Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber leaves Kansas after lawmakers demand background checks and more insurance

pando.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 143 posts

Re: Uber leaves Kansas after lawmakers demand background checks and more insurance

#101

Post by bsbechtel »

ddingus wrote: post #96
bsbechtel wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make some great points, however I question how big the Kansas market really is. I'm from a 150,000 person city in the Midwest, and there might be 5 taxis operating in town. Kansas has a few bigger cities, but the demand for personal drivers in the Midwest isn't like it is on the coasts.

Isn't this about scale? Sure, the market isn't all that large, but the means, methods, process required to serve it are the same ones that will absolutely be needed to cope with all the different markets, rules, and authorities out there. A billion dollar level company can and should be doing this.

>>Isn't this about scale?

As in you mean there is little additional cost to enter the market? Sure, I'm just saying if they miss out on serving a small market, it's not going to have a huge negative impact.

Re: Uber leaves Kansas after lawmakers demand background checks and more insurance

#102

Post by frandroid »

dylz wrote: post #91
Swizec wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally the main reason I hate cabs, especially in SF, is that most of them feel dirty, old, and not well maintenanced. When you sit inside everything is kind of rattly and broken, things are sometimes duct taped together, the whole car gives you a grimey feeling. I've never once had that with Uber. All cars are fairly new and super shiny. When I sit in an Uber I always feel the car is well maintained and clean et…

I also get harassed about using cards with the cabs, I rarely carry cash (for good reason considering the neighbourhoods I go through), and it's always a "ITS BROKEN CASH ONLY GO TO ATM AND MAKE SURE GIVE ME TIP"

The trick for that: When you are about to enter the cab, ask "Do you take [type] cards?" And then skip that cab if they say they don't. It's magical how the potential of losing a ride suddenly fixes broken card machines.

Re: Uber leaves Kansas after lawmakers demand background checks and more insurance

#103

Post by slayed0 »

Meiscooldude wrote: post #94
discardorama wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Uber is being punished for its bad behavior by the market. I love it how libertarians believe everything will be fixed by a mythical "market". I'm sorry, but if we had left it to the "market", we'd still have separate "white" and "colored" toilets. We'd have no gay marriage. We'd have no voting rights act. The regulation I'm talking about is not being able to discriminate based on the type of passenger or destinati…

Uber doesn't do the discriminating. Anyone who drives for uber technically is an Independent Contractor. I.E. They run their own business... separate but in partnership with Uber. They can refuse based on Destination, but not anything that is forbidden by Law. Such as Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, Handicap, etc... There was a notice to Uber drivers sent from Uber, stating that any driver that gets complaints ab…

It's also governments that require adherence to civil rights laws, not markets. Governments were required to step in to disallow landlords and service providers from discriminating based on race, sexuality, disability, etc when a free market otherwise allowed them to do so. There are two sides to the coin.

Re: Uber leaves Kansas after lawmakers demand background checks and more insurance

#104

Post by bradleyland »

discardorama wrote: post #61
bradleyland wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, you know, don't use Uber. I get that you had a bad experience, but the response to every bad experience should not be regulation. "Surge pricing" is no more a scam than any other market-based pricing mechanism. To be clear, I'm mixed on Uber overall, and I do think they need some regulation, but not with regard to pricing, coverage, or response time. Those are good fits for self-regulating markets. I'm more conce…

> I do think they need some regulation, but not with regard to pricing, Would you rather have a service which charges more to (say) black passengers than white? Or which charges more to go to a poorer part of town a rich part? The regulation I'm talking about is not being able to discriminate based on the type of passenger or destination.

That wasn't clear from your original post. You're also being disingenuous in your argument. No, of course I do not support discrimination on the basis of race or economic class.

Race is not equivalent to "type of passenger or destination" though. The latter is a much more vague definition. Like it or not, things like distance, roadway accessibility, and desired route impact the cost of a fare, and regulating that away isn't something I openly accept as the best solution.

Re: Uber leaves Kansas after lawmakers demand background checks and more insurance

#105

Post by foobarqux »

bradleyland wrote: post #26
discardorama wrote: post #15

If my recent experience is anything, Uber needs some serious regulation. I live in SF, and was flying out of OAK. I had used Uber only once before, a long time ago; but this time, I suggested to the wife that we use Uber again. We had to leave SF at 7:15AM - 7:30AM or so. Around 7:15 I pulled up the app, and saw that there were several cars around (as they usually are). I requested an UberX; punched in the destinatio…

Or, you know, don't use Uber. I get that you had a bad experience, but the response to every bad experience should not be regulation. "Surge pricing" is no more a scam than any other market-based pricing mechanism. To be clear, I'm mixed on Uber overall, and I do think they need some regulation, but not with regard to pricing, coverage, or response time. Those are good fits for self-regulating markets. I'm more conce…

Surge pricing is not competitive-market based pricing. Uber is a price setter.

Re: Uber leaves Kansas after lawmakers demand background checks and more insurance

#106

Post by prostoalex »

discardorama wrote: post #68
clarkmoody wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Uber needs some serious regulation Too often our knee-jerk reaction is to want the government to get involved. But based on your experience, you are probably a) not going to trust Uber again, at least for this sort of ride b) choose a competitor / traditional cab to get you to OAK c) tell all of your friends / HN about your crappy experience, leading to reduced reputation for Uber The end result is that Uber will n…

> Uber is being punished for its bad behavior by the market. I love it how libertarians believe everything will be fixed by a mythical "market". I'm sorry, but if we had left it to the "market", we'd still have separate "white" and "colored" toilets. We'd have no gay marriage. We'd have no voting rights act. The regulation I'm talking about is not being able to discriminate based on the type of passenger or destinati…

Uber driver cannot see the destination precisely to avoid a situation like this.

Even when you enter it, it takes a while to transmit that information only after you get into the vehicle, which leads to these awkward stares "where are we going today?" - "oh, I thought I had it entered in the app" - "oh, hold on then, it takes a minute to update".

Arguably, destination disclosure is a boon to consumers in some situation - you might get a discount on a late night ride from SFO if you're heading towards San Jose, where the driver lives (and was going to drive to anyways) as opposed to Walnut Creek, etc.

Re: Uber leaves Kansas after lawmakers demand background checks and more insurance

#107

Post by foobarqux »

dylz wrote: post #59
discardorama wrote: post #15

If my recent experience is anything, Uber needs some serious regulation. I live in SF, and was flying out of OAK. I had used Uber only once before, a long time ago; but this time, I suggested to the wife that we use Uber again. We had to leave SF at 7:15AM - 7:30AM or so. Around 7:15 I pulled up the app, and saw that there were several cars around (as they usually are). I requested an UberX; punched in the destinatio…

I'm more concerned with why uber/lyft/etc are so popular. They wouldn't be as big as it was if the existing system wasn't literally awful, as someone in SF -- if I wanted a '''real''' taxi, it has a chance to not bother coming several hours later more than anything. And then intentionally taking roundabout routes just to fuck me out of even more fare. And at Santa Ana Metrolink, I had 'taxi' drivers effectively try s…

Uber is popular because they circumvented regulations that limited supply of labor and price controls and can therefore offer cheaper rides.

Re: Uber leaves Kansas after lawmakers demand background checks and more insurance

#108

Post by norea-armozel »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #97
amyjess wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you support background checks for all jobs? Yes. Yes, I do. I'm female, and on top of that, I'm part of a group that is exceptionally vulnerable to hate crimes. I'm glad I work at an company where I don't have to worry about a co-worker being a known rapist.

All right. Well I wish you the best, but be careful. If someone has served their time in prison then that should be the end of the punishment. Common sense restrictions are fine, but they should be eligible for most jobs. It's utterly cruel to pretend someone's punishment is over, then throw them onto the streets with no assistance and near-zero chance of having a life again. By all means keep people locked up if a c…

You're conflating the background check with extra-legal justice. They're not the same. The issue of re-introduction of convicts who have served their sentences is a problem of the State as the State is one who does the punishing.

Re: Uber leaves Kansas after lawmakers demand background checks and more insurance

#109

Post by r00fus »

athenot wrote: post #69
bsbechtel wrote: post #23

To me, this seems to speak volumes about the viability of Uber's business model in the long run. If they can't compete because additional background checks and insurance are needed, is it really a $40B company?

Their long term goal is to rely on self-driving cars, not drivers. So background checks for drivers and commercial insurance for drivers won't be an issue.

But that will only pan out if they've established an entrenched position in the market using human drivers.

A lot can happen in 5 years - I am not expecting self-driving cars to be a mass-market reality before then, if only due to the speed of legislation.

Re: Uber leaves Kansas after lawmakers demand background checks and more insurance

#110

Post by smoorman1024 »

bsbechtel wrote: post #72
smoorman1024 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that they couldn't afford to do the additional background checks and insurance it's obviously a statement they are making and that statement fits right into the 'Randian' views that Travis Kalanick has already been accused of. He thinks that Kansas will come crawling back after Uber is gone but more likely competitors that are willing to deal with regulation (that is probably righteous) will fill the gap. ht…

I guess the market will decide that ;-)

Do you agree that this is their strategy? If you regulate us then we will leave.
Post reply on HN