Slashdot Mirror
City of Austin Locked In Regulations Battle With Uber, Lyft
AcidPenguin9873 writes: This past fall, the Austin City Council drafted regulations for ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft requiring drivers to submit to fingerprint-based background checks, similar to other taxi services in Austin. Uber and Lyft threatened to leave the Austin market if the fingerprint-based background checks were passed. After lots of heated public comments and debate from both sides, the fingerprint requirements were passed by the council in December. Shortly thereafter, a PAC called Ridesharing Works for Austin was formed, and, with financial backing from Uber and Lyft, delivered a petition with over 25,000 valid signatures to the City that seeks to remove the fingerprint requirement. According to Austin city code, since the petition had enough valid signatures, the City Council was required to either adopt the language in the petition and remove the fingerprint requirement, or hold a referendum election on the issue. This past Thursday, the council declined to adopt the petition, so Austin voters will go to the polls in May to decide how Uber and Lyft should be regulated.
This case is quite interesting and raises a lot of questions. Uber and Lyft have said that their electronic tracking makes them safer than traditional taxi services, and so they shouldn't be subject to the same regulations. However, some citizens and council members don't like corporations strong-arming local government and effectively writing their own regulations. On the other, one of the council members who introduced the fingerprinting requirement had received campaign donations from at least one local taxi company, leading some to question her motives for introducing the stricter regulations for Uber and Lyft, and even going so far as to start a separate petition campaign to recall that council member. What does Slashdot think Austin should do?
This case is quite interesting and raises a lot of questions. Uber and Lyft have said that their electronic tracking makes them safer than traditional taxi services, and so they shouldn't be subject to the same regulations. However, some citizens and council members don't like corporations strong-arming local government and effectively writing their own regulations. On the other, one of the council members who introduced the fingerprinting requirement had received campaign donations from at least one local taxi company, leading some to question her motives for introducing the stricter regulations for Uber and Lyft, and even going so far as to start a separate petition campaign to recall that council member. What does Slashdot think Austin should do?
If the existing taxi drivers are required to have the fingerprints and background checks, Uber and Lyft drivers should have them, too.
If the existing taxi drivers are NOT required to have the checks, then making Uber and Lyft drivers do it is discriminatory.
Except drunk driving accidents and fatalities were up in austin in 2015. Yep that is right, they were up AFTER uber and lyft. And I was also not happy to find out that uber lyft paid people 20 bucks an hour to collect all those signatures. Most people will sign a petition if asked, but getting people to volunteer to collect them is not so easy. I'd like to see uber/lyft foot the bill for the special election they caused. These elections cost taxpayers a few 100K. I know I am voting no to them. Another uber like firm has already said they would do background checks for their drivers. So if this other firm can do it why can't uber?
To pick a nit, the medallion market is a government run monopoly, but the taxi market is not. Some sort of medallion system is necessary; the system will only begin to self-correct for traffic congestion at the point where it becomes uneconomical to sit in traffic. If your fare is paying per minute as well as per mile, this may never happen, and even if that is not the case, an idling car uses very little gasoline.
The situation in Panama City is the end-game for Uber. Anyone can drive a taxi, for a modest license fee. The fares are very low and taxicabs are plentiful. So how do you make money? You skimp on maintenance and insurance, jack up your prices for anyone you don't like, and if the person wants to go somewhere congested, either charge them and only take them a couple blocks, or just refuse service entirely. Also, because of the iron laws of competition, the price of the service is going to be driven down to the lowest amount that will keep the car and driver on the road. If you want to introduce this to America, keep in mind that it's not going to be Uber's fault if their drivers don't make minimum wage and congestion goes wild.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.