the risk of personal driving. It's reasonable to assume
that personal insurance excludes coverage for commercial driving.

(Side question: isn't insurance law a state-level matter in the US rather >than a federal matter? If so, then Illinois may have much different
rules than other states.)

There's actually federal law denying the ability to sell coverage across
state lines. Insurance companies form subsidiaries in each state they
sell coverage in. There's enough "interstate" aspect to insurance that I
don't see why such restrictions apply. There's plenty of disbenefit to
in state risk pools. Certain medical specialties, for instance, have
very high cost liability. Obstetrics has huge liability. In small
states, the high cost of malpractice insurance due to the tiny risk pool
is great enough to keep many doctors from practicing in these states,
leading to shortages. This isn't a matter of consumer protection.

At the same token, states that don't experience wildfires aren't in the
same risk pool as California.

I've seen questions on forms about what kind of driving you do
and whether it is commercial or not but I don't *think* you have to get >different insurance if you do a mix of personal and commercial driving:
you just pay a higher premium. I've never driven my own vehicle for >commercial purposes so I can't begin to guess how much more the premium is.

I don't know how blended coverage like that works, but there's
absolutely going to be a commercial policy. Tradesmen (who are often independent contractors and not employees) will drive their own pickup
trucks or panel vans to job sites because they are carrying tools and equipment, and may be delivering supplies that they themselves will be installing. That requires commercial coverage. But there will be plenty
of times they drive their pickup for personal driving, say on a hunting
trip or just personal errands. I'm sure the actuaries have a way to rate
the risk and figure out an appropriate rate.

But no commercial liability coverage at all? No vehicle owner should be
in that position as he's personally exposed to liability from commercial
use of the vehicle.

. . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-04-21 4:34 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

2025-04-21 1:54 PM, Adam H. Kerman:

. . .

I wonder when the driver finally realized he had a leftover passenger
aboard? I'm guessing it was when the police finally found him otherwise
he'd surely have taken the kid back home on his own. Perhaps he didn't
have another customer, went home, and locked the car without realizing
it had a kid in it.

I've been wondering the same thing. Whilst driving off without realizing
the girl was still in the vehicle wasn't kidnapping, once he became
aware, if he took no steps to return to the child's home, at some point
it's going to become a crime.

Exactly. If the guy went home and then to bed, leaving the kid in the
car not knowing it was there, well that's one thing and hard to find culpability. But if he realized the kid was there before he left the car
and did nothing, that's another story. I could picture him contacting
Uber for instructions and waiting to hear back. That situation could be
so unusual that it would take Uber a while to figure out what to do and
maybe the police rolled up while that was still playing out. (I'm
picturing someone at Uber trying to find a binder with policies in it
that covered that case and not being able to track it down right away.)
That might be enough to exempt him from charges too, even if it seems
obvious to us that he should just have gone back to the kid's house.

Maybe he was worrying about getting into trouble with Uber if he doubled
back? I'm guessing that they have trackers on the vehicles that are
contracted with them and maybe doubling back would be seen in an
unfavourable light. It might simply be perceived as incompetence and
count against the driver.

Hmm. I've never taken an Uber or Lyft but taxis always collect payment
at the end of the ride. If Uber and Lyft follow that same model, then I
have to wonder if the mother had already paid as she got out of the car?
I assume she must have or the driver would have waited for payment. But
maybe Uber and Lyft, knowing the pickup point and destination,
pre-calculate the fare and ding your credit card before they even arrive
at the pickup point so that the driver doesn't have to wait for payment
at the end. (I can see where the driver would like that since there's no
chance the customer would stiff them at the end of the trip.)

. . .

Here's an even scarier thought. Was there insurance while the child was
in the vehicle?

Some Uber and Lyft drivers rent vehicles, which means that commercial
insurance is in effect at all times. But if the driver is using a
personal vehicle, his own insurance prevents him from acting as a
commercial driver. All personal insurance policies prohibit this.

The way it works: Driving to and from the start and end of the trip
booked through the platform, there is no commercial insurance as this is >>> limited to the time between pickup and dropoff. The driver's personal
insurance isn't in effect as the insurance company will argue that, at
least during the time between receiving the call and heading to the
pickup point, the driver is in commercial service even though Uber and
Lyft don't cover this period. Having left the dropoff point and until
the driver receives the next call, it's harder to argue that personal
insurance isn't in effect.

Nevertheless, no one's personal insurance covers this scenario, in which >>> the child never exited the vehicle.

The insurance carriers for both commercial and personal liability will
fight against a claim if, say, the child were hurt. That also means the
driver was driving illegally without insurance, and his personal assets
are at risk in judgment.

Obviously Uber or Lyft can be sued, but the judgment will also go
against the driver unless the settlement from the platforms includes the >>> driver's liability.

Everything about using one's personal vehicle in commercial service
without commercial insurance is beyond idiotic as it can leave you
bankrupt.

I will assume that you are correct about the way insurance works in your
own country but I think it's different in Ontario.

I doubt that very much. The risk of commercial driving is entirely
different than the risk of personal driving. It's reasonable to assume
that personal insurance excludes coverage for commercial driving.

(Side question: isn't insurance law a state-level matter in the US rather
than a federal matter? If so, then Illinois may have much different
rules than other states.)

There's actually federal law denying the ability to sell coverage across state lines. Insurance companies form subsidiaries in each state they
sell coverage in. There's enough "interstate" aspect to insurance that I don't see why such restrictions apply. There's plenty of disbenefit to
in state risk pools. Certain medical specialties, for instance, have
very high cost liability. Obstetrics has huge liability. In small
states, the high cost of malpractice insurance due to the tiny risk pool
is great enough to keep many doctors from practicing in these states,
leading to shortages. This isn't a matter of consumer protection.

At the same token, states that don't experience wildfires aren't in the
same risk pool as California.

Here in Canada, every province has its own insurance system with
different requirements about coverage. In some provinces, like BC, all
the car insurance is issued by the government as I understand it. In
Ontario, there are many private insurance companies and no government
insurance at all. I don't know how the actuaries pool risks but I'm
assuming its on a provincial basis. That means tiny PEI or even tinier
(in population) Yukon/NWT/Nunavut are going to have much smaller pools
than Ontario, Quebec or BC.

I've seen questions on forms about what kind of driving you do
and whether it is commercial or not but I don't *think* you have to get
different insurance if you do a mix of personal and commercial driving:
you just pay a higher premium. I've never driven my own vehicle for
commercial purposes so I can't begin to guess how much more the premium is.

I don't know how blended coverage like that works, but there's
absolutely going to be a commercial policy. Tradesmen (who are often independent contractors and not employees) will drive their own pickup
trucks or panel vans to job sites because they are carrying tools and equipment, and may be delivering supplies that they themselves will be installing. That requires commercial coverage. But there will be plenty
of times they drive their pickup for personal driving, say on a hunting
trip or just personal errands. I'm sure the actuaries have a way to rate
the risk and figure out an appropriate rate.

But no commercial liability coverage at all? No vehicle owner should be
in that position as he's personally exposed to liability from commercial
use of the vehicle.

. . .

You may well be right about all of that. I'll try to remember to find
out how that works in Ontario the next time I renew insurance. I've
actually toyed with the idea of delivery pizza or something like that as
a side hustle.

--
Rhino

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2025-04-21 1:54 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

Okay, that subject line is clickbait. It's TRUE but it omits a lot of
detail. Here's the story:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/uber-drives-off-with-child-1.7513379 >>
So, an Uber driver *did*, in effect, kidnap a 5 year old but it was
entirely inadvertent. (Mind you, the story fails to say just when the
kid woke up and realized something was amiss although it obviously did
because it was in hysterics when the mom got to the Uber.)

Ok, there was no kidnapping, but gah, that kid must have woken up at
some point and you'd think the driver would have driven back to their
home.

I love how there's a form for the cops to fill out, but none for the
girl's mother. "Fill out the left luggage form and we'll get back to you
in three days."

I was impressed that the police immediately mounted their own search and successfully found the Uber with the kid still in it. They could have
said they didn't have the manpower to do a search like that or that they
were too busy dealing with crime (or protecting pro-Hamas demonstrators elsewhere in the city) but they stepped up and got it done. I don't know
how many police were actually searching but I'm guessing it would have
taken several if Uber refused to give them ANY information on where the
car might be.

I wonder when the driver finally realized he had a leftover passenger
aboard? I'm guessing it was when the police finally found him otherwise
he'd surely have taken the kid back home on his own.

He might not have been able to. According to the various agreements and information I get all the time from Uber, the driver doesn’t retain a
record of you or where he dropped you off. Probably so he can’t come back
and key your Tesla later or something. if he remembered where he dropped
you off, he could come back but if he didn’t, you are all SOL until Uber tells somebody.


Perhaps he didn't

have another customer, went home, and locked the car without realizing
it had a kid in it.

. . .

I hope the mother's insistence on real improvements to the Uber
emergency protocol has the desired effect otherwise this could easily
happen again with perhaps more tragic results. There have been a number
of incidents over the years where sleeping children were left on school
buses because the driver didn't notice that they were there, including
one where a sleeping special needs child who was left in a bus for hours >>> and was traumatized as a result along with its parents.

And that prompts me to suggest a policy that we used on our school buses >>> which Uber drivers could follow starting immediately: make sure every
passenger has gotten out of the vehicle before you drive away.

Yes. Even if the driver weren't thinking of the children, the fact that
there were 4 kids, that's a hell of a lot a paraphenalia. Obviously the
parents will be making multiple trips to retrieve everything. Obviously,
the driver had to make very sure the parents had completely unloaded the
vehicle.

This guy has no business being a for-hire driver.

Here's an even scarier thought. Was there insurance while the child was
in the vehicle?

Some Uber and Lyft drivers rent vehicles, which means that commercial
insurance is in effect at all times. But if the driver is using a
personal vehicle, his own insurance prevents him from acting as a
commercial driver. All personal insurance policies prohibit this.

The way it works: Driving to and from the start and end of the trip
booked through the platform, there is no commercial insurance as this is
limited to the time between pickup and dropoff. The driver's personal
insurance isn't in effect as the insurance company will argue that, at
least during the time between receiving the call and heading to the
pickup point, the driver is in commercial service even though Uber and
Lyft don't cover this period. Having left the dropoff point and until
the driver receives the next call, it's harder to argue that personal
insurance isn't in effect.

Nevertheless, no one's personal insurance covers this scenario, in which
the child never exited the vehicle.

The insurance carriers for both commercial and personal liability will
fight against a claim if, say, the child were hurt. That also means the
driver was driving illegally without insurance, and his personal assets
are at risk in judgment.

Obviously Uber or Lyft can be sued, but the judgment will also go
against the driver unless the settlement from the platforms includes the
driver's liability.

Everything about using one's personal vehicle in commercial service
without commercial insurance is beyond idiotic as it can leave you
bankrupt.

I will assume that you are correct about the way insurance works in your
own country but I think it's different in Ontario. (Side question: isn't insurance law a state-level matter in the US rather than a federal
matter? If so, then Illinois may have much different rules than other states.) I've seen questions on forms about what kind of driving you do
and whether it is commercial or not but I don't *think* you have to get different insurance if you do a mix of personal and commercial driving:
you just pay a higher premium. I've never driven my own vehicle for commercial purposes so I can't begin to guess how much more the premium is.

If that
means getting out of the car and looking in each door, so be it. It's
only a car: how long can it take? That alone practically precludes a
similar event from ever happening again. (I suppose there's still a
chance that a very small child could fall asleep, slip into the footwell >>> and half under the front seats and not be noticed, particularly if the
child is wearing dark clothing at night.) Where I worked, failing to do
this kind of check and then reporting to the dispatcher that you had
done it was a major disciplinary event; drivers, even excellent ones,
were virtually always fired if a child was actually left in the bus.

That's reasonable.

Of course it's a bit tricker with Uber since I assume they don't talk to
a live dispatcher but are directed entirely via an app. Still, I imagine
they require the driver to report that the trip is completely and he's available for another run so that process could include him ticking a
box on a form that says he checked to make sure all passengers and
belongings were out of the car. That should have the same effect as
reporting to a dispatcher. (Of course it's entirely possible/likely that ticking the box could be done without first doing the check but if
ticking the box was treated as a strict requirement which would get you
fired if you were found NOT to have checked the car, then that should do
the job of forcing the actual check to be done.)

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-04-22 3:21 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2025-04-21 4:34 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

2025-04-21 1:54 PM, Adam H. Kerman:

. . .

I wonder when the driver finally realized he had a leftover passenger
aboard? I'm guessing it was when the police finally found him otherwise >>>> he'd surely have taken the kid back home on his own. Perhaps he didn't >>>> have another customer, went home, and locked the car without realizing >>>> it had a kid in it.

I've been wondering the same thing. Whilst driving off without realizing >>> the girl was still in the vehicle wasn't kidnapping, once he became
aware, if he took no steps to return to the child's home, at some point
it's going to become a crime.

Exactly. If the guy went home and then to bed, leaving the kid in the
car not knowing it was there, well that's one thing and hard to find
culpability. But if he realized the kid was there before he left the car
and did nothing, that's another story. I could picture him contacting
Uber for instructions and waiting to hear back. That situation could be
so unusual that it would take Uber a while to figure out what to do and
maybe the police rolled up while that was still playing out. (I'm
picturing someone at Uber trying to find a binder with policies in it
that covered that case and not being able to track it down right away.)
That might be enough to exempt him from charges too, even if it seems
obvious to us that he should just have gone back to the kid's house.

Maybe he was worrying about getting into trouble with Uber if he doubled
back? I'm guessing that they have trackers on the vehicles that are
contracted with them and maybe doubling back would be seen in an
unfavourable light. It might simply be perceived as incompetence and
count against the driver.

Hmm. I've never taken an Uber or Lyft but taxis always collect payment
at the end of the ride. If Uber and Lyft follow that same model, then I
have to wonder if the mother had already paid as she got out of the car?
I assume she must have or the driver would have waited for payment. But
maybe Uber and Lyft, knowing the pickup point and destination,
pre-calculate the fare and ding your credit card before they even arrive
at the pickup point so that the driver doesn't have to wait for payment
at the end. (I can see where the driver would like that since there's no
chance the customer would stiff them at the end of the trip.)

. . .

That’s how it works. It’s all through the app. You can later adjust the tip
up and down through the app, but that’s it. You authorize payment through the app at the time you order the ride.

Thanks for confirming that. I was guessing how it might work but had no
idea what the reality was. Now I know :-)

In that case, the driver had no built-in incentive to wait around to get
paid so it's natural that he'd skedaddle as soon as he thought he was done.

Here's an even scarier thought. Was there insurance while the child was >>>>> in the vehicle?

Some Uber and Lyft drivers rent vehicles, which means that commercial >>>>> insurance is in effect at all times. But if the driver is using a
personal vehicle, his own insurance prevents him from acting as a
commercial driver. All personal insurance policies prohibit this.

The way it works: Driving to and from the start and end of the trip
booked through the platform, there is no commercial insurance as this is >>>>> limited to the time between pickup and dropoff. The driver's personal >>>>> insurance isn't in effect as the insurance company will argue that, at >>>>> least during the time between receiving the call and heading to the
pickup point, the driver is in commercial service even though Uber and >>>>> Lyft don't cover this period. Having left the dropoff point and until >>>>> the driver receives the next call, it's harder to argue that personal >>>>> insurance isn't in effect.

Nevertheless, no one's personal insurance covers this scenario, in which >>>>> the child never exited the vehicle.

The insurance carriers for both commercial and personal liability will >>>>> fight against a claim if, say, the child were hurt. That also means the >>>>> driver was driving illegally without insurance, and his personal assets >>>>> are at risk in judgment.

Obviously Uber or Lyft can be sued, but the judgment will also go
against the driver unless the settlement from the platforms includes the >>>>> driver's liability.

Everything about using one's personal vehicle in commercial service
without commercial insurance is beyond idiotic as it can leave you
bankrupt.

I will assume that you are correct about the way insurance works in your >>>> own country but I think it's different in Ontario.

I doubt that very much. The risk of commercial driving is entirely
different than the risk of personal driving. It's reasonable to assume
that personal insurance excludes coverage for commercial driving.

(Side question: isn't insurance law a state-level matter in the US rather >>>> than a federal matter? If so, then Illinois may have much different
rules than other states.)

There's actually federal law denying the ability to sell coverage across >>> state lines. Insurance companies form subsidiaries in each state they
sell coverage in. There's enough "interstate" aspect to insurance that I >>> don't see why such restrictions apply. There's plenty of disbenefit to
in state risk pools. Certain medical specialties, for instance, have
very high cost liability. Obstetrics has huge liability. In small
states, the high cost of malpractice insurance due to the tiny risk pool >>> is great enough to keep many doctors from practicing in these states,
leading to shortages. This isn't a matter of consumer protection.

At the same token, states that don't experience wildfires aren't in the
same risk pool as California.

Here in Canada, every province has its own insurance system with
different requirements about coverage. In some provinces, like BC, all
the car insurance is issued by the government as I understand it. In
Ontario, there are many private insurance companies and no government
insurance at all. I don't know how the actuaries pool risks but I'm
assuming its on a provincial basis. That means tiny PEI or even tinier
(in population) Yukon/NWT/Nunavut are going to have much smaller pools
than Ontario, Quebec or BC.

I've seen questions on forms about what kind of driving you do
and whether it is commercial or not but I don't *think* you have to get >>>> different insurance if you do a mix of personal and commercial driving: >>>> you just pay a higher premium. I've never driven my own vehicle for
commercial purposes so I can't begin to guess how much more the premium is.

I don't know how blended coverage like that works, but there's
absolutely going to be a commercial policy. Tradesmen (who are often
independent contractors and not employees) will drive their own pickup
trucks or panel vans to job sites because they are carrying tools and
equipment, and may be delivering supplies that they themselves will be
installing. That requires commercial coverage. But there will be plenty
of times they drive their pickup for personal driving, say on a hunting
trip or just personal errands. I'm sure the actuaries have a way to rate >>> the risk and figure out an appropriate rate.

But no commercial liability coverage at all? No vehicle owner should be
in that position as he's personally exposed to liability from commercial >>> use of the vehicle.

. . .

You may well be right about all of that. I'll try to remember to find
out how that works in Ontario the next time I renew insurance. I've
actually toyed with the idea of delivery pizza or something like that as
a side hustle.

--
Rhino

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-04-22 3:21 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2025-04-21 1:54 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

Okay, that subject line is clickbait. It's TRUE but it omits a lot of
detail. Here's the story:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/uber-drives-off-with-child-1.7513379

So, an Uber driver *did*, in effect, kidnap a 5 year old but it was
entirely inadvertent. (Mind you, the story fails to say just when the
kid woke up and realized something was amiss although it obviously did >>>> because it was in hysterics when the mom got to the Uber.)

Ok, there was no kidnapping, but gah, that kid must have woken up at
some point and you'd think the driver would have driven back to their
home.

I love how there's a form for the cops to fill out, but none for the
girl's mother. "Fill out the left luggage form and we'll get back to you >>> in three days."

I was impressed that the police immediately mounted their own search and
successfully found the Uber with the kid still in it. They could have
said they didn't have the manpower to do a search like that or that they
were too busy dealing with crime (or protecting pro-Hamas demonstrators
elsewhere in the city) but they stepped up and got it done. I don't know
how many police were actually searching but I'm guessing it would have
taken several if Uber refused to give them ANY information on where the
car might be.

I wonder when the driver finally realized he had a leftover passenger
aboard? I'm guessing it was when the police finally found him otherwise
he'd surely have taken the kid back home on his own.

He might not have been able to. According to the various agreements and information I get all the time from Uber, the driver doesn’t retain a record of you or where he dropped you off. Probably so he can’t come back and key your Tesla later or something. if he remembered where he dropped
you off, he could come back but if he didn’t, you are all SOL until Uber tells somebody.

Interesting. I can see why Uber/Lyft would want to be able to assure
customers that their drop-off point wasn't recorded because customers
might legitimately worry about drivers taking advantage of their
location information in some unsavoury way.

But that raises the question of whether Uber even knows where the car is
at any point in time. If their emergency protocol actually let the cops
talk to someone in real time when they needed to could that person even
tell them where the cab was at that point or message the driver that he
had a child aboard? Do they keep a record of everywhere the car has been
in, say, the last 24 hours or do they only know where it is right now?

In my bus driving days, we had a GPS tracker on the bus that monitored
our location and speed but I don't think that any of the information was recorded so the dispatcher could only determine the present location of
the bus but not where it had been. Of course the tracking information
COULD have been kept if the software designers chose to do so but if the
users didn't need that, they wouldn't have written the code to do it.

In any case, they found the car within 90 minutes without help so if
they'd been able to contact the driver he surely should have remembered
where he'd been that recently, at least approximately. ("I remember it
was near Finch and Dufferin but relied on the GPS to get me to the exact building.") Then they could have had him drive back to the kid's house
or to some suitable rendezvous point or gone to where the kid was to
fetch him back home.

Perhaps he didn't

have another customer, went home, and locked the car without realizing
it had a kid in it.

. . .

I hope the mother's insistence on real improvements to the Uber
emergency protocol has the desired effect otherwise this could easily
happen again with perhaps more tragic results. There have been a number >>>> of incidents over the years where sleeping children were left on school >>>> buses because the driver didn't notice that they were there, including >>>> one where a sleeping special needs child who was left in a bus for hours >>>> and was traumatized as a result along with its parents.

And that prompts me to suggest a policy that we used on our school buses >>>> which Uber drivers could follow starting immediately: make sure every
passenger has gotten out of the vehicle before you drive away.

Yes. Even if the driver weren't thinking of the children, the fact that
there were 4 kids, that's a hell of a lot a paraphenalia. Obviously the
parents will be making multiple trips to retrieve everything. Obviously, >>> the driver had to make very sure the parents had completely unloaded the >>> vehicle.

This guy has no business being a for-hire driver.

Here's an even scarier thought. Was there insurance while the child was
in the vehicle?

Some Uber and Lyft drivers rent vehicles, which means that commercial
insurance is in effect at all times. But if the driver is using a
personal vehicle, his own insurance prevents him from acting as a
commercial driver. All personal insurance policies prohibit this.

The way it works: Driving to and from the start and end of the trip
booked through the platform, there is no commercial insurance as this is >>> limited to the time between pickup and dropoff. The driver's personal
insurance isn't in effect as the insurance company will argue that, at
least during the time between receiving the call and heading to the
pickup point, the driver is in commercial service even though Uber and
Lyft don't cover this period. Having left the dropoff point and until
the driver receives the next call, it's harder to argue that personal
insurance isn't in effect.

Nevertheless, no one's personal insurance covers this scenario, in which >>> the child never exited the vehicle.

The insurance carriers for both commercial and personal liability will
fight against a claim if, say, the child were hurt. That also means the
driver was driving illegally without insurance, and his personal assets
are at risk in judgment.

Obviously Uber or Lyft can be sued, but the judgment will also go
against the driver unless the settlement from the platforms includes the >>> driver's liability.

Everything about using one's personal vehicle in commercial service
without commercial insurance is beyond idiotic as it can leave you
bankrupt.

I will assume that you are correct about the way insurance works in your
own country but I think it's different in Ontario. (Side question: isn't
insurance law a state-level matter in the US rather than a federal
matter? If so, then Illinois may have much different rules than other
states.) I've seen questions on forms about what kind of driving you do
and whether it is commercial or not but I don't *think* you have to get
different insurance if you do a mix of personal and commercial driving:
you just pay a higher premium. I've never driven my own vehicle for
commercial purposes so I can't begin to guess how much more the premium is. >>

If that
means getting out of the car and looking in each door, so be it. It's
only a car: how long can it take? That alone practically precludes a
similar event from ever happening again. (I suppose there's still a
chance that a very small child could fall asleep, slip into the footwell >>>> and half under the front seats and not be noticed, particularly if the >>>> child is wearing dark clothing at night.) Where I worked, failing to do >>>> this kind of check and then reporting to the dispatcher that you had
done it was a major disciplinary event; drivers, even excellent ones,
were virtually always fired if a child was actually left in the bus.

That's reasonable.

Of course it's a bit tricker with Uber since I assume they don't talk to
a live dispatcher but are directed entirely via an app. Still, I imagine
they require the driver to report that the trip is completely and he's
available for another run so that process could include him ticking a
box on a form that says he checked to make sure all passengers and
belongings were out of the car. That should have the same effect as
reporting to a dispatcher. (Of course it's entirely possible/likely that
ticking the box could be done without first doing the check but if
ticking the box was treated as a strict requirement which would get you
fired if you were found NOT to have checked the car, then that should do
the job of forcing the actual check to be done.)

--
Rhino

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2025-04-22 3:21 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2025-04-21 4:34 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

2025-04-21 1:54 PM, Adam H. Kerman:

. . .

I wonder when the driver finally realized he had a leftover passenger >>>>> aboard? I'm guessing it was when the police finally found him otherwise >>>>> he'd surely have taken the kid back home on his own. Perhaps he didn't >>>>> have another customer, went home, and locked the car without realizing >>>>> it had a kid in it.

I've been wondering the same thing. Whilst driving off without realizing >>>> the girl was still in the vehicle wasn't kidnapping, once he became
aware, if he took no steps to return to the child's home, at some point >>>> it's going to become a crime.

Exactly. If the guy went home and then to bed, leaving the kid in the
car not knowing it was there, well that's one thing and hard to find
culpability. But if he realized the kid was there before he left the car >>> and did nothing, that's another story. I could picture him contacting
Uber for instructions and waiting to hear back. That situation could be
so unusual that it would take Uber a while to figure out what to do and
maybe the police rolled up while that was still playing out. (I'm
picturing someone at Uber trying to find a binder with policies in it
that covered that case and not being able to track it down right away.)
That might be enough to exempt him from charges too, even if it seems
obvious to us that he should just have gone back to the kid's house.

Maybe he was worrying about getting into trouble with Uber if he doubled >>> back? I'm guessing that they have trackers on the vehicles that are
contracted with them and maybe doubling back would be seen in an
unfavourable light. It might simply be perceived as incompetence and
count against the driver.

Hmm. I've never taken an Uber or Lyft but taxis always collect payment
at the end of the ride. If Uber and Lyft follow that same model, then I
have to wonder if the mother had already paid as she got out of the car? >>> I assume she must have or the driver would have waited for payment. But
maybe Uber and Lyft, knowing the pickup point and destination,
pre-calculate the fare and ding your credit card before they even arrive >>> at the pickup point so that the driver doesn't have to wait for payment
at the end. (I can see where the driver would like that since there's no >>> chance the customer would stiff them at the end of the trip.)

. . .

That’s how it works. It’s all through the app. You can later adjust the tip
up and down through the app, but that’s it. You authorize payment through >> the app at the time you order the ride.

Thanks for confirming that. I was guessing how it might work but had no
idea what the reality was. Now I know :-)

In that case, the driver had no built-in incentive to wait around to get
paid so it's natural that he'd skedaddle as soon as he thought he was done.

I once had a driver take me to the drugstore in a pouring rainstorm. The
sign on the door said they’d been hit by lightning and closed a few minutes before. I went back to the ride and he said sorry I have already gotten
another ride and drove off, leaving me standing there in the rain.

I adjusted his tip accordingly.


--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 17:37:32 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

Here in Canada, every province has its own insurance system with
different requirements about coverage. In some provinces, like BC, all
the car insurance is issued by the government as I understand it. In
Ontario, there are many private insurance companies and no government >insurance at all. I don't know how the actuaries pool risks but I'm
assuming its on a provincial basis. That means tiny PEI or even tinier
(in population) Yukon/NWT/Nunavut are going to have much smaller pools
than Ontario, Quebec or BC.

Well yes and no. What all Canadian provinces have is a legal
requirement that one carry insurance to a mandated level (and you are
of course able to carry more than the bare minimum or other types of
coverage such as collision) Some provinces have provincial
corporations that do this and my now retired sister-in-law is enjoying
a comfortable retirement due to her role as IT director for one of
these since she was in charge of a network that served about 800
employees and 1500 independent insurance brokerages.

PEI has a population of roughly 150k with Yukon/NWT/Nunavut together
having at most 1/3 to 1/2 of that. But no question under the Canadian constitution highways are a provincial responsibility (with the feds
kicking in $$$ for the 'national' highways in similar fashion to the
US).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)