Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Uber Lowers Drunk Driving Arrests In San Francisco Dramatically

Posted by samzenpus on from the call-for-a-ride dept.

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.

9 of 204 comments (clear)

  1. Uber = Public subsidized by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    1. Re:Uber = Public subsidized by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Uber = Public subsidized by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
  2. Taxis = artificial barriers to competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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....

    1. Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition by Patent+Lover · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  3. Uber didn't exist in 2009 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Insurance subsidy? by AntronArgaiv · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  5. FTFY by Oxygen99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    --
    I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity