Slashdot Mirror
Austin Is Conducting Sting Operations Against Ride-Sharing Drivers (examiner.com)
Since the Uber and Lyft ride-sharing apps stopped service in Austin, drunk driving has increased, riders are hunting for alternatives, and the police are conducting undercover sting operations against unauthorized ride-sharing drivers. With Chicago also considering new restrictions on ride-sharing apps, Slashdot reader MarkWhittington shares this report from Austin:
With thousands of drivers and tens of thousands of riders who once depended on ride-sharing services in a lurch, a group called Arcade City has tried to fill the void with a person-to-person site to link up drivers and riders who then negotiate a fare. Of course, according to a story on KVUE, the Austin city government, and the police are on the case. The Austin Police Department has diverted detectives and resources to conduct sting operations on ride-sharing drivers who attempt to operate without official sanction. Undercover operatives will arrange for a ride with an Arcade City driver and then bust them, impounding their vehicle and imposing a fine.
"The first Friday and Saturday after Uber was gone, we were joking that it was like the zombie apocalypse of drunk people," one former ride-sharing driver told Vocative.com. Earlier this month the site compared this year's drunk driving arrests to last years -- and discovered that in the three weeks since Uber and Lyft left Austin, 7.5% more people have been arrested for drunk driving.
"The first Friday and Saturday after Uber was gone, we were joking that it was like the zombie apocalypse of drunk people," one former ride-sharing driver told Vocative.com. Earlier this month the site compared this year's drunk driving arrests to last years -- and discovered that in the three weeks since Uber and Lyft left Austin, 7.5% more people have been arrested for drunk driving.
Most of the people in Austin are in favor of Uber and Lyft operating there, right? So I would think that it would be extremely difficult to convict anyone of these "crimes" in a jury trial. Even if the trial were held in a municipal court in Texas, that requires 6 people to all give a "guilty" verdict; if less than half agree with the law then that's less than 1/64 chance of conviction. (And if held in a district court, less than 1/4096 chance of conviction!)
"Earlier this month the site compared this year's drunk driving arrests to last years -- and discovered that in the three weeks since Uber and Lyft left Austin, 7.5% more people have been arrested for drunk driving."
Other than catering to lobbyists for cash, there's nothing that govts enjoy more than "incidental" revenue. Literal "public safety" is somewhere near the bottom of the list, somewhere after "leaving things in better shape for my successor".
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
Proof that the local government doesn't care about public safety but they do care about their budgets. Can't make their bottom line without DUI convictions and seized vehicles.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
It's nothing to joke about. And trying to blame a lack of taxis for commiting a crime is really pathetic.
Remember, cop$ are there for our $afety. 7.5% $afer now. Citie$ don't $tay $afe for free.
Yeah, gotta shakedown all of those juicy citizens. They are literally walking cash cows! Or driving in this case ;)
Let's see the base claim. More people are being caught drunk driving. This does not mean that they would not have been drunk driving if they could have used Uber. Frankly, even a slight variance isn't establishing a longer trend.
I know a lot of folks would like to create the narrative that it did, but actually establishing causation is a bit harder.
The vast majority of Uber and Lyft drivers are driving without insurance as they operate for pay. I know people are going to point to the article and say: This is why we need Uber/lyft/Sidecar/ a deregulated taxi industry etc. I disagree. If you are operating a vehicle for pay, any amount, and that pay is in any way related to the transport of humans, then you should have sufficient and effective insurance to cover their injury in addition to whatever other liability you may have. I am not certain you should not also have a commercial DL.
The fact that people are being irresponsible and driving themselves while under the influence is not an excuse to lessen driver/operator liability/responsibility. What it does mean is that they are irresponsible. It may also mean we need more taxi drivers/alternative transportation, but not less liability.
Either way, you're fucked.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
always full of drunkards.
Set up a "sting" on the cops.
There are thousands of drivers and riders, right? This is Texas where there are a large number of firearm owners, right?
Shouldn't be any trouble to surround the cops with thousands while video/audio recording and then decide, based on the police reaction, to just loudly protest or to forcibly disarm them and place them under citizen's arrest. There is power in numbers. When the government itself fails to follow the Rule of Law when it comes to the powerful and 'connected', force of numbers is about all you have left.
Or you can do the same things you've always done and get the same results you've always gotten and which has led to this situation to begin with. I seem to remember a saying about dong the same thing repeatedly and yet expecting different results.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
But sorry, we're only friendly to the businesses that pay our politicians influence money, like the taxi-cab authority.
Drunk driving IS a serious crime that kills people. Unfortunately the ridiculously low blood alcohol limits thanks to disgusting organizations like MADD result in arrests of people nowhere near the levels that actually cause accidents. That and the definition of 'alcohol related accident' meaning ANY person involved having a measurable amount of alcohol (including passengers and pedestrians) leads to the inflating of numbers and 'proof' that we need even stupider laws.
Fact: accident and injuries caused by driver impairment happen at levels around .15 and that number has not changed no matter what they've done with the laws. The people you need to be worried about are habitual drunks who have no regard for anything, and that's another thing that laws and checkpoints and other modern bullshit does not change.
So I at least won't joke about actual DUI but I will joke about the laws, and I will insult at every opportunity the profiteering and ruining of countless lives for no reason by our 'justice' system.
It's unlicensed taxi service.
Are they diverting precious resources away to enforce the anti-Uber law or are they making tons of money imposing fees for enforcement. You can't have both...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I live in Austin and many smaller TNCs have moved into the city to fill the market need, and these TNCs are willing to comply with the city ordinances.
Build and fund a proper public transportation system.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You don't know what the word conservative means. The city government aggressively attacked a disruptive industry ... The most liberal city in Texas. The city with the worst traffic. That's typical of the actions of a liberal government ... Liberating their cronies from opposition. Good on uber and left for leaving when the city government spearheaded a campaign to mislead the public.
if incidents of drunk driving go down, do you realise how many --
court clerks ... naw, fuck the lawyers
paramedics
fire fighters
lawyers
judges
undertakers
"piece" officers
hospital janitors
nurses
accounting clerks
doctors
tow truck drivers
insurance adjusters
.
.
.
could be sh_t out of a job?
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
First, I am violently against the idiotic regulations passed by our city council that pushed Uber and Lyft our. But that does not justify bullshit statistics. This 7.5% increase stat is repeated by everyone and its total
It compares number of absolute arrests to same period last year. It does not account for increased population in a rapidly growing area. It does not consider APD force size. It does not consider APD enforcement priorities. It does not consider APD coverage densities downtown vs elsewhere. I could go on.
Enough already. There are plenty of actual facts and actual logic to show how stupid the TNC licensure measures are. We don't need to make shit up and rely on the fact that 90% of Americans failed stats101.
Cmon, if you have friends, call, text or email them for a ride. You never needed an app to do that.
If you're paying for a ride, it's not ride sharing, it's a taxi service. So.. there is just no realistic way that there is some shortage on rides other than due to laziness. Uber is mostly a scam, we are probably better off without it, but there is no real legal reason to ban it.
Uber is offering basically no real value and then asking for a cut.. the resources to make and run the Uber app are almost nothing. Since they don't honestly evaluate drivers, what value are they bringing? That's why Uber must expand rapidly, because it's so easy to copy. At the same time, it's easy to replace because there is no unique service here, just an attempt to use techology to stop Taxi price gouging.
The Taxi service had this coming, but Uber is not a better solution. A better solution is to regulate Taxi prices so they stop ripping people off. A Taxi service is far more likely to provide an experienced driver than Uber, it's that simple.
Taxi's are no different than any service, you should go with your top local choices because they will be most accountable to you as a customer. For the same reason that hiring a plumber ENTIRELY over the internet or through some app is not as smart as just going to google and read some reviews, Uber is not a better solution than a local Taxi service that has a reputation and drivers with lots of experience running and maintaining cars well and for cheap.
Most average people do not know how to maintain a car as well as a Taxi driver, nor can they drive as well, nor do they know the best routes. You're hiring an amataur to do a job and paying them about the same, then you're paying the rest to Uber or the taxi company. The CORE problem is the Taxi companies have their rates set too high.
Uber is a reasonable way to combat that, but it's never going to be better than a trusted local driver. It's just an online tax service, it's not magic. You don't need an app or any special technology to find local taxis, you just need to force competition in a market where you have price fixing. Most third party services that direct you to subcontractors are inferior to actually calling the business directly. Adding that middleman is a big pain in the ass for everyone. It's not a good model. Uber is vastly overhyped.
It's nothing to joke about. And trying to blame a lack of taxis for committing a crime is really pathetic.
No one is blaming a lack of taxis or saying that the scumbags that drive drunk are not ethically reprehensible. What we are saying is that people are marginally shitty and if you make it marginally-harder for them to do the right thing then marginally fewer will do the right thing. That's not a moral statement, it's an empirical one.
That's not an argument anyone accused of drunk driving should be able to raise a defense, but it is certainly an argument to present to a legislative authority debating whether or not fingerprinting or background checking will make things more or less safe.
weird that people only trust Lyft and Uber.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Since the Uber and Lyft ride-sharing apps stopped service in Austin, drunk driving has increased, . . .in the three weeks since Uber and Lyft left Austin, 7.5% more people have been arrested for drunk driving.
Since Colorado legalized marijuana there has been a 300% increase in hospital visits related to marijuana usage.
From a 2014 story from Telluride immediately after legalization:
"In my first 10 years of work in emergency departments, I did not see one case of a patient who took too much marijuana to the point that it resulted in an emergency department visit," says Daniel Hehir, a physician. "Now it is a frequent occurrence."
Yet oddly, that will never be reported on here. Only a story about an illegal cab company.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
They are killing people and causing accidents. Or Austin should invest in bike lanes and mass transit so idiot kids can get wasted and travel around without hurting anything other than themselves.
We can't have the city or the youth deprived of their revenue or age-delimited-hedonism.
I thought that was a popular meme around here?
You might want to consider taking your schizo meds more regularly.
"Hey Ez, where you headed?" my neighbor asks.
"Up to the store to get a few things" I yell back.
"Mind if I ride along? I need some stuff too."
"Sure, hop on in" I tell her.
"Thanks! Here's a five for gas." she says as she climbs into my car.
Uber, Lyft, and the like don't "share" rides, they are taxi services.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
My mom has started being an Uber driver around the Indianapolis Airport/Greenwood area at about the same age as her mother had to quit driving.
"The Austin Police Department has diverted detectives and resources to conduct sting operations on ride-sharing drivers who attempt to operate without official sanction."
Nothing in any of the news stories said this. The personnel conducting the UC operation are with the Austin Transportation Department. Though points for creative writing to make it seem more a burden on the city. Do you work for Uber? This is as misleading as their "vote yes for more safety" which meant no to any fingerprinting.
then yeah, it should be 24 hours. It's pretty easy to justify the expense if you factor in the savings from the wrecks. But people prefer to take their chances. After all If you buy a nice enough (and expensive enough) car you're (probably) fine.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Fact: accident and injuries caused by driver impairment happen at levels around .15 and that number has not changed no matter what they've done with the laws. The people you need to be worried about are habitual drunks who have no regard for anything, and that's another thing that laws and checkpoints and other modern bullshit does not change.
Uh, NO.
There's no "magic switch" that happens after your blood alcohol level goes above 0.15. It's a gradual ramp upward of increased risk of accident, beginning somewhere around 0.05, based on a number of studies.
By the time you reach 0.08 (the threshold of many municipalities), you're at somewhere between twice the risk and 7 times the risk of a sober person of causing an accident. (Different studies come up with different figures, but there's a clear and significant relationship.) By the time you get up to your proposed limit of 0.15, you're up to about 25 times greater chance of causing an accident than a sober person.
It *is* true that the *majority* of drunk-driving accidents are caused by people who are significantly impaired, something like 75% of them by people with 0.15 and up. But that still leaves a significant number of people below your threshold who cause accidents.
So I at least won't joke about actual DUI but I will joke about the laws, and I will insult at every opportunity the profiteering and ruining of countless lives for no reason by our 'justice' system.
There are obviously screwed up aspects of drunk-driving laws, as there are with most things. But your assumptions ("FACT") are NOT true. Even a couple of drinks is often enough to begin to impact your driving abilities, and if you're driving over the limit (whether 0.08 or 0.1 or whatever), you ARE at significantly greater risk of causing an accident than a sober person.
Be responsible. Stop kidding yourself and saying, "Yeah I'm okay to drive" when you've had 5 or 6 beers (which is what it takes for a typical adult male of average weight to get to around 0.15). I can't believe any mods have modded this up as "informative."
or that Uber was required to comply with them. Not trolling, I'm really curious. As for me, I like the idea of the checks given that a driver alone in a car with someone (like my 18 year old daughter) has a lot of power in that situation. It doesn't help that Uber's model of relying on (preying?) folks in need of some extra cash mean their drivers are virtually guaranteed to have a higher than average number of ex-cons.
Then again I recognize that it's unfair to perpetually punish someone. Would you be in favor of expunging someone's record and making it illegal to discriminate against people for convictions that they've paid their debt to society for? Uber could allow the background checks (to weed out potentially dangerous people) while giving folks who've proven they're no longer a threat to society a real second chance.That would solve two problems.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
If people were drunk driving without calling a taxi, I'd throw the book at them too if I was a judge.
If they want their Uber and Lyft back, maybe they should encourage those companies to buy proper taxi licenses.
I think it's fair to say that I don't agree with these people so clearly they're fuckwits who have no idea about anything at all and we should have a do-over because I don't like how democracy works.
Fixed that for you.
Respectfully, you're an uninformed asshat and your alleged facts are actually total BS! "Oh the laws are too strict, those 'habitual drunks' are the real problem, not people like ME who can _handle_ it..."
Tell that to my children's favorite uncle. Oh wait, you can't because he was killed by another self-justifying jackass who also thought he could "handle it" (and by the way, is now rotting in jail, exactly where he should be; short of being in a coffin instead of his innocent victim (who happened to be a first-responder but won't be saving any more lives now) being in one).
Here is how they ACTUALLY determine the official statistics: "Drivers are considered to be alcohol-impaired when their blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) are .08 grams per deciliter (g/dL) or higher. Thus, any fatal crash involving a driver with a BAC of .08 g/dL or higher is considered to be an alcohol-impaired-driving crash, and fatalities occurring in those crashes are considered to be alcohol-impaired-driving fatalities." Source NHTSA Dec 2015. Of course there are always people who spin the statistics, just like there are with gun death numbers that count suicides, police killing actual criminals who are in the process of committing a violent crime, self defense killings of assailants by assault victims, etc.
NOT passengers, NOT "having a measurable amount of alcohol;" strictly the person actually driving a vehicle and only BAC >=.08, period. .08+ BAC, including passengers killed in the drunk driver's car, drivers and passengers killed in other cars as a result of the accident, and pedestrians and cyclists killed as a result of the accident. You'd have to be a complete moron to exclude those deaths though. For 2014, that's 9,964 people dead in the US, and without even including those killed in accidents with buzzed/tipsy drivers at .01-.079. That's more than all the gun homicides, including mass shootings, which attract so much attention.
Obviously in deaths they do count everyone who dies as a result of an accident with a driver having a
Crashes do often peak around .14 - .16, but there'a s statistically significant increase even at 0.01, and at levels much higher than .16, people start to become less likely to even be able to operate the vehicle, thus less likely to cause fatal accidents for that reason alone. Most states set the .08 level as a reasonable compromise between any detectable alcohol and completely plastered. They can be reasonably sure you drank enough to be willfully disobeying the law, and enough to be measurably impaired. The bottom line is, don't drink (at all) and drive. Current laws are NOT too strict. Stop listening to the DUI-apologists cherry picked and spun statistics. Frankly I'd like to see vehicle forfeiture on first conviction. Not your car? Too bad, work that out with the person who let you use it to drink and drive, unless it was actually reported stolen, in which case you can take the felony car theft charge too.
This might be news to you, but people who do not drink and drive, at all, do not get convicted of DUIs, and have their "lives ruined," period. It's not some mystical made up law that everyone is guilty of, just to give cops an excuse to stop you, it's something you have to do deliberately. In contrast, people who do not drink and drive, at all, DO still get killed by drunk drivers!
You can take your "no reason" and shove it up your ass! You sound like an 'effin DUI defense attorney who advertises their slimy services on TV; "just pay us enough money and you won't have to take responsibility for your own poor choices."
Ding! We have a winner. We can't allow citizens to help each other out. Hey, if I pay my friend $5 for gas money to be my designated driver, I guess I'm violating the law?
Seriously, which law do these officers and their bosses really think is more important? Asshats...
It's like saying that banning birth control has nothing to do with increasing rates of teen pregnancy and STDs. I mean, after all, nobody forced all those teens to have sex!
Be responsible. ... I can't believe any mods have modded this up as "informative."
You have conveniently ignored at least one item from GP posting. Specifically, that claim:
the definition of 'alcohol related accident' meaning ANY person involved having a measurable amount of alcohol (including passengers and pedestrians) leads to the inflating of numbers and 'proof' that we need even stupider laws.
(If true) that alone seems like a problem negating ANY meaningful statistics on a number of "alcohol-related" accidents.
You have conveniently ignored at least one item from GP posting. Specifically, that claim:
the definition of 'alcohol related accident' meaning ANY person involved having a measurable amount of alcohol (including passengers and pedestrians) leads to the inflating of numbers and 'proof' that we need even stupider laws.
(If true) that alone seems like a problem negating ANY meaningful statistics on a number of "alcohol-related" accidents.
I ignored it because it's irrelevant to everything I posted. The statistics I was quoting were from studies based on drunk DRIVERS, not on "alcohol-related accidents" or whatever. There tend to be pretty good and reliable records of drunk DRIVERS because most states tend to put such people in jail for at least a few days when they happen. (Also, something I wasn't clear on -- the numbers I gave were lowball estimates from studies for the most part. I didn't want to be accused of exaggerating anything.)
Yes, it's true that "alcohol-related accident" numbers are sometimes inflated by MADD and related groups. It happens with any interest group like that. And, frankly, they may sometimes have a point -- driver distraction is a huge issue, regardless of the cause. As someone who has (in my younger days) driven a car full of puking screaming drunk people around, I can assure you that I -- even though sober -- was not driving at my best due to distractions. If I ended up in a car accident on such an occasion, I think (depending on the exact circumstances) there might be pretty good justification for classifying it as "alcohol-related."
But inflating the number of "alcohol-related accidents" has no impact on studies looking at actual drunk DRIVERS and how many time a drunk DRIVER is charged in an accident, which is what my post was about... as was the supposed "FACT" cited by the parent.
It is all about protecting the existing Taxi industry from outside competition. Plain and simple. Taxis are using the government to protect their business model and monopoly. Why Rideshares from around world come under attack like this.
So much for all that Big Texas "Freedom".
:T:R:A:N:S:
Are young people so fucking cool and hip that calling a fucking taxi is seen as passé? Seriously?
We get it uber is cooler and easier or some other bullshit, ok fine, you prefer it but hey TAXIS STILL EXIST?
WTF
Believe me, Uber & Lyft made a statement by leaving months before the deadline for compliance. They were well aware that they would disrupt many of their employees (one of whom I know) and, as pointed out in the article, left drunks without a plan.
Uber & Lyft have been roundly criticized for this "I taking my marbles and going home!" tactic.
That was Zen, this is Tao
In London, Rome, and Barcelona, buses run pretty much 24/7. The night routes are longer and less frequent, but it's entirely possible to get where you need to go well into the wee-hours (or, maybe you have an early morning job).
Now in suburban Southern California, you might have a point.
Public transit systems require massive subsidies even for their service during high traffic hours. The idea that they could break even after midnight is utterly disconnected from reality.
so as you can clearly see, it isn't at all about protecting the public from criminals or saving lives, it is just the cops working to collect taxes and fees for local government. because drunk people getting home safely and not endangering others doesn't matter one bit, the Uber and Lyft drivers are not licensed with the state/local government to carry passengers for hire, so the thugs, er, um, police move in to eliminate them and create a larger drunk driver population.
Seems like soon humans wouldn't be able to ride cars anymore because it will be illegal for the car itself to "drive-share" you anywhere :v
People have been slugging in the Washington DC area since the 70's. Anonymous people getting into cars from people they don't know in large numbers.
Daily.
For decades.
Crap like hand wringing over background checks is more shit designed to make people feel good because "something" was done. What a load.
But inflating the number of "alcohol-related accidents" has no impact on studies looking at actual drunk DRIVERS and how many time a drunk DRIVER is charged in an accident, which is what my post was about... as was the supposed "FACT" cited by the parent.
Number inflation does matter. For example, imagine a high-functioning alcoholic who can function perfectly well at .2 or higher. If they are driving down the road, and their tire blows out and they hit someone/something, the driver is charged with drunk driving - even though it was due solely to a blown tire instead of being above the legal limit.
Accidents happen all the time with sober people who aren't distracted, when they are driving a route they have driven a thousand times (morning/evening commute) - just because driving has inherent risks. So it isn't beyond imagination that an accident involving a drunk driver isn't because they are drunk, but because accidents sometimes happen.
Running a taxi service without a license used to be called a name which is a racial slur, so I won't use it. Anyway, the point is, we used to get adverts and warnings about the dangers of using unlicensed taxis and what terrible things could happen to us. What's happened? Why are we getting astroturfing and corporate shill pieces in support of it now?
How about we allow a silly-con valley start up to provide amateur dentistry? Why should dentists be protected by big gubbermint and allowed to fleece their patients for such large sums of money? We need to deregulate dentistry!
The route you have driven a thousand times is more dangerous if anything. Rote memory and muscle memory allow the brain to switch out so it's like you can fall asleep and drive perfectly for kilometers, which is fairly scary.
Which means they need to extend their transportation services, so they can accommodate those getting off work at 1:00 am, as well as those who need to be on the way to work by 3:00 am.
...alcohol. So, either you want to bring back Prohibition, or you're a concern troll.
i drove drunk tonight then. got home safe and sound. drove slow.. obey speed limits. slowed considerably when i saw 4 deer hanging out in a yard by the road. stopped completely at all stop signs. The thought of wrecking my car due to slowed response time is first on my mind. Also there could be cyclists on the street around a blind corner. I think drive safely with alcohol in my system and have never been in a wreck. Never hit anything. Can somehow manage. 3 or 4 glasses of light beer at a bar over 1.5 hour. I'm sure I am legally over all the limits, but no harm done. spent early afternoon drunk on 12 pack and some whiskey, took a break and went back out late. There are seriously bad drivers that drive poorly all the time. They don't need booze to do it
Are there more drunk drivers on the road, though? An anecdote by an ex-Uber driver sounds reeeeeally reliable.
Ignoring the billions it takes to add lanes to highways, road wear, accidents/insurance, pollution... Don't forget about the TIME people lose and the economic damage caused by having massive gridlock.
Sure public transit is not profitable!
Being part of the transit system which includes roads and bridges, it shouldn't make a profit and for one to expect it to even break even is just simply pathetic. Infrastructure is an overhead cost for civilization. DO NOT GET TRICKED into debating deck chair positions on the titanic.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Is having a Designated Driver now illegal?! So, if I go out with a group and have a designated driver, we could be subjected to arrest anyway?! And, what about hitchhiking? (I know; hitchhiking is risky anyway - for both the ride and the rider.) C'mon, people! I get that safety and liability can be a concern, yet both adult parties are consenting to the sharing. (Irregardless of the supposed financial ramifications on the taxi industry.)
I thought that a Democracy was to promote the sharing of societal concerns. I will NOT allow this silliness to hinder my constitutional rights!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
it's not like the rest of Texas. It IS just like the rest of Texas. Idiotic.
Clearly, the City has accomplished its goal: ....since Uber and Lyft left Austin, 7.5% more people have been arrested for drunk driving.
As other Texan public servants have boasted, "Mission Accomplished."
Sorry to break it to you, but public transit has never been shown to be effective in helping with any of those issues.
show those to the people who didn't die because some drunk had -uber/lyft on his phone.
I have called Taxies, when too drunk to drive. That full size Truck bench seat was a hell of a lot cheaper.
Regulate everything! Government keeps us safe. People can't make good decisions on their own. Why would anyone think they can decide to get in a car with just anyone without proper vetting by some official?