I've thought this was a really bad idea since I first heard of it. An accident waiting to happen, so to speak. Heck, my insurer wants to know if I do a paper route or deliver pizzas (no to both). It looked like a P2P business to me, which raised liability red flags. On the one hand, you pity the woman involved; on the other: what the heck was she thinking?

You mean after CoP was promoting and encouraging it, it turns out it really is a bad idea, after all? I'm sure Sam has a comeback, some sort of tax/rate funded special insurance policy/waiver thing offered by the city. The magic never stops.

She's renting out her car AGAIN???

She may be intelligent (about to graduate from MIT), but that's not the same as having common sense.

This new trend demands that someone come up with a workable lawyer-sharing idea.

This isn't ZipCar, etc. which is renting a car by the hour as opposed to the day. It's people playing the role of Hertz, Avis, Budget and so forth. There are major liability exposure issues to the max, and I think they should outlaw it completely. Forget about the $250 an hour and think about losing your house, savings, first born child, etc. This whole concept had wrong written all over it from the get go. It ain't worth it people...so just say "no".
BTW a million dollar policy is quite generous given that our state minimus is $25K thanks to the fact that the "Good Neighbors"', "The Good Hands People", "The Gekko" and "Flo" pretty much have their way in Salem. 25K barely covers a night in the hospital these days...and they haven't raised the minimum in over 20 years. Buy lots of Uninsured and Underinsured coverage if you want to escape a major auto accident financially secure.

Heretics!

February 22, 2012 07:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Peer-to-Peer Car Sharing Company Getaround Officially Launches in Portland, OR

Through Federally-Funded Study, Owners and Renters Can Receive Incentives of up to $300

PORTLAND, Ore.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Today, leading peer-to-peer car sharing company Getaround announced the official launch of their peer-to-peer car sharing service, and the launch of a federally-funded study of peer-to-peer car sharing in partnership with the City of Portland and the Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium (OTREC). The announcement came at a special press conference hosted by Getaround’s founders, Portland Mayor Sam Adams and U.S. Representative Earl Blumenauer at Portland’s City Hall.

...

“As a city that has long championed alternative modes of transportation, we are excited to officially launch this first-of-its-kind car sharing partnership with Getaround,” Portland Mayor Sam Adams said. “Peer-to-peer car sharing will not only help Oregon reduce car overpopulation, but Getaround's service will also help connect Portlanders, while reducing our carbon footprint.”

----

I read an article that the single biggest group of car sharing users are students. Because I really, really want to rent my car out to unknown students...

reducing our carbon footprint

The guy is so heavily medicated. These programs do not cut down on car usage -- just car ownership. It's car ownership that the Sam Rands hate. That and single-family detached homes.

ZipCar and Getaround rent for the hour or the day depending. I have rented from both. ZipCar is more expensive and bureaucracy intensive. Getaround is much cheaper but borrowing someone's car that you don't know can be a bit awkward. The carowners can decide who they want to rent to, and renters are rating them so it gets even more awkward.

I was more comfortable with ZipCar than Getaround at the end of the day. But due to expense, used getaround more.

More like Getalife.

These programs do not cut down on car usage -- just car ownership.

That seems ludicrous. When you are paying by the hour to drive, the marginal cost of taking the car is way more than if you already have one and are maintaining it and paying insurance and it's just a matter of a little gas to get from here to there. With a car in the garage it is pretty rational to use it for every trip and drive all over the place every day. I bet my hat people that get rid of their cars and switch to car sharing consolidate more trips and are more likely to walk, bike, or take transit when those modes are convenient enough.

Note that HB 3149, recently approved by the Oregon Leigslature and signed by the Gov, indemnifies (or purports to indemnify) the owner of a vehicle used in a car-sharing service from damages when a rental driver gets in an accident. The law essentially treats the car-sharing service as the owner.

At least one PI law firm disagrees--I'd post the link to it (google "oregon car insurance lawyers warn of car sharing risks" if you are interested), but linking to a PI lawfirm's website apparently caused a prior post attempt to end up in the spam bucket.

That woman is an idiot! Maybe she should get rid of her car since she "doesn't use it much" and rent one when she needs it.
If she gets saddled with a lifetime of payments to cover the costs of the accident, I bet she changes her mind about car sharing.

Aaron is correct - car share availability can relieve an owner of enough fixed operating costs that there is a documented displacement effect of rideshare vehicles on owned vehicles - ZipCar says it's at least a 1:20 ratio, in fact.

But I still agree that P2P rideshare is a very, very bad idea.

As Max inferred, the first thing I thought about was that my insurance would increase, since the P2P car sharing would be treated as a business. Unless I was renting my car a lot, even an older car, I doubt I would make much money. Seems like the companies promting this are the ones who, at least initially, will be the ones to cash in.

This is not legal advice, counseling, or a solicitation for services:

ISO Personal Auto Policy Exclusion A.5.
"...liability arising out of the ownership or operation of a vehicle while it is being used as a public or livery conveyance."

I'm surprised that her Insurance company responded. $1MM isn't enough for a college grad at her age, think about the future assets at risk.