Slashdot Mirror
Uber Forced Out of Kansas
mpicpp sends news that Uber has been forced to leave Kansas. The company says a bill pushed through the state legislature (SB117) makes it impossible for the company to operate there. The bill had been vetoed by Kansas governor Sam Brownback, but lawmakers secured enough votes to override it. "The measure requires drivers for ride-hailing companies to undergo background checks through the Kansas Bureau of Investigation and hold additional auto insurance coverage for the period in which they have turned on the mobile app that connects them to riders."
here in OZ they are pushing the boundaries of what is legal for "taxi" services, so I would be very surprised if that were not the case in other countries/states juristrictions.
A spokesman for Uber said "We're not in Kansas anymore".
They're not forced, they're just figuring it's not worth it. Kansas is a relatively small market and they'd need to invest a bit and incur additional liability and complexity that they're unwilling to deal with if they can help it.
The law requires primary automobile liability insurance in the amount of at least $50,000 for death and bodily injury per person, $100,000 for death and
bodily injury per incident, and $25,000 for property damage, which is more than some states let taxis get away with but isn't really unreasonable. For some reason (maybe there are cities just over the border and it wants to let uber drivers from Kansas work there) it differentiates between being *ready* to get a ride and actually driving someone, and if you drive someone you also need primary automobile liability insurance that provides at least $1,000,000 for death, bodily injury and property damage. Which is more than most people get for their personal vehicle (especially in Kansas), but not at all unreasonable for a commercial policy.
There aren't any taxi token requirements or anything unreasonable. Can't wait to see what the usual Uber shills have to say about why they can't abide by a couple basic rules.
They are a taxi comapny and should follow the law just like anybody else. ,A rose by any other name ...'
Just calling at something different does not make it so.
A blow job is still (oral) sex. Waterboarding is still torture. Uber is still a taxi-service. This thing of renaming is known by many people and is known for ages. The most well known is newspeak from 1984. Its older predecessor is
In Brussels an Uber driver has been convicted, which means that his car is confiscated. That said, the city is also working on re-writing the law of Taxi-services. That is TAXI services, not Uber.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Can anyone comment intelligently on how this law compares with the laws that apply to existing, traditional taxi services? I'm a fan of Uber but I don't want to be an ignoramus up in arms about laws which may compare fairly with laws applying to other people in the same industry.
Ain't no hipsters in Kansas to use Uber anyways.
Carry on Wayward Son!
This headline is absolutely ridiculous. It's taking Uber's perspective as legitimate, and then the article links to Uber propaganda in the form of a press release.
Was this posting bought and paid for by Uber?
Uber operates by committing regulatory arbitrage and then hoping it doesn't get caught or stopped.
Uber could absolutely continue to operate but they simply choose not to comply with reasonable legislation. Carrying commercial insurance and submitting to a background check is hardly overbearing.
When Google pulled out of China, was it that Google was forced out? Of course not. They just didn't want to comply with Chinese law.
Same here.
Please reword this article, because right now its a bunch of bullshit.
Laws like this will be appearing everywhere, Massachusetts is up next, and in markets like NYC, its been the standard for years.
We are not in Kansas anymore.
Asking folks who drive others for money to have insurance seems like a good idea. Someone driving folks for money not having insurance is insane.
That it would cost too much to make the markey worthwhile is the issue. No sympathy here.
Normal car insurance doesn't cover commercial use, so Uber drivers should be prosecuted as not having insurance anyway. That is true for all states, not just Kansas.
If the Uber drivers have the correct drivers insurance for commercial passenger vehicles, then it covers those limits and substantially more.
Kansas is basically just defining the minimum level of insurance that they need, not forcing them to take proper insurance, that's already a requirement for driving in most states.
Even if Kansas caves, the requirement to have valid driving insurance is still law, and Uber drivers cannot do commercial work on insurance designed for commuting and home use.
Well, that and it's a negotiating position where they figure Kansas will cave.
Why should Kansas cave?
UBER in the UK are already covered under our existing private hire car laws, they require background checks and they are required to hold a PHV Operators Licence. Insurance would also have to be as a commercial driver and as such cover public liability of passengers as part of the policy, as well as increasing the policy cost. Outside of London however there is not such a protection racket running for Taxi drivers, and private individuals have always set themselves up as operators. What UBER means for these drivers is they can piggy back on their infrastructure and let them handle payments. Sounds like a win for the private operator.
Kansas City, MO and Kansas City, KS have a funny geographic quirk where the border is kind of a line on the map, and not necessarily a geographic feature. You can cross the street and be in another state and from the street you'd never know.
If Uber still operates in KCMO, what will really stop drivers from dropping passengers in KCK? It's not like the cops can stop every car with two people in it with MO plates. Even doing pickups on the KCK side seems relatively low risk unless the state put a lot of effort into a sting operation.
Kansas City is the biggest metropolitan area in Kansas and Uber can still service 2/3s of that market with near zero risk. About the only thing they may deliberately do is turn off pickups for Kansas geolocations to prove they're "not in that market." But for all practical purposes they can still service it from the MO side.
They've been openly breaking the law regarding these things here in the Netherlands since the moment they started operating here.
They are going to get in a boatload of trouble, though - there are some nasty Dutch lawsuits coming their way.
Regardless of your thoughts on Uber, this does leave me a little confused given the good Governer's pro-business, small government stance. Isn't this government regulation? Isn't this the OPPOSITE of the political principles of the conservative Republican base? Shouldn't the marketplace be allowed to take care of the question?
-- The Genesis project? What's that?
Don't fight for your country if your country does not fight for you.
Trust yellow, white or black. Better with a big f-ing sign on the top that says TAXI. After all this time, they continue to be in the news for ALL the wrong reasons. So for me it's a traditional cab service. Thanks Uber, but no thanks!
Slashvertisement for Uber, brought to you by DICE.
They pretty much requires a commercial policy.
http://www.kslegislature.org/l...
"Insurers writing automobile insurance in the state are allowed to exclude any and all coverage under the driver’s or vehicle owner’s insurance policy for any loss or injury occurring while the driver is logged on to a TNC’s digital network or providing a prearranged ride."
So basically, it's requiring that Uber carry the insurance on their drivers, rather than the drivers self-insuring, and gives insurance companies an "out" if they want to exclude insurance while the driver has the app running (i.e. is "on call") and while the driver is actually driving.
What insurance company is going to pass up being paid double for what would otherwise be a single policy?
This law is totally unfair! All Uber has done is told customers they do background checks and drivers that they are insured, but this reckless legislative overreach would require that they actually do it! I mean, Googling the driver's name with "serial killer" didn't turn up any results, and the drivers are insured for pretty close half the time they're working, how can that not be enough? If we continue to require businesses to provide what they advertise and do what any reasonable person would consider the bare minimum, the economy is doomed.
An over-the-internet taxi-service provider, "Uber", decided to close its operation in Kansas because
lawmakers decided that some taxi-service regulations are applicable to "Uber" taxi-service.
Surprisingly, "Uber", decided that having their taxi drivers buy a taxi-service insurance and being required to
get a background check is just too much.
Well,
Now I know that Kansas doesn't need my tourism. I will just go spend my tourism in places where customer service is meaningful.
I think Kansas is going to lose a lot of money over this. Politicians who do that almost always learn to regret it.
The insurance probably isn't the real issue, the real issue is probably that pesky mandatory background check and associated red-tape + associated fees.
UBER has bought protection from politicians, period. They use our roads and get tax breaks; they employ 'drivers" whose cars are not monitored for repairs. They "emply" drivers, but don't call them employees. Uber is more of this "sharing economy" crap that is the race-to-the-bottom for labor, and wages. Bottom line: Uner cares ONLY about one thing: its valuation, and the profit that it, its early investors and some chosen insiders will make.
I see the anti-Uber hivemind is strong on /. now. Forget the fact that in the cities in which Uber operates, the CUSTOMERS have overwhelmingly chosen Uber over traditional taxis for a damn good reason: service and cost. But, since traditional taxi companies don't want to compete on those, they resort to legislative solutions to eliminate the competition. And the shills and their easily-duped followers are more than happy to beat the drums for more and more regulations. Good job, Kansas! Maybe the buggy-whip makers still have a chance there!
Have gnu, will travel.
.. established local law does not equal thinking outside of the box. It just means you can take the criminal aspect one step further.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Background checks and insurance?
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...
Because they care about their people more than they care about the taxi lobby.
That's not an answer. That's a slogan.
Apparently they don't though.
This is circular reasoning.
Wonder if they will get away with it?
The question is irrelevant since the premise, the original premise, still remains to be proven/explained as valid.
Seems to me there is a reason Kansas is dying.
Unproven statement. Can't make sound conclusions from it.
This may be a symptom.
Bad hypothesis based on a false premise.
Uber haters in this thread. Every experience I have heard of and participated in with Uber was a life saver. If there are in-app regulations(ratings, etc) that prevent bad scenarios from happening for the most part, it stands to reason that maybe the existing laws are not as necessary as once thought.
I know that they are seen as giving the finger to authority, and perhaps the CEO really is an asshole, but taxi systems world-wide prey on those in need of a ride. being able to uber a car for a reasonable price is fantastic, and I personally am sick of being jacked for 125 euro from the airport to the hotel in a lot of european cities.
If you are a local, you know what transit to take or would know someone to call for a ride. But when you are a visitor to a city, you are victim to a lot of abuse, including shitty, expensive cab rides.
sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
They should have never listed "believing in evolution" in their corporate mission statement.
Are there any apps for actual ride sharing - exactly like Uber, but without any exchange of money? If the actual ride can be done in the open, then moving just the financial aspect underground seems like a business opportunity.
As a progressive, I at first assumed that this was regressive Kansas supporting the taxi industry. Until I read the bill. Now I am really reluctant to get in an Uber-dispatched car anywhere, knowing they think a background check, $1M of coverage, and no booze or drugs is too onerous.
Perhaps I am missing something?
"Uber, something tells me we're not in Kansas anymore..."
1) in its core core Uber is nothing else but a transportation of SOMETHING (people or goods) for profit, and as such it should be treated the same as any other commercial transportation enterprise. Simple and fair.
2) If a person today gets hurt in an accident in a taxi, this taxi has a sizeable insurance to make sure all costs are covered. In an Uber car you might be stuck with $30k insurance. Do you know just how fast $30k insurance is used up? About 2 days in the hospital and two surgeries is all thats needed. And then the passenger is stuck with the rest.
3) As someone who was injured by a commercial vehicle and now have a limp for the rest of my life, feet that are one size different (ever tried to buy shoes?) I have to admit the sizeable insurance amount that paid 100% for my 2 months hospital stay and then some made it easier to bear.
There is really no reason why Uber driver should be able to drive around with $30k insurance. I agree that they should be able to operate if they play by the same rules as everybody else (Driver, car safety and insurance requirements)