Uber law question

What are the Uber laws pertaining to carseats and booster seats in the state of FL? I believe taxi’s are exempt in all states.

So FL says anyone 5 and under has to be in a car seat:booster seat - including uber. Uber charges an extra $8 or $10 for über family that will provide a seat for up to 2 kids. I wonder if the added cost would be deemed appropriate when the time comes.

I am not sure what you mean by “I wonder if the added cost would be deemed appropriate when the time comes.”

Deemed appropriate by whom?

As for the fee, it is a fee charged by Uber for supplying the seat. I assume you could supply your own, but that almost defeats the purpose of Uber. Well worth the convenience, if you ask me!

I can get a taxi that will supply me with a booster seat for free. I can ride Disney transportation that is also free. at an extra $16 round trip, it certainly isn’t the preferred mode of transportation if you have a young family.

I agree that there are other options, but the convenience of Uber (depending on where you are going) is phenomenal and well worth any extra fees. Taxis take up to 45 min to get to you on the busy days while Uber gets to you usually in 5-10 minutes.

I do not know how the child seat requirement changes those response times, however.

Anyone have Uber experience with child seats at WDW? What are the response times?

Uber is not exempt from any child restraints laws. They are not taxis. The Uber drivers will be cited and given points if stopped with children or any passengers improperly restrained. It would be no different than if your relative gave your family a ride without properly restrained passengers.

I have never waited more than 5 minutes at wdw for a taxi. The resorts almost always have taxi’s waiting. They have only had to call for me once and that time (at the Poly) the wait was the 5 minutes.


Good to know!

Not a lawyer, but I think Uber is exempt along with taxis. Here’s the relevant section of the law, at least that I could find:
(6) The child restraint requirements imposed by this section do not apply to a chauffeur-driven taxi, limousine, sedan, van, bus, motor coach, or other passenger vehicle if the operator and the motor vehicle are hired and used for the transportation of persons for compensation. It is the obligation and responsibility of the parent, guardian, or other person responsible for a child’s welfare as defined in s. 39.01 to comply with the requirements of this section.

From the full law, here:

As a lawyer (gosh I hate how that sounds) I can tell you that my reading of the law is the same as yours. Given that when you use Uber you’re doing exactly this vehicle if the operator and the motor vehicle are hired and used for the transportation of persons for compensation

I only plan on using uber or taxi if I absolutely have to. I am not keen on the no child restraint approach in a standard vehicle. Bad enough the buses don’t have seat belts but that’s another topic altogether! :wink: thank y’all!

Uber describes themselves as a Peer to Peer" service and argues that they are not a taxi type service thus exempt from such statues. Can’t have it both ways.

They certainly can label themselves however they would like. But like contract law, labels aren’t determinative of an issue. This issue is really at the heart of the Uber v. Taxis argument happening in many states across the country. Whether or not Uber and their drivers need to be regulated like taxis. According to Uber they consider people who drive for them to be independent contractors, so you’re hiring the driver and his car to drive you; and therefore, would fall within the language of the statute. Beyond that, part of the reason for a law like this is to take the burden off of individual Uber/taxi drivers. A driver has to rely on the word of parents in terms of how old the children are, so I’m not sure even if you think the law doesn’t apply, what a driver is supposed to do if a family calls an Uber and says they’re children are above the age of 5. This is all to say that I can’t imagine a local police officer ticketing a family for having a child who appears to be 5 or above for riding in a car without a booster seat. Beyond the problem of the cop having no way to prove the child’s age. Obviously, this is not taking into account the issue of safety and what a parent feels is best for their children. But given the law and the way Uber classifies their drivers, I feel fairly confident that they fit under the above mentioned law. Obviously, this ignores any safety issues and any individual decisions parents would have to make that they feel are best.


There will eventually be a lawsuit on the back of an injured child or worse who was not secured in a safety device. If Uber drivers are indeed “for hire” as defined above then the driver’s auto insurance will not cover any incidences. If Uber is upheld that drivers are independent contractors then they will attempt to escape liability.

A police officer who pulls over a vehicle with a improperly secured child would also need to rely on the parents’ response since it is not a requirement to carry proof of age for children in vehicle so instead, they will issue the citation and require the parents to provide proof.

As I mentioned above my point wasn’t saying it was a safe alternative simply that the way the law is written makes it ambiguous at best that an Uber driver isn’t covered under the taxi law. Not being an Uber driver I’m not sure what goes through the heads of those who do decide to drive for Uber, but the company considers the drivers to be independent contractors. To date, New York, Texas, and Georgia have held in case precedent that this label is correct.

In regards to an officer pulling over an Uber driver with a child in the car. The Florida law states that children under 5 are required to be in a booster seat. Children obviously can vary in appearance and how old they look so in terms of resources and time spent, I highly doubt if a child looks like they are above the age of 5 that an officer will write a ticket. But if for some reason they did, as the law states the responsibility would fall on the parent and not the driver.

So, am I reading this correctly: the requirement of the booster seat remains? I am confused by this sentence since the opening sentences seem to say the seat is not required. Is a car seat required in a taxi?

It’ makes more sense if you click the link to see the whole section. I think the way to read it is basically:
1-5) see link for all the other requirements
6.1) There’s no requirement of car seats in cars for hire (taxis, uber, etc).
6.2) But in general it’s the parent’s duty to comply with the earlier requirements in 1-5 (and not, for example, your nanny’s)

It’s kind of awkwardly written, but the reference to duties doesn’t seem to change the exemption.

At least Taxis / ubers do offer car seats, even if not under penalty of law. Personally, I’m happy to cross off “risk of arrest” from my worries about Disney transportaiton :wink:

I read the link- I guess I am just confused by the way it is written. I think you could still argue that although it is not required that language could infer a parent should have taken steps to ensure it was there.

In my opinion that language is written in the law to protect a third party driver from a lawsuit brought by a parent of an injured child. The law clearly states the duty to properly restrain a child falls on the parents and if a parent knowingly disregards that duty and an injury accident occurs, negligence/responsibility for the child’s injuries would not be able to be passed on to the third party driver.


If taking a cab between a resort to a park, how fast is the car likely to go please? If it’s not above 30mph then I’m not concerned if my 5 year old isn’t in a booster seat, especially if I’m next to her, but if it’s more than that I’ll pay for the booster seat.