Are most Uber drivers unqualified to operate a vehicle for hire? When applying for a commercial drivers license many life saving and valuable knowledge is to be learned. Commercial classes in the USA ranges to Class D in some States which is a car and to Class A,B, and C recognized Federally in all States. Commercial endorsements can include passengers, triples, hazmat etc. The (Class D non-commercial = Private passenger, regular operator) a common drivers license and is technically invalid when driving people commercially for pay, but most most Uber and others drivers are not qualified according to the regulations. Why is this regulation not upheld or ignored federally in the US? Is this the same in other countries?
Your question seems to be based on some false assumptions. As far as I can tell: There is no federal requirement for an Uber driver to have a class A, B or C license. Just because they are commonly called &quot;commercial&quot; licenses, it does not follow that every kind of commercial driving necessarily requires you to have one. The US Department of Transportation has a website describing what kinds of driving require these license types. Class A: Any combination of vehicles which has a gross combination weight rating or gross combination weight of 11,794 kilograms or more (26,001 pounds or more) whichever is greater, inclusive of a towed unit(s) with a gross vehicle weight rating or gross vehicle weight of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) whichever is greater. Class B: Any single vehicle which has a gross vehicle weight rating or gross vehicle weight of 11,794 or more kilograms (26,001 pounds or more), or any such vehicle towing a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating or gross vehicle weight that does not exceed 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds). Class C: Any single vehicle, or combination of vehicles, that does not meet the definition of Class A or Class B, but is either designed to transport 16 or more passengers, including the driver, or is transporting material that has been designated as hazardous under 49 U.S.C. 5103 and is required to be placarded under subpart F of 49 CFR Part 172 or is transporting any quantity of a material listed as a select agent or toxin in 42 CFR Part 73. A typical Uber driver operating a typical passenger car (say, 5 passengers and 4000 pounds) would not fall into any of these categories. Some states do require an Uber driver to have a special kind of license; others do not. For example, New York has a Class E license, which for-hire drivers are required to have. (Ordinary people typically get a Class D license instead.) On the other hand, consider Colorado. You can read about Colorado license classes here (PDF). Most ordinary people get a Class R license, and there is no indication that driving a passenger car for hire requires anything other than this. In states where such requirements do exist, it appears that Uber verifies that its drivers do indeed have the appropriate license. For instance, here is Uber's page for prospective New York City drivers. It explains that you have to get a Taxi &amp; Limousine Commission (TLC) license, as well as a Class E driver's license.
Vaccination status does not currently define a protected class under Florida or Federal law. Being or not being vaccinated is not legally recognized as a condition that &quot;substantially limits a major life activity&quot;, hence is not an example of disability-related discrimination. The opposite scenario, where an employer refuses to hire an un-vaccinated person, potentially runs afoul of disability discrimination laws when a person has a legal disability that prevents their vaccination. As noted here, due to the scope of the Privacy Rule HIPAA does not directly apply to your question, when the patient discloses information. However, the healthcare provider cannot disclose such information without patient authorization. It's hard to see a First Amendment basis supporting the action (in case the law changes w.r.t. vaccination and discrimination). You could imagine a religion which holds that vaccination against some disease is blasphemy, and forcing an employer to hire the vaccinated is compelled speech which repudiates a fundament of their belief. Even so, it is not sufficient that the business owner holds some odd belief, the belief has to be essential to the nature of the business (see BSA v. Dale). That could be the case of a religious school.
Yes. A license is a legal form of permission to do something (usually, to use a particular property, whether real or digital or intellectual) and the conditions applied to that use. Different licenses for the same property are extremely common, for example, a free license for hobby or non-profit work and a paid license for commercial usage. Other conditions can include the requirement to make the derivative work also available in some manner or to disallow restrictive conditions should the derivative work be licensed itself, even up to requiring the exact same license be applied to all works. Wording the license exactly so that it achieves the goals you intend is the work of a qualified and registered lawyer, and obtaining their services is definitely recommended for this task.
States can, and some states do, have "mini-Sherman" anti-trust laws of their own. Whether a city could have such a law would depend on whether the state had delegated that power to cities. I haven't heard of a city that has such a law, but I haven't really looked. Or if a state has a "mini-Sherman" law, a city could perhaps bring action under such a law, depending on its exact terms. Or a city could impose a licensing scheme on a specific industry that also prevented a monopoly, similar to the requirements that many cities and towns place on taxicabs, or on bars. Both of those typically limit the number of units that a single entity may own. So perhaps it could be done for parking.
Racing parts generally lack EWG certification and thus roadworthiness certificates A part needs to have an EWG registration number matching to the type of vehicle to be allowed to be used on a street-legal motorcycle. If a part has non street-legal parts, its whole registration usually is void. Driving a vehicle without a valid registration is illegal and generally not insured. Please check the regulator or the general information of insurance companies about what replacement parts have to comply with. Your insurance agency usually can help you too.
Yes Under Texas law (and pretty much everywhere else) the driver of the vehicle is responsible for ensuring that it is roadworthy. This does not mean that someone else cannot also be liable - the mechanic who fixed the wheel and their employer would also be liable. The claim for damages from a motor vehicle accident lies in the tort of negligence and the standards that the driver has to attain to avoid liability is that of a reasonable person. A reasonable person is not an average person who (probably) just gets in a car and drives but a prudent person who considers the risks to themselves and others and takes reasonable steps to mitigate them. Like looking at the wheels of an unfamiliar car. If the defect were obvious to a layperson from a visual inspection, they would be liable if they had not conducted such an inspection. Similarly, continuing to drive when a car is making a &quot;Knocking&quot; noise even if you didn't know what it was is not something a reasonable person would do. If you knew what the noise was and kept driving we are now moving from negligence into recklessness and the realms of criminal liability like manslaughter.
If you move to California, you have to register your vehicle in California. You can't continue to operate under the registration of the state you moved from. See California DMV brochure HTVR 33. Even if you don't become a California resident, you might have to register the vehicle in California: "A vehicle must be registered in California if it is based in California or is primarily used on California highways (located or operated in this state for a greater amount of time than any other individual state during the registration period, even if registered to a nonresident owner." California Vehicle Code section 4000.4. Also, getting a California driver's license is not what makes you a California resident. Rather, once you become a California resident, you are required to get a California driver's license. Again, from HTVR 33: "You are considered a California resident if you are present in this state on more than a temporary or transient basis for 6 months or more in a 12-month period (California Vehicle Code section 516) and/or California is the state where: You are registered to vote. You are gainfully employed. Your place of business is located. Resident tuition is paid at a public institution of higher education. Dependents attend a primary or secondary school. Homeowner's property tax exemption is declared. Property is leased for use as a residence. Residence is declared to obtain a license, privilege, or benefit not ordinarily extended to a nonresident. Your current driver license was issued. You are determined to be a resident as evidenced by acts, occurrences or events that indicate presence in the state is more than temporary or transient."
Note: I am not familiar with Washington law, but I can make an educated guess as to what is happening here. I am guessing that the couple in question are the joint registered owners of the motor vehicle. In many jurisdictions, motor vehicles are treated differently from &quot;normal&quot; things, they are treated as inherently dangerous and thus ownership carries a certain set of responsibilities. (Similar to e.g. owning a firearm, which carries with it certain restrictions on how it can be stored, for example.) One of those responsibilities is to keep track of who is operating the motor vehicle. Therefore, unless the operator of the motor vehicle can clearly be identified without incurring unreasonable cost, tickets for traffic violations are generally addressed to the registered owner, who can then forward them to the responsible operator. (Note that &quot;unreasonable cost&quot; does not have to be monetary. It could also be an invasion of privacy: it is less invasive to just ask the owner to identify the operator than to e.g. surveil the owner's property to find out who is using the vehicle or run facial recognition against the owner's family, friends, and colleagues.) In many jurisdictions, there is a form attached to the ticket (or downloadable from some website) which will look something like this: I accept the ticket: [ ] I do not accept the ticket [ ] because … I was operating the vehicle, but I did not run the red light [ ] I was not operating the vehicle [ ] … the vehicle was operated by: name ___, address ___ … I do not know who was operating the vehicle at that time [ ] If you claim not to know who was operating the vehicle at the time in question, that might have other consequences. In some jurisdictions, you can then be ordered to keep a logbook, for example. If the vehicle then gets caught again and you again claim to now know who was operating it, or you cannot produce the logbook, you might get fined for violating the court order to keep a logbook.