Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Cyclist says Uber system flawed after cab hits her from behind

Cab app firm says it isn't liable because driver a 'partner,' not an employee. ...

A female cyclist who was struck from behind by a driver signed up to the cab network Uber, throwing her onto the bonnet and leaving the back wheel of her bike mangled, says the incident highlights flaws in the system. It’s the second reported incident in recent weeks in which a rider has been knocked off their bike by an Uber cab.

According to the London Evening Standard, 30-year-old digital consultant Ines Nadal was hit from behind on Monday evening as she waited at traffic lights at the junction of Gray’s Inn Road and Theobald’s Road.

She was thrown onto the vehicle’s bonnet, leaving her bruised, while the rear wheel of her bicycle ended up under the car. Once she freed her bike, she tried to obtain the driver’s insurance details, but he drove away.

Passers-by took a note of the car’s registration, and while Uber said it was one of its vehicles, it added that it bore no responsibility for what had happened since the driver is classed as a ‘partner’ and not an employee.

“If it happened to any other cab the driver would be investigated,” said Miss Nadal. “In this case because of the sharing system they said he is not an employee of the company – it is a sharing platform.

“It feels like there is a hole in the system, it is a new start up, there is no rules – it could be very dangerous.”

She said that Uber should provide its drivers with safety training and that the incident had discouraged her from riding a bike.

“I have been cycling to work for a year,” she explained. “I always take the same route, it is not something that has happened before.

“I am not sure if I feel confident to get on another bike. It was my main way of getting into work.”

Uber said it had suspended the driver while it looked into what had happend.

A spokesman for the company, which matches people looking for a minicab with drivers using their own cars via a smartphone app, said: “We take any incident of this nature incredibly seriously. We have been in touch with the cyclist and offered our support.

“An investigation into this matter is already underway, and we have suspended the driver’s account in the meantime.”

The Standard added that the Metropolitan Police have launched an investigation.

In October, the newspaper reported that a male cyclist had been knocked off his bike by an Uber minicab driver on Camberwell’s Walworth Road. As in the incident involving Miss Nadal, he suffered minor injuries but his bicycle was crushed.

Heena Randhawa, who was travelling in the vehicle which she had booked with her husband, told the Standard that the driver had beeped his horn at the cyclist, who was riding in the middle of the lane.

She said: “The cyclist did come up to the car and said ‘What are you doing?’ He drove away to the side of the road. We felt it [the car] go over the bike."

The incident was reported to police, who began an investigation, while the vehicle’s passengers told Uber what had happened.

A spokesman told the Standard: "Trust and safety are of paramount importance to Uber, and we pride ourselves on offering the safest, most convenient and reliable way of getting about town.

"As such we are shocked to learn that one of our partner drivers was involved in this incident.

"We are in touch with the authorities and have asked them to pass our details to the cyclist so we can offer our full support. The driver has been deactivated from the Uber platform whilst we investigate,” he added.

Launched in the United States in 2010, Uber began operating in London in July 2012. In July this year, it was in the headlines after black cab drivers brought central London to a standstill as they staged a protest against its pricing model. Similar protests have been held in other European cities where Uber operates.

Based on time and distance as measured by the driver’s smartphone, licensed London taxi drivers, who are subject to strict regulation, claimed that it infringed their status as the only drivers able to charge metered fares within the city.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

22 comments

Avatar
Airzound | 9 years ago
0 likes

This cyclist is a bit dense. They need to contact a solicitor such as the ones who represent LCC members and let them take it on. They will soon get to the bones of who to sue which I suspect will be the driver's insurance. The cyclist must have collected some injuries as well as damage to her bike. The driver driving off is an offence.

Maybe check whether CCTV recorded the incident? I think it may have taken place just along from Condor Cycles.

Avatar
EmmanuelM | 9 years ago
0 likes

I'll ask a question I have asked in several places (including directly to Uber's twitter account) with no answer yet :

When an Uber driver receives an incoming "call" from the Uber system to warn him someone in the neighborhood is asking for a car, the "call" is actually 15 seconds of beeps on the smartphone. He has only 15 seconds to look at the info and answer by clicking on the app whether he accepts it or not, otherwise Uber then tries another driver in the zone, and the money then is lost - this is Uber's method to guarantee the answer will be fast. Question : can this happen while the car is moving ?

Avatar
brooksby | 9 years ago
0 likes

Bottom line is that if Uber are "managers" or employers then their insurance pays. If the drivers are indeed independents who happen to arrange fares using Uber's system, then its no different than if any normal average Joe runs in the back of you.

Which means the Met will umm for a while, and then nothing will happen...

Avatar
bikebot replied to brooksby | 9 years ago
0 likes
brooksby wrote:

Bottom line is that if Uber are "managers" or employers then their insurance pays. If the drivers are indeed independents who happen to arrange fares using Uber's system, then its no different than if any normal average Joe runs in the back of you.

Which means the Met will umm for a while, and then nothing will happen...

That is the bottom line, but whether or not they are an employer is to be determined, and Uber's carefully worded contract wouldn't protect them from such an evaluation. The law can be fairly straight forward on employment matters, and it tends to consider the fundamental relationship first.

The less scrupulous employers try tricks all the time by only taking on agency staff to avoid basic obligations, and the law clamps down on it all the time. The same is true with respect to liability and who is ultimately responsible for the safety of a companies workers and the public.

Avatar
step-hent replied to bikebot | 9 years ago
0 likes
Bottom line is that if Uber are "managers" or employers then their insurance pays. If the drivers are indeed independents who happen to arrange fares using Uber's system, then its no different than if any normal average Joe runs in the back of you./quote]

You're absolutely right that the law determines whether they are an employer, not their contract with customers. But Uber drivers determine their own times, places and hours of work, they provide their own vehicles and they decide on a job by job basis whether to accept work. On that basis, there is no way they'll be found to be the employer of an Uber driver.

Still, you'd hope they have provided the full details of the driver to the police, and that the police can then pass them on to the cyclist who can make a claim. Whether a prosecution results is a very different matter.

Avatar
bikebot replied to step-hent | 9 years ago
0 likes
step-hent wrote:

You're absolutely right that the law determines whether they are an employer, not their contract with customers. But Uber drivers determine their own times, places and hours of work, they provide their own vehicles and they decide on a job by job basis whether to accept work. On that basis, there is no way they'll be found to be the employer of an Uber driver.

That may work for the taxman, but not in terms liability on a matter of public safety. The drivers are not independent minicabs, that itself would be illegal. As the driver, they can only conduct business whilst operating for Uber, as Uber holds the license to be a private hire vehicle (PHV) operator.

Avatar
PonteD replied to brooksby | 9 years ago
0 likes
brooksby wrote:

Bottom line is that if Uber are "managers" or employers then their insurance pays. If the drivers are indeed independents who happen to arrange fares using Uber's system, then its no different than if any normal average Joe runs in the back of you.

I've never really looked into Uber, but is anyone allowed to just jump in their car and sign up? If so aren't we bypassing the licensing laws surrounding taxi drivers and also not to mention car insurance for business use?

I wonder how many Uber drivers have notified their insurance they are using their cars for business use, because if not they are effectively driving uninsured. If this is the case and the driver wasn't a licensed taxi cab, then wouldn't the police be interested to know whether or not they have the correct insurance.

Avatar
Cyclist27 | 9 years ago
0 likes

I have tried to send an enquiry on UBER's website about what checks they do on insurance, but it won't accept the form - how convenient.

Avatar
Cyclist27 | 9 years ago
0 likes

Just shows how important it is to act as a witness and take details down of reg plate, driver description etc.

Avatar
Smoggysteve | 9 years ago
0 likes

Surely leaving the scene of an accident is an offense in itself and since Uber know the who the driver is, they are technically withholding information from the police in relation to a crime.

Avatar
giobox | 9 years ago
0 likes

Interesting to see the issue of the legal status of Uber's drivers crop up in yet another area of the law, there's already a lot of cases over quite a few different legal issues ongoing in pretty much every country they operate.

These new sharing economy business models used by services like Uber and AirBnB put the person working in a weird grey area between freelancing and being an employee, the law has some catching up to do.

Avatar
HandyAndy247 | 9 years ago
0 likes

Get well soon Ines.

Some drivers, drive around with blinkers on!
Especially around Epsom where I ride.  102

Avatar
bikebot | 9 years ago
0 likes

You can put whatever you like in a contract, it doesn't mean the judge won't laugh like a drain if it ends up in court. As someone who has been contracting for years, I know that large chunks of many of my contracts talk utter bobbins.

I suspect that Uber will sooner or later get normalized by some judge who will look over his glasses at them and tell them to stop dicking about.

Avatar
Iamnot Wiggins | 9 years ago
0 likes

I wonder if the "partners" have legitimate mini cabs or are just using their own personal vehicles for the carriage of paying customers? if they haven't got the correct insurance in place then this could open a whole world of hurt for the driver!

Avatar
Peowpeowpeowlasers | 9 years ago
0 likes

The fact that the driver left the scene tells us everything we need to know. I don't care what the reason, I would ban people like that for life. Driving is a serious responsibility, turn your nose up at your peril.

Avatar
flobble | 9 years ago
0 likes

Apologies for the shouting. From their T&Cs:

YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT UBER DOES NOT PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION OR LOGISTICS SERVICES OR FUNCTION AS A TRANSPORTATION CARRIER. UBER'S SERVICES MAY BE USED BY YOU TO REQUEST AND SCHEDULE TRANSPORTATION OR LOGISTICS SERVICES WITH THIRD PARTY PROVIDERS, BUT YOU AGREE THAT UBER HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY OR LIABILITY TO YOU RELATED TO ANY TRANSPORTATION OR LOGISTICS PROVIDED TO YOU BY THIRD PARTY PROVIDERS THROUGH THE USE OF THE SERVICES OTHER THAN AS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN THESE TERMS.
UBER DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE SUITABILITY, SAFETY OR ABILITY OF THIRD PARTY PROVIDERS. IT IS SOLELY YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE IF A THIRD PARTY PROVIDER WILL MEET YOUR NEEDS AND EXPECTATIONS. UBER WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN DISPUTES BETWEEN YOU AND A THIRD PARTY PROVIDER. BY USING THE SERVICES, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU MAY BE EXPOSED TO SITUATIONS INVOLVING THIRD PARTY PROVIDERS THAT ARE POTENTIALLY UNSAFE, OFFENSIVE, HARMFUL TO MINORS, OR OTHERWISE OBJECTIONABLE, AND THAT USE OF THIRD PARTY PROVIDERS ARRANGED OR SCHEDULED USING THE SERVICES IS AT YOUR OWN RISK AND JUDGMENT. UBER SHALL NOT HAVE ANY LIABILITY ARISING FROM OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO YOUR TRANSACTIONS OR RELATIONSHIP WITH THIRD PARTY PROVIDERS.

Avatar
gavben | 9 years ago
0 likes

The idea that the outcome would be different if this was a black cab, let alone an minicab, is laughable.
Some years a go, I was run down in a hit and run by a black cab, left semi-conscious in the middle of a blind S-bend. The passenger made the cabbie stop, got out to help me & he drove off. Police were completely uninterested (as soon as they'd ascertained that the driver hadn't driven off with any of the passengers' property), and the carriage office refused to do anything until the police investigation was concluded, then said that as the police hadn't charged him, and it was such a long time ago, they wouldn't do anything either.

Avatar
jollygoodvelo replied to gavben | 9 years ago
0 likes
gavben wrote:

The idea that the outcome would be different if this was a black cab, let alone an minicab, is laughable.
Some years a go, I was run down in a hit and run by a black cab, left semi-conscious in the middle of a blind S-bend. The passenger made the cabbie stop, got out to help me & he drove off. Police were completely uninterested (as soon as they'd ascertained that the driver hadn't driven off with any of the passengers' property), and the carriage office refused to do anything until the police investigation was concluded, then said that as the police hadn't charged him, and it was such a long time ago, they wouldn't do anything either.

PCO are only interested in the 'customer service' given by their drivers to paying customers.

Driving quality issues are strictly Road Traffic Act territory as enforced by Plod.

Avatar
jollygoodvelo | 9 years ago
0 likes

I sympathise with the victim, but Uber's response is correct: Uber has nothing to do with this accident in the same way as Boris Johnson has nothing to do with an accident involving a Boris Bike and a TfL bus.

She got the driver's reg plate and the police have the details. Whether or not the police choose to prosecute, she should be making a claim against the driver's insurance. It's what it's for.

Avatar
4ChordsNoNet replied to jollygoodvelo | 9 years ago
0 likes

Have to say that I disagree here. The fare was booked through Uber and as such they do (or maybe that should be 'should') have some responsibility as agents.

If the driver had a fare in his car, or was on the way to pick up a fare then I believe that Uber 'could' be brought into this, should the cyclist decide to take legal action.

Avatar
jacknorell replied to 4ChordsNoNet | 9 years ago
0 likes
4ChordsNoNet wrote:

Have to say that I disagree here. The fare was booked through Uber and as such they do (or maybe that should be 'should') have some responsibility as agents.

If the driver had a fare in his car, or was on the way to pick up a fare then I believe that Uber 'could' be brought into this, should the cyclist decide to take legal action.

I think you're missing some legal background on how agents work in law. They're an agent, but that means acting on the principal's instruction, and the principal is liable, not the agent, for the agent's action.

The idea is that the agent takes no action which is not approved by the principal.

Try suing a letting agent... you'll find out loads of stuff.

Avatar
exilegareth replied to jacknorell | 9 years ago
0 likes

The trouble is that the law can intervene to decide if a contract is a genuine contract or whether it creates another form of relationship - such as an employment relationship. That goes right the way back to some forms of haulage contracts in the 60s.
Uber could well find that, irrespective of what their contract says, a judge rules that they are a private hire operator, not merely an agency. That could open a whole new world of hurt for them outside London, where Boris seems to have some kind of love affair with them.

Latest Comments