Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
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.