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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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

[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

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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.

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

[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.

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

[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

[dunkelfalke]

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

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

[dsparil]

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

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.

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.

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

[thaylin]

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

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

[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.).

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?

[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:Not worth it or worth the risk?

[Greystripe]

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