Uber Forced Out of Kansas 302
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."
skating on the edge of legal? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:skating on the edge of legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
"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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re:skating on the edge of legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 Uber isn't the problem here, but old outdated legislation is.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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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: (Score:3)
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 e
A spokesman for Uber said (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A spokesman for Uber said (Score:5, Funny)
Uber is just dust in the wind at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They hit the point of know return.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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 t
Not forced... (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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.
I cannot prove it, but I can say it? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, that and it's a negotiating position where they figure Kansas will cave.
Why should Kansas cave?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who do you think is pushing for these kinds of laws?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
The taxi lobby ....
But you do know every taxi driver simply can work for Uber instead?
There is no taxi lobby.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bleeding perhaps?
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Hypermiling?
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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. ... but that might be due to brain dead legislations which could be simplified and put down to more general more basic rules.
Failure rate is pretty high, something around 35 - 50%
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 ri
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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.
Uber cars not covered by insurance (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Uber provides insurance for drivers when they are in commercial use:
http://blog.uber.com/rideshari... [uber.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Uber provides insurance for drivers when they are in commercial use:
http://blog.uber.com/rideshari... [uber.com]
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 thing
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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 d
Re: Uber cars not covered by insurance (Score:4, Informative)
except for the fact uber provides commercial insurance coverage to their drivers.
Re: (Score:3)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Except for the fact that their insurance is only in effect when there is a passenger in the car.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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."
Not worth it or worth the risk? (Score:2)
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 ef
Re:Not worth it or worth the risk? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not forced... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
They pretty much requires a commercial policy. (Score:2)
They pretty much requires a commercial policy.
http://www.kslegislature.org/l... [kslegislature.org]
"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 compa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 t
Re: (Score:2)
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 contr
Sounds completely reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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 fun
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
It's called "Doing a PayPal".
No, we're not a bank at all, look! Puppies!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Except you know they do lend [paypal.com].
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
That didn't work in EU so they became an actual bank in Luxembourg.
Re: (Score:2)
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 beca
Re: (Score:2)
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, s
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 f
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 c
Re: (Score:2)
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 sel
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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).
Comparison with existing taxi laws? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Of course, that hadn't crossed my mind. My enemy's enemy, that sort of stuff.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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 shit
Re: (Score:2)
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.
New government regulation in Brownbackistan? (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Speaking as the owner of three cats and a dog, cats already make dogs their bitches on a regular basis.
Re: (Score:2)