Uber Lowers Drunk Driving Arrests In San Francisco Dramatically

schwit1 writes: According to crime statistics from the San Francisco Police Department there were only two drunken driving arrests last New Year's Eve in San Francisco, the lowest since 2009. This news comes on the heels of a new study revealing that the introduction of UberX reduces drunk driving deaths across California. Temple University's Brad Greenwood and Sunil Wattal published a paper that shows cheap taxi-like options make it easier for people to make the safer decision to call for a ride rather than driving home themselves.

Comments

Uber = Public subsidized

[Rei]

Uber rates are of course cheaper because the drivers don't carry commercial insurance, paying regular insurance rates, and thus raising the rates for everyone else as consequence.

Now, if the argument is that public subsidized taxi services can reduce drunk driving rates, then by all means, create public subsidies for taxis operating in areas and times that people often would otherwise drive drunk. Don't just use this hidden, across-the-board, everywhere-at-all-times subsidy-by-insurance-miscategorization.

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, that explains the large jump in my auto insurance.

Wait a second . . .

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[K. S. Kyosuke]

"Commercial insurance"? Against what, drunk people vomiting in the cars?

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[ThatsMyNick]

Not this again. Uber provides insurance, with the same benefits as the commercial insurance. It is a little bit controversial, as Uber insurance is valid only when the driver's Uber app is running and they are "on duty". The rest of the time drivers will have to rely on their own insurance, which may deny any claims, because the car had been used for commercial reasons (even if it was not at the time of accident or the event that leads to the claim).

This is not a public subsidy at all.

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[ciaran2014]

Yes, I think that's the important point: cheap and more convenient taxis reduce drink driving. Increasing the number of taxis is also a way to boost employment, and it specifically boosts employment for people without diplomas and with a good-but-not-perfect level of the local language, which is a group with a higher risk of becoming long term unemployed.

Uber, in its current form, is problematic, but it has at least proven something.

(I don't use Uber. It requires an app that isn't free software and has all the usual privacy problems that come with modern non-free software. But I would like to see drink driving reduced.)

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[Sibko]

Uber rates are of course cheaper because the drivers don't carry commercial insurance, paying regular insurance rates, and thus raising the rates for everyone else as consequence.

Now, if the argument is that public subsidized taxi services can reduce drunk driving rates, then by all means, create public subsidies for taxis

Err... what would be the significant difference between a subsidized taxi service, paid into by all taxpayers, and raised insurance rates paid for by everyone driving vehicles?

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[cryptolemur]

Me thinks GP's point was that there is none. In a sense that if there's working and affordable public transport, people prefer not to drive while intoxicated

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[Arnold Reinhold]

People like me who don't drink and drive pay higher insurance rates to subsidize those drivers that do. Think about it, the insurance exposure for one drunk going home from a bar in the back seat of an Uber vehicle is far less than the insurance exposure for that same drunk behind the wheel of a car driving home. I'd much rather subsidize the added risk of Uber drivers than the risk the drunks they carry.

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[Anonymous Coward]

Rei and his bullshit "externalized" costs and the like.

Seems he's never happy unless people are paying tribute to some Bureaucrat somewhere for some made up, stupid reason.

Tell us all how taking my friend to the airport is any riskier, liability wise, than taking a stranger. It isn't. You're just pissed because someone has managed to find a way around oppressive rules and regulations. Taxi regulation isn't about safety, it's about control and shakedowns.

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[fatgraham]

It doesn't raise the rates for EVERYONE. I find using taxis (and trains) far far cheaper than having a car (motorbike in my case). The cost of taxis in London may be high, but not as much as insurance (due to post-code orientated crime rates), huge parking costs, tax, petrol, maintenance...

Uber rates are cheaper due to lower overhead from their employer/agent, every single driver has told me they get far more work and make more money, and that is mostly due to the lack of heavy up-front cost.

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[Richard_at_work]

In the UK, the way Uber provides their insurance ("only when on a job") would result in drivers being illegal - the driver would still need business-use insurance, even when between jobs.

Re: Uber = Public subsidized

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Cheaper taxis would accomplish the same result, there is nothing magical about uber in and of itself. In my town, pre-uber, the city government offered free cab rides on the weekend to anyone and everyone and it had the same effect, it worked spectacularly, except with the added benefit of drivers having real jobs and being paid and treated well. There is nothing new or remarkable about the sharing economy other than the dubious business practices they seem to for some bizarre reason have legal immunity around.

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[tompaulco]

You're just pissed because someone has managed to find a way around oppressive rules and regulations.

They have not found a way around the oppressive rules and regulations. They just aren't obeying them. If I use an app to hire a hitman, I haven't found a way around all the oppressive anti-conspiracy to commit murder laws.

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[Rei]

Not only is Uber's "on duty" insurance not available when a person isn't "on duty", but the driver still needs personal auto insurance. Uber encourages its drivers to only pay for regular personal insurance, and the insurance companies say that this is a violation of their policy terms. Only recently have insurance companies started offering products to fill in the gaps. They, of course, come with extra premiums.

And of course, sometimes one wonders whether Uber should refer to their "insurance policy" in quotation marks.

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[Rei]

Additionally, subsidizing a ride from, say, the airport at 3 PM does little to fight drunk driving. Subsidizing a ride from a downtown party district at 2 AM certainly does. Drink driving is not at all a constant risk with respect to time or location.

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[argStyopa]

It's not in any sense public subsidized, and it's a pretty huge stretch to assert so.

No, what people are getting in an Uber driver is an unlicensed cab service, with the risks that implies - ie the lack of coverage in case of a catastrophic event.

How is that public-subsidized? (Ok, yes, one can rationalize that if someone is hurt in an uber accident, and they end up on the public welfare, that's somehow public subsidy, but that would be no different than if they had a catastrophic sidewalk accident with no insurance.)

The fact is, that risk is so tiny, people are willing to risk it. (Frankly, I'm surprised that the giant taxi interests haven't "arranged" for some woman to be brutally raped and murdered by a highly-rated uber driver to publicly taint the brand.)

Not to mention, of course, the begged question about public subsidy: what would be wrong with it? Every other fucking thing from massive oil firms to (now) your health insurance is public-subsidized, why not taxis?

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[starless]

Additionally, subsidizing a ride from, say, the airport at 3 PM does little to fight drunk driving. .

Depends how much one has been drinking on the plane - especially if one managed to get that free upgrade to business class with the free booze!

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[Brian Ristuccia]

Uber rates are of course cheaper because the drivers don't carry commercial insurance, paying regular insurance rates, and thus raising the rates for everyone else as consequence.

I'm not sure why this fiction keeps getting repeated. Uber carries commercial insurance covering its drivers to the tune of $100k in primary insurance and $200k in supplemental liability coverage while logged in awaiting a fare and $1 million while dispatched. Those limits are well above what's required for medallion taxis and livery cars in my area.

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[alex67500]

UberX does, not UberPOPs "car sharing" service

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[TWX]

Commercial insurance to cover the medical expenses of severely injured passengers for the rest of their lives or to pay life insurance claims to their dependents if they should die as a result of an auto accident involving the vehicle they're riding in.

Re: Uber = Public subsidized

[Applehu Akbar]

Now try to get your medallion cabs to pick up in a part of town where all the drunks are.

Re: Uber = Public subsidized

[Anonymous Coward]

Reduction in accidents due to impairments will feed back into insurance costs. Imapirments =drugs, distractions. There is also a culling phenomenon on the drivers as Uber/Lyft remove unsafe drivers ruthlessly and data driven-instananeously.

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely wrong. First of all saying that taxing and redistributing to taxis makes any kind of sense instead of having Uber is idiotic. Taxing oppresses everybody who is being taxed,

You are moderated as 'insightfull', I am moderated as 'troll'. Figures.

You say that taxation is "oppression", but don't explain how you think government should be funded (or how you think we could do without it).

So, yeah. Back under the bridge with you. Troll.

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[Fragnet]

I think you've got your argument completely upside down there. You should be asking why commercial insurance is so high, not lamenting Uber's cheapness. And if you want to destroy any kind of commercial innovation, all you need to do is throw a public subsidy at it.

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[amicusNYCL]

Uber rates are of course cheaper because...

The price is not the primary reason I use Uber, I use it because it is easier, more convenient, cleaner, and has better accountability than a phone taxi service. If I knew, for example, that the price of a ride from Uber would always be the same as a standard taxi, I would still use Uber every time. Taxi companies have been slow to upgrade their service to match Uber.

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[TsuruchiBrian]

People picking up their drunk friends also don't carry a commercial license. Why is it even necessary for any taxis to have commercial insurance? Just let the insurance companies decide what to charge people for coverage, and simply have the law require all people to be insured.

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[Cyberax]

These premiums are not terribly high. From your link - it's just a $20 per _year_ surcharge on top of an existing policy. A brand-new commercial insurance policy costs about $500 a month.

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[TsuruchiBrian]

That sounds really good. It sure sucks that you are forced to be crippled and destitute if you are injured in a friend's car. Do we really want a system where you pray that the guy that just hit you is a commercial driver, because if he wasn't you are completely fucked?

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the other way we subsidize Uber that no one like to talk about:

Uber has taken in $6.9B in VC. The firms that can write checks that size all get their money from pension funds, endowments, and trusts. Many of these are public funds. Ever wonder why the public pension funds are really failing? Wall Street/Sand Hill Road took a lot of the money out of them, invested it, and didn't deliver the returns they promised.

Uber does not run a cash flow positive business. The lose money on each ride. That money current comes from their (very large) war chest.

At some point, Uber will need to run a profitable business. Then, we'll start paying taxi rates again.

Luckily, we still have the IPO for them to get more public money to waste. Note that this isn't unique to Uber: just like in the first boom, VC firms heavily monetize firms, grow them and make them look better than they are, pass the buck onto the public via an IPO (and get their return at that point), then let the public deal with the mess they made.

td;tr: our pension funds and endowments are subsidizing Uber today, once they IPO our IRAs and 401(k)s will be doing it, and then we'll just be paying Uber the same rates we currently pay taxis (or Uber will go away).

Fucking brilliant, if you ask me.

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[Firethorn]

Uber rates are of course cheaper because the drivers don't carry commercial insurance, paying regular insurance rates, and thus raising the rates for everyone else as consequence.

Citation, preferably recent? Because there's plenty of news articles that say the opposite. I'm not saying that all drivers are properly covered, but you can find gypsy cabs out there that aren't as well, as well as pizza drivers and such.

I won't dispute that there was some 'shaking out' on who's responsible when on the insurance front.

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[mjm1231]

(Ok, yes, one can rationalize that if someone is hurt in an uber accident, and they end up on the public welfare, that's somehow public subsidy, but that would be no different than if they had a catastrophic sidewalk accident with no insurance.)

The fact is, that risk is so tiny, people are willing to risk it.

Goddammit, the insurance companies are really ripping us off. Why are they charging so much more for car insurance than they do for standing on the sidewalk insurance?

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[ibpooks]

Tell us all how taking my friend to the airport is any riskier, liability wise, than taking a stranger.

Because you take a friend to the airport once or twice a year, not ten times a day.

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[Firethorn]

Drink driving is not at all a constant risk with respect to time or location.

People are creatures of habit though. If they're used to calling up Uber for XYZ driving needs, they're more likely to do so when drunk.

Re: Uber = Public subsidized

[Anonymous Coward]

They do, both uber and Lyft have $1 million policies while their drivers are working.

Re: Uber = Public subsidized

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems crazy to me to have such low liability coverage levels.

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong.. Uber covers the driver and vehicle in-transit to pickup and while customers are in the vehicle with a 1 million dollar policy. This is pretty common FUD being spread and it's a lie.

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[Maxwell]

Uber rates are of course cheaper because the drivers don't pay outrageous fees for a special 'medallion' from a non-driving monopoly/corporate entity .Now, if the argument is that public subsidized taxi services can reduce drunk driving rates, then by all means, create public subsidies for taxis operating in areas and times that people often would otherwise drive drunk. Don't just use this hidden, across-the-board, everywhere-at-all-times subsidy-by-insurance-miscategorization.

FTFY.

Re: Uber = Public subsidized

[Anonymous Coward]

From the Uber website:
From the moment you get into any Uber product (e.g. uberX, UberBLACK) to the moment youâ(TM)re dropped off, your ride is covered by commercial liability insurance. That goes for every trip in every city around the world. In the U.S. specifically, ridesharing has become a popular choiceâ"and Uber is the first company to ensure true end-to-end insurance coverage for ridesharing, with drivers on uberX protected by liability coverage even between trips.

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[Swave An deBwoner]

Goddammit, the insurance companies are really ripping us off. Why are they charging so much more for car insurance than they do for standing on the sidewalk insurance?

Indeed!

http://www.streetsblog.org/2014/12/17/eyes-on-the-street-dodging-drivers-on-the-sidewalk/
http://www.streetsblog.org/2015/07/22/vance-nets-felony-indictment-for-driver-in-beekman-sidewalk-hit-and-run/
http://www.streetsblog.org/2015/07/17/nypd-no-charges-for-driver-who-killed-woman-on-brooklyn-sidewalk/
http://www.streetsblog.org/2015/03/23/no-charges-for-cab-driver-who-killed-two-people-on-bronx-sidewalk/
http://www.streetsblog.org/2014/10/27/its-still-legal-to-run-over-a-child-on-a-new-york-city-sidewalk/

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[stephanruby]

Uber rates are not always cheaper, especially when it comes to picking up many drunk people after the Bart has already closed down and the taxis can't meet the spike in the demand.

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[delt0r]

In Vienna, Austria, Uber is no cheaper than proper taxies. In fact taxies are faster since they are just there waiting outside the pub to take you home. Taxies are fairly highly regulated there, so they don't try and rip you off and rates are fixed.

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that what insurance companies already do. They decided that rather than charge a single price for low-mileage personal use and high-mileage commercial use, that they'd segment the market and charge different rates to reflect the costs of servicing those two market segments. That's why many (all?) personal insurance policies do not cover the driver if they are doing commercial driving. They can lower the cost to the personal market to reflect the costs that the providing that insurance incurs, and have a higher price for commercial policies again to reflect the cost that providing that insurance incurs.

The reason that authorities require a commercial driver to have commercial insurance is so that every member of the public knows that they'll be covered by sufficient insurance if they use that service, rather than having to inspect the insurance documents for the driver every time you flag down a taxi, or call for a mini-cab.

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[misnohmer]

The success of Uber has little to do with the insurance. Their main advantage is the ability to quickly and conveniently find transportation. I've called for a cab in the past, and if you're in the suburbs often was given 45 minute wait times which occasionally stretched to an hour and half. That is why I would call Uber over a cab. Price difference is not negligible but way further down the list of advantages, outweighed even by something as simple as having to know the address of where I am in order to call for a cab ("hey, anybody knows the exact address of this place?"). Saying Uber's main advantage is insurance is like saying digital cameras displayed most conventional film cameras because they are smaller. Yes they are smaller, but that is not their main advantage.

Re:Uber = Public subsidized

[K. S. Kyosuke]

In my country, regular mandatory insurance that every car owner is obligated to have already covers this. (It doesn't cover the vomiting damages, though.) At worst, taxi drivers are quoted higher premiums, but it's the same insurance.

Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Requiring taxis to have a "special" license to do something simple like driving others around is nothing more than an artificial barrier to competition.

Of course, that's what governments do - sell out to lobbying interests. So the solution must be to give governments more money and more power....

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Requiring taxis to have a "special" license to do something simple like driving others around is nothing more than an artificial barrier to competition.

By that same token, requiring people to have a "special" license to do something simple like driving themselves around is nothing more than an artifical barrier to competition.

If we removed all need for driving licenses, more people would be able to drive for themselves, and the inflated prices of taxis would go down.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Because it's the insurance companies that determine that third-party premiums should be higher if you're carrying third parties as paying passengers. The government just says you must have correct insurance. Oh, and they mandate background checks to, you know, protect the public from cab drivers who are paedos or murderers, but yeah we don't want that, obviously.

The problem with you mindlessly pro-uber people is you don't understand why regulations exist in the first place. Just because regulatory system design is hard doesn't mean we don't need regulatory systems. Maybe you're too stupid to realize that Uber is just another regulatory system? Once you grok that you can see that the question isn't about regulations vs no regulations. It's about regulation in the public interest vs regulation towards private interests. Never mind. When Uber is charging more for badges than the state ever did, you'll get it.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Requiring doctors to have a "special" license to do something simple like write a prescription is nothing more than an artificial barrier to competition.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, in theory, there are some good reasons to have a "special" license for people who transport large numbers of strangers. Extra tests in preparation for dealing with situations involving unruly passengers, emergency situations, job/legal requirements, etc would be a good idea. But invariably you're right, it BECOMES a barrier to prevent competition. I looked into getting a semi driving license (CDL) a while back and some of the questions/requirements are just insane and have nothing to do with safety or job activities, they seemed specifically designed to weed people out. And that was just the testing, from what I was told in order to pass the driving test you had to have a semi specifically prepared for that purpose since no on the road semi would ever pass the stringent requirements.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Anonymous Coward]

This so stupid it hurts my head. How is requiring a drivers license which shows proficiency at operating a motor vehicle anywhere near the same as saying you need a license to have a passenger in the car? The anti-uber trolls are so clueless....

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[tompaulco]

Requiring taxis to have a "special" license to do something simple like driving others around is nothing more than an artificial barrier to competition.

Of course, that's what governments do - sell out to lobbying interests. So the solution must be to give governments more money and more power....

If you think that the taxi companies lobbied for this restriction, then you are ignorant or misinformed. But now that the restriction is in place, then why should a newcomer to the field not have to play by the same rules that the taxi companies are forced to play by?

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Requiring taxis to have a "special" license to do something simple like driving others around is nothing more than an artificial barrier to competition.

Of course, that's what governments do - sell out to lobbying interests. So the solution must be to give governments more money and more power....

So you don't think there should be any requirements at all on commercial passenger traffic? That would probably drive Uber out of business as proliferation of gypsy cabs easily could dump prices lower than they can.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[cayenne8]

So you don't think there should be any requirements at all on commercial passenger traffic? That would probably drive Uber out of business as proliferation of gypsy cabs easily could dump prices lower than they can.

Hey, I don't think any of us would argue against MORE competition in this market!!

I think that the gypsy cab thing, however, might not be the super competitor that Uber is, in that they don't have the great app that makes Uber so easy to use.

I just tried Uber for the first time this past week and I was blow away. The cars were all so nice, the drivers so polite and fun to talk with, and the PRICE was right. I also never had to wait more than 5 minutes to get a ride.

The Uber experience is SO much better than the cab experience in New Orleans, and this is a cab oriented city.

The price is easily half of what a cab is...and I too would be much less likely to drive myself when out drinking and have to get home....and just take and Uber that is really very cheap. Let's see...a $30+ cab ride across town or a $16 cab ride across town. Double those for coming back (and you don't have to tip with Uber on top of the fare)...then it becomes economical and a great incentive to leave my car at home. And this is NOLA...face it, EVERY activity here involves drinking before you try to make your way home, so this is a good option.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[TWX]

Quite simply, if you're driving yourself around you're putting yourself at risk. If you have a passenger you're putting that passenger at risk.

Commercial insurance for passenger livery is to ensure that when the inevitable accident happens, that commercial insurance pays for the medical treatment and loss-of-livelihood for that passenger regardless of how badly they're injured, or pays a life-insurance claim to dependents if they're killed. That's a teensy bit higher than the $50,000 coverage levels that are required for consumer automotive policies.

Re: Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[mattwarden]

You seem to be using common sense vs actual knowledge, which is very problematic when talking about government regulations. Insurance products are mostly defined by government (originally modeled by what was in the market at the time of the regulations' creation). Do be allowed to call your insurance product commercial insurance, it must meet the definition set by government.

Further, this is not at all why uber is cheaper than taxis. This insurance issue is a red herring put forth by whining taxi drivers. The cost difference is from artificial monopolies imposed by city officials lobbied by taxi companies and economically ignorant protectionist voters who believe supply must be constrained in order to prop up taxi fees and taxi driver compensation (so that it's a "living wage").

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Je nais grok pas vous. Do you say he does not grok the English?

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Your entire reply puts you firmly in that category. Sorry about that chip on your shoulder though.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[TWX]

I'm not sure that I believe your claims about yourself. You talk about a Commercial Driver's License but fail to use terms like "medium," "heavy," or "class" in your describing your pursuit. I also don't believe that it would be that hard to have a truck pass, especially if one runs through a quick course at a truck-driving school where the school would provide the truck for the driver's test.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Your head hurts because you're stupid. The person you responded to was mocking another post.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[jeffmflanagan]

Grok is standard english. It's been in use for over 50 years.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[hjf]

Gee, one would guess that a person driving a car 8+ hours a day in the city is MORE LIKELY to have an accident than a person driving 1hour a day to/from work in the highway, and because if this he has to PAY MORE.

Just like MOST PEOPLE don't use their internet connection 24/7 so residential connections are often oversubscribed (and cheaper) than dedicated connections.

But this is liber-retard slashdot, anti-tax, anti-regulation, cubicle revolutionaries who expect the "free market" to take care of everything.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[aaarrrgggh]

Specific to New Years Eve, Uber is a great solution. Getting a taxi in San Francisco (or almost anywhere) after midnight is hopeless, which should drive up rates and incentivize additional drivers to participate. This is a specific failure of the regulated taxi industry.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Anonymous Coward]

That must be why the Oxford English Dictionary lists it as 'U.S. slang'.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no special license to drive a cab. You don't need a CDL.

I drove for Yellow Cab in Philadelphia. Four other drivers were hired at the same time as me. They checked our license, including my entry-level, generic-drive-a-car license ("class C"), then the five of us got in a cab with a supervisor and each did some driving. Our five test drives put about a mile and a quarter on the odometer, in toto. Then they sent me out on the street to make money.

The vehicle had a special license (a "medallion"). Not me. All I needed was the same license most people have. Also, I became a Teamster.

Let's not make this already-complicated issue worse with mistaken beliefs.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Patent Lover]

So do drivers in a carpool get extra insurance? We need to ban carpools.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Fragnet]

This is what fully comprehensive insurance is for. I have it. It covers me and my passengers. It costs me £32 a month. IT seems to me that what's going on here is insurance companies contriving with legislators to screw money out of customers (as customers are ultimately paying the insurance premium, not the cab drivers) with entirely fictional "business insurance".

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Anonymous Coward]

(and you don't have to tip with Uber on top of the fare).

If you want to keep your 5 star rating you better tip.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Swave An deBwoner]

I'm pretty sure that most personal insurance policies specifically exclude coverage for damages incurred if the vehicle is used as a business (as opposed to using it to get to and from a business).

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[amRadioHed]

If you're a dangerous driver you're putting everyone else on the road at risk, not just yourself.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[ArmoredDragon]

So no pizza deliveries on regular insurance?

I don't know about anybody else, but my insurance rates haven't gone up one bit since Uber and Lyft have been around. If anything, they've gotten lower.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[praxis]

In the United States, which is where California is, comprehensive insurance does not cover business-use of your vehicle.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[praxis]

On Slashdot, an American-based website for geeks, slang, especially slang from science-fiction is standard usage.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Anonymous Coward]

So no pizza deliveries on regular insurance?

An Internet search does reveal that it should be something to talk to your insurance provider about. Unless you want to risk being denied claims or even be charged with insurance fraud.

Just from the first page of my search:

http://www.carinsurance.com/Ar...

http://thelawdictionary.org/ar...

http://www.carinsurance.com/kb...

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Swave An deBwoner]

ArmoredDragon writes: "So no pizza deliveries on regular insurance?"

Interesting question. According to this discussion on a Pizza Delivery Drivers Forum, apparently not:

http://gregspages.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=32

“Delivery Liability” - If you deliver, put this in ice burg-sized chunks. No further discussion needed. Do not try to use your personal auto policy to cover business exposures. If you use your auto in business, make sure that you either have a business auto policy or that the insurance company knows exactly what you do with the auto. Remember, they have been at this a lot longer than you. They can, and will, see through any subterfuge you can dream up.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[sabri]

It costs me £32 a month.

I'm quite sure the Brits were banned from the U.S. a couple hundred years ago. Please go back to your CCTV-invested shithole that you'd like to call a country.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Cyberax]

BS. Commercial insurance costs about $500 a month, with $1 million coverage for liability. It's not something magical that requires tens of thousands of dollars every month. And all Uber drivers carry it when they are driving with a fare.

So yes, requiring a commercial-level insurance coverage is a prudent step. Requiring Uber drivers to spend millions of dollars to buy a license is not.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Because it's the insurance companies that determine that third-party premiums should be higher if you're carrying third parties as paying passengers. The government just says you must have correct insurance. Oh, and they mandate background checks to, you know, protect the public from cab drivers who are paedos or murderers, but yeah we don't want that, obviously.

The problem with you mindlessly pro-uber people is you don't understand why regulations exist in the first place. Just because regulatory system design is hard doesn't mean we don't need regulatory systems. Maybe you're too stupid to realize that Uber is just another regulatory system? Once you grok that you can see that the question isn't about regulations vs no regulations. It's about regulation in the public interest vs regulation towards private interests. Never mind. When Uber is charging more for badges than the state ever did, you'll get it.

Lol. Isn't that cute, it thinks cabbies aren't criminals.

Heck, around here you are lucky if they have showered in the last month. Most of them look like they've had fat increasing surgery to cover up botched tranny operations... cabbies are the creepiest and scariest group of folks I have had contact with and most definitely they have criminal records. They might check for "not currently wanted by warrant" but that's about it.

On the drunk driving front, who here thinks municipalities and states WANT to curb drunk driving? It's a big moneymaker all around!

The big problem I see is there aren't enough taxi rides available for peak times and too many during most times.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Do the cabs there have medallions? Do the Uber drivers need commercial insurance like cab drivers need? Do the cabs have cameras in them, and if so, what about Uber drivers? Could we just get rid of the requirements that cabs have so they can better compete against Uber?

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[TsuruchiBrian]

So why is it that it is not important to have that kind of safety when you're not in a taxi? Do we really want people to have medical bills they can't afford if they are injured in a friend's car?

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[TsuruchiBrian]

All you mindless anti-uber people who love pointless government regulations that only serve to funnel money to those in positions of power, just don't understand that regulations can sometimes be outdated and/or exploited to the detriment of the public good.

See, it's pretty easy to make a strawman argument.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[fikx]

Look at insurance policies and such and DECIDE if you feel safe with the insurance you have...it's your choice to drive people around but if an accident happens, the driver is the person in the car that needs to cover the damages if liability falls on that car, not the passengers. That means DRIVER insurance may not cover all the damage and the driver themselves have to fork over the cash...
Problem is if you ride on someone's car you assume they will cover in case of the worst, but that may not happen and probably wouldn't happen for commercial drivers if the driver or company could get away with it: that's the difference that matters : how often do you have passengers and how many. Requiring more coverage for commercial drivers to have more coverage and training is a way to mitigate the number of times a person gets injured as a passenger and doesn't realize until too late the driver doesn't have it covered. Commercial drivers have a higher tendency to drive with passengers in the car, hence making them have better coverage at least tries to cover the case.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Gliscameria]

At the very least it shouldn't be full commercial insurance. Maybe the insurance companies should get with the times and work with Uber to offer a per mile rate or something to cover the drivers while they are on the job. Plus, there are plenty of other commercial drivers that do not carry the right insurance, food delivery being a big one.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[TsuruchiBrian]

And you know about all the insurance policies in every state around the country and all the insurance laws regarding taxis in the world, so this guy is clearly full of shit.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[TsuruchiBrian]

why should a newcomer to the field not have to play by the same rules that the taxi companies are forced to play by?

This is a good reason to remove unnecessary laws for all taxis, not force evryone to follow the same bad laws just to be fair. You could even have compensation for those who may have invested a lot of money taxi medallions, by purchasing them back at a recent high market price (not the post uber crash price).

Some regulations are good. Let's keep those. We just need to get rid of the bad ones.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[dotwhynot]

Do the cabs there have medallions? Do the Uber drivers need commercial insurance like cab drivers need? Do the cabs have cameras in them, and if so, what about Uber drivers? Could we just get rid of the requirements that cabs have so they can better compete against Uber?

If you want gypsy taxis (like Uber legally is) then this is the right answer. Not to let Uber skip on requirements put on others, but drop all requirements on all.

Re: Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Pizza delivery services are actually covered with added insurance through the companies they are employed.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a good reason to remove unnecessary laws for all taxis, not force evryone to follow the same bad laws just to be fair.

But that's not what Uber wants. Uber just don't want the laws to apply to them. It's not about freeing all taxis. You can see this with all the defense about how Uber is NOT a taxi company.

If you want freedom for all taxis, Uber is not your ally. Uber defenders who often antagonize other taxi companies are also not your ally, since they, well, antagonize taxi companies. If a group really cares about the freedom of taxi drivers and companies, you'd think they wouldn't paint them as a the villains benefiting from the bad laws.

Re: Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know Uber greased more political palms then Wal-Mart last year?

Did you know Uber is the new taxi cartel, breaking more laws around the world then anyone else?

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Firethorn]

Personal comprehensive insurance does not. Business comprehensive will.

In the USA, 'comprehensive' is an insurance type that covers more than the minimum required 'liability' insurance.

Liability - you hit somebody else, insurance will pay. Smack into a tree yourself? Nada. Your vehicle is stolen? Nope.
Comprehensive covers 'everything' from you hitting somebody else to a windstorm blowing a tree over onto your vehicle parked in your driveway.

The biggest exemption for insurance is indeed that personal insurance doesn't cover you if you're using your vehicle for business - and this means earning money, not driving to/from work, but driving AS work.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Mature.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[mjm1231]

By any chance, have you also gotten any older in that time period?

Also, you are not a statistically significant sample size.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Fragnet]

Mature.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Firethorn]

You'd be covered by your friend's insurance, assuming that he has insurance. Limits are typically $50k or more. I think 'most' states require at least $100k worth per person today.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Firethorn]

If you think that the taxi companies lobbied for this restriction, then you are ignorant or misinformed.

Or perhaps, that it is you that is ignorant or misinformed.

It's called 'regulatory capture'. Because they're already 'in the business', larger businesses can handle larger amounts of regulation, much like how an experienced weightlifter can lift a heavier weight than a newcomer. And when it comes to regulation, the newcomer is typically expected to comply with all the regulations right from the beginning.

As such, usually the only time you get 'new' businesses in such industries is when somebody experienced splits off from an existing company.

They whine and beg against it publicly, but behind doors?

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Firethorn]

They already have. Uber now provides primary insurance from the time the app is 'turned on' until it's turned off. Though you need to be careful of state variations.

Re: Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, another clueless millennial. Learn how liability and insurance work, and while you're at it, learn why people shouldn't be forced to research the insurance coverage of every individual taxi driver. That is why we have commercial licenses.

Are some of the rules stupid? Yep. Should they be changed? Absolutely. Does that give some twerps with a mobile app and their cheerleaders the right to break the law? Nope.

How did things get that way? Well some of it really is corruption but some of it is a reaponse to things that commercial carriers would do to customers, and will do again if they're allowed to because (you may want to remember this when you outgrow that libertarian phase) lots of people aren't honest and try to rip people off or worse.

Do cheap rides help people not drive after drinking? I'm sure they do.

  Also though, since people have figured out by now that the cops are out to ruin pretty much every holiday we have with checkpoints and our comically low threshold for a DUI (well below medical impairment, which is why it takes checkpoints to catch people), many just don't bother going anywhere either.

Re: Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Both uber and Lyft have $1 million dollar policies for each of their drivers just for this situation.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the insurance companies should get with the times and work with Uber

Uber is the one refusing to work with others. They're the ones insisting that they aren't a taxi company so the rules don't apply to them. They're operating in at best a gray area, and interested in keeping it that way. Any "work with" others (especially the law) would lead a clarification of those gray areas.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[ultranova]

Requiring taxis to have a "special" license to do something simple like driving others around is nothing more than an artificial barrier to competition.

Well, obviously. That's what a license is. The question is: is it a necessary barrier?

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Darinbob]

This does not sound like a response to the issues raised by the parent poster though.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Darinbob]

So not showering and being fat makes them criminals?

I'd still rather ride with them than the hipster uber drivers. Though to be honest, I'd rather ride with neither.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[praxis]

I was speaking about personal comprehensive insurance because the person to who I was replying stated that business insurance is a fiction and comprehensive covers everything, including his passengers. Which is true, except that most comprehensive insurance policies exempt business use.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[TsuruchiBrian]

What I am asking TWX, is why it is so important to be covered beyond $50K in taxis, but not in other cars. The reasons of the people touting the need for taxis to have commercial insurance would seem like they should apply to everybody.

I can't imagine medical bills are higher in accidents involving taxis. It seems like the best thing to do would be to figure out how much coverage is necessary to cover medical bills (e.g. 50k 100k or 1 million, etc), force everyone to have that much insurance, and let insurance companies decide how much that much coverage costs for every person based on driving frequency, occupation, previous record, etc.

Having a government mandated separation between commercial and non-commercial insurance seems pointless. If it is important to be covered by a certain $ amount in the event that you are injured by a taxi, it would seem important that you are covered for that amount regardless of the professions of the people involved in the accident.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Firethorn]

Commercial insurance is a thing here in the USA, and I'm sure it's a thing in the UK as well.

Remember that insurance polices attempt to charge based on risk. A commercial driver generally puts in far more miles over much longer times than a private driver. So the risk is higher that they'll be in an accident. So they have to pay a bit more money(they also tend to be professionals and not drive drunk while working, so there's some reduction there).

The problem is that they don't yet have a category to properly insure somebody who drives commercially, but not an extensive amount.

Re: Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Already on our way. In our country we don't enjoy being groped by strangers at airports as much as you people clearly do, which is why we didn't legislate it into existence.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, your comment does not get any upvotes because it does not coincide with the principles of fascism that is /. in the future you should phrase your comments somewhat on the line of uber has an unfair advantage because they do not have to pay their fair share of insurance and their drivers could all be serial killers because they have not paid $750000 to the city for a medallion. you might also want to work the angle that uber drivers pollute the atmosphere with dangerous co2, and that this societal cost is not passed unto the consumer. This is proper /. Rightthink. People just can not be trusted to pay someone to take them somewhere. there needs to be layers and layers of beuaceacy and red tape to ensure everyone is treated fairly.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Anonymous Coward]

The cost of the accident and medical care will always rise to meet the value of the insurance coverage. Why not just require that everyone be insured for 5 trillion dollars? The injury lawyers think this would be a great idea. They would argue that if you can not afford the higher premiums, maybe you just can not afford to drive

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Falconhell]

Yeh it's such a pity you lost civilisation when the British left.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Anonymous Coward]

[citation needed]. Maybe they do in the US, maybe they don't, I've no idea. In Japan or Europe they didn't, and now Uber is largely banned there due to this (and other) "money-saving" shenanigans.

Re: Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[siddesu]

[citation needed].

I've said that in these Uber discussions before, and I'll say it again: I split my time between three or four different countries and everywhere the difference between Uber-like services and 'regular' taxis comes to exactly just a bit less than all tax, license and insurance they should be paying, but don't -- I've made the calculations out of pure curiosity.

Also, strangely, there are Uber-like companies that work over the Internet, service different taxi operators and licensed individuals, provide similar level of quality and speed and are not in conflict with anybody.

Finally, the 'living wage' argument isn't all that bad, apparently there were times when taxis were really dangerous because of the adverse selection of cars and drivers due to the low wages.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[siddesu]

Most libertarians don't know what 'free market' in Adam Smith's sense means and instead are subscribed to the notion that 'free market' is unregulated market. It is an education failure that is simple to correct by reading, but alas, nowadays people get their information from comments on social sites.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Jack Griffin]

BS. Commercial insurance costs about $500 a month,

I was looking at signing up as an Uber driver, simply for some part time fun and a little pocket money. I figure I could work 1 or 2 nights a week and try and earn $100 for beer money . If insurance is $500, then it's not economically viable for me.
Insurance is just as much a con as taxi licenses.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Jack Griffin]

In my country we already have free health care so why would I need this insurance?

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Jack Griffin]

A lot of western countries offer no-cost health care to their citizens, why would these people need extra insurance?

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Jack Griffin]

If you think that the taxi companies lobbied for this restriction, then you are ignorant or misinformed.

So this never happened then?

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[TsuruchiBrian]

They wouldn't, and neither would taxis in those countries.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the costs associated with an accident are not solely health care related. If you are killed, your dependents will need some money to live on, particularly if were the main/sole earner. If you are injured, maybe you won't be able to work any more. How about the cost of adapting your home to allow you to live there after a crippling injury. There are many many non-healthcare related costs associated with an accident. Sure it won't affect the majority of people, but that's the point of insurance, you share the risk with other policy holders so that the small percentage who need vast sums of money in the event of an accident will be covered.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Jack Griffin]

It's a little more complex than that, because as a 'business' you need to have public liability insurance for any legal liability. Even though an injured person may get their hospital cover for free, they can sue a company for inconvenience, loss of future income, damaged property etc caused by an accident. The disconnect is that if I pick up a hitch-hiker, and cause damage, the legal liability is different to if I pick up that exact same person in exchange for reward. The actual liability should be the same, but legally it is treated differently because it's a business. This is the gap that the likes of Uber and Airbnb need to bridge.
Somewhere the law needs to recognise a new type of operator, somewhere between a sole operator and a casual 'share-economy' service provider, and provide necessary legislation to cover this new business model.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[TsuruchiBrian]

Even though an injured person may get their hospital cover for free, they can sue a company for inconvenience, loss of future income, damaged property etc caused by an accident.

So they can just sue uber for those things... What's the problem?

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe, but most people outside of Slashdot would not understand the word.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Cyberax]

You get insurance automatically when you drive with a fare. You don't need to spend anything on it.

What you probably _should_ get is an insurance for yourself when you're driving between fares. For AAA it's an additional $20 a _year_. I'm using Metromiles and it's a 5% surcharge on top of the usual premium.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Gliscameria]

Wow, this is the first time I have ever heard of this. That kind of kills the insurance argument, but it does make them a whole lot closer to an employer than a 'ride sharing service'.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Jack Griffin]

Well this is the issue, Uber and their drivers both claim they aren't employees.
Uber is a new (ish) type of business model, so applying old business model rules doesn't always work.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Jack Griffin]

You get insurance automatically when you drive with a fare. You don't need to spend anything on it.

Uber claim this, but whether this is legally binding is another matter. My insurance company says no, and I'm not prepared to go to court to find out.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[TsuruchiBrian]

Uber can claim whatever it wants, but it is each jurisdiction gets to decide on it's own business rules, including what counts as an employee.

All I am advocating for is better laws, and laws which are incapable of dealing with uber are not good laws.

Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[Cyberax]

Uber has its own insurance that is active when you are driving with a fare. However, it does not cover the time spent driving between fares.

Re: Taxis = artificial barriers to competition

[mattwarden]

Not sure what part you are saying requires a citation. If you are referring to my assertion that governments dictate what defines insurance, you can easily look that up. It's odd to me that you could be pontificating on this subject and not know something as basic as that. But, then again, you didn't specify what you were requiring a citation on, so perhaps I should be giving you more credit.

Uber didn't exist in 2009

[Anonymous Coward]

So if it was lower in 2009, and Uber didn't exist in 2009, it follows that you haven't isolated the drunk drive factor!

Also you then need to figure out what makes them not drunk-drive. If its the easy booking by phone, well taxis can be ordered by phone so the reduction in recent years might be attributed to the easy book-by-smartphone apps, not specifically the unlicensed nature of Uber taxis!

Likewise if its price, then maybe reducing the price of taxis is the solution, rather than replacing taxis with unlicensed ones.

Re:Uber didn't exist in 2009

[Mr D from 63]

So if it was lower in 2009, and Uber didn't exist in 2009, it follows that you haven't isolated the drunk drive factor!

Also you then need to figure out what makes them not drunk-drive. If its the easy booking by phone, well taxis can be ordered by phone so the reduction in recent years might be attributed to the easy book-by-smartphone apps, not specifically the unlicensed nature of Uber taxis!

Likewise if its price, then maybe reducing the price of taxis is the solution, rather than replacing taxis with unlicensed ones.

It does seem that there are likely big correlation holes in this paper. The title should read "student paper suggests there might be a correlation between Uber and reduced drunk driving". But heck, why should accuracy matter when its good PR for Uber?

Re:Uber didn't exist in 2009

[Chris Johnson]

The oil industry has been trying to pay for anti-global-warming papers for ages, according to people I know who were offered money directly and didn't take any.

Maybe the title should read, "Uber offering big bucks for any sort of paper or report which appears to establish positive externalities for them doing exactly what they want" :)

Re:Uber didn't exist in 2009

[Anonymous Coward]

If its the easy booking by phone, well taxis can be ordered by phone

Wow. Maybe that works in San Francisco but in my town, what you just described is so unreliable that it might as well not exist. (Just how many hours do you wait before you give up and assume it's never coming? Because we really are talking about waiting multiple hours.)

Re:Uber didn't exist in 2009

[tompaulco]

I would think booking by phone would be a lot easier than booking by an app. You can actually talk to a person and give them details. Where I live, the bartender will happily do that for you, since you might be too use an app or make a phone call. Also where I live, taxis will deliver you home for free on an ever expanding number of nights if you are too drunk to drive. Although I am sure someone will be along shortly to ruin that for everyone by pretending to be drunk and getting rides home for free (they will only take you home).

Re:Uber didn't exist in 2009

[jittles]

So if it was lower in 2009, and Uber didn't exist in 2009, it follows that you haven't isolated the drunk drive factor!

Also you then need to figure out what makes them not drunk-drive. If its the easy booking by phone, well taxis can be ordered by phone so the reduction in recent years might be attributed to the easy book-by-smartphone apps, not specifically the unlicensed nature of Uber taxis!

Likewise if its price, then maybe reducing the price of taxis is the solution, rather than replacing taxis with unlicensed ones.

I grew up in the Bay Area and a lot of places had free taxi service on new years eve. They do it here where I live now, also. Why would anyone want to drive drunk on NYE? Perhaps there is a long line to get your free taxi.

Re:Uber didn't exist in 2009

[Anonymous Coward]

My brain hurts that this was posted, let alone modded up. As if drunk driving has a single causal factor.

Re:Uber didn't exist in 2009

[Anonymous Coward]

My main complaint about taxis (even before the price) is the lack of transactions even when you call. I don't know how many times we called for a taxi and 40 minutes later, still no taxi. Maybe the app shows a confirmation number at least, and proof that you called and asked for one, and maybe they check your name instead of picking up any drunk person from the sidewalk and driving them home.

Re:Uber didn't exist in 2009

[I4ko]

That is a problem in US only. Back in Europe I lived in a city with 1.5-2 million population in the metropolitan area, and there were 4K licensed cabs. I can count on the fingers of one hand the times in 10 years I had to wait for a cab for more than 8 minutes. Come to the US, take a relatively standard metropolitan area with 4 million population, but just 1K licensed cabs - wait time is between 30 minutes and 2 hours. Now, suppose those 1k cabs jumped to 8k cabs to keep the same ratio as in Europe, the wait will be less than 8 minutes here too.

Re:Uber didn't exist in 2009

[Anonymous Coward]

Likewise if its price, then maybe reducing the price of taxis is the solution, rather than replacing taxis with unlicensed ones.

Good luck with that.

Re:Uber didn't exist in 2009

[Firethorn]

You can actually talk to a person and give them details.

I'm a visual learner though. I consider talking to a person a downside. I can punch an address into the application, verify it on the map, READ the quoted price, SEE the time estimates to be picked up and dropped off, maybe even my ride's current location, etc...

As for being too drunk to use an app, in that case you're likely just trying to get home right? I'm sure your house would be in your 'address book'. Heck, you could have a big red button of an app: 'GET RIDE HOME'.

Although I am sure someone will be along shortly to ruin that for everyone by pretending to be drunk and getting rides home for free (they will only take you home).

Pretending? Why, when actually getting drunk* is so cheap?

*Defined as 'over the legal limit', not 'soused'.

Re:Uber didn't exist in 2009

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, this comment was modified insightful!? Slashdot used to be a place for informed commentary.

The method they used is pretty well accepted. It takes advantage of a set of natural experiments in California over time.

It turns out that Uber came into various cities at different times. So they looked at those cities. They did not just ask, did this city go down. They ask questions like, did this city go down MORE than expected. Because they have a fairly good set of data, they were actually able to answer some questions more specifically.

Uber black vs uberx
Surge vs not
etc

Some of their results show that earlier studies by Uber didn't have as strong a provable effect (they may still be right, but proof wasn't as robust) but they also showed that there WAS a strong effect with low cost / easily available options like UberX. Basically, folks ARE willing to risk driving tipsy / kill someone to save $ or be guaranteed a ride to/from a location. With UberX guaranteeing the ride AND saving money, fewer folks are driving back at 4 AM from random place to home.

Re:Uber didn't exist in 2009

[tompaulco]

Pretending? Why, when actually getting drunk* is so cheap?

Cheap? Maybe if your buying wino wine, but anything you buy at a bar is going to be $6 for a glass of beer. And it takes several of those to get drunk. I don't drink at all, partly for financial reasons, partly because alcohol tastes nasty, partly because I have alcoholics in the family and my grandmother died of kidney failure from lifelong drinking, partly because I am afraid I will get drunk and act as foolish as every drunk person I have ever seen.

Insurance subsidy?

[AntronArgaiv]

Insurance companies should see this as an opportunity to subsidise late night taxi rides for those who have been drinking. It would cost them far less than paying out on a death or inury claim due to a drunk driver.

Re:Insurance subsidy?

[geekmux]

Insurance companies should see this as an opportunity to subsidise late night taxi rides for those who have been drinking. It would cost them far less than paying out on a death or inury claim due to a drunk driver.

Or perhaps ask those who profit the most from getting people drunk in public (the bars) to subsidize that cost instead.

Insurance companies don't solely exist to support drunks, and not every insurance claim revolves around alcohol.

Re:Insurance subsidy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Insurance companies should see this as an opportunity to subsidise late night taxi rides for those who have been drinking. It would cost them far less than paying out on a death or inury claim due to a drunk driver.

Or perhaps ask those who profit the most from getting people drunk in public (the bars) to subsidize that cost instead.

Insurance companies don't solely exist to support drunks, and not every insurance claim revolves around alcohol.

The problem is that we already tax bars and restaurants to pay for other things - stadiums, convention centers, etc - because they supposedly benefit from those. There's a point to how much you can tax a business because before it collapses under the weight of taxes. I guess I don't know why we have to subsidize taxis. Why not subsidize mass transit more? Most cities reduce transit options after work hours. I know that where I live I'm more likely to drive to a bar because buses run every 45 minutes and not at all after midnight.

Re:Insurance subsidy?

[wonkey_monkey]

and not every insurance claim revolves around alcohol.

To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all life's problems.

Re:Insurance subsidy?

[rsimpson]

My (overpriced) insurance company already does this. You get 2 free "rides" a month where people rock up and drive you home in your own car. So not only do you get home safely, so does your car. Heard via the grapevine that it is saving the insurance company quite a bit of money. Other industries are now starting to offer it too. My bank for example offers the same thing (although only twice a year) to make sure I remain alive and continue to give them my money.

Re:Insurance subsidy?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a lawyer who has done this before on holidays in Denver (I'm not sure if he still does it).

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_16977712

Every year, Sawaya estimates, he spends about $20,000 paying for cab rides and advertising ahead of time to make sure people know there is a simple — free — way to avoid driving after drinking.

The free taxi rides are offered four times a year, for the Fourth of July, St. Patrick's Day, Halloween and New Year's.

I don't take cabs very often, but IME unless you're going to or from an airport they are hard to get.

Re:Insurance subsidy?

[operagost]

That's why we have laws (in most areas) against serving intoxicated people-- whether they are driving or not.

Alcohol is already taxed out the wazoo. Liquor licenses are a tax. Business licenses are a tax.

Do we really need to put layered taxes on everything?

Re: Insurance subsidy?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about we bake the cost of the taxi into price of the third drink rather than into the price of my car insurance?

Re:Insurance subsidy?

[tompaulco]

Or perhaps ask those who profit the most from getting people drunk in public (the bars) to subsidize that cost instead.

Why villainize the bar? It is the patron that went to the bar, ordered the drinks and drank the drinks. Make the patron pay the price.

Re:Insurance subsidy?

[BitZtream]

Not when everyone just stops showing moderation and gets trashed because they don't have to drive home, they can just get a cheap cab because its on their insurance.

And then I end up paying way more cause you can rest assured that Insurance companies aren't going to eat the cost.

Re:Insurance subsidy?

[EvilAlphonso]

Where I grew up, there are several volunteer services that do just that for every big party or event. It sounds insane, but it works wonders. They also gamified staying sober... you received stuff if you left the party below the legal limit.

Where I lived 10 years ago, they have free public transport from the pub areas to the residential areas on weekend nights.

Re:Insurance subsidy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Insurance companies usually don't pay if the driver was drunk.

Re:Insurance subsidy?

[Firethorn]

Hm...
24 rides from the insurance company(per year), 2 from the bank, call it another 12 using party specific stuff, another 12 from the bars, etc...

You could probably get drunk every Friday night and never have to pay for a ride.

FTFY

[Oxygen99]

No. Adequate publicly available transport reduces drunk driving arrests in San Francisco dramatically. There. Fixed your headline. No need to thank me.

Re:FTFY

[Wrath0fb0b]

If you lived in SF, you would know that "adequate publicly available transport" is a noun-phrase that refers to Uber, and maybe Lyft.

Re:FTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

and fortunately SF has one of the best systems around. Plenty of cabs too.

there happens to be this little app called Curb that does all the uber stuff without the "break the laws that everyone insisted on" schtick.

Headline goes WAY too far?

[wonkey_monkey]

According to crime statistics from the San Francisco Police Department there were only two drunken driving arrests last New Year's Eve in San Francisco

Those "crime statistics" amount to six numbers. Six. One for each year since 2009. And all of them are below 10. And we're not shown the stats before 2009, which would have helped to work out the normal variation.

This news comes on the heels of a new study revealing that the introduction of UberX reduces drunk driving deaths across California.

While I'm not going to dispute the results of the study mentioned (which covers the whole of California, and presumbly for a longer period than one day a year), it seems way too much to imply from it that Uber was also behind the "reduction" (actually more like a restoration to the 2009 figure) in DUI arrests on one single night of the year.

There must be many more factors to take into account when looking at something so specific as the number of New Year DUI arrests in SF. Temperature and day of the week spring to mind. If New Year 2011/2012 was warmer than average, more people might have gone out to celebrate. It fell on a Saturday - I don't know how public holidays work in the US, but here in the UK that would have meant an extra day off to recover, something people might well factor in when it comes to deciding how steamed to get.

In other news, the world is getting warmer. This news comes hot on the heels of a study that shows 18th-century-style piracy has been declining for centuries!

What's the deal with commercial insurance?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I grok what you're saying, it sounds like the public needs to see some numbers. If taxis have high insurance premiums, then it must be that they have extraordinary risk (maybe due to being on the road an unusually high number many hours per day, or maybe location (perhaps roads around bars and airports are more dangerous)) and therefore pay an unusually high amount of claims per car.

i.e. it sounds like taxis (and Uber vehicles) have a usage pattern which results in them getting into more collisions than other cars, or they get into more serious ones, or they have more people injured.

Is that correct?

(If correct, then I see the point. If not correct, then it sounds like commercial insurance is a scam and the true "subsidee" in this story is the insurance company (and therefore we have found the true lobbying party for the anti-Uber movement in government).)

I think it'd be great for people arguing this issue (either side!) to show insurance claim dollars paid out, by vehicle and also vehicle-mile, for the two different use cases (privately used cars, and shared (taxi-like) cars).

Re:What's the deal with commercial insurance?

[tompaulco]

They drive a lot more miles. More miles means more accidents. They drive strangers around. An incident in a car with a friend is less likely to end up as a claim then an incident in a car with a stranger. Commercial insurance also sometimes covers different drivers driving different vehicles. Driving an unfamiliar car increases risk.
That being said, commercial insurance doesn't HAVE to be more expensive than a regular policy. I have commercial insurance on a truck that my property rental business owns. It is cheaper than my private insurance policy. but it is mostly about mileage. I don't put very many miles on it in a given year. Taxis drive sometimes nearly 24 hours a day when vehicles are shared among different shifts. They can put 100,000 miles on in a year. This is going to expose them to a lot more risk than your usual 15,000 miles per year family car. Also, it will be mostly city driving, which is far more risky than highway driving.

Don't follow your logic

[Anonymous Coward]

You're about to drive home drunk and instead get an Uber driver to take you.

Mileage covered is the same (this isn't an additional journey) and your Uber driver is less likely to have an accident - making everybody safer.

Drunk Driving Arrests went down...

[tompaulco]

More accurate headline: Drunk Driving Arrests went down, and also Uber was there...for most of that period.

Re:Drunk Driving Arrests went down...

[wonkey_monkey]

Even more accurate headline: drunk driving arrests went up, then they went down again, and Uber somethingsomething.

Their math about taxi costs doesn't make any sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Form the article: Sunil Wattal published a paper that shows cheap taxi-like options make it easier for people to make the safer decision to call for a ride rather than driving home themselves.

Why did nobody point out that a night of drinking is insanely expensive compared to getting a cab? I used to get cabs when I would go out drinking and it was about $10 for me to get a ride home. At a big bar/club you could easily spend $10 on 1 drink for a Woman..... How stupid are these people who write this crap?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Of course they mean higher liability coverage

[Anonymous Coward]

But you knew that, right? Or are you just talking about things you don't know anything about?

Re:Their math about taxi costs doesn't make any se

[gnupun]

it was about $10 for me to get a ride home.

That's assuming you live really close to the bar. What if the distance were longer and you had to pay $75-100, each way, so $150 minimum just for the rides? Most people can't afford $200 just for the rides.

The Elephant in the room:

[Anonymous Coward]

Most small/medium/burb cities and counties DON"T have reasonable on demand access to a taxi service like a big city does. And when I mean reasonable, yes that includes fare but also wait time. If I call a cab to come to my place (or pick me up from a club/pub/bar) it probably would take 30-45 min just for them to get to me. Im also having to lookup and "call" some obscure cab company, and give directions to where I am.

Basically calling a cab in most dinky towns and counties is a major pain in the ass, and uber fixes that. /drops mike

Now must be stopped

[Culture20]

Think of the loss of court fees, fines, legal fees, etc. Uber must be stopped!

I'm really anxious about tomorrow's UBER story...

[Rotten]

Uber Helps reducing child abuse in Vatican City?
Uber Lowers corruption in third world countries?
Uber Helps greek economy?
Uber reduces unemployment figures in Detroit metro area?
Uber linked to lower cancer rates in mice?
Uber helps opressed woman in middle east?
HOLD ON! That was last week!

So help me out on this one, let's predict TOMORROW'S UBER HEADLINE IN SLASHDOT!

I'm sure an unlicenced cab service/mafia, can use it's illegal revenue to get the best PR and legal services around, but we all can give a hand to slashdot to keep those headlines coming!

Did Uber sponsor this post on Slashdot?

[berchca]

First of all, there is another, arguable equal, car service company out there (Lyft), but I guess they aren't sponsoring these sort of stories, the sort that say, hey, we had the exact same number of arrests in 2015 that we had back in 2009, so we're improving the world!*

Secondly, a quick glance at the spreadsheet really does make the numbers seem _way_ too small to qualify as , so why are we even seeing this post, or at least not seeing this post under the title, "Uber touts weak statistics in attempt to improve public opinion."

*do we have any reason to believe that drunk driving arrest are like the cost of goods, and should naturally have been higher in 2015 than 2009?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuff said

Free Taxis for drunks

[frnic]

If the price is the issue, then why not make it a requirement to get a taxis license that if someone blows drunk, they ride free and the state reimburses the taxi.

Re:Free Taxis for drunks

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no way that that could be abused.

Getting a CDL

[rsilvergun]

Is a heck of a lot harder than a regular license.

Re:Getting a CDL

[XxtraLarGe]

Yes, but why do you need one? CDL's are typically for driving freight bearing vehicles. I have a chauffeur licence, and it only required a small additional fee & another test, which was not too difficult. That should be sufficient for any driver carrying passengers.

Re:I'm really anxious about tomorrow's UBER story.

[Anonymous Coward]

Taxi is mafia, uber is not. Visit Prague ;)

Re:I'm really anxious about tomorrow's UBER story.

[Nidi62]

So help me out on this one, let's predict TOMORROW'S UBER HEADLINE IN SLASHDOT!

Uber is declared known to cause cancer by the State of California?

Big Trouble

[JimSadler]

Society may claim they want a certain thing but it is almost always a false claim. The city takes in a fortune from drunk drivers as do numerous businesses. If Uber cuts down on drunk driving the system may find a way to stop Uber. I know of a situation in which two cops started pulling over people leaving a certain bar near closing time and almost every car pulled over had a drunk driver. The cops were ordered to stop doing that as it cut down sales at the bar and the city wanted the taxes generated by that bar as it was the only bar in the town. The same is already being mentioned in the case of self driving cars. Cars that can not break traffic laws will bankrupt almost every police department in the nation as law enforcement makes its living over traffic fines. No violations = no police departments. That translates into the system must have violators and will do what it takes to make certain that people break laws.

Uber .

[Anonymous Coward]

... Is there anything it can't do???

How much do you wanna bet

[Plumpaquatsch]

How much do you wanna bet that this will turn out to be statistically wankery at its worst?

Thanks Ueber

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks to this educational marketing material I almost completely forgot the existence of "Mafia Bros of Uber" (tm)

This is why I drive for Uber and Lyft in Detroit

[Anonymous Coward]

• I need the extra money
• Everyone here thinks local taxis are a joke
• I enjoy meeting new and interesting people
• I don't want drunk people on the road killing my family

This is horrible!

[fustakrakich]

Revenue from traffic fines are going down. How are they going to make up for the budget shortfall? I guess they could just average it out and fine Uber for every ticket not written.

Of course it's a public subsidy. Just indirect.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it's a public subsidy. Just indirect.

RE: which may deny any claims, because the car had been used for commercial reasons (even if it was not at the time of accident or the event that leads to the claim).

In other words socialize the risk, privatize the profits.

Everything old is new again.

The old "correlation is not causation" question ..

[Swave An deBwoner]

Did the study exclude the possibility that DUI arrests dramatically decreased not because of the availability of Uber but instead because of reduced police enforcement?

I'm asking this in all seriousness because traffic enforcement in NYC where I live has become nearly nonexistent. So the number of tickets for "failure to yield right of way", "reckless driving", passing a red light, and the rest of the traffic violations has "dramatically decreased" in NYC. But the number of drivers who do these things has increased to the point where it's not only dangerous to ride a bike or to cross the street, with the light, in a crosswalk (one is likely to get hit by a car making a turn on that same green light) but there are numerous instances of vehicles plowing into pedestrians on the sidewalk and crashing through the windows of stores and restaurants. Our mayor Bill deBlasio initiated a "Vision Zero" campaign to control this traffic carnage but it hasn't really accomplished much to date.

many factors

[Anonymous Coward]

to be fair, San Francisco public transit also stays open late and is free on new year's eve; that also helps a lot.

Re:Their math about taxi costs doesn't make any se

[Anonymous Coward]

thats a plane ticket... drink closer to home.

US insurance different than the rest of the world?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm confused. In the US does the insurance company not ask you estimate how many miles you will drive, and occasionally check that against other sources of the information to ensure you're not lying to them? And they figure that against how bad of a driver you've been in the past and your age, no?

In Canada, your insurance will increase as the number of miles you drive increases, along with increases due to tickets and crashes, and driving inexperience. I've heard that's the case pretty much everywhere, but apparently, in San Francisco (according to yourself) they just charge a flat fee for everyone, therefore if someone who drives a lot (or is a shitty driver) joins the "group" the rates for you go up? What a fucked up system! Fuck me, yeah, you are getting fucked. Not sure if it's by Uber though. You should probably get rid of this shitty flat rate legislation. You're getting reamed by it despite Uber! Must be great for drunk drivers and the blind, though. Doesn't matter how much they hit, their insurance only goes up a bit, right?

Or perhaps you're completely full of shit?

I think you're full of shit. Anyone else agree?

Many cabbies really don't like hauling drunks

[Wansu]

... and neither will Uber drivers once they've had enough bad experiences.

They pass out in cabs.
They vomit in cabs.
They become belligerent and refuse to pay or they don't have enough money.
They forget where they're going.

Re:Many cabbies really don't like hauling drunks

[Anonymous Coward]

One difference is that if you call an Uber, the driver already has your credit card info. Also, you don't really see how much the bill is until your card is charged. So the "they become belligerent and refuse to pay or they don't have enough money" doesn't really factor into it. The "they vomit in cabs" issue still applies, but Uber allows the driver to charge a (possibly hefty) car cleaning fee. Again, it's taken directly from the credit card, so there's no issue with belligerent drunks refusing/being unable to pay for it.

The issue here would be how much Uber insulates the driver from issues such as invalid credit cards, credit limit issue and charge-backs. It's Uber that's handling the credit card billing, so as long as they don't try and pass the failure-to-pay on to the driver, financial issues are smoothed over.

Passing out and forgetting where they're going is still a problem, though, but not really a *financial* issue. (If anything, the drunk which sends you around in circles will increase your earnings.)

Nothing new compared to regular taxi service

[sethstorm]

This isn't anything new over the regular, licensed, picks-up-anyone taxi service.

This "study" sounds suspicious enough to be a Uber puff-piece.

To all who are curious

[Anonymous Coward]

I just signed up with Huber and I failed the vehicle inspection, but because the inspector made me promise to fix the problem I was allowed to drive.

Am I gonna fix it? Probably not, because I don't really care and to me it's not that big of a deal.

But I know if I was a taxi, or they followed the stupid laws I wouldn't be making money right now.

Who else will give someone with a criminal record the chance to make a living. I'm not one of those drivers, but they paid their dues and have the right to work just as much as everyone else.

Everyone deserves a second chance no matter what they did, people change. Regulatory systems don't allow that and keep ex con's held down in poverty.

That's my opinion.

And what's with this site calling anonymous posters COWARDLY just because I don't want an account?

Uber Insurance.

[Firethorn]

Yes, Taxis would be expensive, but they're often 'cheaper' in the sense that a taxi business will insure ALL of it's vehicles under an umbrella policy for a fairly major discount. Still not cheap, but there.

However, remember we're looking at Uber and such. Uber's black car services are professional full time drivers with commercial insurance. They're technically not taxis in most locations, but in the same category as dealer convenience shuttles(Where they'll do things like drop you off at work while your car is being worked on).

The question is for the 'part time' drivers. Now, Uber covers you from the time you have a 'match' to dropping off the customer. It even covers you when you have the app on, though they wait for your primary personal insurance to reject you first in that case(does not apply in all states; in some they're now primary there as well). When the app is off and you're driving for personal stuff, then your personal insurance covers you.

All that said, a uber driver who's NOT black-car shouldn't be paying taxi rates, because he's going to be the only driver of the vehicle and it's not going to be getting taxi miles on it.

I'm moving to San Franciso!

[Anonymous Coward]

They have only 2 DUI arrests on New Year's Eve in a city of over 800,000 in just the city proper!!! Man, everybody must be getting away with drunk driving like crazy!

Oh. Maybe it is just that those numbers are some other measure, not, "there were only two drunken driving arrests last New Year's Eve in San Francisco."\

So, no need to read further - article is already epic fail and no trustworthy information may therefore be dervied from it. (Coming up next: One paper by two people does not a scientific conclusion make, aka we may take that Uber gave them happy endings as least hypothesis.)

Safe ride home service.

[Anonymous Coward]

Out where we live there are services that'll drive you and your car home for you.

Cheaper than a cab two ways.

Grok as hipsterness marker?

[billstewart]

Using "grok" might have labeled you as a hippie decades ago. It only labels you as a hipster if you're using it ironically, or if you point out that you were using it before it was retro when you're too young to have been around then.

Medallions == artificial barriers. License !=

[billstewart]

If some states have taxi driver licenses, or chauffeur licenses, or similar licenses that require you to have a higher level of driving skill or rules knowledge, that's not a significant artificial barrier to becoming a taxi driver (as long as there's not a language restriction involved.)

Taxi medallions and similar restrictions on the number of taxis permitted in an city definitely are artificial barriers, but they're more than that - they're a mechanism for taxi companies to extort money from drivers in return for renting them use of the medallion, and to extort money from the public by keeping taxi rates high (to pay the medallion owners, not to keep taxi driver pay high which is the excuse given for those systems existing), and they also restrict taxi access to parts of the city which can afford to pay more for medallion cabs. Friends of mine live in parts of San Francisco where the chance of a yellow cab driving by their front door today are near-zero, and San Francisco limits the number of medallion cabs allowed to operate. And if you live in a poor black part of NYC, good luck getting a cab, at least without walking out to a main avenue. Uber will show up.

insurance company greed

[almechist]

In the United States, which is where California is, comprehensive insurance does not cover business-use of your vehicle.

The thing is, I think in every state in the US (may be wrong) every single driver MUST by law have liability insurance for every vehicle they own. The cost of this insurance is dependent on many things, but the amount of miles driven on a particular car per year is one of the main determinants. So as long as people are honest and stating the true amount of miles driven each year, it's difficult to see how any further insurance can possibly be needed just because someone delivers pizza. Everyone is already covered, period. Note that we're talking about pizza delivery and similar professions only, jobs that don't add any liability factors beyond the amount of miles driven. When you add passengers to the mix there is indeed an increase in liability, so this argument does NOT in fact apply to taxi drivers or absolve Uber. But passenger pickup should be the sole exception, for everything else no further insurance can possibly be needed. Requiring extra insurance for a delivery person smells of insurance company greed, to me.

Well, we can't have THAT now can we ?

[ToddInSF]

After all, the USA excels in keeping people entwined in the criminal justice system, that's arguably the one thing we do best.

it's actually due to my Magic Drunk Stopper

[Anonymous Coward]

I deployed my Magic Drunk Stopper in the city. It must be working.

Or, the legalization of SSM means gay men gotta be home with their spouses and not out drinking like the hetero guys. Nagging ain't just a "female" thing.

Just as legit a theory as Uber.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

[anyGould]

From the Google Docs, they had 2 this year.

They had 3 last year. The last six years is 2,3,5,9,3,2.

So while it's technically true that this was a good year, trying to claim that this is proof of *anything* other than being a very-slightly lower year is marketing BS at it's worst.