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.

Comments

Re:That's money in the bank baby!

[flopsquad]

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".

Ding ding ding.

Many, sometimes conflicting, truths can be simultaneous. For instance, drunk driving is at once dangerous, stupid, something we as a society should work towards preventing, a huge money-making turnstile for local government, over-broadly defined, etc etc.

I'm not one of those people that goes shouting "market solutions11!!!" at every problem, but rideshare services have done a pretty bangup job reducing drunk driving (both raw statistics-wise, and attitude-wise). The utilitarian pragmatist in me wants to weigh the harms of increased drunk driving against the harms Austin expected to prevent with the fingerprint regulation (even if the regulation itself is subjectively or even objectively reasonable). And then ask: Is it worth it?*,**

*Worth it in terms of measurable costs, not in terms of vindicating an amorphous, Brexit-style sense of "sovereignty" for the city of Austin.

**Worth it to society. We already know what it's worth to the local government: +7.5% revenue from drunk driving tickets and attendant programs and fees. The costs of increased drunk driving are not primarily nor directly borne by the government collecting the ticket revenue. So even with some additional crashes, injuries, and deaths, it's all "upside" for them. Plus police "busts" are up.

Ride sharing example

[EzInKy]

"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.

Uber & Lift left Austin

[gwgwgw]

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.