Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

City of Austin Locked In Regulations Battle With Uber, Lyft

Posted by timothy on from the will-make-sxsw-interesting dept.

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?

6 of 260 comments (clear)

  1. Again... by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...special interests sending money to govt fighting in order to prevent true competition in industry, and squeeze out the new player in town.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    1. Re:Again... by jasenj1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It may very well be true that existing laws have been crafted in a way to protect entrenched companies. Nothing new there; happens in other industries, too. That does not negate the fact that the government has an interest in ensuring some level of training, insurance, best practices, etc. from service providers. Just as they do for plumbers, construction contractors, lawyers, dentists, beauticians, etc.

      Uber & Lyft don't want any rules to apply to them. That's just as selfish/greedy/evil as protective laws.

  2. Minor, one-time cost by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Fingerprinting is a minor, one-time upfront cost, so it isn't an unreasonable regulation. This isn't like say forcing Uber and Lyft to obey specific payment rules, or requiring medallions that are restricted to a certain number. I'm not sure in general that such fingerprinting is a useful, cost-effective requirement for any taxi type, whether traditional or not, but it doesn't appear to be a rule that only makes sense if one is trying to harm Uber.

    1. Re:Minor, one-time cost by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ) Fingerprints for entry into the job. This is common damned near anywhere professional, simple "do they have any warrants for anything?" check.

      Oh bullshit. I've never seen ANY professional jobs that required fingerprints, except for those requiring government security clearances.

      It's easy to check for warrants on someone, and you sure as hell don't need their fingerprints to do it.

  3. Austin taxi checks are easier than Uber and Lyft's by mynametaken · · Score: 4, Interesting

    An article came out this weekend in Austin that shows the city only requires taxi background checks in one state, Texas, unless the driver lived somewhere else in the last 3 years in which case that state is also checked. Uber and Lyft look at all 50 states. Also, the city does not restrict convicted murderers or sex offenders from getting a taxi license while Uber and Lyft do:

    http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local/austin-screening-of-taxi-drivers-far-from-airtight/nqPwW/

    8 taxi drivers were accused of sexual assault in 2014 in Austin. The data does not show that fingerprinting is effective and in many cases leads to false positives and false negatives. This isn't about a level playing field as that article shows the taxi industry background checks in Austin are much less comprehensive than Uber and Lyft.

  4. Don't Expect by sycodon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Don't expect the Austin City COuncil to abide by the election results. the have a history of ignoring the voters and doing what they want through other, more expensive means.

    Don't be fooled.This is not about Safety. It's about control and city revenue. What the story doesn't mention (ir buries deeply) is that with this regulation, the city wanted 1% of revenues to supposedly pay or the finger printing.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.