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?
...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.........
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.
Uber and Lyft will need to make a hardline statement sooner or later.
They should just pull out and let the people's outcry (or lack of one) be heard.
The services are either too scared that their wouldn't be an outcry or they're just too greedy to give up revenue in one market.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
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.
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?
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.
Pretty obvious, let the people of Austin decide, and if Uber doesn't like the results, screw 'em. Some local guy can start up a similar service.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.
False positives? You're saying that taxi drivers appear to have the fingerprints of convicted felons, but actually are not these people?
Fingerprint matching is inexact. If I took your prints and searched the nationwide fingerprint databases, I would get a few hundred matches. Human examination of these matches would exclude most of them, analysis of the metadata, comparing your life history against the lives of the matchees would likely exclude the rest (assuming one of them wasn't actually you). But not always. False positives definitely do happen.
That would overturn the criminal justice system as we know it....
The criminal justice system's over-reliance on fingerprint identification is a problem. http://www.livescience.com/934...
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 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.
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.
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.
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.