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

91–100 of 143 posts

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

#91

Post by dylz »

Swizec wrote: post #83
dylz wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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"

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

#92

Post by jasonlotito »

dantheman wrote: post #17
mahouse wrote: post #6

How despotic! Lawmakers demanding background checks and insurance from taxi drivers! This is outrageous. Where is muh freedom? I want to be able to hire a taxi with a rapist driver! http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/transportation/article/...

Yeah, I mean it's like a background check will protect everyone: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2937996/Woman-33-rap...

That's like saying driving drunk shouldn't be illegal because you drove home safely that one time.

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

#93

Post by elmin »

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…

I'm sorry but your destination is not the same as your race, sex or disability. If a business doesn't want to drive you somewhere, that's not discrimination, it's business.

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

#94

Post by Meiscooldude »

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 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 about not accepting customers that have a service animal, they will end their partnership with that driver.

I agree, the Market can't fix anything, even in a Libertarian world, there is Government. But they should only be there to define the rules of the Game, not control the moves everyone decides to make.

I do agree, just the market would have not made everything all peachy, you do need to set some rules. But its just the limit and overreach of those rules is up for some debate.

KBI background checks, when Uber already does their own. (In a state that is VERY VERY VERY well armed) A State that doesn't support Gay Marriage, that up till 2006 had laws stating black people couldn't live in certain cities. (seriously...)

Just remember... its Governments that ban Gay Marriage, not markets, Governments decide who can and cannot vote, not markets.

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

#95

Post by taco_emoji »

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.)

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

#96

Post by ddingus »

bsbechtel wrote: post #75
amyjess wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this is the case, Uber is being either colossally stupid or both colossally stupid and colossally evil here. You see, big businesses actually love regulation. It raises the barrier to entry and prices smaller competitors out of the market. The only companies who don't like regulation are a) small businesses who risk being priced out of the market and b) monopolists or near-monopolists, who have no competitors left…

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.

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

#97

Post by Dylan16807 »

amyjess wrote: post #90
Dylan16807 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What's wrong with preventing incidents? Privacy issues and companies making hiring decisions on non-work-relevant personal life choices. Do you support background checks for all jobs? Nothing you said is specific to Uber. But there's a reason companies can't ask if you have children, etc.

> 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 crime is truly bad enough, but if they've served their time then they've served their time.

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

#98

Post by Grue3 »

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…

>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.

That's the most absurd thing I've read today. Literally all of these things are the result of oppressive laws passed by the government in the first place. What does marriage have to do with the markets?

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

#99

Post by protomyth »

"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?

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

#100

Post by willis77 »

smackfu wrote: post #50
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…

How does Uber determine when you are picked up? That's the bit that could be gamed.

It only shows when the trip/meter starts.
Post reply on HN