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

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.

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

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.

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

[dsparil]

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

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: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.

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

[bws111]

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

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: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: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?

[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]

"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.