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."

Comments

skating on the edge of legal?

[thephydes]

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.

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[houghi]

They are pushing the boundries like the Germans pushed the Polish bounderies all the way to Moskow. And now they are surprised people are pushing back. Note that the Polish border before the Germans started pusing was not where it was before.

So it could well be that the laws become stricter after they are pushed back.

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[cHiphead]

"People" aren't pushing back, entrenched "organizations" are pushing back. People don't give a shit and will use what's available. Let's keep some perspective, even while Uber is obviously circumventing laws, the laws themselves are out of place and incompatible with the future as they cling to the past.

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[jythie]

Wait, so background checks and insurance are incompatible with the future? I am not sure that is a good direction to be going just to save a few bucks in a race to the bottom.

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[Aereus]

Might they need revision? Sure. But part of taxi service is the social wellbeing consideration that they must operate at all hours, and to all areas of a city. If Uber is allowed to skirt any law they want and run conventional taxi services out of business, I hope you like having to pay $100 for a taxi ride home from the bar at 3am, or flat-out can't get a ride at all, because nobody wants to drive to X area.

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[pr0fessor]

I'm not really sure what Uber's problem with the bill is but I doubt it has to do with the insurance require since that already existed in some form and will not come out of Uber's pocket.

I'm guessing it's $5000 business permit, requiring an agent in the state, upfront fairs, the driver name, and vehicle license plate appearing in app prior to the rider getting in the car.

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[rjstanford]

Its also worth remembering that we tried unregulated taxis - in fact, that model has been tried many times all over the world, and every time its tried it doesn't work very well and we end up approximately where we are today. Tossing those gains away after so many failed attempts should require a fairly substantial set of claims that those problems won't just pop up again (especially when early feedback on things like surge pricing and destination-based fair refusal shows that they're far from gone).

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[Applehu Akbar]

All drivers are qualified by insurance requirements and and by the minimal "background check" of testing and maintaining a driving record. What's at issue here are commercial car-for-hire rules that have been gerrymandered for the benefit of incumbent businesses.

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[gstoddart]

If by "pushing the boundaries" you mean "straight up ignoring the law", then that is essentially what they do.

They show up, say they're going to ignore the law because they're special little snowflakes, and then act like victims when they get told that's not going to work.

Their entire business model is "we don't give a crap about the law, because we're magical and special assholes".

Essentially they want to pretend that they shouldn't be covered by existing regulations.

I'm forced to conclude the owners are either massive assholes, or seriously delusional.

Sorry, but this is a $40 billion dollar corporation whose entire operations is based on ignoring laws and throwing a temper tantrum when they're enforced.

They say disruptive technology. I say uber douchebags.

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[gstoddart]

"People" aren't pushing back, entrenched "organizations" are pushing back

Bullshit.

Municipalities and states which have passed laws around commercial for-hire vehicles are pushing back and saying "you don't get to tell us what our laws are". This has nothing to do with entrenched players pushing back other than them pointing out that if they're subject to those laws, Uber can't come along and claim to not be.

Let's keep some perspective, even while Uber is obviously circumventing laws

They're breaking the law, and throwing a whiny temper tantrum is irrelevant.

The laws exist to protect people from shady players without proper licensing and insurance looking to make a buck.

Uber is basically a dispatcher for illegal cabs. That's it.

You can claim it's some innovative noble thing to be assholes who ignore the law. But that doesn't make it true.

Criminal activity isn't a business model. It's a temper tantrum by greedy assholes who claim the law doesn't apply to them.

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[N1AK]

the laws themselves are out of place and incompatible with the future as they cling to the past.

What exactly about asking pseudo-taxi drivers to have a background check and insurance is out of place and incompatible with the future? Because those are exactly the things that Kansas is requiring here...

Just because the rules Uber happily ignore are often are antiquated certainly doesn't mean they all are.

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[poetmatt]

This is hilariously dishonest.

Conventional taxis don't have to go out of business - that's a strawman/misnomer. Why don't they provide their own apps to provide service to riders? Oh, right. Uber is doing what taxi services refuse to in a lot of instances. Uber isn't the problem here, but old outdated legislation is.

Taxi services don't operate 24/7 with 100% coverage, that is and never can be the case anywhere. Meanwhile, uber is opening up to other competition and enabling better coverage than the taxi services themselves provide.

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[Warhaven]

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.

I bet! Using tornadoes to transport houses is quite unconventional already... imagine Oz's taxi service!

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[ancientt]

I'm not well versed and it sounds like you are. So is it against the law for me to get a text from a friend who says he'll give me $20 to drive him to his dental appointment? How about if I refer him to someone else I trust? Where does the line get drawn?

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be rules or laws or lines in the sand. I'm just curious what separates legal behavior from illegal behavior since I can't really tell from what I've read so far.

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[jcr]

The laws exist to protect people from shady players

Bullshit.

The shady players are the cab cartels that use government force to exclude new competition for their shitty service.

-jcr

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[TsuruchiBrian]

Municipalities and states which have passed laws around commercial for-hire vehicles are pushing back and saying "you don't get to tell us what our laws are". This has nothing to do with entrenched players pushing back other than them pointing out that if they're subject to those laws, Uber can't come along and claim to not be.

If that is the case, why are they passing new laws? Shouldn't the existing laws be sufficient to shutdown uber?

Furthermore, it is not necessarily the case that laws reflect the will of the people. Many laws are outdated, and fixed problems that no longer exist, or problems that now have better solutions. Just because a law exists doesn't mean it *should* exist.

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[TsuruchiBrian]

If the real problem was that uber was ignoring laws, why was it necessary to pass a new law? Why not just enforce the existing laws?

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[bhv]

Where does the line get drawn?

It is drawn by the underwriters of the drivers insurance company. If they can figure a way not to pay they will take it. If there is even a hint of a possibility that the event is commercial and the driver hasn't invested in commercial insurance then your friend is SOL if injured. Say the right words or wrong words in a police report and it's done.

A few years ago I was hit by a 2x4 that flew off of a van. The driver of the van mentioned to the officer that he had just left a house he was painting and forgot to remove the board from the top of the van. His insurance company called me a few days later to tell me that his personal auto insurance wasn't going to cover me since he was obviously using the van for work and didn't have commercial insurance. I slip of his tongue, and I was screwed. Yes my uninsured coverage kicked in this case but that wouldn't be an Uber option.

I guess your one friend could sue your the other friend to cover the health deductible if needed but that'd be uncomfortable for all 3 of you.

Re: skating on the edge of legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont see any issue with requiring a background check or verification of a drivers license. Lyft and Uber already perform their own version of background checks on the drivers. The delta cost of a state background check is negligible and coud be passed onto the driver

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[AK Marc]

It's the legislation that mandates the monopolies enforced by the state. The taxi companies could have better coverage, offer their own apps, and all that, but they refuse to. The legislation causes this by enforcing a monopoly for the bad companies to thrive under.

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[AK Marc]

My worst experiences with taxis have been where they are most regulated. And I've not had a bad experience where they are less-regulated. The regulations help idiots who get in the first car that stops, without thought or planning. But sane and intelligent humans don't need oppressive legislation to keep them safe from themselves.

Re: skating on the edge of legal?

[Roblimo]

I had to get a background check and provide proof of commercial insurance to operate a limousine in Maryland. The insurance was not expensive due to my clean driving record and extensive experience as a cab & limo driver, and the background check was maybe $25, plus I had to supply 2 passport-sized photos for my passenger-carry license. BFD. Took me maybe a couple of hours, and once I was in business I did just fine.

I'm starting to think 'Uber' means 'crybaby' in the Shoshone Indian language.

AND - my friend Cate, who used to drive for Uber and Lyft at the same time, has now dropped Uber. 'They're just too flaky,' she says, and tells me just sticking with Lyft has made her life easier without cutting her income. Nicer customers, too, she says.

Re: skating on the edge of legal?

[Roblimo]

"Shouldn't the existing laws be sufficient to shutdown uber?" They usually are, if anybody bothers to enforce them.

I jumped out of the cab into a "limo' that was a heavily-waxed Buick with "for hire" plates and commercial insurance. I sat on the Hyatt's parking apron and the doormen and concierges referred rides to me, and I gave them 10%. Totally legal. And over the next few months I built enough private trade that I didn't sit in front of the hotel very often, and not long after that I bought an old but low-mileage stretch -- and did well enough with it to buy a house trailer on a very nice lot in Elkridge, MD.

Uber isn't the first company that has taken on the cabs. How about Boston Coach? Or Carey Limo? Or.... hell, there's lots of them out there, all making a decent living. Uber just whines louder than the others, and is bilking investors in a big way instead of quietly running a transportation business.

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

No one gives a shit about most laws, until they are affected by the negative consequences that those laws were designed to prevent. Wait until an Uber driver smacks into your car, and his insurance refuses to cover commercial activity. Depending on your uninsured motorist coverage, you could be okay. Except, cities without well regulated mandatory insurance for cars tend to have insurance death spirals, so good luck having that 3 years from now.

If you want to call laws outdated and out of place, you have to understand why they were created and how to prevent those same issues from coming about when you repeal the law.

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

It's against the law to drive without insurance. Most insurance has limits on things it will cover. Therefore, it is illegal to drive while doing things that insurance will not cover. The fact that the circumstances of these are based on a private contract makes it hard to enforce, but does not change the legality.

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[AK Marc]

Yes, the same municipalities and states that pass laws to block new fiber entrants, explicitly to protect the entrenched corporations. "For the good of the people".

Nah, that doesn't sound like you claim.

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[AK Marc]

Because Uber wasn't breaking exiting laws. That's just a lie by the Taxi cartels to slander Uber.

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[Brulath]

You mention most regulated and less regulated, but Uber are promoting unregulated. The bill in question seems to be "less regulated" than taxi services. You may also be dramatically overestimating your ability to resolve a situation with an unstable driver; sane and intelligent human beings use services which have enforced minimum standards of safety.

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[AK Marc]

Unregulated taxis in the US would be less regulated. Fraud and robery is still illegal, and would be aggressively persecuted. Try that in some 3rd world countries. If you get taken, the police will not care, well, other than wanting their cut of the take of whatever the result is.

You have a very narrow and sheltered idea of "unregulated".

And UBer is still, in some ways, more regulated than old Taxis. Why? Because you get rated, reviewed drivers you can verify the identity of before you get in. The taxi ID in many US taxis (most in NYC) is posted where you can't read it before you get in. Uber at least lets you check their pic to verify they are the real driver before you've gotten in. And you can check reviews and other things before agreeing to the trip. Something else impossible with old taxis.

My safety is likely higher on Uber than a hailed taxi.

Re: skating on the edge of legal?

[pr0fessor]

I've not used the app it's not available in my part of Kansas.

"23 (b) The state corporation commission shall issue a permit to each
applicant that meets the requirements for a TNC set forth in this act, and
pays an annual permit fee of $5,000 to the commission."

Re: skating on the edge of legal?

[jythie]

Uber has an interesting tradeoff in that they can sacrifice small markets and use the outrage to drive sales in larger markets. Drop kansas, watch people in LA circle the wagons and use Uber more.

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[Stuarticus]

Is there currently a monopoly? Are there are not multiple services? What's Uber's game plan? They seem like the ones trying to build a monopoly by avoiding onerous laws wherever possible.

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[rezme]

They are pushing the boundries like the Germans pushed the Polish bounderies all the way to Moskow.

Well that was an unexpected "godwin"....

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[NulDevice]

Well, they're breaking existing laws sort of, but also not sort of.

The problem I've seen is that all the laws specifically say things like "taxi" or "livery" or "limo service" etc.

Uber says "we're not one of those things. We're a ride-sharing service. Ergo the laws don't apply."

States/Munis/etc come back and say "wait, but you're giving rides to people for money. That's functionally a taxi service, and you're subject to taxi service regulations."

Then Uber stomps their feet and says "no no we're a ride-sharing service and your silly laws don't apply to us!"

So these new laws are essentially clarifications to existing laws, just with the scope broadened to include "ridesharing" services, so Uber can't crawl through the "we're not called a taxi, so we're not a taxi" loophole that the older laws have.

Certainly, some taxi regulations are awful. The whole million-dollar-medallion thing in NY is kind of insane from the perspective of elsewhere in the country. But not all taxi services are evil and incompetent, and not all taxi regulations are onerous. My own municipality has pretty decent taxi services, including a few app-enabled ones, and they're subject to regulations that I consider pretty reasonable - you have to serve the entire city, not just the rich parts (and the city subsidizes low-income riders), all drivers need to be trained to work with disabled passengers, and everybody needs insurance.

Frankly what bugs me most isn't that Uber wants to change laws, it's their way of doing it. Their shoot-first-check-the-laws-later methodology I think makes things a lot harder. Certainly here if they'd sent a rep to the city council and said "we'd like to start operating here" half the alders woulda fallen all over themselves to write exceptions into the laws and so forth. Instead, they just started running, thumbed their noses at the city regs, and basically alienated all the people who could make their lives easier. They might be able to pull that in big markets, but it's a lot harder in smaller ones.

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[stoatwblr]

"Conventional taxis don't have to go out of business - that's a strawman/misnomer."

Back in the 1950s, the town I grew up in (75k people) had 2 dozen taxi companies all competing heavily.

They ALL went out of business and were (eventually) replaced by a single "cooperative" taxi company in the late 1950s - which was granted a legal monopoly simply so that the town would continue to have a taxi service. Unsurprisingly, taxi rates rose - but they continued to rise every year. On top of that drivers who hated the co-op (or each other) still had to drive for the company (but they did have more-or-less guaranteed employment)

In the early 1990s that monopoly was abolished. 4 new companies sprang up overnight as drivers forked off from the co-op, taxi rates halved. By 2005 none of those 4 companies existed, but there was still more than one outfit in town and rates stayed relatively low.

Uber (and lyft) is a disruptive influence in the market, but neither is nearly as disruptive as breaking a supply monopoly.

In the UK the issue is Hackney cabs (taxis you can hail on the street, usually black cabs) vs private care hire (must be prebooked, aka minicabs).

Hackney cab drivers tend to be self-employed but the rates are regulated, there are substantial barriers to market entry and drivers who attempted to adopt new technology (such as booking apps) were abused and sometimes physically attacked by other hackney drivers who wanted to keep the status quo.

In the UK, Uber is just another minicab service (drivers must be appropriately licensed and insured), but that hasn't stopped black cab drivers embarking on highly disruptive demonstrations (such as blocking major arterial roads with their cabs en masse) in order to protest it. The effect of those actions is best summarised as "Streisand effect" - and many people who're already irritated at cabbies because significant numbers of them ignore their legal obligations (cabbies _must_ accept a fare within 12 miles and allow animals in the vehicle, etc) started making a point of using Uber because the traffic disruptions severely pissed them off.

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[AK Marc]

There is a current monopoly. The monopoly is by the fixed number of medallion holders. You can call them an ologopoly, but they act as one and are allowed explicit collusion (in many cases collusion is required by law) to act as one.

If they aren't a monopoly, then ATT/MS/(whoever you hate and think was a monopoly) wasn't a monopoly because they all had multiple owners.

Uber isn't trying to make a monopoly. If they succeed in their goals of spreading, then the barriers are lower for the next entrant, not, as in the monopoly case, higher. They aren't pushing for new legislation. They aren't trying to close the door behind them.

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[siliconsmiley]

Not to mention, if the alternative is to take a cab who may purposely drive the long/slow way or drive like a crazy asshole in a shitty rat trap that seems on the verge of falling apart, Uber is very attractive.

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[AK Marc]

States/Munis/etc come back and say "wait, but you're giving rides to people for money. That's functionally a taxi service, and you're subject to taxi service regulations."

The responses almost universally come back and make all ride sharing illegal. I've gone to the "travel" board at college and picked a name out, and accepted money to drive someone somewhere. I've taken gas money from a hitch hiker. The government response has almost always made those actions illegal. That was obviously not the intent of their taxi laws, and in most cases, isn't covered in the wording of them.

I think the issue is that the laws are vague, and the legal system is so tied up in what was said, and less in what was meant that Uber is right in almost (if not) all cases.

They are not a "taxi" by any definition I've seen. They do not respond to hails.

I think in places like NYC, they explicitly meet all the limo-service rules, and operate as such. They don't meet those rules elsewhere, because most cities haven't defined a multi-tier commercial driving arrangement, as NYC has to balance the too-few taxis with too many people.

I think Uber is in the legal right in most cases, fitting in a gap in the legislation where the legislators didn't consider a limo service priced below taxi. They presumed limos would be more than taxis, so they didn't regulate them like taxis. But Uber is a limo service, and from what I've seen, tries to target that as the minimums to meet in a jurisdiction.

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[Ol Olsoc]

" Let's keep some perspective, even while Uber is obviously circumventing laws, the laws themselves are out of place and incompatible with the future as they cling to the past.

I simply refuse to use a service where the employees are checked for a criminal background. We need rapists driving uber vehicles, how they gonna get dates otherwise?

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[Meski]

(Saddles up a kangaroo)

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[lsatenstein]

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.

Where we live, the rates are not specified. If Uber is to come now, they are very high, even higher than the local cab company, whose rates are regulated.
Many Uber taxis have no meters, and as was stated, carry no commercial insurance, or submit earnings as revenue. Its great to work unregulated, and for cash.

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[lsatenstein]

This is hilariously dishonest.

Conventional taxis don't have to go out of business - that's a strawman/misnomer. Why don't they provide their own apps to provide service to riders? Oh, right. Uber is doing what taxi services refuse to in a lot of instances. Uber isn't the problem here, but old outdated legislation is.

Taxi services don't operate 24/7 with 100% coverage, that is and never can be the case anywhere. Meanwhile, uber is opening up to other competition and enabling better coverage than the taxi services themselves provide.

Your recommendations about their own apps are a fait-accompli almost everywhere.

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[JimFive]

I'm just curious what separates legal behavior from illegal behavior

Primarily, intent.

If you regularly drive people places for money then you are operating a business and have to abide by business rules. If you occasionally give your friend a lift and he gives you gas money then you aren't.

It is a bit disingenuous to compare giving a lift to a friend with using Uber to find you someone willing to pay you to drive them around.

Uber pretends (or used to) to be "ride-sharing" but it isn't. Ride sharing would have people who are making trips post their trips and offer to pick people up on the way. "I'm going from the vicinity of the high school to the mall leaving between 2pm and 3pm, any riders?" If Uber was doing this, they would have an argument that they aren't a taxi service they are just selling unused seats in cars that were making the trip anyway. But that isn't what Uber is selling.

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[dave.haku]

I simply refuse to use a service where the employees are checked for a criminal background. We need rapists driving uber vehicles...

I thought Uber criminal-background checked their drivers. Also, I didn't know government mandated background checks were fail-safe, and prevented people from becoming rapists.

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[Ol Olsoc]

I thought Uber criminal-background checked their drivers. Also, I didn't know government mandated background checks were fail-safe, and prevented people from becoming rapists.

Very good, but you fell off the cliff at the end of tht slippery slope.

Background checks only check for what's in the past, not the future.. So they keep Jerry Sandusky from opening a day care center for little boys, or you from hiring a convicted felon for a job that won't allow you to hire felons.

So anyhow, Delbert, where did I say it was a perfect process?

These things are not only about safety, they are about liability.

Re:skating on the edge of legal?

[rjstanford]

Many of them do provide their own apps. What they're not allowed to do is to use those apps to measure the fare - this because, historically, companies that bill on their own have been known to do what's known as "cheating," by ever-so-slightly increasing the fares charged as compared to the posted fares. Its easy enough for Uber to do as well, even with a map. Want to hail a cab though? Check the app store - there's tons of options already.

Re: skating on the edge of legal?

[rjstanford]

Accurate points, and congratulations on your successful business - and showing that doing things the right way doesn't have to prevent you from succeeding.

A spokesman for Uber said

[Chrisq]

A spokesman for Uber said "We're not in Kansas anymore".

Re:A spokesman for Uber said

[Guy From V]

Uber is just dust in the wind at this point.

Re:A spokesman for Uber said

[NormalVisual]

Carry on, my wayward company.

Re:A spokesman for Uber said

[chooks]

They hit the point of know return.

Re:A spokesman for Uber said

[hcs_$reboot]

Yet another recurrent "Uber is evicted from [somewhere]", Could we have a status on where Über is still allowed/active/authorized/working?

Re:A spokesman for Uber said

[NotDrWho]

Keep in mind that these laws don't just effect Uber, they also apply to Lyft or any other consumer-priced competitor to that dirty taxi with the driver who barely speaks English and who tries to screw you on the fare by taking you the long way. You know that taxi, right? It's the one you're stuck with because there's no alternative now.

Re:A spokesman for Uber said

[causality]

Yet another recurrent "Uber is evicted from [somewhere]", Could we have a status on where Über is still allowed/active/authorized/working?

They need to sprinkle a few of those onto the front page every now and then, to break up all of the "Google did something!", "Apple did something too!", and "Microsoft hasn't done much lately!" stories. At least the systemd stories tend to cause some interesting and amusing debates (incidentally, Gentoo with OpenRC here).

Re:A spokesman for Uber said

[hcs_$reboot]

You know that taxi, right? It's the one you're stuck with because there's no alternative now.

That taxi, the one who insulted me when I dared to insinuate he took a longer path? The taxi as nice as a prison gate? And yet expecting a tip? Oh yes, unfortunately, I know.

Re:A spokesman for Uber said

[dintech]

There's always Oooooooklahoma...

Re:A spokesman for Uber said

[kingrat]

comment to remove incorrect mis-moderation

Re:A spokesman for Uber said

[thrillseeker]

So this is what evolution in Kansas looks like - stagnation.

Re:A spokesman for Uber said

[nytes]

"And your little dog, too!"

Re:A spokesman for Uber said

[Roblimo]

In Baltimore or DC you could have arranged for me or my buddy Charles to meet you at the airport in a clean stretch limo, complete with soft drinks and bottled water in the ice box, for about 20% more than a *legit* cab fare, and *less* than a jacked-up one. And we had maps and could find literally anything. Nowadays, of course, everyone has GPS. But there have always been small, squared-away local car services and limo companies. You just had to be smart enough to find them, maybe by using that Inter Net thing I keep hearing about. Or recommendations from friends or business associates. Our basic business model was to be just like your private chauffeur, except you only paid for us when you needed us, not all the time.

Most of our transport customers, after the firs year, were regulars. You could be on your way home after an exhausting flight, and know the driver who was picking you up well enough that you could go to sleep in the car. We knew where you lived, and were kind enough not to wake you until we had your luggage out of the trunk and (if applicable) got your wife/gf/bf to come wake you up with a kiss.

It's a service business. We succeeded by giving better service than our competition. And that red carpet we laid down all the time? Remnants we got for $2 each. Why didn't other transport companies do that? Got me. And on hourly charters, a rose for each lady -- or femme-ish gay.

We had all kinds of customers, which is what made the business fun.

If my eyes hadn't gotten shitty and if I still had any stamina, I'd go back in the limo biz. Still have the roblimo.com URL. :)

Not forced...

[Etherwalk]

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.

Re:Not forced...

[Etherwalk]

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.

Well, that and it's a negotiating position where they figure Kansas will cave.

Re:Not forced...

[Richard_at_work]

Those are quite low limits, and that surprises me somewhat - here in the UK a car insurance policy has no liability limit, so if an accident costs £1 or £10Million its still covered under the same policy.

I'm surprised insurance has liability limits in the US...

Re: Not forced...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's similar, they won't cancel your insurance but they hike the rate enormously and stick on a large deductible. The "unlimited" is simply because medical NHS system is free, so they know they won't face an infinite bill for medical treatment.

Usually it has "no commercial use" condition attached, so Uber drivers would not be covered by their regular insurance anyway.

Re:Not forced...

[zazzel]

Are those numbers real? Sounds like a joke given the propensity to sue for absurd damages.
I'm German, I have a coverage of €100.000.000 (!) combined for death, injury and property damage on my private car (though max. €15.000.000 per person harmed). It's really not more expensive than minimum coverage, because the odds are so low, but maybe US lawyers would immediately take their chunk out of it and make it too expensive for everyone.

Minimum coverage here is €1.000.000 for property damage and €7.500.000 for bodily injury. Difference in annual premium is maybe 10-20€ between the two.

Re: Not forced...

[causality]

Here in the US, our insurance companies are not in business to pay for auto accidents. They are in business to collect our money. Hence the tiered pricing for different dollar amounts of coverage. Also why most insurance companies will cancel our policies if we have more than one accident in X number of months. Then the high risk insurance steps in for hundreds of dollars per month. Your system sounds better.

One important difference: in the US you get a license by memorizing a few signs and traffic laws. They will tell you "driving is a privilege, not a fundamental right" but in practice it's treated like a right unless you get multiple DUIs or something (even then, a few years later - or less - the irresponsible adult can re-apply). The result is lots of unskilled drivers on the road, including those with more than enough experience to know better.

It's regrettable but the more the USA continues down its current commercial and philosophical path, the more people tend to do the minimum even when the minimum (in this case, of skill) is grossly inadequate. It doesn't take much effort to gradually get just a little better at something day by day, but it does take an awareness that one should do so. Here driving is widely seen as nothing more than a means to an end, not something in which to invest any skill because the lives of oneself and others may depend on it. Actually almost everything is viewed that way. It's the same reason in computing, there are so many permanent newbies - they managed to avoid accidentally picking up any new knowledge day by day even when a computer is an important tool without which they can't earn a living.

So unsurprisingly, I see unsafe practices every day I drive. Also, stupid unnecessary shit like tailgating 2 inches from the other guy's bumper with two open passing lanes is unfathomably popular. On a related practice, I have no idea why it's so important to get beside somebody and carefully maintain the exact same speed, even though to appear there they had to initially move faster, but I simply cannot drive a few miles down an interstate without seeing it, even during low-traffic hours like 4am. I think it's just a mindless "go with the flow, do what everyone else is doing" herd mentality -- that's consistent with what I see elsewhere in this culture. It could also be some psychology of feeling powerless in one's own life, causing them to want to control others by blocking passing lanes and creating hazards. Also, during heavy rain, many don't seem to understand that visibility is vastly improved by not hanging out in the massive backwash from 18-wheelers; this is really not difficult to comprehend, but to do so, one would have to be aware enough to consider it.

As I entertain no delusions about controlling what other people do, my main goal while driving is to keep as much distance between myself and others as I can. They can drive in tightly clustered packs with no room to maneuver (and sometimes, terrible visibility) if that pleases them. Whether it means speeding up or slowing down, I'll be the guy between the nearest two packs.

Please educate me if I am wrong, but I understand that in most European nations, acquiring a license means you actually have to demonstrate skill with maneuvering the vehicle and it's not nearly so easy. The failure rate for license applicants is significantly higher, and since driving means we're talking life and limb, that sounds quite reasonable. If you have only driven in Europe you might even find my descriptions difficult to believe, but I promise you I see this and worse every day.

TL:DR right? I really think it boils down to culture. The USA once had a culture that promoted responsible adulthood but that was a long time ago. What's promoted now is convenience and the idea that nothing is ever one's own fault. The focus has shifted from responsibility to a childish concern about fault-and-blame that prevents so many from learning that cause precedes effect. It's rea

Re: Not forced...

[zazzel]

Whoah, I pay like 650€/year for my 2007 BMW, liability and comprehensive cover included. We have a discount system depending on the number of years without an accident (the insurance had to pay for). Since I've been driving for 20 years without (any major) accident, I'm down to 30% of the reference rate. Our rates are per car, not per driver, and react to type of car, engine hp, km driven/year and some minor details (garage/roadside parker, region, age of driver, other drivers' lowest age etc.)

Re:Not forced...

[causality]

I'm really curious why Uber just can't self-insure. They could easily just stash 1 million in a bank account to cover the required insurance.

It's really not that simple. You may want to look into the kind of cash reserves insurance companies are required to have on hand at any given time (this is public information, regulated by your state). They're huge at the same time they're smaller than what most insurers think is more realistic.

If they could do it, this would definitely hurt Uber's cashflow. Then they'd have to have their own underwriting standards, eligibility requirements, etc. because Uber would be batshit insane to offer indemnity to ANYONE who signs up regardless of driving record. All of this costs money and requires in-house expertise to implement. They would have to fully be a "ride-sharing company" and partially be a commercial insurance company, simultaneously. Oh and that's also ignoring a crucial difference: maybe Uber could somehow overcome all of these problems and "self-insure" ... if all of their drivers are employees. If their drivers are contractors, then they are not "self" insuring at all and would in fact be a full-fledged insurance company, complete with having to follow all of the (numerous and complex) regulations attached to that.

There is a reason that even very large multinational corporations purchase commercial insurance policies for their drivers (who are typically employees) instead of self-insuring. If Uber were going to do anything like this at all, they would require their drivers to obtain commercial insurance policies and subsidize the extra cost. By far, that would be the most sensible thing to do.

Re: Not forced...

[Captain Hook]

Also, stupid unnecessary shit like tailgating 2 inches from the other guy's bumper with two open passing lanes is unfathomably popular.

Hypermiling?

Re:Not forced...

[jmauro]

It would require them to say that the drivers are employees and not independent contractors to self-insure. Once they say the drivers are employees in Kansas could then be used in all the other jurisdictions in the US that are pressing the issue.

Making them employees would shift the risk from the drivers onto Uber, which would be catastrophic to Uber's business model.

They could also form an insurance arm and sell insurance, but they couldn't force their drivers to buy it (since they are independent contractors) and it would open them up to a whole host of other regulatory issues.

Re: Not forced...

[causality]

It's similar, they won't cancel your insurance but they hike the rate enormously and stick on a large deductible. The "unlimited" is simply because medical NHS system is free, so they know they won't face an infinite bill for medical treatment.

Can you explain further, please? Does NHS pay for medical treatement no matter what? Or is there such a concept as, "your negligence or malice directly caused this medical expense that otherwise would not have happened, so yes you are liable?".

At least in my mind, there's a huge difference between "this person has an infection, or cancer, or heart disease" versus "this person was hurt because a drunk driver ran straight through a stop sign and crashed into them". Does your law make such a distinction?

Re: Not forced...

[causality]

Also, stupid unnecessary shit like tailgating 2 inches from the other guy's bumper with two open passing lanes is unfathomably popular.

Hypermiling?

Perhaps, but I really doubt so many people are attempting to hypermile in SUVs, large pick-up trucks, and other vehicles unlikely to be chosen for such a purpose. I also doubt hypermiling is so popular that I would see it every day I drive, though I admit I haven't surveyed a representative sample so I don't know that.

Observing the same drivers, they tend to accelerate v.e.r.y s.l.o.w.l.y and will randomly speed up or slow down for no apparent reason. I would expect a hypermiler to know that accelerating more quickly and then maintaining a steady speed is more fuel-efficient. Finally, to hypermile one must put continuous effort into a conscious awareness of one's driving habits, which (as explained in my lengthy post above) is inconsistent with other behaviors I see that cannot have a constructive purpose.

Re: Not forced...

[causality]

Whoah, I pay like 650€/year for my 2007 BMW, liability and comprehensive cover included. We have a discount system depending on the number of years without an accident (the insurance had to pay for). Since I've been driving for 20 years without (any major) accident, I'm down to 30% of the reference rate. Our rates are per car, not per driver, and react to type of car, engine hp, km driven/year and some minor details (garage/roadside parker, region, age of driver, other drivers' lowest age etc.)

Do you self-report the km driven per year, or do they have some type of system in place to track this?

Re:Not forced...

[jythie]

I would go even further and describe their exiting Kansas as a 'flounce'. Uber can hype it up and play the victim, which tends to get them support from certain market segments and thus helps them in other regions.

Re:Not forced...

[jythie]

You mean them flouncing from other states? They were not 'kicked out' of Kansas, they were held to the same standards in terms of liability and safety as other services, and rather than follow the rules they skipped out. Very different.

Re: Not forced...

[angel'o'sphere]

The driving license is split into two tests: theory and practical. Theory is about laws and rules, you have to pass a multiple choice test.
Failure rate is pretty high, something around 35 - 50% ... but that might be due to brain dead legislations which could be simplified and put down to more general more basic rules.
Practice tests vary greatly from driving school to driving school.
However there are ofc the MUST PASS tests: parking, U turning on a road, never pass a red light or stop sign, never take the right of way of another car or threaten a pedestrian.
Ofc the judge will also try to figure your general attention/awareness to the traffic etc.
But I guess failures are far below 50% ... I passes my car and my motorcycle license on first attempt.

OTOH I heard about a record in the USA where a woman needed something like 30+ attempts for the practical driving license.

20 years ago you had to make an so called "Idiots test" if you failed more than 3 times in any of the theory or practical tests.

However those got abolished for ordinary driving licenses, but not if you got caught 2x drunk (pretty low limit in most nations) while driving.

This was germany :D Now, next state of the EU?

Re: Not forced...

[Ayanami_R]

These people randomly speed up and slow down because of changing slope of the road. No one is really paying attention to their speed, and they don't realize that you have to push the pedal a little harder uphill and less downhill to maintain speed.

Re: Not forced...

[Half-pint HAL]

Can you explain further, please? Does NHS pay for medical treatement no matter what? Or is there such a concept as, "your negligence or malice directly caused this medical expense that otherwise would not have happened, so yes you are liable?".

More information than you could ever possibly want to know on the matter (from the UK Chartered Institute of Loss Adjusters).

Re: Not forced...

[Jesus_666]

Please educate me if I am wrong, but I understand that in most European nations, acquiring a license means you actually have to demonstrate skill with maneuvering the vehicle and it's not nearly so easy. The failure rate for license applicants is significantly higher, and since driving means we're talking life and limb, that sounds quite reasonable. If you have only driven in Europe you might even find my descriptions difficult to believe, but I promise you I see this and worse every day.

In Germany things are much more stringent (and expensive I'd wager) but ultimately a lot depends on whether it's your first license or you have gotten another one in the last couple years (eg. I got a 125cc motorcycle license and then a car license shorty after, which had changed requirements).

First you are required to first take a certain number of theoretical lessons (I think about two dozen for a car license if you don't have a previous license), followed by a standardized theoretical exam (multiple choice) where each wrong answer nets you negative points, ranging from two points for things like being mistaken about whether to shift up or down when driving up a hill to five points for anything that impacts the safety of others.

The modalities for the test vary. If you don't have a previous license you get thirty questions and fail if you get more than ten points. If you do have a previous license you only get twenty questions but fail at more than six points. Oh, and the test is more or less randomized (random selection of a set of standardized sheets) so you won't see the same questions again if you retake it. You do, however, get a stack of training sheets which work like the test sheets so you have ample opportunity to test yourself beforehand.

After the theoretical exam you have to take practical lessons. Like with the theoretical exams the exact number and details vary with the kind of license you're trying to get and whether you've gotten another license shortly before but you can expect probably at least a dozen driving sessions plus a few special conditions sessions like driving at night, driving on the highway, semi-long distance drives over regional roads etc.

Te actual practical exam involves both your driving teacher and an independent tester and boils down to driving around and submitting to their every whim for a while, preceded by a few questions of the "what does that lever do" variety. While a minor mistake might not cost you the license you will immediately fail if, for any reason, the teacher steps on the secondary brake installed on their side of the car.

Everything is billed and the tests don't come cheap, which is another incentive to learn your stuff. Examples for total costs for a car license I can offer are 2,500 EUR (2002, no retakes, slightly lowered lesson count) and 4,000 EUR (2015, one theoretical retake, all lessons required). Of course it can go even higher if you're really bad at cars.

Add to that things like mandatory first aid courses and you've got... roads that are still full of idiots but at least they're somewhat competent idiots who know what they're doing wrong. And who have the neccessary medical qualification to roll up to the site of an accident, freeze up in terror and let the 112 operator handle the rest (for the record, the law doesn't allow you to flat-out ignore an unattended accident site). But at some point they've heard of the term "recovery position" so that's at least something.

Re:Not forced...

[Half-pint HAL]

You have to murder 19 passengers to justify paying for a $1,000,000 insurance. :-)

Paralysing one person would more than do it.

Re:Not forced...

[Half-pint HAL]

But not while driving to pickups/away from drop-offs. Those are still business miles and alter the drivers' driving behaviour. It makes them a bigger insurance risk, and Kansas has given the insurers an explicit opt-out from covering them on the same terms as lower risk personal-use-only drivers. Seems fair.

Re: Not forced...

[N1AK]

At least in my mind, there's a huge difference between "this person has an infection, or cancer, or heart disease" versus "this person was hurt because a drunk driver ran straight through a stop sign and crashed into them". Does your law make such a distinction?

There is, but we don't consider it when deciding whether to provide medical treatment or not. We punish illegal activity in court not in hospital.

Re: Not forced...

[danomac]

Does the tailing car have a massive magnet on the front? If so, then maybe.

Re:Not forced...

[preaction]

They did say they were German. German folk use "." as their group separator, and "," as the separator between whole and fractional part of the number.

Re: Not forced...

[Richard_at_work]

The NHS doesn't ask about the reason you ended up needing medical care, but you may find yourself being denied immediate access to treatments for non-life threatening issues if you indulge in activities which either hamper treatment or are exacerbating the issues - for example, smoking when being treated for COPD or lung cancer will get you into trouble, or being very overweight will cause surgery to be put off until you lose weight.

Re: Not forced...

[Richard_at_work]

In general its self reported, along with the other aspects such as off road parking, secure parking, roadside parking, commuting only or full business use etc.

Re: Not forced...

[Jesus_666]

Honestly, if you can't afford a driver's license you can't afford a car, either. While you can get cars for a few hundred bucks those will probably only last you until your next inspection, not to mention that you still have to pay insurance on the thing. Prices for reasonable used cars will probably start somewhere around 2,500 to 3,000 EUR.

As for the insurance: The details depend on many, many factors but as a ballpark figure you can expect about 400-500 EUR per year for that, too. You'll also need gasoline or diesel, which come at about 1.40 EUR/l (~ 5.94 USD/gallon) or 1.20 EUR/l (~ 5.08 USD/gallon), respectively*.

Honestly, poor people will probably just go for a regional ticket, which usually covers trains, trams and buses. Vastly more economical** and Germany has very solid public transport in all but the most rural places.


* Current prices near where I live. You might save up to 20 ct/l by refueling at a better time than nine o'clock in the evening but it's still not exactly cheap.
** The local transport association offers a twelve month ticket for the entire area (8,800 sq.km; ~ 3,400 sq.mi) for about 200 EUR or for less if you don't need the entire area. That's less than half of what a car's insurance alone would cost. If you do need to take a long-distance trip you can get good prices (about 80 EUR to get across Germany without having to resort to local trains) by ordering well ahead of time and taking trains or buses at less-congested times.

Re: Not forced...

[causality]

At least in my mind, there's a huge difference between "this person has an infection, or cancer, or heart disease" versus "this person was hurt because a drunk driver ran straight through a stop sign and crashed into them". Does your law make such a distinction?

What coverage differences do you want? Are you suggesting the person hit by a drunk driver should not be covered by insurance in the off-chance they can successfully sue the drunk driver to cover the bill?

You could ask me that, yes. Or you could put just a slight bit of thought into it and consider that there is a more reasonable alternative, which is that the drunk driver's insurance would cover this as part of liability coverage. Perhaps NHS could kick in if that's unavailable?

There's loads of ways this could be done, and since I am not knowledgable about the nuances of laws governing nations across the Atlantic, I ask questions instead of making assumptions. That's all.

Re: Not forced...

[causality]

At least in my mind, there's a huge difference between "this person has an infection, or cancer, or heart disease" versus "this person was hurt because a drunk driver ran straight through a stop sign and crashed into them". Does your law make such a distinction?

There is, but we don't consider it when deciding whether to provide medical treatment or not. We punish illegal activity in court not in hospital.

Apparently this is confusing some of you. So I'll explain how it works in the USA.

Hypothetically, let's say you cause a car accident, as in this imaginary accident is 100% your fault. As a result of this accident, another person is injured and requires medical care. Your own car insurance policy has a line item called Bodily Injury Coverage. That coverage would pay for the injured person's medical expenses.

The injured person would not file a claim with their health insurance company (assuming they have one) because you, as the person who caused the accident, are held responsible for any expenses you caused to the injured person.

I was simply asking if car insurance works that way overseas. Instead of a private insurance company that you may or may not have, you have NHS. While the NHS is provided as a public service, the care they provide does have a cost. I wanted to know if NHS bears that cost even when there is an at-fault party who caused the problem, or whether in those specific cases, the at-fault party (via their car insurance liability policy) was expected to cover it.

Re: Not forced...

[causality]

These people randomly speed up and slow down because of changing slope of the road. No one is really paying attention to their speed, and they don't realize that you have to push the pedal a little harder uphill and less downhill to maintain speed.

Most of the time that's correct, but I see it with surprising frequency on level terrain. I think most of them are simply not paying full attention to the road; perhaps they're fiddling with a cell phone.

It's the same reason people sometimes fail to notice that the light has turned green. I mean, why should they pay attention, it's not like they're *driving* or anything...

Re:Not forced...

[AK Marc]

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.

That is a bit unreasonable. Why require it as a primary auto policy? That sounds like an auto-insurance cartel. I had a $1,000,000 policy that would have covered me as an Uber driver as a "secondary" umbrella policy. It's hella cheaper, and still worked for a Uber-type service.

Seems that some of these objections are from insurers, not taxi. There are a lot of corporations that would lose if taxis were restructured.

Re: Not forced...

[mjwx]

Can you explain further, please? Does NHS pay for medical treatement no matter what? Or is there such a concept as, "your negligence or malice directly caused this medical expense that otherwise would not have happened, so yes you are liable?".

With most countries, liability is decided by the courts, not the doctors and insurers. So you can count on the medical professionals caring for you, but the state or insurers may sue you for some of the cost if it is warranted (and there are damn few cases where it is). The only limitations on the NHS, as with most countries is with eligibility, only citizens, tax paying permanent residents and people who are citizens or permanent residents of countries with reciprocal agreements with the NHS are covered. As an Australian, I can travel to the UK and be covered under the NHS because Australia and UK have a reciprocal agreement with medical systems (so an Englishman is covered under Australia's medicare in Australia)

However even if you're ineligible, they're not going to leave you to die on the pavement. They'll just issue you with a bill afterwards and because the NHS has no profit motive, it wont be as high as countries with an entirely private system.

OTOH, we dont have the issue of "well you're costing us too much and threatening our profits, so we're not going to insure you any more".

Re: Not forced...

[N1AK]

And you got a couple of clear answers, which you somehow failed to understand, and then went to to claim that the people responding were confused. Perhaps if you're country would do as poor a job of public healthcare as it seems to do of public education it's for the best that your healthcare is private.

Re:Not forced...

[AK Marc]

I worked for a smaller company, about 50 employees. We self-insured.

Re: Not forced...

[stoatwblr]

All drivers speed up/slow down by about 5mph over a 2 minute cycle on steady roads. I notice it when I set cruise control at the prevailing speed and then just observe.

Some are worse than others. They're usually oscillating around a target speed and treating the gas pedal as a binary object.

As a passenger in a work car, I once demanded a cow-orker stop and either let me out, or let me drive because of that behaviour. It was about 10 minutes after telling him to pick a speed and stay at it.

Re:Not forced...

[Richard_at_work]

Not really - the NHS will bear immediate costs, but if the victim needs ongoing care etc then that will come out of insurance.

Re:Not forced...

[Meski]

I'd be surprised if my personal cover that's included in Superannuation (mandatory retirement benefit scheme in AU) doesn't exceed that.

Sounds completely reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Sounds completely reasonable

[tehcyder]

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.

I've no doubt a few libertarians will chime in how it's intolerable government interference to require car insurance.

Re:Sounds completely reasonable

[causality]

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.

I've no doubt a few libertarians will chime in how it's intolerable government interference to require car insurance.

I'm a little-'l' libertarian and I think simple, reasonable, easily-understood regulations like this are not only perfectly acceptable, but highly desirable. As a libertarian I want minimal government. A government that does not provide reasonable regulations is less than minimal and therefore a failure. Minimal is "greater than nothing", you see, and something greater than nothing but still less than minimal is ... still a failure. I can't break it down any more simply than that.

I've never actually met or corresponded with an anarcho-capitalist who called themselves a "libertarian" (which is what you and so many others are ignorantly assuming to be representative of libertarian thought), though I have corresponded with multiple anarcho-capitalists who called themselves "anarchists" or "anarcho-capitalists". Their ideas were interesting to be sure, but just like communism, seemed designed for a species other than our own. That's why I don't count myself among them.

The problem here is that your standard "progressive" and "conservative" political schools of thought have millions of members and powerful parties backing them. That means they have great PR. Both would be quite threatened if reasonable libertarian thought really caught on. It's not exactly shocking that reasonable libertarian thought is seldom portrayed, except by individuals like me. Of course it will be distorted, misrepresented, and shown in only its most extreme and unworkable forms, until the average person finds it distasteful like an automatic reflex. Like I said, it's called PR, and it's quite common in politics. It only works because it depends on your ignorance.

Re:Sounds completely reasonable

[causality]

I don't like replying to my own post, but I thought of something that was worth adding. What is happening now to the word "libertarian" is just like what happened to the word "hacker".

If you say "that guy's a hacker" the average person will imagine something nefarious, probably criminal, perhaps something involving identity theft. They aren't likely to picture a hobbyist and technology enthusiast who, by means of skill, manages to get devices (that they legitimately own) to perform creative and useful functions (which harm no one) that were never envisioned by their original makers.

The difference is, "hackers" have gotten so much negative attention in the mass media that the original term is gone and it isn't coming back. The only rational response is to accept this and move on. I don't believe "libertarian" is at that point yet, though it's heading there fast. Is reclaiming a word so important to me? In and of itself, no, not really. What's important to me is for people like you to wake up and realize how easy it is to manipulate you, to prevent you from ever entertaining entire categories of thought and philosophy and thereby to steer your thinking, merely by toying with words. I think that deserves some importance.

Re:Sounds completely reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Who DOESN'T want minimal government? Even communists and fascists think the policies they support are necessary, and mainstream Republicrats think their policies prevent market failures. I have never met anyone who identified as an "excessarchist", only folks who believe everyone else is being excessive.

Re:Sounds completely reasonable

[luther349]

seems fair to me they just want commercial grade insurance and lets face it these guys are driving commercially not even asking for a Chauffeur License something a taxi needs.

Re:Sounds completely reasonable

[causality]

Who DOESN'T want minimal government? Even communists and fascists think the policies they support are necessary, and mainstream Republicrats think their policies prevent market failures. I have never met anyone who identified as an "excessarchist", only folks who believe everyone else is being excessive.

Specifically, I am referring to a return to federalism, with the vast majority of citizens' government coming from the state and local levels. You know, the way this system was intended to work.

Re:Sounds completely reasonable

[youngatheart]

Thanks for giving me the feeling I'm not alone in wanting to identify my governmental philosophy as libertarian but finding the general portrayal of that term distasteful.

I'm a hacker and I'm a libertarian but I'm not okay with engaging in illegal activities and I'm not okay with anarchy. By the common interpretation, if I call myself a hacker then I'm saying I'm doing something illegal and if I call myself a libertarian then I'm saying I'm against all government and law. I don't really care about the words themselves, but I do wish there were simple words to say I exercise my legally protected freedom to use the things I own to accomplish things they weren't designed for, and I believe the role of government should be to protect freedom, particularly where freedom of individuals is conflict. (I can commit murder without consequence is freedom that conflicts with the freedom of my neighbor [who has it coming] to live and make [irritating] choices.)

The role of government in my view, is to protect the public from choices people make that inhibit the freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness. The role of law in my view, is to make it possible to identify instances where the individual cannot be permitted freedom to make choices that will keep others from having freedom.

I think that if I were seated with the founding fathers at a table where we all had a chance to speak, they'd agree with my simple ideas and dismiss my contributions as so basic as to not warrant further discussion. If I could then spend a couple hours describing the outcomes of their decisions (and actually convince them that the future I come from is real,) then I think they would feel both proud and dismayed.

After discussing the issue KS is dealing with, I think they'd say that the idea of correcting the law so that it is applicable to everyone is noble, but the idea that people are responsible for actions that fail to directly involve participating is one that should be carefully and very specifically limited.

Logging into an app doesn't mean you're working unless it comes with an obligation to do specific work.

Re:Sounds completely reasonable

[youngatheart]

Continuing your tradition of replying to yourself with another thought: Does logging into Uber's driver app mean you're at work?

Requiring commercial insurance when you're driving a stranger for money makes sense, but I believe Uber already does that. Requiring commercial insurance when you log into an app isn't something that affects anyone but Uber. After commenting I realized the key idea here is obligation. Until I clock in at work, I don't have an obligation to work. It is reasonable that I should abide by work rules and laws concerning my work when I have an obligation to be working. When I have no obligation to be working, then it is reasonable that I don't have a legal obligation to do extra things required when I am working.

Help me out here: Does an Uber driver have an obligation to do work when they log into the app? I think it's reasonable to require commercial insurance when obligated to do work. Do Uber drivers have that obligation when they log into the App and does Kansas' new law recognize the difference between an Uber driver who isn't obligated to do work and one who does?

Good

[houghi]

They are a taxi comapny and should follow the law just like anybody else.
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 ,A rose by any other name ...'

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.

Re:Good

[msobkow]

Exactly. I'm tired of articles (including this one) which try to portray Uber's operations as legal and above board, when they've built their entire business on skirting the regulations around liability insurance, driver testing, and a host of other legal requirements that are supposed to ensure the safety of the passengers.

I'd be quite happy to see Uber booted the hell out of every market on the planet if they're not willing to follow the laws for taxis in the regions they serve. Claiming "I'm not a taxi company" while providing exactly the same services as one is disingenuous at best, and outright fraud at worst.

Re: Good

[MobileC]

It's called "Doing a PayPal".
No, we're not a bank at all, look! Puppies!

Re:Good

[drinkypoo]

They are a taxi comapny and should follow the law just like anybody else.

The question is whether those laws are just. On the other hand, Uber was providing additional insurance while the user was transporting a rider; all they would have had to do was comply with the rule saying that the insurance would be provided any time the app was active, and then also make it so that it was against their rules to activate the app for any purpose other than carrying fares so that people wouldn't be activating the app just to get free car insurance. Get it written into the policy, in fact, so that it's the rules of the insurer and not just Uber, so that the policy will stick. Then it becomes the driver's responsibility not to break the rules.

Instead, they pulled out of the market completely and threw a tantrum.

I still don't believe that you should have to have a taxi license to charge someone for a trip. They don't do what they are claimed to do, they are simply a means of grabbing cash and exerting control. If you want people to have to have a certain grade of insurance first, that's fine, but there should be literally no other restrictions. If you think vehicles need safety inspections, there's no reason whatsoever to restrict that to taxis. It should be for all vehicles or for no vehicles.

Re:Good

[Nidi62]

If you think vehicles need safety inspections, there's no reason whatsoever to restrict that to taxis. It should be for all vehicles or for no vehicles.

So because the Department of HEalth doesn't inspet your home kitchen they don't need to inspect restaurants? If something is being used to provide a commercial service to the public it should be held to a minimal standard of safety.

Re: Good

[Alien1024]

In all fairness to PayPal, of course it's not a bank. They don't lend money, they don't engage in fractional-reserve banking and money creation. That's one of the fundamental roles of a bank. (just because it can do transfers and deposits doesn't mean it's a bank)

Re: Good

[dunkelfalke]

That didn't work in EU so they became an actual bank in Luxembourg.

Re:Good

[drinkypoo]

So because the Department of HEalth doesn't inspet your home kitchen they don't need to inspect restaurants?

Are you being stupid on purpose? There's a public health concern in vehicle safety whether you get into one or not, because you can be harmed by someone else's vehicle being unsafe whether you get into it or not, let alone pay for the privilege. There's no public health concern in kitchen safety outside of fire hazards, and generally speaking we already have a mechanism for dealing with gas leaks at least — if you need to connect an appliance to the gas system, many utilities will come out and do it for free.

Re: Good

[jmauro]

Except you know they do lend.

If it was just a money transfer they might have a case they are not a bank, but even then there are regulations on money transfer systems that PayPal tried to say didn't apply to them.

Re:Good

[bill_mcgonigle]

and a host of other legal requirements that are supposed to ensure the safety of the passengers.

Supposed to but they don't. Apparently you've never experienced an insane taxi driver.

Uber lets customers easily leave feedback on individual drivers, which is communicated out to the client base, unlike any government model.

As well, the drivers can leave feedback on the passengers, improving cabbie safety. Cabbie murder is a real problem an medallions are not bullet-proof shields.

This bill does real harm because it eliminates the real safety gains of Uber over the government regulation model. The trouble with government models is they only need to have intent, not results. A competitive market does not have that fatal flaw.

Of course if an Uber operator were to try to continue, the police would draw their guns as well - really illustrating the risk imbalance.

Re:Good

[CrankyFool]

They wouldn't need to write an insurance rule saying you can only activate the app when you're looking for fares -- as it is right now, if you're "on duty" and you decline too many passengers, you'll get kicked out of the service, so anyone using the app to get insurance wouldn't be an Uber driver for very long (I've seen news stories about Uber drivers getting kicked out after 2-3 days of having lower-than-acceptable fare acceptance rates).

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

When Uber was a "Ride sharing" service, it was ok. That meant, you get a passenger for where you are going already.
You get help setting up a car pool. When it became a way to make a living, then it is not "ride sharing" it is a taxi.
You are getting a personal service from someone you do not know. Perhaps Uber should be the one that carries the MEELLLION dollar injury coverage.
Make sure that the CEO of Uber is PERSONALLY responsible for any claims that go over the coverage amounts. (Sarbanes addendum?)

Re:Good

[Nidi62]

There's a public health concern for food fixed in private residences too. Hear about the incident a few weeks ago where people got botulism at a church potluck?

And the idea is a commercial vehicle (especially one operating as a taxi) is going to spend more time on the road, meaning it is going to need more maintenance sooner than a private vehicle driving possibly well over 100 miles a day compared to 40-50 for a private vehicle. As such regular vehicle inspections are a very good idea.

Re: Good

[edtice1559]

We may not *like* PayPal. But the services they provide don't require being a bank. Specifically they don't engage in fractional-reserve lending, don't lend customer money, and don't rely on the FDIC for insurance. They *feel* like a bank sometimes but are, in fact, not a bank in the way that US laws define it. Uber on the other hand declares that they aren't a tax company but provides services that only a taxi company is allowed to provide. Therein lies the difference. I think that there is a fair argument that the regulations should be updated to treat PayPal like a bank but, for better or worse, they comply with current laws whereas Uber clearly does not seem to do so.

Re:Good

[src1138]

There's no public health concern in kitchen safety outside of fire hazards

Seriously?

Never had food poisoning, huh?

Re:Good

[drinkypoo]

There's a public health concern for food fixed in private residences too. Hear about the incident a few weeks ago where people got botulism at a church potluck?

Yeah, again, you have to choose to participate in that. Still not the same thing.

And the idea is a commercial vehicle (especially one operating as a taxi) is going to spend more time on the road, meaning it is going to need more maintenance sooner than a private vehicle driving possibly well over 100 miles a day compared to 40-50 for a private vehicle. As such regular vehicle inspections are a very good idea.

But regular vehicle inspections are already a very good idea, that's my point. In most places in the USA the only vehicles which are getting them are commercial vehicles. In California they want to be real sure that your emissions are within a compliant range, and if a cop notices your headlights are misaimed they can write you a ticket and send you to a headlight alignment station, but there are no mandatory inspections which ensure that your suspension won't fly apart while you go down the road, let alone that you aren't dripping oil everywhere and causing hazards for everyone, if not on the day of then eventually when the rain comes.

Either vehicle inspections are a good idea for everyone, or they aren't. Further, I continue to object to the notion of a "commercial vehicle". There should be only one standard of behavior for drivers no matter whether they are a joyrider, a commuter, a delivery driver, or even a cop or ambulance driver — with the caveat that the latter sometimes will be putting on the siren and lights, and the rest of us should be getting out of the way. However, in all other ways, everyone should be following the same rules for a variety of reasons, only one of which is "fairness".

Primarily, "the system" only works when we can form expectations. A good example here is that you have to be able to expect people not to come across the double yellow line and drive right up in your face. Part of that is their behavior, and part of that is having their vehicle in proper working condition with good tires, suspension, steering linkages... some of which is typically not inspected well anywhere in the US, again, not on a mandatory basis. You usually only find out that something is wrong when you spend money to have it addressed. Because I don't wait for the vehicle to fail when I feel something getting sloppy, I know that the idler arms in the Astro are loose but still within spec, and that I don't have a bad ball joint in the suspension linkages. I also knew that I had a bad wheel bearing, and had it replaced. (I did the other one, but I hurt my back doing some other stuff and wasn't up to this one.) But you can look around and see cars which obviously aren't receiving the attention they need, because nobody is making the owners do it.

So yeah, regular vehicle inspections are a very good idea, but they're also a good idea for absolutely everyone. If you want to base the schedule on mileage and not on time, I can completely agree with that idea. It shouldn't matter if I drive 100,000 miles a year for fun or for work, either way that's putting more wear on the vehicle. That ignores the additional duty that the start-stop cycle of typical taxi use puts on a vehicle, but the proliferation of hybrids as taxis is reducing that problem anyhow, by taking much of the load off the typical wear components.

Eventually we'll probably get GPS monitoring whether we like it or not, and then they can build really-fine grained fee structures and inspection regimens. Whoopee.

Re:Good

[crtreece]

There's no public health concern in kitchen safety outside of fire hazards

I think you might have missed a few.

Storing food at unsafe temperatures, in areas with bugs, and preparing it improperly (e.g. cutting veggies on the same cutting board as raw meat) can lead to food poisoning, salmonella, or other spread of other diseases.

Not having appropriate tools and chemicals to clean up spills and mark areas that have been recently cleaned can create slip and fall hazards for employees.

Improper cleaning and storage of knives and other cutting utensils can lead to employees being cut or stabbed.

Improper care of cuts or other open wounds by employees can spread infectious disease.

Re: Good

[dsparil]

That part of PayPal is an official bank with FDIC insurance so there's no regulation skirting.

Re:Good

[drinkypoo]

I think you might have missed a few.

Again, we're now talking about your personal kitchen, not a commercial one. Commercial kitchens are regulated because anyone might just come in off the street and eat there. Your personal kitchen is not regulated (aside from electrical and gas connections, lighting, etc — all the stuff that applies within your house in general) because that's not the case. If you want to sell food to people outside your house, then sometimes your home kitchen will have to be regulated. Some states now allow you to sell baked goods and some other stuff which was prepared in your uncertified home kitchen, but dairy and meat products still require certification.

However, when you operate your automobile on public roads, you affect everyone, so it's reasonable that you should have to have safety inspections performed whether you're engaging in commercial behavior or not. It doesn't become more reasonable because your activity is commercial; it becomes more reasonable when your vehicle reaches a certain age or mileage. Each has its own effects, both of which need to be accounted for. Vehicles should have inspections at certain ages, probably about 6, 12, and 24 months, as well as probably 5 and 10 years, and then also at certain mileage intervals. Obviously, if a mileage interval event occurs in the same year (or perhaps less in the early life of the vehicle) as a timed event, you would skip one. You wouldn't skip two, however. This would naturally result in most taxicabs receiving more inspections than other vehicles, without a law specifically targeting taxicabs.

Re:Good

[GlennC]

There's no public health concern in kitchen safety outside of fire hazards...

As far as you know...which doesn't appear to be all that far.

Re: Good

[angel'o'sphere]

If they "store" money for you in an account and enable you to transfer money to other accounts/banks: they are a bank.

No idea where you get your definition of a bank from.

Oh: you might be an american ...

In Europe Pay Pal is a bank, bank laws apply to them, otherwise they could not even hold accounts with other peoples money.

Re:Good

[Half-pint HAL]

There are public safety concerns, but the law of diminishing returns says the risks don't justify the cost of inspecting every house.

Re:Good

[N1AK]

Uber lets customers easily leave feedback on individual drivers, which is communicated out to the client base, unlike any government model.

There's nothing to stop a taxi firm from accepting feedback from customers on individual drivers, the government is simply requiring that they do background checks prior to sending them to pick up members of the public.

Re:Good

[luther349]

basic safety inspections are ok but we all know some states get way out of hand oh a spot of rust fail. hear in ky they only do them on cars coming in from outside the state and rebuilt titles and its basic shit like do the lights work etc.

Re:Good

[youngatheart]

Claiming "I'm not a taxi company" while providing exactly the same services as one is disingenuous at best, and outright fraud at worst.

Do they?

I've never used Uber, and I don't have all the necessary information to make the call myself. Do taxi's have an obligation to provide a service without putting themselves "on the job" and Uber drivers have an obligation to provide service or is it only when they decide to take a job?

I suspect the problem that KS is struggling with is that taxi drivers are obligated to do things while they're in service (pick up someone) that Uber drivers aren't (they don't have to take fares.)

If there is a difference between the obligations of an Uber driver and a taxi driver, then it is reasonable to expect them to be subject to different laws, but if they have the same obligations, then it is fair to expect them to be subject to the same laws.

Does an Uber driver logging in to an app have the same obligations as a taxi driver? That's the key issue and I really am looking forward to a well documented answer.

Re: Good

[youngatheart]

Do they though?

A taxi is in service when they are in a company car and obligated to take work, while an Uber driver doesn't share that obligation.

That's a significant difference... but maybe I'm wrong about the difference between an Uber driver and a taxi driver. I'm interested if you have documentation you can cite to show they have the same obligations?

Re:Good

[youngatheart]

Many times I've given a ride to someone I didn't know. Sometimes, it has been somewhere I wasn't planning to go. I've been the kind of person who doesn't ask for anything in return, but I don't think it would have been immoral (or against the law.) If I had, should I have been legally obligated to get the same insurance as a taxi company?

I suspect the reasonable difference between doing something for someone as a favor to be repaid, and doing something as a job, would be "obligation."

If I agreed to do transport because it was my job is obviously a taxi service. Compare that to agreeing to take someone somewhere with reasonable payment. There is a difference between being acting as a taxi service and being a reasonable guy. The question I have is: Does an Uber driver have an obligation or are they agreeing without obligation to do something?

Re:Good

[AK Marc]

They don't pick up hailed fares. Thus, they are not a taxi service.

Re:Good

[AK Marc]

There's nothing to stop a taxi firm from accepting feedback from customers on individual drivers

They don't, and never will, unless required to by law.

Comparison with existing taxi laws?

[FizzyP]

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.

Re:Comparison with existing taxi laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

At least in Kansas City, Uber still has an edge on traditional taxi services. It costs $350 to start a taxicab company, and each driver is interviewed, background checked, and tested. Uber is just throwing a tantrum because their illegal behavior is starting to be noticed.

Re:Comparison with existing taxi laws?

[Mashiki]

I can't say about Kansas but in my neck of the woods here in Canada(ontario), those are standard requirements. Though here you're also required to have a chauffeur's liscence as well as insurance to cover any injuries that parties may receive while you're a driver. So to me, it's completely reasonable to have the same requirements, if you don't want to pay for that then don't. But sure don't whine when the MTO, DOT, or whoever starts slapping you with so many fines that you're up to your asshole in debt because of it.

Über was not forced

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Über was not forced

[tgv]

I don't understand it either, but people seem to be voluntarily sucking up to Über, probably blinded by the thought that anything big must be good. They are just a taxi service, dammit. Oh yeah, they have an app. That must be it.

Re:Über was not forced

[tehcyder]

Was this posting bought and paid for by Uber?

I always assume that all Uber stories are,

The less generous interpretation is that slashdot is run by the same sort of clowns who praise Uber in the comments and genuinely think they are cool, disruptive, world-transforming geniuses.

Re:Über was not forced

[tehcyder]

I don't understand it either, but people seem to be voluntarily sucking up to Über, probably blinded by the thought that anything big must be good. They are just a taxi service, dammit. Oh yeah, they have an app. That must be it.

They are anti-government. On slashdot, this is better than a free blow job a day for life.

Re:Über was not forced

[causality]

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.

The day I read such a biased Slashdot story and don't see at least one comment like this will be the day I stop visiting this site, for on that day it will have lost all value to me. If all you want is a news aggregator there are better ones available. Some of them even have proper editors who copy-edit, attempt to vet stories, and post direct links to good articles instead of kicking traffic over to someone's shitty blog that comments on a good article.

At least I use an effective ad blocker, so said shitty blogs with their dishonest methods of gaining traffic earned nothing from me the few times I gave them a chance prior to deciding never to click on one.

Re:Über was not forced

[rjstanford]

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.

When somebody puts a gun to your head and demands money, is it that you are forced to hand over your wallet? By your logic, you just don't want to die.

Except that, in this case, they also gave you the option of leaving their private property with your wallet intact, which is in fact what Google chose to do. That's a bit different than a random mugging on a public street - much closer to choosing not to pay a cover charge.

Re:Über was not forced

[tgv]

Of course, that hadn't crossed my mind. My enemy's enemy, that sort of stuff.

Re:Über was not forced

[fluffernutter]

The funny thing is that I'm sure there are 1000 people out there who thought of this idea but just didn't become a billionaire on it because they didn't want to break the law. Now Uber comes along the bully on the playground and is allowed to persist.

The 1000 people are the real losers in this.

Re:Über was not forced

[Half-pint HAL]

Indeed. Many a brutal dictator has risen to power on a wave of public support based on that same fallacy.

Dorothy...

[sTERNKERN]

We are not in Kansas anymore.

Uber cars not covered by insurance

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: Uber cars not covered by insurance

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent comment. Anne I am glad to see the folks on Slashdot are not skewering Kansas en masse. This law seems appropriate. It does not look like it is operating to defend taxi badge holders turf, but is instead protecting riders.

Re:Uber cars not covered by insurance

[causality]

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.

Indeed. If you actually look at actuarial data, you will find that there are good reasons for the price difference between personal and commercial insurance. The commercial vehicles have far greater exposure to risk. I know it's popular to bash insurance companies - hell, I dislike American corporatism myself - but when people do that from a position of ignorance, it doesn't help.

Re:Uber cars not covered by insurance

[thaylin]

Uber provides insurance for drivers when they are in commercial use:

http://blog.uber.com/rideshari...

Re: Uber cars not covered by insurance

[thaylin]

except for the fact uber provides commercial insurance coverage to their drivers.

Re: Uber cars not covered by insurance

[causality]

Excellent comment. Anne I am glad to see the folks on Slashdot are not skewering Kansas en masse. This law seems appropriate. It does not look like it is operating to defend taxi badge holders turf, but is instead protecting riders.

The problems Uber is having boil down to this: they want to look like a taxi company, act like a taxi company, and operate in the same market as a taxi company, but they don't want to be a taxi company. I wish them good luck because I have always believed that consenting adults should be able to do what they want so long as they alone bear the consequences, but none of this is even slightly surprising.

What follows is my personal opinion only - if you want real advice talk to an insurance agent or lawyer. Anyway, as a matter of fact, by requiring them to obtain commercial insurance, Kansas is only repeating what's already in the agreement these drivers have made with their insurance companies. If any Uber driver has an accident and files a claim under a personal-lines policy, and the insurance company finds out they were a driver-for-hire, they're likely to lose their insurance anyway. When you signed your policy you gave the insurer all kinds of investigatory powers, so they probably will find out. They will do everything possible to cancel the personal-lines policy at that point. Whether they can also deny the claim and leave you 100% on the hook for the full liability depends on your state's regulations, but if they can, I'm sure they would.

Do most Uber drivers fully understand this? If so, are they just counting on nothing going wrong, or not getting caught if something does go wrong?

Re: Uber cars not covered by insurance

[CrankyFool]

Only when their drivers actually have a passenger in their car. Not when they're waiting for a passenger, or driving to a passenger, or doing basically any other activity that involves having the app open and working other than ferrying a passenger.

Re: Uber cars not covered by insurance

[bws111]

Except for the fact that their insurance is only in effect when there is a passenger in the car.

Re: Uber cars not covered by insurance

[GlennC]

Do most Uber drivers fully understand this?

I suspect that most Uber drivers don't. I suspect most Uber passengers don't understand it either.

In partial defense of the passengers, though, it appears that their thought process is, "I'm getting what I want as cheaply as possible, screw everyone else."

Re:Uber cars not covered by insurance

[angel'o'sphere]

Normal car insurances in Europe cover commercial use.

Driving from home to work is, surprisingly, commercial, wow, a no brainer.

If I use my car to drive myself around or deliver Pizza or urgent mail or medicals: same insurance!

What the hell would be the difference for me or my car for what I use it regarding my liability towards anyone I (might) harm?

Re: Uber cars not covered by insurance

[Half-pint HAL]

it appears that their thought process is, "I'm getting what I want as cheaply as possible, screw everyone else."

Much like the people who buy meat that isn't technically fit for human consumption.

Re:Uber cars not covered by insurance

[Half-pint HAL]

Normal car insurances in Europe cover commercial use.

Driving from home to work is, surprisingly, commercial, wow, a no brainer.

If I use my car to drive myself around or deliver Pizza or urgent mail or medicals: same insurance!

What the hell would be the difference for me or my car for what I use it regarding my liability towards anyone I (might) harm?

There's a difference between "incidental" commercial use and primary commercial use. Driving to work is incidental. Some policies will consider occasional transport of goods as incidental, but others might not. However, while they might cover accidents, they almost never include the goods being transported in that. In the UK, I believe the most common clause is that if you are on (non-incidental) commercial business, your cover automatically defaults to "third party only" -- ie you're only insured against damages to others outside the car, not anyone or anything inside. And those pizzas and meds are not people -- commercial transportation of people is a whole different kettle of fish. Policy documents are very carefully worded to cover car-sharing (in some circumstances limited to people with a common employer) but explicitly excluding passengers taken expressly for monetary reward.

Re:Uber cars not covered by insurance

[tlhIngan]

Uber provides insurance for drivers when they are in commercial use:

http://blog.uber.com/rideshari...

Only while there is a passenger in the car. It does NOT cover the period where the driver is actively looking for a fare.

It's a subtle point, but a driver going to pick up a fare can get in an accident, and an insurance company can consider that commercial uncovered behavior (the driver was not using the car for pleasure, or commute purposes).

And it can be a lot worse - Uber could be required to follow things like "taxi bill of rights" laws that say if a driver is unable to provide the fare the required trip, they must wait for another driver who will. (Too many taxi drivers were passing up fares because they were "too black" or other discriminatory measure, or even something as simple as not being handi-accessible. They're required to call in a new vehicle and wait with the fare until the replacement arrives.).

Re:Uber cars not covered by insurance

[N1AK]

No they don't. Uber likes to say that a vehicle is only in commercial use when it is carrying a passenger, but that doesn't make it so. If I'm driving from my current location to the location of the customer it is commercial use (I wouldn't be doing it if wasn't working). Uber's position would be exactly like claiming that Chefs aren't at work unless they are actively producing a dish for a customer at that moment in time, if they were checking ingredients or turning on ovens etc "UberChef" would want it considered non-commercial.

Re:Uber cars not covered by insurance

[N1AK]

Normal car insurances in Europe cover commercial use.

Not in either of the EU nations I've had insurance in. In both cases it was normal to be able to choose from personal, personal & commuting, and personal & business. Some companies would automatically allow commuting within personal, but certainly not all. Additionally business cover is very restrictive in terms of what is covered; delivering pizza is likely to be fine (I am not a lawyer or expert) but carrying people, anything hazardous or high value etc would certainly not be covered by standard insurance.

Re: Uber cars not covered by insurance

[jtara]

Many/most policies have several occurrences which will VOID the insurance. That means that the driver doesn't have any personal insurance, and in most states then will be in violation of state law.

These occurrences will usually include:

- lying on the insurance application

Most/all applications ask if the vehicle will be used commercially.

In fact, there have now been several occurrences now where driver's insurance refused to pay, Uber insurance did indeed pay, but driver's insurance company voided their insurance, and now no insurance company will write insurance for that driver.

Uber will cover the passenger. (But, according to a local "TV troubleshooter" investigation, not eagerly or quickly...). Uber will cover the driver's liability for the incident. But driver may no longer be able to drive. At all.

Re:Uber cars not covered by insurance

[angel'o'sphere]

anything hazardous
For that you need an extra license anyway
or high value etc would certainly not be covered by standard insurance.
Of course it is.
What does the insurance care if I have a gold bar or 10 diamonds in my trunk?

Re:Uber cars not covered by insurance

[angel'o'sphere]

but explicitly excluding passengers taken expressly for monetary reward
That is ofc an exception as you need a special driving license anyway.
However if I decide to deliver parcels in a private car, I'm insured. And so are "third parties" as you name them.
My point was not my cargo ... not sure about that, did not check my policy regarding my cargo since decades.+
Good hint, perhaps I should check what that says.

Re:Uber cars not covered by insurance

[dunkelfalke]

You really should do that. There are special rates for people who use their cars for commerce and even more special rates for people who transport other people for money. For example:

GewerbsmÃÃYige PersonenbefÃrderung und Vermietung
6. Kein Versicherungsschutz besteht für SchÃden auf einer Fahrt, bei der das versicherte
Fahrzeug zur gewerbsmÃÃYigen
PersonenbefÃrderung oder gewerbsmÃÃYigen Vermietung
verwendet wird.

Re: Uber cars not covered by insurance

[causality]

it appears that their thought process is, "I'm getting what I want as cheaply as possible, screw everyone else."

Much like the people who buy meat that isn't technically fit for human consumption.

Or any soy product that has not been fermented...

Re:Uber cars not covered by insurance

[Actually, I do RTFA]

What the hell would be the difference for me or my car for what I use it regarding my liability towards anyone I (might) harm?

Because a professional taxi driver is on the road for 8+ hours a day, not just 1 or 2, So they have more risk. They also tend to spend a large amount of Friday and Saturday nights in the bar districts, which seems intuitively like a place loaded with inebriated pedestrians and other drivers - both risk factors.

Would it surprise you to know that the city you live in also affects car insurance rates? At least in the US...

Re: Uber cars not covered by insurance

[gatfirls]

And....?

The extra commercial coverage is for the passenger(s). I guess there's the fringe case where the driver actually runs over the fare but I would bet Uber would take the hit on that one.

Re: Uber cars not covered by insurance

[CrankyFool]

They didn't, last time an Uber drive struck and killed someone.

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/ar...

Re: Uber cars not covered by insurance

[gatfirls]

Did you actually read the article? They weren't his fare, he was not driving to, picking up, or scheduled to pick up a fare. There is no proof to the contrary.

Re:Uber cars not covered by insurance

[youngatheart]

I really like the choice of analogy. I've never used Uber and don't expect to anytime soon, but I'm torn between wanting people to act responsibly (have reasonable insurance) and wanting to see stupid bureaucratic laws (you're commercial because that prevents competition) improved to be understandable and reasonable.

I believe there are a lot of US citizens like me who engage in and abstain from behaviors because it is critical to our employment while we're not actively doing the work we're paid to do. I went to bed early last night because I needed to in order to perform well at my job, got up early today, and I bathed, and I stayed sober, and I drove to work and I took an elevator and I logged into my computer but only then did I start to be considered "doing my job" even though everything leading up to that point was necessary to perform my work. Up until I logged into my computer at my job, I don't think my employer would assume any liability for anything happening to me. It is at that point which I would consider myself at work and I think the law would consider me at work. If I were a chef, I don't think the definition would change at all.

Uber drivers are apparently considered to be at work by this law even before they get to the point when they're actually doing the thing they get paid to do, unlike my situation where I'm not at work until I'm actually prepared to begin doing the thing I get paid to do. That strikes me as unfair.

Sticking to the chef analogy, lets say I'm a freelance private chef, which I think is a pretty good parallel. The expectation I'd have for my job is that I'd get paid starting at the time when I arrive at my destination and am ready to begin cooking. That leaves out the drive to the location, the shopping and planning prior and any semblance of sobriety I felt obligated to maintain. Apparently if I work in Kansas as a freelance private chef, however, I'm on the hook for being on the job from the moment I open my email to see if I have any jobs today.

No job works like that. Cab drivers are on the job when they get in the company vehicle and turn on the dispatch radio, but Uber drivers aren't in a company vehicle and logging into the app is the equivalent of me checking my email.

I grok the problem Kansas is trying to resolve: Kansas requires specific things in order to participate in a market in order to keep the public safe and Uber is not participating in that market in the expected manner and so didn't expect to have to follow the rules that didn't seem to affect the parts of the market they weren't participating in. When you have a situation where the laws don't fit the behavior and you think the laws should be applicable, it is absolutely correct to modify the laws.

So I'm happy to see Kansas taking the approach they have to a problem of legal loopholes by closing the loopholes. At the same time, I'm concerned that in the process, they're also eroding the freedom to engage in commerce without an unreasonable legal burden. If the same thing happened to freelance chefs, they'd go from being able to provide a reasonable service at a reasonable price to being out of business with no gain to the public.

If an Uber driver isn't actively doing something they're paid to do, why are they forced by legislation to do something nobody else logging into an app is forced to do?

I honestly believe that the answer to my question is: This is to use the law to create an artificially high barrier to participating in this type of activity in order to protect the status quo at the cost of the public good. I'm interested to see any better explanations.

Re:Uber cars not covered by insurance

[AK Marc]

It's a subtle point, but a driver going to pick up a fare can get in an accident, and an insurance company can consider that commercial uncovered behavior (the driver was not using the car for pleasure, or commute purposes).

Wait, so commuting from home to your job (the pickup point), is not commuting, but driving from point a to point b to get to a paying job is commuting, so long as you aren't a Uber driver.

Re:Uber cars not covered by insurance

[AK Marc]

If I'm driving from my current location to the location of the customer it is commercial use (I wouldn't be doing it if wasn't working).

That's not the standard. If I'm driving from office A to office B between two offices while on the clock, I'm not using it for commercial use (unless I'm a Uber driver). I've even gotten that in writing from an insurance company. I'm not using it for commercial use while driving to a contract job. So why does that apply if the contract job is to build a house, but not if it's to drive someone as a Uber driver?

Re:Uber cars not covered by insurance

[AK Marc]

Common insurances have low limits. The standard numbers for car insurance won't cover past a cap. Sure, it doesn't invalidate the insurance, but it will result in a lack of coverage past the limits. Home insurance will explicitly not cover items over a set amount, unless previously put on an item list. So your $15,000 diamond necklace is covered for $0, unless previously declared. The idea is to discourage fraud.

Re:Uber cars not covered by insurance

[angel'o'sphere]

Well, we all know the USA are weird regarding that.

The minimum level of car insurances in the USA are unthinkable in Europe, and our policies are cheaper as well as far as I can tell.

Mine is 430â per year and covers 10,000,000 damage to persons in total, limited to max 1,000,000 if onyl a few persons got damaged, and AFAIK in damage to property it is unlimited. Might be that damage to persons got changed to 100,000,000 ... some other European /. er posted that a few posts ahead in the thread. Not sure if he typoed or if the insurance minimums changed ... I never really look at such stuff.

Re:Uber cars not covered by insurance

[angel'o'sphere]

I did not talk about taxi drivers.

We talked about the difference between an commercial insurance and a non commercial one.

And as long as I'm not transporting passengers, I can use my car as much as I want "commercially" and my standard insurance covers it.

Would it surprise you to know that the city you live in also affects car insurance rates? At least in the US...
Same here. For stupid reasons the fact if you own a house effects it, as if house owners drive safer. Obviously they have a statistic pointing out: statistically they have less accidents or such with lower damage. But that is just a statistic, perhaps I should buy a house in the Provence or in Brittany :D

Re:Uber cars not covered by insurance

[AK Marc]

The policies in Europe are much cheaper because there is reduced financial liability. In places with free health care, there is essentially no injury coverage in the auto policy. It isn't needed. In the US, the majority of the cost of the insurance is injury liability.

If the US was no-charge single payer health coverage, then insurance costs could drop. But that'll never happen because it would end the massive health insurance cartel. Also, in the US, the general costs of liability are higher than anywhere else. Too many lawyers.

Re:Uber cars not covered by insurance

[Actually, I do RTFA]

You asked why commercial and non-commercial use is handled differently (in the US). I used a taxi driver as my example, but the same applies if you're hauling big rigs across the US or delivering pizzas door to door.. In fact, none of my verbiage pertains to picking up or having passengers at all. You could replace it with "chulapa delivery guy" and it changes nothing. You're on the road a lot longer, and often exposed to more dangers.

And I doubt your current insurance covers, let's say, driving nuclear waste in your backseat from a power plant to a dump site. Which is a commercial use.

Heck, a lot of people even questioned if you read your policy correctly.

Re:Uber cars not covered by insurance

[angel'o'sphere]

To transport e.g. nuclear waste, you need a special car, that is insured as a "truck", which is obviously commercial.

Insurance have a checkbox: private/commercial, but for most of the stuff only the amount of miles/km per year is relevant.

But it might be that you already need a commercial one if you deliver pizza. At least under the check I just made was the question about delivering parcels.

Heck, a lot of people even questioned if you read your policy correctly Did not read it in decades :D

Re:Uber cars not covered by insurance

[angel'o'sphere]

That is not correct.

First of all in Europe only very few countries have free health care. E.g. Denmark.

And if somebody gets injured via a car accident e.g. the health insurance gets refunded by the liability insurance.

Yeah, the liability costs in the USA are often insane.

Re:Uber cars not covered by insurance

[angel'o'sphere]

That commercial transport is not covered is obvious. Even a "commercial insurance" does that not, you need a special insurance (and a license) to be allowed to transport people.

Re:Uber cars not covered by insurance

[AK Marc]

First of all in Europe only very few countries have free health care. E.g. Denmark.

A quick glance at Wikipedia turns up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... which indicates most of Europe has UHC.

"Virtually all of Europe has either publicly sponsored and regulated universal health care or publicly provided universal healthcare."

Yeah, "very few" it is.

Re:Uber cars not covered by insurance

[angel'o'sphere]

Universal health care does not mean that the health care is free, silly!

The only country I know about where healthcare is _free_ is Denmark, but I guess Sweden and Norway is the same.

I cannot prove it, but I can say it?

[luis_a_espinal]

Well, that and it's a negotiating position where they figure Kansas will cave.

Why should Kansas cave?

Re: I cannot prove it, but I can say it?

[houghi]

What has the Taxi Lobby to do with this? They are not a company that provides Taxi service, or so they claim.

Re: I cannot prove it, but I can say it?

[thaylin]

Who do you think is pushing for these kinds of laws?

Re: I cannot prove it, but I can say it?

[gavron]

The taxi lobby and the insurance lobby are organizations that stand to benefit from this law each in their own way.

The taxi lobby doesn't have to contend with competition from Uber drivers [regardless of your quip about taxi service].
The insurance lobby doesn't have to contend with Uber drivers' increased risk from above-average mileage without additional insurance premiums.

It's a win/win for the existing industries and a lose/lose for Uber drivers and Uber passengers.

E

Re: I cannot prove it, but I can say it?

[rfengr]

Why do you say KS is dying? Overland Park and other area have grown rapidly. Western KS is due to farm consolidation.

Re: I cannot prove it, but I can say it?

[angel'o'sphere]

The taxi lobby ....

But you do know every taxi driver simply can work for Uber instead?

There is no taxi lobby.

Re: I cannot prove it, but I can say it?

[rogoshen1]

Bleeding perhaps?

Re: I cannot prove it, but I can say it?

[jythie]

Well, yes. Having existing laws applied to you is generally a 'lose' when your entire business model depends on skipping those expensive steps others have to play by. It is a win for Uber passengers through.

Re: I cannot prove it, but I can say it?

[Rolgar]

There is not an economic failure in the state. There is a state government revenue shortfall, probably due to Brownback and the other Republicans in the state government trying to emulate Texas' tax code without some of the advantages that state has (lots of oil and multimillionaires), and over optimism about the growth the tax changes would cause.

I have family in rural Kansas, and their school budgets are being hit hard, forcing consolidations between different cities so they can consolidate administrative costs. The result is that some kids are being bussed 10-15 miles from their hometown to another town for school (not counting those that have to be on the bus for as much as half an hour before that because they are on a bus route and live 2-12 miles from town).

In my opinion, school funding should be driven at the local level instead of from the state and federal level. If you cut the taxes the appropriate amount at the state and federal level, then the money will be available for the local governments to raise taxes and pay and prioritize these issues locally (In the poor areas of KC, Topeka and Wichita, the state should pick up the slack). Then instead of people complaining that the state is dictating consolidation, the parents and tax payers in the city will have to face the facts about how much spending is appropriate in a town with 25 children, but at least they will have to come to grips with the facts, and they will have to make a decision made by them and their neighbors instead of the state government in Topeka.

Re: I cannot prove it, but I can say it?

[Bing Tsher E]

Businesses that provide services to a customer base and have been subject to the precedents set by tort law for many decades? Businesses who can't compete with freebooters who jump into a market and assume that by tacking 'on the internet' onto the end of their business plan they can skirt a whole bunch of consumer protection regulations?

I mean, Uber is exactly just an 'on the Internet, with a cellphone' deal. Other than that, it's like any other flim-flam taxi service that just hands a dispatch radio to random drivers who want to give 'being a taxi driver' a try. Which, wait, taxi companies aren't allowed to do!?!

Re: I cannot prove it, but I can say it?

[Lazere]

In Kansas? Not the Taxi companies. You've got to remember, Kansas doesn't have much in the way of "cities", so the taxi companies are actually much poorer than Uber. It adds costs and complexity to their operations as well. Personally, I have no issue with this law. Professional drivers should have stricter insurance requirements than non-professionals. Remember, all it takes to be a professional is being payed for the action. That means Uber drivers are professional, whether they want to call them that is irrelevant. There needs to be some kind of assurance behind these random people carting around. (Besides, Brownback vetoed the bill, so it can't be too bad)

Re: I cannot prove it, but I can say it?

[Half-pint HAL]

Or (more likely) the ones who get injured in accidents and then have to pay for their own hospital bills because the driver's consumer insurance policy specifically states that commercial passenger transport is not covered. This isn't good for the driver either, as he'll lose his house. Professional, insurance is a pretty good thing to have, all told...

Re: I cannot prove it, but I can say it?

[satsuke]

Rural Kansas gets much more in state funding benefits than they do in taxes paid.

if KS did what you suggest, the per-pupil expenditures would plummet in the rural counties and stay the same in the urban / suburban ones.

All that would be great .. in a amoral libertarian world.

The "secret sauce" of Johnson County has been the citizens willingness to pay for the schools. No other county I am aware of has been as willing to approve the bond issues, property tax and sales tax increases that joco has.

Schools in KS are messed up, there is no reason to mess it up more.

Re: I cannot prove it, but I can say it?

[Rich0]

Then instead of people complaining that the state is dictating consolidation, the parents and tax payers in the city will have to face the facts about how much spending is appropriate in a town with 25 children, but at least they will have to come to grips with the facts, and they will have to make a decision made by them and their neighbors instead of the state government in Topeka.

The only problem with this logic is that while they and their neighbors make those decisions, it is their kids who largely have to live with the outcome of those decisions. I don't think that education should be left up to the locality. There is just FAR too much disparity in incomes to make that practical.

Re:I cannot prove it, but I can say it?

[TsuruchiBrian]

Kansas *politicians* might cave because politicians will do anything to get re-elected, and some of those politicians may decide that caving increases their chances of re-election, especially considering Kansas is supposedly a "red state" that thinks the market is better than government regulations.

Re: I cannot prove it, but I can say it?

[Etherwalk]

But Uber's not winning because you can hail them with a phone. (And a taxi company could write that app if it wanted, or a consortium of taxi companies could.) It's winning because it's a fundamentally *better* experience for almost anyone. You know roughly how long it will take to get to your place, which is hit-and-miss with cap companies. You don't have drivers lying to you that their machines aren't working in order to get cash and make off-book profits. You have cars that are actually clean. Close to nine of ten uber rides go very well and without a hitch or deceipt or radically unsafe driving, while with cabs it's closer to 1 of 2.

Put another way, the natural market is allowing these freebooters to win. Legislation should be used to make sure passengers are protected, but even once that's done the taxi companies are going to lose unless they rebrand and radically improve their service.

Re: I cannot prove it, but I can say it?

[AK Marc]

Insurance companies. The requirement to hold a primary auto policy of $1,000,000 or more is restrictive and pointless. There are secondary insurance policies that would cover the same for less. So I think that the insurance companies are probably helping push for some of these restrictions. They would love all Uber drivers to be forced to have $1,000,000 of commercial auto insurance.

UBER UK

[sleiper]

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.

Re:UBER UK

[sleiper]

I have been a private Taxi operator when I was a student so I have a few numbers. If I owned my own car and maintained it and wanted to work within a company structure, I would have paid 40% of my fare to them, this fell to what I earned as a driver of their vehicles to I took 25% of the fare, and was made up to minimum wage if business ran slow. If I took the owner route, on a typical short run of 2 miles my taxi rate without waiting times would have been £7, with £4.20 coming into my pocket. If I was working an UBER rate, I would charge £5.60 for that run with 80% coming back to my pocket which is £4.48. Added up over a night thats a bit extra in my pocket with the customers coming straight to me. I can also spend that time sitting in the rank waiting for customers the old fashioned way, and also have my mobile phone on for phone bookings and for UBER bookings. I can mark myself as unavailable if I am on a long run or just leave it on and use it like my normal scheduler. If I do a long run, between two twos which was another common run at the begining or end of an evening, a 20 mile journey in the cab would cost the customer £42 with £25 in my pocket, the UBER route, 31.50 with the same £25 in my pocket. The system only starts going in the Taxi companies favour on airport runs which would have netted 67.50 vs £61, but that a 50mile journey, and you can pick someone up pretty much 100% of the time to come back. From my point of view it works out much as such the same, I don't have to deal with drunk people and cash.

Not worth it or worth the risk?

[swb]

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.

Re:Not worth it or worth the risk?

[Greystripe]

Considering that the name of the street is State Line it does give you a clue...

Re:Not worth it or worth the risk?

[Half-pint HAL]

Uber has very detailed records, so they would be knowingly facilitating criminal activity if they didn't sanction drivers for crossing the line.

Re:Not worth it or worth the risk?

[nytes]

This brings to mind an interesting question: An Uber driver picks up a prostitute, who happens to be on the way to a client, on the Mo side of the city and drives her to the Ks side.

Could the Uber driver be prosecuted under the Mann Act?

They don't care about the law in the Netherlands.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

New government regulation in Brownbackistan?

[chooks]

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?

Re:New government regulation in Brownbackistan?

[Attila Dimedici]

Did you miss the sentence in the summary which stated that the Governor had vetoed this bill, but the legislature overrode his veto? So, yes, Governor Brownback appears to believe that the marketplace should be able to take care of the question. It is the Kansas State Legislature who disagrees.

Re:New government regulation in Brownbackistan?

[gnasher719]

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 problem is that there is one very well financed business that refuses to play by the rules that were forced for many years on all the other businesses. Giving an unfair advantage to one business isn't "business friendly".

Re:New government regulation in Brownbackistan?

[tehcyder]

Shouldn't the marketplace be allowed to take care of the question?

Yeah, if everything was free market, there would be no crime, children could play in bubblegum fountains in their front yards, and cats would make love to dogs.

Re:New government regulation in Brownbackistan?

[chooks]

LOL - yes - in fact I did miss the veto part, one of the hazards of reading/posting at 7 AM before any caffeine intake...:)

Still, with a legislature that is (arguably?) as conservative as Sam is, it seems like more government regulation goes against the conservative ideals of small government.

Re:New government regulation in Brownbackistan?

[CrankyFool]

Speaking as the owner of three cats and a dog, cats already make dogs their bitches on a regular basis.

Re:New government regulation in Brownbackistan?

[Attila Dimedici]

This law certainly goes against the conservative ideal of small government. However, I have no idea to what degree the legislators of Kansas ran on that conservative ideal. The important point is that this law does not represent hypocrisy on the part of Sam Brownback...and I doubt you would be able to point to statements by the majority of the Kansas legislators which would make this hypocrisy for them (that is, I doubt there is a record, one way or the other, for most of the Kansas legislators on this ideal).

Re:New government regulation in Brownbackistan?

[fluffernutter]

The marketplace HAS. They allowed themselves to be regulated. I'm sure at that time everyone got something out of it. The whole industry is safer, and they operate in more of a closed market. Once a marketplace is regulated, it needs to be regulated across the board. If Uber is allowed to persist then it affects the entire market. It's fairly clear that people won't generally care about the quality of the cars until they are the 1/1000 that destroys their life in an accident and with having no coverage. People don't think of that stuff when they're in a hurry.

Long story short, soon all cars are uninspected personal cars because it is the only way the market works any more.

fight for

[yinbeewa]

Don't fight for your country if your country does not fight for you.

They pretty much requires a commercial policy.

[tlambert]

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?

Re:Duh

[tazan]

They will not lose any money. There is no tourism to KS. If it wasn't in between CO and the eastern US it wouldn't have any visitors at all.

Insurance probably not the real issue

[Anonymous Coward]

The insurance probably isn't the real issue, the real issue is probably that pesky mandatory background check and associated red-tape + associated fees.

derpderpderp

[Fuzi719]

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!

Toto ..

[PPH]

.. I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.

Skirting around the intention of

[fluffernutter]

.. established local law does not equal thinking outside of the box. It just means you can take the criminal aspect one step further.

Wasn't Uber kosher with exactly this in MA?

[taxman_10m]

Background checks and insurance?
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...

The "wild west" days of ridesharing services may be coming to an end. The governor of Massachusetts has proposed a bill that would regulate Uber, Lyft, and their rivals in the state. Among the new rules: ridesharing services would have to run background checks on their drivers and keep a roster of active drivers; vehicles would need to have some external marker indicating that they're a ridesharing car; and drivers would need to hold at $1 million worth of insurance when transporting passengers.

slogans =/= answers, fallacies galore

[luis_a_espinal]

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.

Re:slogans =/= answers, fallacies galore

[AK Marc]

This is circular reasoning.

No, it's not. If you aren't wet, you aren't in a pool. That's not circular reasoning. That's clear, logical, and doesn't depend on itself.

Re:slogans =/= answers, fallacies galore

[luis_a_espinal]

This is circular reasoning.

No, it's not. If you aren't wet, you aren't in a pool. That's not circular reasoning. That's clear, logical, and doesn't depend on itself.

In this case, it is. The anon is stating that apparently his premise is true just because he says so, without proving that it is the case (which is what I asked for in the first place.)

Well, Kansas gubmint doesn't care about people because *I think that's the case*. Apparently, this is the case (*without me having to explain why is the case*).

Doesn't get anymore circular than that .

Re:slogans =/= answers, fallacies galore

[AK Marc]

Sure it does. I just read your post. Your argument is it's circular because it's circular.

I'm rooting for Uber to make it

[kencurry]

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.

Uber won't carry $1M liability? I won't ride.

[gvc]

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?