# Über No Longer Operating In Kansas



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

"If you want to call a cab in Kansas, it will no longer be an Uber. The company ceased its operations there today after local legislators approved a new law that requires ride-sharing drivers to up their insurance coverage, and undergo a background check from the state's Bureau of Investigation. In a blog post today, Uber said the new bill "makes it impossible for Uber to operate in the state." As such, it stopped accepting rides from its app at 2:45PM local time."

http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/5/8557413/uber-no-longer-operating-in-kansas


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

The only reason I can figure why über opposes background checks is the possibility it will drastically shrink its driver pool.


----------



## newsboy559 (Oct 14, 2014)

Beur said:


> The only reason I can figure why über opposes background checks is the possibility it will drastically shrink its driver pool.


This is also exactly why Uber is lobbying against drug screens in California, because it knows that probably 50% of its driver pool could not pass a simple piss test. Therefore, it would lose a serious amount of drivers, causing even more surges to where it would have to actually raise rates to attract decent and good drivers who do Uber as a choice rather than those who do it because they're unhirable in the general work force.


----------



## suewho (Sep 27, 2014)

Pathetic attitude from a so called $40 billion company. How can anybody believe uber is in it for the long haul if they cant even be f**ked organising insurance for their "partners" and background checks for their "riders".
SERIOUS lack of credibility there uber...... piss poor call T-man....


----------



## Fusion_HAR (Apr 3, 2015)

Its like the shots are being called by a 7 year old. 

"IF I CAN'T HAVE WHAT I WANT, I'M LEAVING!"

"Dude, chill. People are feeding their families with this service. No need to freak out."

"NNNNNO!! HMPH" /Picks up toys and leaves/


----------



## suewho (Sep 27, 2014)

You forgot the bit where they say "its all your fault". Pout.


----------



## unter ling (Sep 29, 2014)

Fusion_HAR said:


> Its like the shots are being called by a 7 year old.
> 
> "IF I CAN'T HAVE WHAT I WANT, I'M LEAVING!"
> 
> ...


 And this is the behavour they instill into the riders. I want a car now, i want to put me and my nine friends into that prius, i want you to wait till i am ready. Every thing on their terms.


----------



## Fusion_HAR (Apr 3, 2015)

unter ling said:


> And this is the behavour they instill into the riders. I want a car now, i want to put me and my nine friends into that prius, i want you to wait till i am ready. Every thing on their terms.


I just got an email warning from UHQ because of my cancelation rate. I stopped waiting more than 5 minutes, stopped playing "Pin the pin on the passenger", and started cancelling on overloaders. I also stopped detailing my car every week. Fares aren't worth it anymore.


----------



## unter ling (Sep 29, 2014)

Fusion_HAR said:


> I just got an email warning from UHQ because of my cancelation rate. I stopped waiting more than 5 minutes, stopped playing "Pin the pin on the passenger", and started cancelling on overloaders. I also stopped detailing my car every week. Fares aren't worth it anymore.


Gold star for you


----------



## suewho (Sep 27, 2014)

Fusion_HAR said:


> I just got an email warning from UHQ because of my cancelation rate. I stopped waiting more than 5 minutes, stopped playing "Pin the pin on the passenger", and started cancelling on overloaders. I also stopped detailing my car every week. Fares aren't worth it anymore.


love your work...


----------



## ChicagoHeat12 (May 6, 2015)

good job!!! I'm only three months and discovered that some things aren't worth the hassle. Now, I cancel after 5 minutes and if they enter a correct address, I cancel. I only drive surges of 1.5 or better and I cancel all rides that inexplicably ping in a surge area but don't have a surge fare( Uber is good at that)


----------



## Tim In Cleveland (Jul 28, 2014)

Do you think cancelling with "rider no show" is being held against you or just your other cancels? I was really ambivalent about not cancelling riders who took 8 minutes to get their butts out of a bar, then took a $4 ride home. I would have gotten $5 if I had cancelled and wouldn't have had to drive.
Minimum fares rip off the driver. It takes 20+ minutes to complete them and gross pay is $1.80 before gas and expenses.


----------



## Lidman (Nov 13, 2014)

Beur said:


> The only reason I can figure why über opposes background checks is the possibility it will drastically shrink its driver pool.


Absolutely !!! Also they prefer to do their own background checks (which are usually insufficient) to squeeze more money from the new driver.


----------



## Lidman (Nov 13, 2014)

LAndreas said:


> The reason Uber takes a principled stance is that it tries to prevent the innovative new TNC marketplace to be subjected to the same political meddling, the same backroom dealings and bureaucratic over regulation that turned the taxi trade into the business we all have come to loathe.
> 
> Kansas' ways are especially odious. The lead negotiator for the legislature is on record to have said that in Kansas "we have our own special way of doing things". If a free market enterprise doesn't want to play ball (=grease palms and subject itself to political interference), then Kansas can make do without. I'm all for it. Have anyone who cannot avoid traveling to flyover country subjected to 1940s era regulated taxi "service". Really, who needs Kansas. I'm with Uber on this one.


What a load of shit this post is. Another one of these Taxi Cartel theories. They are bribing the state officials to keep uber. out lololol . But you can't really andreas for that statement. That is what Travis and co have brainwashed the drivers into thinking.


----------



## Lidman (Nov 13, 2014)

"I conclude that, to make your numbers work, newsboy559newsboy559, you must be a drug abuser. That, or you are throwing around numbers you pulled out of your ass, which makes you look like a dimwitted little moron. Slandering your fellow Uber drivers, assuming you are one, costs you all my respect." 

LAndreas likes to call others trolls. But doesn't name calling fit that same category? Calling someone a drug abuser, or a moron.. Now I'm not above all that. I'm still guilty of name calling on occasion, and im working keep that down. But really, if LAndreas is going to preach about proper mannerism, he should at least practice it himself.


----------



## Orlando_Driver (Jul 14, 2014)

Florida is next to say goodbye to Uber !


----------



## Tim In Cleveland (Jul 28, 2014)

Taxi industry lobbyists and insurance company lobbyists are IN FACT spreading money around to screw over TNC. The insurance company is furious we don't all spend $5k or more per year on commercial policies and taxi companies are IN FACT monopolies. Does your city issue MEDALLIONS? Those are NOT unlimited and proof of monopolies. The large city near me requires you to have a fleet of 150 cars to apply for a taxi company license and you can't get a taxi driver license without working for an established taxi company.
Stick your "conspiracy" claims, they are FACTS.


----------



## Million Miler (May 2, 2015)

While I love the folks in Kansas, 'back in the day' it was hell to truck thru there. I needed a special KCC (Kansas commerce commission) plate on my tractor. We were subject to a ton of harassment from the gendarmes at every truck scale or rural intersection where they would set-up enforcement checks. They would shut a driver down just because they didn't like where you were from… force you to take an 8 hour break then fine you when you got up in the AM. It's amazing this went on for decades….


----------



## Lidman (Nov 13, 2014)

It's nice to see that states are standing up to uber and their bullying.


----------



## Million Miler (May 2, 2015)

$700,000 for a NYC taxi medallion&#8230; incredible! No wonder the taxi companies are skeered&#8230;

http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/medallion/html/home/home.shtml


----------



## unter ling (Sep 29, 2014)

LAndreas said:


> The reason Uber takes a principled stance is that it tries to prevent the innovative new TNC marketplace to be subjected to the same political meddling, the same backroom dealings and bureaucratic over regulation that turned the taxi trade into the business we all have come to loathe.
> 
> Kansas' ways are especially odious. The lead negotiator for the legislature is on record to have said that in Kansas "we have our own special way of doing things". If a free market enterprise doesn't want to play ball (=grease palms and subject itself to political interference), then Kansas can make do without. I'm all for it. Have anyone who cannot avoid traveling to flyover country subjected to 1940s era regulated taxi "service". Really, who needs Kansas. I'm with Uber on this one.


 And the color of your nose is ?


----------



## hanging in there (Oct 1, 2014)

LAndreas said:


> Over the almost two years I've used Uber as pax, the dozens of Uber drivers that drove me were friendly, alert, in control and definitely not substance abusers. As a driver myself for the time being, I am definitely not a drug abuser. I conclude that, to make your numbers work, newsboy559, you must be a drug abuser. That, or you are throwing around numbers you pulled out of your ass, which makes you look like a dimwitted little moron. Slandering your fellow Uber drivers, assuming you are one, costs you all my respect.
> 
> I'm sorry about your predicament of being "unhirable in the general work force", as you self identified yourself to be. It's even sadder that you apparently also feel inadequate keeping up with the other Uberers out there. Remember, if you are hankering for someone to "protect" you and lessen your competition, that usually means that you, Sir, are the weakest link. Pathetic.


I think your argument is pretty weak and further proof of your weak argument is your apparent need for personal attacks on Newsboy.

You cite your circumstantial evidence of your personal experience with a few Uber drivers as well as your own clean state as proof that no
Uber drivers are substance abusers. Well, if that is the case, then what problem do you have with random drug testing? It is not a big deal cost or convenience-wise compared to the assurance to the public that they are indeed getting the "SAFE, reliable and affordable" ride that they bargained for. It seems to me that Uber would be ahead of the game PR-wise by offering that assurance to the public, while also drastically cutting down their potential liabilities and bad press possibilities if and when things go wrong due to bad drivers. P.S. - If Newsboy was indeed a substance abuser then why would he be pro testing?

Since you put so much weight on circumstantial evidence, here's mine. (Feel free to personally attack me at any time, I'm ready.) I've heard a few stories when people get in my cab about Uber cars they had ridden in that reeked of pot smoke, and of Uber drivers asking them if they wanted to "party" with them awhile and share a joint, a bong or whatever. These are people that had decided to not take the risk of getting into another Uber car but rather chose to get into a cab, based on that bad experience. They were frightened and angered by the fact that they had been driven home by someone who was in an altered state, and had paid money for that, given that the whole point of them taking a livery vehicle was to avoid driving home in an altered state.

Is this a common problem? Probably not. But wouldn't you as a person making your living under the Uber spotlight want to have that spotlight shining as pristinely as possible? Why would you NOT be in favor of weeding out even a few bad apples like that, that make you ALL look bad?

Are there drug-using cabbies? YES. But guess what? Sometimes they get weeded out due to the random drug testing that is required of them. I know an ex-cabbie in Newport Beach that got canned. How can that not be a good thing? That NB cabbie made us all look bad.


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona (Mar 18, 2015)




----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

Where the hell did I put that tinfoil hat?


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Please take a moment to answer this Poll:

*(Uber Quits Kansas) Poll |Fingerprint Background Checks & Drug Tests*


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

chi1cabby im an uber driver and I'm in favor of fingerprint checks and drug testing. If you have nothing to hide these shouldn't be an issue.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Uber to pull out of Kansas after Legislature overrides Brownback's veto*
*http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article20280291.html#storylink=cpy*


----------



## LAuberX (Jun 3, 2014)

I just noticed chi1cabby is back!

Call me slow...


----------



## ReviTULize (Sep 29, 2014)

They would rather lose the revenue, than comply. These are battles that cab companies have had for years

It sucks for the drivers and their families


----------



## newsboy559 (Oct 14, 2014)

LAndreas said:


> My (!) argument is weak?? I'm glad you self identified as a cabbie, because your and newsboy559 modus operandi is ringing a bit too familiar (it's straight out of the playbook of the taxi cab co lobbyists working state legislatures nationwide to neuter the pesky new competition to your comfy taxi cab monopolies). Here's how it's played:
> 
> 1) have a plant (newsboy559) post something ridiculous anti-Uber on the Internet. Here it's Newsboy's claim that every second Uber driver in Cali is a drug abuser and would fail a drug test.
> 2) If someone challenges the ridiculousness of same statement, go on attack and shift burden of proof to the person claiming common sense (in my case, I've only pointed out that if newsplant's numbers were true, and he were indeed an Uber driver, as I am, given that every second Uber driver purportedly is a drug pusher, but I am not, newsboy559 therefore must be the addict).
> ...


Yep. You guessesd it. I am a drug addict. My drugs of choice are caffeine and nicotine and i usually consume one or both, sometimes at the same time, multiple times a day.

And no, i am not actually an Uber driver, as of Tuesday because Scruber just pulled out of my state because they can't play by simple rules. Instead, the want to use my little old state as a nationwide example, even though 34 other states or cities have enacted similar or more strict regulations.

Finally, have you ******d lately?


----------



## hanging in there (Oct 1, 2014)

LAndreas said:


> My (!) argument is weak?? I'm glad you self identified as a cabbie, because your and newsboy559 modus operandi is ringing a bit too familiar (it's straight out of the playbook of the taxi cab co lobbyists working state legislatures nationwide to neuter the pesky new competition to your comfy taxi cab monopolies). Here's how it's played:
> 
> 1) have a plant (newsboy559) post something ridiculous anti-Uber on the Internet. Here it's Newsboy's claim that every second Uber driver in Cali is a drug abuser and would fail a drug test.
> 2) If someone challenges the ridiculousness of same statement, go on attack and shift burden of proof to the person claiming common sense (in my case, I've only pointed out that if newsplant's numbers were true, and he were indeed an Uber driver, as I am, given that every second Uber driver purportedly is a drug pusher, but I am not, newsboy559 therefore must be the addict).
> ...


I hate to shatter your glorious well-thought-out conspiracy theories but the honest truth is that I am a simple boring guy who's been driving a cab for the last 8 years, who, like pretty much every other cab driver I know, must on an ongoing basis ask myself if I should or should not switch to driving for Uber/Lift/Sidecar. Hence my interest in this forum.

In the past I was not willing to deal with the insurance gap/potential fraud problem, but with Metromile as an option and more options surely coming up due to pending AB2293 implementation, that is no longer an issue.

I have no agenda, no playbook, no plants, no hatred of Uber or Uber drivers, if anything I hate most of the cab companies I've either worked for or have had contact with. I have nothing to do with cab companies other than deciding one week to the next to renew my lease and drive for them.

I have no reason to lie or make up stories, I promise you that the conversations I've related were true. I wish I had a dashcam and had asked permission to record it, however, you would probably then accuse me of staging the whole thing using taxi plants.

It would be a simple application and a short wait to get on-boarded to be an Uber driver and I already own a spare minivan sitting in my driveway that would be a suitable XL vehicle. If I wanted to I could also just spend $700 to paint my 2014 minivan cab, which also is paid for, and use that for XL as well. So Uber to me is simply one more option for doing business. I wouldn't even have to quit as a taxi driver, I could just take a few weeks off by simply not renewing my lease for a few weeks or whatever, and just try it with the spare minivan. Then I could paint the newer one and use it if I really wanted to get serious.

The issue of drug testing should not be seen as a way for the "evil taxi cartels" to try and put Uber out of business, but rather as a common sense and needed program for ANY and ALL livery drivers, both for public assurance and safety and for the benefit of all legitimate drivers and transportation companies out there to protect their reputation.


----------



## DrJeecheroo (Feb 12, 2015)

Tim In Cleveland said:


> Taxi industry lobbyists and insurance company lobbyists are IN FACT spreading money around to screw over TNC. The insurance company is furious we don't all spend $5k or more per year on commercial policies and taxi companies are IN FACT monopolies. Does your city issue MEDALLIONS? Those are NOT unlimited and proof of monopolies. The large city near me requires you to have a fleet of 150 cars to apply for a taxi company license and you can't get a taxi driver license without working for an established taxi company.
> Stick your "conspiracy" claims, they are FACTS.


You're still hung up on the medallion bit. Well there's more too it then that. Ubers bigger concern is the background/drug checks. What is so difficult about drivers getting a drug and background check with the local authorities? If they have nothing to hide that is.


----------



## DrJeecheroo (Feb 12, 2015)

newsboy559 said:


> Yep. You guessesd it. I am a drug addict. My drugs of choice are caffeine and nicotine and i usually consume one or both, sometimes at the same time, multiple times a day.
> 
> And no, i am not actually an Uber driver, as of Tuesday because Scruber just pulled out of my state because they can't play by simple rules. Instead, the want to use my little old state as a nationwide example, even though 34 other states or cities have enacted similar or more strict regulations.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lidman (Nov 13, 2014)

Now this is a true uber shill if I've ever seen one. When in doubt blame it on the Taxi cartel and medallions.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

LAndreas said:


> I fail to see the public safety issue that needs addressing. I am against drug tests for part time TNC drivers for the same reason that I oppose drug testing welfare recipients. The cost of the added bureaucracy dwarfs any potential gain: in the case of welfare recipients, by fingering the druggies and cutting their benefits (what always goes unanswered is what politicians envision to happen next: these people won't just vanish or starve, you'll probably end up having to incarcerate them, which, since we're dealing with another government bureaucracy, will end up costing taxpayer 100 times what it would've cost to just keep paying the damn junkie his monthly sustenance minimum. In that regard, it never ceases to amaze me how adamant the Republican party appears in increasing the role, cost and responsibilities of public bureacracies - so much for small government..). In the TNC area, I fail to see any good to society from taking hundreds of $$ out of my and the other Uber driver pockets and waste that on costly lab tests that achieve nothing that I don't trust myself as a consumer to be able to determine for myself on the spot: if a junkie pulls up to give me a ride, I'll kindly decline and have Uber send me a sober driver. If you don't trust me to be able to make that assessment myself, you're advocating for a total nanny state. That's because your drug tests can never account for who'll really be behind the wheel of the car pulling up to give you a ride (as a cabbie you'll know that all kinds of "friends" can drive licensed taxi cabs when the owner of the medallions doesn't feel like it). And your drug tests will never be able to tell if I've not just fallen off the waggon as driver and did a line just before accepting your ping, even though I might've been totally sober three weeks ago when you tested me. So you'd need a total surveillance government system to "keep the public safe". Bear in mind that the public never was unsafe - if it weren't for your and other trolls' posts conjuring up risks that don't exist, we wouldn't be talking about druggie drivers being a danger. That's because out of the 1 million or so rides that Uber arranges just in NY, how many innocent old grannies get killed by druggie drivers? Yeah. I can't recall a statistically meaningful series of such incidents either..
> 
> As someone who cherishes freedoms and dislikes big brother bureaucracies (and I thought in this country there'd be a solid majority of like minded Americans), I trust myself as consumer, to weed out any scoff laws much more effectively than any of your bureaucrats can. Therefore the $ billions spent on your test lab bureaucracy and government record keeping is superfluous (in related news, remind me what we've been getting from spending dozens of $billions every year on our Department of Homeland Security - other than memos in triplicate how to take off our shoes when getting in the vicinity of an airport). Any money you advocate to take away from me and divert to a fat cat lab test company owner and a cadre of well paid bureaucracy stooges does more for all of us if it stays in the pocketbooks of us hardworking drivers, because we'll spend that money at the store for productive use, which keeps our economy moving.


and how will you get Uber to send you another driver when the druggie driver is sitting right there and is going to get all the pings?


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

LAndreas said:


> The reason Uber takes a principled stance is that it tries to prevent the innovative new TNC marketplace to be subjected to the same political meddling, the same backroom dealings and bureaucratic over regulation that turned the taxi trade into the business we all have come to loathe.
> 
> Kansas' ways are especially odious. The lead negotiator for the legislature is on record to have said that in Kansas "we have our own special way of doing things". If a free market enterprise doesn't want to play ball (=grease palms and subject itself to political interference), then Kansas can make do without. I'm all for it. Have anyone who cannot avoid traveling to flyover country subjected to 1940s era regulated taxi "service". Really, who needs Kansas. I'm with Uber on this one.


Uber doesn't care that much about Kansas because there's only 2.9 million people in the entire state we have two million plus in the city of Houston never mind the outlying areas which probably bring the closer to 5 million that's why they give a s*** about Houston and not Kansas same thing with New York City and why they gave in to pressure there


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

LAndreas said:


> The reason Uber takes a principled stance is that it tries to prevent the innovative new TNC marketplace to be subjected to the same political meddling, the same backroom dealings and bureaucratic over regulation that turned the taxi trade into the business we all have come to loathe.
> 
> Kansas' ways are especially odious. The lead negotiator for the legislature is on record to have said that in Kansas "we have our own special way of doing things". If a free market enterprise doesn't want to play ball (=grease palms and subject itself to political interference), then Kansas can make do without. I'm all for it. Have anyone who cannot avoid traveling to flyover country subjected to 1940s era regulated taxi "service". Really, who needs Kansas. I'm with Uber on this one.


Alright, let's just put a stop to this use of the word " principled" in sentences also containing the word "UBER"


----------



## RockinEZ (Apr 29, 2015)

Uber is a privately held company expecting an IPO later in 2015. 
Billions of dollars are at stake. 
Uber appears to be doing all it can to hold their current status as a 40 Billion dollar company. 
If Uber is forced to follow state laws, they face having to make drivers employees. 
Uber very much wants to avoid that before the IPO. 
It would effect the valuation of Uber in a big way.


----------



## Lidman (Nov 13, 2014)

I don't know if Travis really wants the IPO. Then he'll be at the mercy of the shareholders.


----------



## RockinEZ (Apr 29, 2015)




----------



## Huberis (Mar 15, 2015)

hanging in there said:


> I hate to shatter your glorious well-thought-out conspiracy theories but the honest truth is that I am a simple boring guy who's been driving a cab for the last 8 years, who, like pretty much every other cab driver I know, must on an ongoing basis ask myself if I should or should not switch to driving for Uber/Lift/Sidecar. Hence my interest in this forum.
> 
> In the past I was not willing to deal with the insurance gap/potential fraud problem, but with Metromile as an option and more options surely coming up due to pending AB2293 implementation, that is no longer an issue.
> 
> ...


I know what you mean.


----------



## Lidman (Nov 13, 2014)

unter ling said:


> And the color of your nose is ?


purple?


----------



## sammy44 (Nov 17, 2014)

if uber goes public, i'll buy their puts. i spent $80 to buy tesla calls, the next day i woke up to $2500. uber puts have potential too.


----------



## RockinEZ (Apr 29, 2015)

Two billion net income/year will be attractive to investors. 
I do believe feeding on your young is a bad business model, but it is working for them now. 
People will buy the stock......


----------



## Huberis (Mar 15, 2015)

stuber said:


> Alright, let's just put a stop to this use of the word " principled" in sentences also containing the word "UBER"


Very disciplined, you passed up a chance to invoke Godwin's law I suspect. Too easy.


----------



## ReviTULize (Sep 29, 2014)

suewho said:


> Pathetic attitude from a so called $40 billion company. How can anybody believe uber is in it for the long haul if they cant even be f**ked organising insurance for their "partners" and background checks for their "riders".
> SERIOUS lack of credibility there uber...... piss poor call T-man....


Whoa!... "Background checks for their " riders"???
Seriously?


----------



## newsboy559 (Oct 14, 2014)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Uber doesn't care that much about Kansas because there's only 2.9 million people in the entire state we have two million plus in the city of Houston never mind the outlying areas which probably bring the closer to 5 million that's why they give a s*** about Houston and not Kansas same thing with New York City and why they gave in to pressure there


That is what i have said from the beginning. Uber could care less about Kansas. They can do this and have very little impact on the business as a whole, but it makes a very hig political statement nationwide.


----------



## suewho (Sep 27, 2014)

ReviTULize said:


> Whoa!... "Background checks for their " riders"???
> Seriously?


i meant that to read " background checks on drivers , to protect their riders" sorry, i have trouble translating australian into american lol


----------



## hanging in there (Oct 1, 2014)

"So you'd need a total surveillance government system to "keep the public safe". Bear in mind that the public never was unsafe - if it weren't for your and other trolls' posts conjuring up risks that don't exist, we wouldn't be talking about druggie drivers being a danger."

I find it amusing that you consider me a "troll". Oh, I see, if anyone has a different opinion than you do, you consider them a troll?

I challenge you to come up with even one post of mine that could be considered "trolling". I promise you everything I post is my heartfelt opinion or conclusion and is not part of any disinformation agenda or whatever it is that trolls do.

So let me throw some more "trolling fodder" into the fire while I'm at it. The way I see it, RANDOM drug and alcohol testing is even more important to have for part-time drivers than for full-time drivers because of the more casual nature and mindset of working part time on a self-determined flexible schedule. IMO there is more of an opportunity for a part-timer to try to squeeze a few rides in between/after "socializing".


----------



## Lidman (Nov 13, 2014)

So carry on my wayward former uberers, they'll be peace now that your thru with them
Lay your weary head to rest, now you can cry for joy.


----------



## John_in_kc (Sep 30, 2014)

Uber will be back in KS. Legislature and Uber are working a compromise that may be voted on this week. (legislative session ends this weekend).


----------



## newsboy559 (Oct 14, 2014)

John_in_kc said:


> Uber will be back in KS. Legislature and Uber are working a compromise that may be voted on this week. (legislative session ends this weekend).


It is looking more and more slim.


----------



## John_in_kc (Sep 30, 2014)

newsboy559 said:


> It is looking more and more slim.


 http://www.bizjournals.com/kansasci...gislators-are-moving-closer-to-deal-with.html


----------



## DrJeecheroo (Feb 12, 2015)

I wonder how Dorothy and Toto will get around.


----------



## John_in_kc (Sep 30, 2014)

DrJeecheroo said:


> I wonder how Dorothy and Toto will get around.


Looks like they can use uber.

http://m.cjonline.com/news/business/2015-05-15/uber-says-bill-would-let-it-stay-kansas#gsc.tab=0


----------



## Prentiss (Aug 18, 2014)

I wonder if the state of Kansas can even come up with one instance in the last year that uber has been their where any ones safety has been threatened?


----------

