Uber leaves Kansas after lawmakers demand background checks and more insurance • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by [deleted] » Wed, May 06, 2015, 6:55 PM UTC

discardorama wrote: post #60

fernandotakai wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's strange -- as far as i know, the uber driver will only know your destination after they pick you up (so they cannot do this kind of thing). uber's feature page also say that https://www.uber.com/features -- "After pickup, we show the driver where you’re going..." I also spoke with the drivers I used here in são paulo and they said the same thing: they only get the destination after the pickup and they only get…

I spoke to the driver, as he was loading the suitcase. He clearly knew the destination, even before the ride had started.

[deleted]

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

#122

Post by greiskul » Wed, May 06, 2015, 6:58 PM UTC

taco_emoji wrote: post #95

kaolinite wrote: post #40

It really is incredible how the opinion of Uber has dropped. I used to love Uber - and still do love the Uber service - but now I can't stand the company. I used to buy in to the whole corrupt taxi industry narrative, but now I feel like a fool for believing it (even if it was true at the beginning). It's a shame that there's no alternative, at least that I'm aware of, to UberEXEC/UberLUX. I feel like Uber could have…

Honestly I think 99% of the reason people use Uber and Lyft are the phone apps. If "real" cab companies had an app, I seriously doubt Uber and Lyft would've made such headway. (At least in most cities - I realize there's occasionally specific, localized issues with existing "real" cab companies.)

Yes, in Brazil we have phone apps for calling regular taxis, and at least in the big cities, it's great. You end up with all the regulation that regular taxis have, plus the apps normally have a rating system, so drivers end up caring much more about the quality of the ride.

Uber is having an extra hard time to compete here.

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

#123

Post by discardorama » Wed, May 06, 2015, 7:17 PM UTC

JohnTHaller wrote: post #113

bradleyland wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 awa…

The thing is, there is a huge correlation between race and destination in nearly all major cities. Drivers tend not to want to travel to outer/poorer areas because (1) they are less safe, (2) there are more minorities, (3) they are less likely to be able to pick up a fare for a return trip. So, cabbies used to discriminate based on destination. And, because these destinations correlate with race so well, they'd discr…

> The thing is, there is a huge correlation between race and destination in nearly all major cities.

Exactly. You're at a bar in SF near closing time (2AM) and need a ride to Hunters Point or Bayview? Suddenly, "surge pricing" is in effect! However, if you need a ride to Pac Heights or the Marina? No problem! This may not seem like discrimination based on economic class/race, but it sure is.

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

#124

Post by smokeyj » Wed, May 06, 2015, 7:22 PM UTC

vtlynch wrote: post #86

Dylan16807 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Background checks aren't demanded for a thousand other jobs. An evil person could be hiding almost anywhere. What makes cabs special?

They are often required for jobs that may directly put other people in danger. If you are getting into the backseat of a Uber you don't want the driver to be someone who has had DUIs or a history of dangerous driving. Hairdressers and other similar jobs are indeed regulated in this way - you dont want your ear getting cut off do you?

But the undocumented workers who handle your food, fix your car brakes, built your house and construct the fairground rides get a free pass. I don't understand the mental gymnastics required to support regulating ride sharing before all these other markets. For every bad story about a bad uber experience are 100's of lives spared from people not driving drunk. It's just mind boggling to me. Only blind ideology can make people this stupid. It's like they're afraid of a market solution being orders of magnitudes more efficient than the medallion system. And then we end up with lines like "you dont want your ear getting cut off do you?".

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

#125

Post by istvan__ » Wed, May 06, 2015, 7:23 PM UTC

cozzyd wrote: post #52

istvan__ wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an edge case, and you can think of it as a side effect coming from living in SF, where everybody has to deal with bay bridge problems. I understand your frustration but I would split the blame 50-50 between the city for not providing transportation, and Uber to not red flagging this problem and offer a special solution for this.

SF provides great transportation (via BART) to its own airport and decent transportation (also via BART) to OAK.

BART os not even remotely close to be good, but it is lightyears away from being great. The only thing that is consistent about BART service is the interruption. It is kind of funny how people from US see BART as a great service while people from Europe or other places with excellent public transportation see it as rather expensive and bad. Just one minor example why I refuse to use BART: if I was using it i had to combine with a bus service. The bus service is leaving exactly 1 minute sooner than the BART comes in to the station making sure you have to wait additional 20 minutes. This makes my commute exactly 1 hour (each way) while using BART, while if I am driving it is exactly 20 minutes. The pricing difference is insignificant, does not justify the lost time. If BART was that great, we would see significantly less traffic on 280/101 in the commuting hours.

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

#126

Post by norea-armozel » Wed, May 06, 2015, 7:39 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #117

norea-armozel wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, I should be required to hire someone at a daycare center even if that person was a child molester (unrepentant)? I'm not trying to lure you in the "think of the children" trap, but it's an honest question in light of the potential jobs a person could obtain. If said ex-con child molester was to get a job somewhere else like in meat packing or IT that's different. But if they were to waltz up to a daycare center a…

That's a particularly bad example to argue from, since that is clearly not an example of extra-legal punishment, since child molesters are generally legally forbidden from working with children even after any prison terms is complete, and legal daycare centers often have a positive legal obligation to conduct background checks and exclude such offenders. So, excluding those offenders from isn't extra-legal punishment…

It may not be the best example, but it's an example that highlights the fact that if there's anything in a person's history that could be considered a legitimate risk to the workplace employees, property, and the like then you can't conclude this is a punishment. In the case of Uber, if they did the prescribed background checks in Kansas and they found a percentage of their drivers have been convicted of a DUI and are operating under phony licenses. Would you say it's extra-legal punishment for Uber to kick them off their service? I would think not, but we could narrow the problem to any conviction for a DUI within five years or any conviction for narcotics within the same time span (I think it's actually seven years such convictions still appear on your background check, but I'm not sure either way). Do you think it's extra-legal punishment in that context as well? If so, why should any firm take on the added risk of an ex-con with either of those charges? Can you prove their behaviors at present are consistent with safe driving practices?

That's really what's at stake here for Uber. Taking on a risky driver isn't in their best interest, but they off-load that risk onto the driver and the public at large (externalizing the cost of those drivers habits onto the larger public while internalizing all the profits for their shareholders) which means we're the ones who have to pay the cost of the risky drivers that operate under Uber. If they paid for the risk involved, then I'd have no problem with them operating anywhere. But as I see it, if they're going to play around the legal system which has similar requirements for other industries, this seems to me that they should be subjected to the same legal requirements or that the same legal requirements be nullified for every firm in every industry in the United States (I doubt that will ever happen).

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

#127

Post by gnopgnip » Wed, May 06, 2015, 8:33 PM UTC

taco_emoji wrote: post #95

kaolinite wrote: post #40

It really is incredible how the opinion of Uber has dropped. I used to love Uber - and still do love the Uber service - but now I can't stand the company. I used to buy in to the whole corrupt taxi industry narrative, but now I feel like a fool for believing it (even if it was true at the beginning). It's a shame that there's no alternative, at least that I'm aware of, to UberEXEC/UberLUX. I feel like Uber could have…

Honestly I think 99% of the reason people use Uber and Lyft are the phone apps. If "real" cab companies had an app, I seriously doubt Uber and Lyft would've made such headway. (At least in most cities - I realize there's occasionally specific, localized issues with existing "real" cab companies.)

Flywheel has an app for sf.

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

#128

Post by gnopgnip » Wed, May 06, 2015, 8:39 PM UTC

protomyth wrote: post #99

"Kansas lawmakers want to make sure drivers have insurance that covers the times when a driver has no passengers — and is therefore not covered by business insurance — but is behind the wheel of their work vehicle — and is therefore not covered by personal insurance either." How is this a bad thing? So, in other states, drivers are not covered when they are driving to make a pickup?

In San Francisco an uber driver killed a woman while in between rides and ubers insurance is refusing to pay out. http://m.sfgate.com/news/article/Family-of-SF-girl-killed-by...

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

#129

Post by Dylan16807 » Wed, May 06, 2015, 8:49 PM UTC

amyjess wrote: post #118

Dylan16807 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you refuse to hire someone based on past crimes, that's extra-legal justice. When it becomes widespread enough, the State has two choices: stop said discrimination, or be complicit in it.

So are you saying that I should be required to be friends with rapists? Because refusing to be friends with a rapist is also "extra-legal justice" according to your logic.

You can't refuse to hire someone for race, or family status. It would be reasonable if you couldn't refuse to hire someone for a crime they have already completed a sentence for (unless it's relevant to the job). There already exist some state laws of this sort, especially for crimes that have been expunged.

Friendship is unrelated, and you wouldn't even know if they were a felon.

And non-felons are capable of horrible crimes too. They weren't born felons.

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

#130

Post by stegosaurus » Wed, May 06, 2015, 8:56 PM UTC

stegosaurus wrote: post #8

All of this nonsense about insurance and checks and blah makes me weep for humanity. If I can hitch hike legally, why can't I pay for the same service? Basically it seems to me that regulation has the effect of forcing lifestyles upon people. You can't just sell people things, you have to be a Thing Seller and devote yourself to that regulatory environment and then you can sell some of the people some of the things.…

People replying seem to be missing the point a bit; taking a kind of low view of my knowledge.

I realise fully that insurance and laws and various other things make this situation different. What I'm saying is that this is an odd and nonsensical situation.

If I hitch at the side of the road I can get into a completely random car with a random driver with no trace, digital or paper, and this is not illegal (UK) and shouldn't be IMO.

But if I do the same and pay for the privilege suddenly apparently we have to start worrying about the risk of rape and badly maintained cars and so forth.

One poster asked whether I'd want my wife to get in a car with a convicted rapist.

My wife is an autonomous human being... she can hitch, or hitch and offer to pay, or hold signs up offering a few pounds for a lift, or use Uber, or a licenced taxi company. "Safety" is a variable she can consider whilst doing so.

I don't want my basic interactions with others governed by 'background checks' carried out by the state. If you do, fine. Why do you need to force me?

(I should say that I don't really respect Uber as a business because I feel OSS should be able to do this peer to peer, but that's rather beside the point).

It frustrates me because the safety argument is basically a variant on 'think of the children'. It's difficult to argue against without considering what you lose in the process.

Background checks and licensing and road worthy tests and other regulation tilt the playing field away from me and you and towards wealthy business owners.

What is so wrong with me deciding to jump in my car now and drive people home for a fee? Not a rapist, not a pedophile, just plain jane boring old me? I would like to hear the argument against that, the one that doesn't involve appealing to scare stories of the 1 in 10000 bad cookie.