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?
Sounds more like Uber & Lyft are still pretending they aren't taxi companies and following the existing law.
Uber and Lyft are fucking taxi services, and they're doing their best to make a shitty job shittier.
i'm older than dirt but over the last 30 years there is a background check for everything and if you screwed up in youth it's virtually impossible to get a good job later in life. even lower end jobs for someone coming out of jail to earn a living WTF is someone supposed to do other than go back to jail?
I think the idea of Uber & Lyft are great- but I really wish they would stop calling it "Ride Sharing" as it totally misrepresents what it is. It's selling! Sharing implies "I was going in the same direction, and I could give you a ride, and I'll split the cost with you." Of course this is what Uber and Lyft want people to think they do.
1. We live in a regulatory democracy.
2. If this cheap process prevents one Austin citizen from being murdered by a wack-o, it is worth every penny.
Austin is a city. I say let Austin do what's right for Austin. They have a system to elect their council and a system to refer disagreements to the voters. That system is at work here.
I live a few hours from Austin. My (much larger) city has certain regulations on who's allowed to drive, too. It's a minor inconvenience to start driving and again every two years. It involves a background check including fingerprinting, a five-panel drug screening, a warrant check, and a vehicle inspection (including having a fire extinguisher within arm's reach of the driver). It's much, much less restrictive than being licensed to be a Houston taxi driver. From the link:
I'm not familiar with the exact regulations for a taxi driver in Austin, but I'd bet Uber and Lyft are complaining about their drivers only having to do part of what's required for a taxi driver there.
Let Austin worry about it. It's Austin's regulation for Austin's people. Now that it's going to a referendum the truest form of democracy you're likely to see on such a scale will take care of it in a locally agreeable way.
Don't give Uber what it wants. Not because it's Uber (which would be a good enough reason in itself), but because history has shown whenever governmental entities deal with corporate entities, the corporation usually comes out on top. It's not that government is stupid - it's just that corporations have a lot more time to concentrate on how to take advantage than government does.
That is all.
Yes
Fingerprinting is a minor, one-time upfront cost, so it isn't an unreasonable regulation.
The cost is hidden.
Unless they destroy the collected fingerprints when the answer is "no", instead of databasing them.
Otherwise, they should just do a DNA swab, and compare it to both solved and unsolved cases, right?
Yeah OK, /sarcasm tag.
But your straw man sucks;
Getting into a car with a complete stranger - who thus has de facto control over your life for that time you're riding together - is very different from going into a store.