C) The option to receive an estimated fare before the rider enters the driver’s personal vehicle;
D) Driver’s picture and the license plate number of the personal vehicle used for
providing prearranged rides.
E) An electronic receipt, within a reasonable time after completion of a trip,
F) Insurance coverage details.
Seems fair.
2. Drivers are required to maintain a minimum level of insurance.
Again, seems reasonable considering they can kill people sitting in the back seat.
3. Zero Tolerance Policy on Use of Drugs or Alcohol. Ok.
4. Drivers are required to submit background information and are subject to both a local and national background check.
I don't see a problem there.
5. Requirements around payment methods, discriminatory practices, records maintenance, and rider confidentiality.
...
And that's it. So what's the problem here exactly? Is Uber's idea of "innovation" synonymous with "we should be able to skirt any laws we like because we create jobs and people use our service."? I admit that this is an extreme comparison and not a direct analogy, but drug dealing creates jobs too. Should we just ignore the down sides?
Am I missing something here? Is there some seemingly benign requirements which is completely unfair and/or overly onerous in implementation?
I agree with you. It doesn't seem far fetched at all to require that information. I don't use Uber but a lot of points in the bill could easily be built into the app (if it's not already).
Seems Uber being blocked out of various states and countries is becoming a regular occurence. Given the massive amounts of capital that Uber have taken, they're in a tricky spot. They're not this little San Francisco tech startup anymore, they're a real and quite big business operating in a heap of countries and different US states. What will Uber do going forward? They need to change the tide, perhaps even start lobbying to get bills approved to legalise their ride sharing service (similar to how taxi lobbyists are doing the opposite). Even here in Australia there is a big anti-Uber campaign going on as well.
1. Drivers are required to disclose or provide:
A) The Fare calculation method.
B) Applicable rates being charged.
C) The option to receive an estimated fare before the rider enters the driver’s personal vehicle;
D) Driver’s picture and the license plate number of the personal vehicle used for providing prearranged rides.
E) An electronic receipt, within a reasonable time after completion of a trip,
F) Insurance coverage details.
Seems fair.
2. Drivers are required to maintain a minimum level of insurance.
Again, seems reasonable considering they can kill people sitting in the back seat.
3. Zero Tolerance Policy on Use of Drugs or Alcohol. Ok.
4. Drivers are required to submit background information and are subject to both a local and national background check.
I don't see a problem there.
5. Requirements around payment methods, discriminatory practices, records maintenance, and rider confidentiality.
...
And that's it. So what's the problem here exactly? Is Uber's idea of "innovation" synonymous with "we should be able to skirt any laws we like because we create jobs and people use our service."? I admit that this is an extreme comparison and not a direct analogy, but drug dealing creates jobs too. Should we just ignore the down sides?
Am I missing something here? Is there some seemingly benign requirements which is completely unfair and/or overly onerous in implementation?
[1]:http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2015_16/measures/documents/...