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

Perfect for Jury Nullification

[Teppy]

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!)

Re:Perfect for Jury Nullification

[juniorkindergarten]

Uber and Lyft left Austin because the VOTERS decided in a referendum to demand that they do ground checks based on fingerprints. Uber and Lyft said that what they had was good enough. Lyft and Uber lost badly and they so they left. So, to be clear for you my astroturfing friend, most people VOTED AGAINST LYFT and UBER.

Re:Perfect for Jury Nullification

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not exactly the whole story. After the referendum was put on the ballot, Uber and Lyft went nuts with advertising, including direct phone calls of people with Uber and Lyft accounts. Basically, they made themselves so annying that even those who might have supported them were completely pissed off. Then they had to leave to save face after all the effort they made into the vote. That left a vacuum which was filled by many small ride sharing companies.

As i understand it from hearing about it on radio a few days ago, the ride sharing company in question is a complete "pay whatever you want". (While nobody said as much on the interview, it sounded like they should have called it "all tips".) It is also structured differently than the others RSCs, and the city people wanted them to have some kind of permits that can't even be acquired by that kind of company.

Re:Perfect for Jury Nullification

[stephanruby]

Uber and Lyft left Austin because the VOTERS decided in a referendum to demand that they do ground checks based on fingerprints. Uber and Lyft said that what they had was good enough. Lyft and Uber lost badly and they so they left. So, to be clear for you my astroturfing friend, most people VOTED AGAINST LYFT and UBER.

I think it's fair to say that most people (over 50%) have never taken Uber or Lyft and were just going by the horror stories they heard on the news. Also, those people voted for more regulations, from a consumer's point of view, more regulations on others can't be that bad. Nobody likes to be regulated, but everyone is willing to regulate others.

That being said, the suggested regulation went above and beyond requiring fingerprinting the ten fingers and doing an FBI background check (which is what the UberBlack drivers are already doing as a requirement for UberBlack, and not UberX). The new regulation extends to having special lanes for taxis and buses where ridesharing cars are specifically excluded. Personally, I understand why Uber and Lyft pulled out. The fingerprinting for all its drivers is one annoyance, but having lanes designated for taxis only in a city where the taxi lobby is strong, would have been a slow way to boil the frog (or in this case, a slow way to boil Uber and Lyft).

Re:Perfect for Jury Nullification

[legRoom]

There are a couple of problems with relying on jury nullification:

1) The average person doesn't know it's an option, and most judges won't let anyone tell them during the case.
2) One of the key purposes of the modern American jury selection process is to filter out anyone who might think for themselves.

Re:Perfect for Jury Nullification

[Applehu Akbar]

At voir dire you must never admit to being an advocate of jury nullification, even though it's a power you have as a juror. If you exercise it in a given trial, always have some interpretation of the evidence and testimony, however strained, to use as an excuse. You have the right to be as tricky as the prosecutor is at interpreting the case.

Re:Perfect for Jury Nullification

[Noah Haders]

true story: I was in Austin last summer. I was having a bad allergic reaction cuz where I was staying was an old house and there was so much dust. Out for drinks with my buddies, and my top lip starts swelling up cuz allergies. long story short, we drink, we drink, and my lip gets so huge it makes me look like a platypus!

head on home, go to bed, then next AM it is still swollen up! I thought it would subside during the night. so I look up on my phone where the nearest urgent care clinic is, so I could get a shot of steroids in the butt to put everything back in order. But first I needed to find a way to get there. Cuz I didn't have a car.

SO I TOOK A LYFT.

Only like a 10 minute drive, got my shot, and everything went back to normal.

I wish people would pay attention to success stories like this, before making rash decisions at the polls!

Re:Perfect for Jury Nullification

[Wrath0fb0b]

And nobody (I think?) disputes that the voters have the right to pass (almost any) laws they see fit in their own town.

What people are saying is that voters should consider unintended consequences. Of course those voters surely wanted the provisions to increase safety. If (big if!) it's true that these provisions actually decreased safety (hey, the world is unpredictable) then those same voters be aware of this outcome.

Re:Perfect for Jury Nullification

[Megol]

Ever think that's because advocates of nullification are generally assholes that want to make trials to be about _them_ for egocentric reasons instead of the actual court case? Really, ranting about jury nullification is commonly associated with such far-out crap like sovereign citizens, tax denialism and other idiotic shit.

Preaching for something that exists for _extremely_ unusual circumstances for, like, every court case one doesn't like the result of is a good way to destroy this tool for the truly exceptional cases where it would be useful.

(expecting to be moderated as troll - let's see...)

Re:Perfect for Jury Nullification

[Paleolibertarian]

I would say that nowadays just about every case is about trampling upon the Bill of Rights which in my humble opinion is exceptional and deserves nullification. The Ballot Box has proven over and over that it doesn't work because people, by and large, have been trained in the public school system that makes them into good little sheeple.

I'm just your average asshole who's seen the destruction of and government nullification of the people's rights.

Re:Perfect for Jury Nullification

[Applehu Akbar]

That's why I don't rant about jury nullification. It's just a power that a juror should be able to, given the appropriate circumstances, exercise.

Re:Perfect for Jury Nullification

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Unless you specifically WANT to get out of jury duty, then I suggest you saying something like "I believe in jury nullification and look forward to educating my fellow jury members if chosen for a case."

Re:Perfect for Jury Nullification

[stephanruby]

May be a taxi would have been available, but it really depends on the time he called.

In those cities that have an artificially limited number of medaillons, drunk people can not get taxis during peak hours. The peak hours for drunk people are actually the result of other regulations that force bars and night clubs to shut down at the same times, thus flooding the streets with people needing rides all during those same times.

Re: Perfect for Jury Nullification

[Type44Q]

Virtually everyone is now choosing not to call a cab where as before they were choosing to call a cab, because cabs were a necessary evil prior to Uber/Lyft. You might not be that bright (or maybe you're just a dishonest shill for Yellow Cab) but I bet you can subtract well enough to spot the implication here. ;)

Re: Perfect for Jury Nullification

[Type44Q]

"If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal offence is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant's natural god-given unalienable or constitutional rights, then it is his duty to affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is no crime at all, for no one is bound to obey an unjust law."

Harlan F. Stone, Chief Justice

Re:Perfect for Jury Nullification

[Uberbah]

I think it's fair to say that most people (over 50%) have never taken Uber or Lyft and were just going by the horror stories they heard on the news.

Most people never are never in a serious car accident, either. Should we therefore get rid of requirements for seat belts and liability insurance? Same logic.

Re:Perfect for Jury Nullification

[geoskd]

Ever think that's because advocates of nullification are generally assholes that want to make trials to be about _them_ for egocentric reasons instead of the actual court case?

Every trial should be looked at as an opportunity for Jury Nullification. It is one of the very few opportunities the people have left to have their voice heard in any meaningful way. I think it is appropriate that any group of 12 citizens may nullify a law related to a case they have been asked to hear, and any judge that truly believes in democracy should advise their jurists that this is an option before the start of any trial.

Re:Perfect for Jury Nullification

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Funny, in general you would have been better off in a taxi. They prioritize medical rides, obviously (but lyft does not.) Beyond that, taxi in most places have radios, and can speed in the case of medical emergencies, arranging with the police to avoid being pulled over.

Re:Perfect for Jury Nullification

[Megol]

So what you are really saying is that laws shouldn't exist and only a jury should decide if something is a crime or not?

That's lynch mob justice.

Re:Perfect for Jury Nullification

[jonbryce]

Don't you have a 911 ambulance service for that sort of thing? Then you get a medically trained person to monitor you while you go to the hospital, or they might even be able to treat you on the spot.

Re:Perfect for Jury Nullification

[flopsquad]

advocates of nullification are generally assholes

Oh, fuck you. Standing up for justice doesn't make someone an asshole.

Hear, hear. Anything that can act as even a small safety valve against the overuse and abuse of the criminal <quote>justice</quote> system is a Good Thing(TM).

Re:Perfect for Jury Nullification

[geoskd]

So what you are really saying is that laws shouldn't exist and only a jury should decide if something is a crime or not? That's lynch mob justice.

Thats largely what we have anyways. The illusion that there is something more there has been repeatedly exposed. Laws and governments can't change the fundamental mob justice of the world, only assign more influence to some individuals and less to others.

The closest any government ever came to perfect justice was the old soviet union where punishment was far more severe and certain, thus deterring crime more effectively. Even there, the system got gamed pretty hard and fast.

The reality of the matter is that the only way to stop a lynch mob is to break the mentality. In the history of the world, a few exceptional people have managed to defy a mob, but they did so, not with the help of laws, but with the gift of compassion, and the willingness to put themselves in harms way for the sake of the accused. They appeal to the reason and the emotion of the mob, but mobs do not respond to the threat of law.

Re:Perfect for Jury Nullification

[gnasher719]

So "jury nullification", is that a US system where jurors blatantly ignore evidence and laws and find for defendants if it is financially useful for them?

Re:Perfect for Jury Nullification

[RockDoctor]

I think the OP was in America (though that may not be his or her normal residence), and so be even more fucked for medical treatment options than most inhabitants of that country.

Re:Perfect for Jury Nullification

[lsatenstein]

Uber and Lyft left Austin because the VOTERS decided in a referendum to demand that they do ground checks based on fingerprints. Uber and Lyft said that what they had was good enough. Lyft and Uber lost badly and they so they left. So, to be clear for you my astroturfing friend, most people VOTED AGAINST LYFT and UBER.

Its the same rule elsewhere. In my province, operators (driver license with right to transport people) have to pass security, health and safety exams, which also includes liability insurance to protect passengers. As well, the vehicle MUST pass a semi-annual safety check for brakes, suspension and vehicle cleanliness.

Re:Perfect for Jury Nullification

[volmtech]

If I believe the accused is not guilty of a crime why can't I just vote not guilty? The other jurors might get mad but what can they do?

Re:Perfect for Jury Nullification

[Noah Haders]

did you read my post? It wasn't an emergency situation - I had a fat lip, and needed a shot of steroids. It wasn't like my airway was closing up and i needed an epi pen. i just needed a ride to the nearest doc-in-a-box to get a shot in the butt.

Re:Perfect for Jury Nullification

[Noah Haders]

story is 100% accurate. my buds and I were at an airbnb for the weekend. knew nobody nearby, and we didn't have a rental car.

Re:Perfect for Jury Nullification

[Noah Haders]

> Taxis still exist.

It was 7am on a Sunday. Let's say I did want to call a cab. I woudl have to look up the number of a cab company, then try to choose one because there would be like a dozen that sounded the same, then call the dispatch and ask them to send a cab, and they would tell me that one would be there in about 30 minutes, but it would really take an hour. Or I could open the lyft app, press the button, and somebody was there in 5 minutes with no drama.

Taxis and Lyft are not interchangeable!!! There is no comparison!!!

That's money in the bank baby!

[molarmass192]

"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".

Re:That's money in the bank baby!

[rockmuelle]

"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."

Keep in mind that that was a 6 week sample in absolute terms (not relative to population growth or corrected for any other factors, like more aggressive policing, festivals/events that could have spiked rates, weather, etc - it was just raw year-over-year numbers). It's bad statistics. It's been a bit depressing to watch so many techies (including many of my data science friends who should know better) blindly believe Uber/Lyft's messaging.

I live in Austin and I'm really sick of the Uber/Lyft propaganda machines. All they're doing is spending their VC money on lobbying and lawyers to mold communities in their image rather than trying to develop a service that actually works with the communities they serve (seriously: they spent $9MM trying to influence a local election. What a waste of some investor's money.) Uber is just a grand VC experiment in seeing how they can run illegal businesses and force laws to change for them. They tried it in health (23andMe, Therenos) and found the FDA to be a formidable opponent and instead went after an unpopular industry (taxis) to develop their playbook. Once they work out the playbook with taxis, they'll go after other regulated industries.

Remember, Uber and Lyft were not forced out of Austin. They simply left because they didn't want to play by the rules. They could have stayed. What's exciting is that the market is working and a whole new crop of TNCs are evolving in Austin that are willing to work with the community rather than against it.

And don't get me wrong, I love the idea of TNCs. They're great services, they just need to play by the same rules as everyone else and when those rules don't seem to be right, work with the community to find ones that do (compromise is part of that). Right now, Uber and Lyft are just acting like that spoiled rich kid you knew growing up who was never held accountable for his actions.

-Chris

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.

Re:That's money in the bank baby!

[blogagog]

"Remember, Uber and Lyft were not forced out of Austin. They simply left because they didn't want to play by the rules."

To be fair, they left because Austin changed the rules.

Re:That's money in the bank baby!

[AthanasiusKircher]

"Remember, Uber and Lyft were not forced out of Austin. They simply left because they didn't want to play by the rules."

To be fair, they left because Austin changed the rules.

To be fair, they left because Austin changed the rules to require background checks like all other professional drivers (taxi drivers, limo drivers, bus drivers, etc.) operating in the city.

Or, as GP said, "they simply left because they didn't want to play by the rules" (which everybody else does).

Re:That's money in the bank baby!

[lucm]

even if true, a 7.5% increase is not "drunk driver apocalypse". Unless uber made people drink more, at best the stats should revert to pre-uber numbers.

Re:That's money in the bank baby!

[ooloorie]

They simply left because they didn't want to play by the rules.

Correct. When people don't like your rules, they leave. Get used to it: it's what happens in a free society.

when those rules don't seem to be right, work with the community to find ones that do (compromise is part of that)

Another thing you have to learn is that customers/employees/businesses/companies don't owe you any kind of explanation or opportunity to compromise: if you institute bogus rules, people just walk. Get used to it.

If you want Uber and Lyft to come back, you know what to do.

Re:That's money in the bank baby!

[Uberbah]

Correct. When people don't like your rules, they leave. Get used to it: it's what happens in a free society.

Exactly - don't let the door bruise your ass on the way out, freeloader.

Re:That's money in the bank baby!

[ooloorie]

Exactly - don't let the door bruise your ass on the way out, freeloader.

Don't you worry your pretty little head about my ass, worry about your own future.

Re:That's money in the bank baby!

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Uber is just a grand VC experiment in seeing how they can run illegal businesses and force laws to change for them

This used to be true. But I think DraftKings and FanDuel are the new ones pushing the boundary. "One particular law says that maybe our product is only regulated by all other laws, not just this one" --> We're legal !!

Re:That's money in the bank baby!

[Actually, I do RTFA]

One, most importantly, the vote was "taxi services have to abide by taxi service rules, even if they're on the internet"

Two, rules change in a democracy when they no longer work for the people. Rules changing is what busted up Standard Oil and what kept Microsoft from owning the Browser.

Life may be considered a game, and stable rules are nice, but the stability is just one benefit. If it's worth it, the Supreme Court reverses a decision, or Congress adds a regulation or a referendum passes.

Re:That's money in the bank baby!

[Actually, I do RTFA]

It's not just "should they be fingerprinted". Taxi services are fingerprinted. It's "should Austin enforce its laws, when the internet is involved." And, I would definitely say, yes.

Sometimes principle is of overriding value.

Re:That's money in the bank baby!

[jonbryce]

That seems to work fine in London. Taxis can use the bus lanes, minicabs, including Über can't. You can pay more for a taxi and get there quicker.

Re:That's money in the bank baby!

[fluffernutter]

Even if that were the case, the police will have to have some clear identifiable way to enforce the lanes. It an Uber car looks like a regular car driving down the road then how can that lane ever be enforced?

Re:That's money in the bank baby!

[fluffernutter]

Reading your post, I concluded how easy it is to cherry pick one statistic that got better while ignoring everything else that would get worse. Thanks for that.

Re:That's money in the bank baby!

[s_p_oneil]

jonbryce specifically said "bus lanes", which implies that they are special lanes that regular cars aren't allowed to drive in at all. It doesn't get much clearer than "If it's not a city bus/taxi, pull it over and issue a citation".

Re:That's money in the bank baby!

[fluffernutter]

Oh.. well then why even bring it up.

Re:That's money in the bank baby!

[geekmux]

"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."

Keep in mind that that was a 6 week sample in absolute terms (not relative to population growth or corrected for any other factors, like more aggressive policing, festivals/events that could have spiked rates, weather, etc - it was just raw year-over-year numbers). It's bad statistics. It's been a bit depressing to watch so many techies (including many of my data science friends who should know better) blindly believe Uber/Lyft's messaging....

Oh, so it's statistics that are depressing?

And here I thought the depressing part was humans and their utter fucking inability to NOT drink and drive.

Don't give a shit how you want to slice and dice the numbers. Looking right past the real problem is pathetic and will cost lives as we watch addicts bitch about the cost of a $20 ride home after paying $50 for a nice buzz.

Re:That's money in the bank baby!

[flopsquad]

If you have relevant counter statistics about all the bad things that happen when ridesharing services are offered in a city, please share.

If you have any data about the anticipated crimes that would be prevented by fingerprinting RS drivers (and thus by definition, crimes that can't be committed by non-existent RS drivers), please share.

If you have evidence that the +7.5% statistic cited in TFA is inaccurate or misleading (for a hypothetical example, because the raw number went up but the per capita instances of drunk driving actually went down), please share.

I say none of this in an "I dare you" sort of way; I am honestly open to whatever actual data you can produce.

If by "everything else that would get worse," you mean, "I generally dislike Uber and Lyft, but I don't have any data to support the conclusion that they're a net harm rather than net benefit to society," well.... I'm sorry I don't have the time to research and substantiate your opinion for you.

Re:That's money in the bank baby!

[fluffernutter]

I'm getting so tired of typing this... taxi regulations are there to reduce the amount of cars on the road and to keep the industry safe. Taxi's are also forced to be a part of a city's overall transportation solution; they have to be in certain places, can't ignore fares, and have to provide services for the disabled. There is no researching this, it is a fact.

I would also think that taking a person's fingerprints and giving them a documented connection to the company they are driving for would dissuade them from committing further crimes. Even though they're obviously in need of improvement, background checks work for guns:

http://smartgunlaws.org/effect...
"Research has found that states with more expansive background check laws experience 48 percent less gun trafficking, 38 percent fewer deaths of women shot by intimate partners, and 17 percent fewer firearms involved in aggravated assaults."

Really it's pretty asinine to make the case that people who are completely anonymous would be as safe over a general population of people as people who are known. Look at how different people are on the internet under an alias versus in real life.

Re: That's money in the bank baby!

[Actually, I do RTFA]

The Sherman Antitust Act (1890) postdates Standard Oil's creation by decades, and their establishment of a monopolie far oil and beyond by years.

The Microsoft case was ultimately decided by a 2003 law changing the enforcement criteria.

Drunk driving is a serious crime that kills people

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nothing to joke about. And trying to blame a lack of taxis for commiting a crime is really pathetic.

Cops and robbers.. You can't trust anybody

[fustakrakich]

Either way, you're fucked.

Turn It Around On Them

[BlueStrat]

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

Re:Turn It Around On Them

[Lehk228]

you just got added to like 7 lists.

Re:Turn It Around On Them

[BlueStrat]

you just got added to like 7 lists.

Pfft!

I've probably been on just about every 'list' they have for decades, now. Screw the authoritarian bastages.

The fear is what they want. I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer, the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

Strat

Re: Drunk driving is a serious crime that kills pe

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Stop calling it ride-sharing

[Anonymous Coward]

It's unlicensed taxi service.

Re:Follow the money

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

The whole purpose of the referendum was to demand that these companies do background checks for "public safety" you fucking twit. No one forced them to leave, they weren't able to get their way and out of fear that it would set a precedent which would impact their bottom line they chose to leave. If you are mad, that anger should be directed squarely at them. Arcade City is violating a law that the People of Austin voted for, so I do not fault the police for enforcing the will of the people. The increase in DUIs is unfortunate, but the city can not be responsible for the irresponsible decisions that people make while under the influence of alcohol that places the safety of others at risk.

Um, which is it?

[rsilvergun]

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...

This summary is BS.

[grag]

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.

You know what else would solve drunk driving?

[rsilvergun]

Build and fund a proper public transportation system.

Re:You know what else would solve drunk driving?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Nowhere has that. How would it be "proper"? It's completely novel.

Moreover the buses would run empty much of the time, and the enviros would bitch and moan about the pollution. Thing is, a bus is great, pollution-wise - as long as it's loaded down with people. If it's carrying 3 people then it's a huge polluter.

Re:You know what else would solve drunk driving?

[dyslexicbunny]

Boston's late train leaves 12:30 am. Has cut a couple of nights short for me as I would prefer to not use Uber/Lyft and instead my unlimited metro pass.

Now there's a lot of cost problems here with the metro and those need to seriously be addressed. Inefficiencies and bad union negotiating are likely killing the budget as is infrastructure neglect. I have no idea if politicians have any considerations for seriously fixing these problems.

Re:You know what else would solve drunk driving?

[jabuzz]

Sucks to live in such a backward country then. Here is a wikipedia page of night buses in London

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

London is a global city I hear you say, how about Glasgow or Edinburgh then much smaller

https://www.firstgroup.com/gre...

http://lothianbuses.com/timeta...

They are "big" cities you say how about smaller cities then, Aberdeen at ~200k population

https://www.firstgroup.com/abe...

You just need to face the fact that public transport is utterly shit in the USA, not that public transport can't or does not work.

Re:Two wrongs != right

[youngatheart]

Interesting. Wrong, but interesting that you would post it, and as AC. Makes me wonder what motivates such a post.

Both Uber and Lyft provide up to $1 million in liability protection and other insurance benefits while carrying passengers.

keep everyone employed

[Lead Butthead]

if incidents of drunk driving go down, do you realise how many --

court clerks
paramedics
fire fighters
lawyers ... naw, fuck the lawyers
judges
undertakers
"piece" officers
hospital janitors
nurses
accounting clerks
doctors
tow truck drivers
insurance adjusters
    .
    .
    .

  could be sh_t out of a job?

Re:keep everyone employed

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Well more to the point, someone is making money and is CHEAPER than the entrenched, bribe-throwing Taxi companies.

Re:keep everyone employed

[ShanghaiBill]

It's a sickening sign that liberalism is entrenching itself in Austin.

Austin is a college town and has always been liberal (at least by Texas standards). College students tend to favor authoritarian solutions to economic issues. There is nothing new about that.

Re:keep everyone employed

[mpercy]

Zorg: Look at all these little things! So busy now! Notice how each one is useful. A lovely ballet ensues, so full of form and color. Now, think about all those people that created them. Technicians, engineers, hundreds of people, who will be able to feed their children tonight, so those children can grow up big and strong and have little teeny children of their own, and so on and so forth. Thus, adding to the great chain of life. You see, father, by causing a little destruction, I am in fact encouraging life. In reality, you and I are in the same business.

Re:keep everyone employed

[Hylandr]

Everything new is the infestation of California Residents. We watched the change over 5 years. It we got out just before they banned BBQ's in town.

Re: keep everyone employed

[Type44Q]

Colorado's getting Californicated pretty badly as well...

Re:keep everyone employed

[fluffernutter]

I didn't know liberals were the only ones interested in following laws. Thanks for the information.

Re: keep everyone employed

[Cinnamon Beige]

The issue here is the laws being passed; many of the ones cited here seem to be a form of rent-seeking or at least are that in effect, and in this case it sounds like a lot of law enforcement time and money is going into chasing down a modern version of a ride-sharing bulletin board for which the laws are fundamentally impractical and probably not intended for. It is not likely to be financially in the position to push back against the inherent abuse of power in the targeting...

Commercial ride-sharing services should have at least some of the same legal responsibilities as traditional taxi services. Ones that are for-tips? Just require they have proof of identity for all users and records of arranged rides, that will be provided to police with warrant--possibly with no warrant needed to get a yes or no answer to "Did J Doe arrange a ride on this date using your service?" (All the warrant should do is be proof that law enforcement has a good enough reason to want the real name and personal info of whomever J Doe was with, and only get then the specified as relevant papers.)

Re: keep everyone employed

[fluffernutter]

If ride sharing services are doing the same thing as a taxi (ie. taxiing a passenger from point A to point B for profit) then they should qualify as a taxi and follow all taxi laws. Otherwise all taxi companies need to have their medallions bought out at market value by corresponding governments and we abandon all the regulation so that everyone can be on even ground again.

Re: keep everyone employed

[Cinnamon Beige]

Given that the taxi medallion system is pretty much governmental corruption in several different forms in its origin at least, I am all for hitting the reset button--though buying out the medallions at market value might be prohibitively expensive in some places. I'd favor starting with reforms targeting the systemic economic abuse of for-hire drivers and sunsetting the medallions instead.

Public safety and driver rights would be best served if medallions got replaced with a form of direct licensure that just means you're eligible to work as a for-hire driver...and is no longer used to cap numbers. (If caps are to exist at all, do it at the company level.)

Re: keep everyone employed

[fluffernutter]

So how do you limit the number of cars on the road in your system?

Re: keep everyone employed

[Cinnamon Beige]

Make the companies cover bonding their drivers and the (very expensive) insurance for their fleet, which will be defined by it being avalible for hire through them and not by who holds the vehicles' titles.

That adds another layer of protection for drivers and the public, and ensures that the companies will make an active effort to not have excessive vehicles on the road--have you looked at how much the insurance costs?

Actually setting a numerical cap by law or regulation benefits only those established taxi services who can afford to & will bribe politicians and the politicians who get the bribes. I want a system that protects drivers from exploitation and the public safety without increasing corruption.

Re: keep everyone employed

[Cinnamon Beige]

And why exactly do we need to "limit the number of cars on the road"? Is that in the consumers best interest?

The short answer is no, it isn't in the consumers' best interests, and it may never have been either--the medallion system is in fact often literally the textbook example given for rent-seeking. NPR briefly covers the topic with a mention on the negative consequences to consumers, while the Boston Globe covers why the medallion system ought to be scrapped by answering your question in detail while covering some of the abuses of drivers the medallion system creates as well.

7.5% increase in DUI - stop repeating this BS

[mattwarden]

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.

Re:7.5% increase in DUI - stop repeating this BS

[Uberbah]

First, I am violently against the idiotic regulations passed by our city council that pushed Uber and Lyft our.

No. What's idiotic is treating a hey-we're-not-a-taxi-company, taxi company as a legitimate business.

Re:7.5% increase in DUI - stop repeating this BS

[ooloorie]

What's idiotic is that people like you pretend to stand up for the little guy, while embracing policies that serve crony capitalists and the wealthy.

Re:7.5% increase in DUI - stop repeating this BS

[fluffernutter]

I'm just having trouble why the same people who argue that people should be personally responsible for themselves are now arguing FOR Uber because it seems to protect people from themselves. I personally think governments should protect people to a certain extent, but if you're out at a bar and haven't planned how you're getting home at 2am then you should be on your own.

Re:7.5% increase in DUI - stop repeating this BS

[fluffernutter]

You're saying that defending the little guy should involve defending a company that purposefully flouts laws that were put there for public safety, pays drivers a pittance while sitting on boat loads of cash, doesn't mind if they aren't properly insured, and has been up front about wanting to go with automation asap. Not following that logic. The taxi companies are the lesser evil here.

Re:7.5% increase in DUI - stop repeating this BS

[ooloorie]

Not following that logic.

Obviously not. I'm sure you also prefer sipping lattes at your local artisanal, organic coffee shop and bakery while foaming at the mouth about Walmart, Mr. Moneybags.

Re:7.5% increase in DUI - stop repeating this BS

[fluffernutter]

Ah so it all comes down to cost for you. Or as so many have put it, "as long as I get what I want, screw the rest". Well I have news for you buddy, I drink the cheapest coffee available and I have taken the bus 100x more then I've taken a taxi.

Re:7.5% increase in DUI - stop repeating this BS

[ooloorie]

Ah so it all comes down to cost for you. Or as so many have put it, "as long as I get what I want, screw the rest".

You got it backwards. By advocating higher prices for services and by supporting cartels, your attitude is "as long as I get what I want, screw the rest". After all, as you just explained, you don't actually take taxis much, and your transportation needs are mostly met by a (subsidized) public transportation system, so for you, the cost of taxi-like transportation is just an abstract exercise in signaling your progressive attitudes.

My view is that I'd like goods and services to be as cheaply and widely available as possible because that actually helps people, in particular, people who don't have a lot of money. Uber/Lyft is a great choice, for example, for my elderly parents, who can't drive anymore; taxis are not just expensive, they take forever to show up and keep trying to defraud my parents, with government doing shit to intervene. But hey, you don't give a fuck because you don't actually take taxis.

Re:7.5% increase in DUI - stop repeating this BS

[fluffernutter]

How does having cheap rides help:
- People in areas of the city where no Uber driver wants to go (taxis are regulated so that they accept all fares)
- The physically disabled (taxi regulations force taxi companies to have a certain number of specialized vehicles for special needs)
- People who drive cars (taxi regulations stop the roads from getting clogged with people looking for fares, yes it did happen)
- Riders (despite people trying to say the liability coverage is provided by Uber it is no where as close to comprehensive as full commercial coverage)
- Drivers (regulations have them put in stabbing shields and other safety equipment.. in my city there are strobes for someone to call 911)
- Public safety (no one looks at the real value of background checks and fingerprinting, it is not to catch the driver after committing the crime, it is about making a driver think ten times over before committing a crime in the first place BECAUSE of the information that the authorities have).

You're sacrificing all these things for nothing but a cheap ride.

Re:7.5% increase in DUI - stop repeating this BS

[ooloorie]

You're sacrificing all these things for nothing but a cheap ride.

Allowing Uber/Lyft to operate freely doesn't "sacrifice" anything since it doesn't prevent anybody else from offering services, including traditional taxis.

You're making the typical argument of crony capitalists, namely justifying government-granted monopolies that result in a small benefit to some vulnerable group, a large financial benefit to cronies, and a small distributed cost to a politically powerless group (taxi riders in this case).

If it is government policy that unprofitable areas of the city or the physically disabled should receive subsidized rides, then those rides should be paid for by all taxpayers and accounted for in the budget; shifting the burden of paying for those services onto taxi passengers has no justification whatsoever.

Re:7.5% increase in DUI - stop repeating this BS

[fluffernutter]

Ok so say you sit down to a game of monopoly with two other players. One player gets to make their own rules such as not rolling the dice and simply announcing the number of spots they wish to move and they move there. That's what Uber is doing to the taxi industry. How much longer do you think those other three players will be sitting at the table with their chance of coming out ahead being basically zero?

Re:7.5% increase in DUI - stop repeating this BS

[fluffernutter]

I meant 'sit down with three other players'

Re:7.5% increase in DUI - stop repeating this BS

[ooloorie]

How much longer do you think those other three players will be sitting at the table with their chance of coming out ahead being basically zero?

Hopefully not very long. Hopefully, they'll figure out quickly that they, too, should convert to a ridesharing model because customers prefer it and that their medallions and government-sponsored monopolies are worthless, the same way buggy whip manufacturers figured out that buggy whips were worthless and started making car accessories when cars took off. That is the whole point.

Re:7.5% increase in DUI - stop repeating this BS

[fluffernutter]

So everyone should be able to move along and not follow the law in whatever way works for them? Restaurants can have vermin crawling around in their kitchen. Houses can be built in a way that will stand for 5 years and then fall over on the occupants despite outwardly looking like a luxury home... Definitely not the world I want to live in. To give everyone arbitrary right to do whatever they want as long as it is profitable. Buggy whips are a terrible analogy because it was never deemed illegal to make car accessories. You're basically inviting everyone to break the law in the way that suits them. Society can't function that way.

Re:7.5% increase in DUI - stop repeating this BS

[ooloorie]

So everyone should be able to move along and not follow the law in whatever way works for them?

Not at all. Uber/Lyft weren't taxi companies by the legal definition, so they didn't have to follow taxi-related laws. Lawmakers, in response to lobbying by taxi companies, created new laws restricting ride sharing services. What they should have done is abolished the regulations and privileges of taxi companies.

Restaurants can have vermin crawling around in their kitchen. Houses can be built in a way that will stand for 5 years and then fall over on the occupants despite outwardly looking like a luxury home...

Laws and regulations are neither necessary nor sufficient for preventing that. And, yes, like taxi companies, overregulation of restaurants and homes are other examples of why "the rich are getting richer" and "the middle class is stagnating".

You're basically inviting everyone to break the law in the way that suits them.

No, what I am advocating is abolishing crony capitalist laws that allow groups with lobbying power to enrich themselves at other people's expense. You apparently favor such laws.

Re:7.5% increase in DUI - stop repeating this BS

[fluffernutter]

Well, Uber / Lyft are taxi companies, unless they're going to stop carrying passengers for profit. An app isn't enough to prevent them from qualifying as a taxi company. I'm not sure how preventing someone from building a flawed house and selling it to some unsuspecting person leads to the rich getting richer. If anything it protects the little guy from getting screwed over. The rich get richer by finding ways to screw people over. I favor people obeying laws in general. Obviously there shouldn't be crony capitalist laws but that's for the people to work out through the system of government. I think some people hide behind taxi laws but I also see the good that comes from them so I am not motivated to fight to change them. As I said before, apparently you don't favor laws at all and that is not a society I would like to live in.

Re:7.5% increase in DUI - stop repeating this BS

[ooloorie]

Well, Uber / Lyft are taxi companies, unless they're going to stop carrying passengers for profit. An app isn't enough to prevent them from qualifying as a taxi company

Taxis are something you can hail anonymously from the road side; Uber/Lyft are not taxi companies, and they aren't regulated as such, not even in places like Austin.

I'm not sure how preventing someone from building a flawed house and selling it to some unsuspecting person leads to the rich getting richer.

You're confusing the stated intent of regulations with the actual effect.

Obviously there shouldn't be crony capitalist laws but that's for the people to work out through the system of government.

Well, and that's what we are doing here: people like you support crony capitalist laws because you don't understand what's going on, and people like me oppose them.

As I said before, apparently you don't favor laws at all and that is not a society I would like to live in.

There are plenty of laws I favor, just not the crony capitalist kind that people like you favor.

Re:7.5% increase in DUI - stop repeating this BS

[fluffernutter]

There are plenty of laws I favor, just not the crony capitalist kind that people like you favor.

That's what I have been struggling with. The laws are the laws. It doesn't matter which ones we favor. We abide by them or we use a legal and political process to change them. That's all there is. How do you or Uber get to pick which laws are important? You're placing your own needs ahead of the millions of people that made those laws. After that, nothing matters.

Re:7.5% increase in DUI - stop repeating this BS

[ooloorie]

That's what I have been struggling with. The laws are the laws. It doesn't matter which ones we favor

We live in a democracy. Of course it matters which laws we favor because we vote based on that. Furthermore, in the English system, laws can also be nullified by lack of enforcement, widespread disobedience, and/or juries, or invalidated by courts.

How do you or Uber get to pick which laws are important? You're placing your own needs ahead of the millions of people that made those laws. After that, nothing matters.

The anti-ridesharing laws weren't "made by millions of people", they were made by a small number of lobbyists and politicians to advance their own interests. Afterwards, they try to bamboozle voters like you into believing that this was all for your benefit. In fact, if you want to talk about what the people want, polls pretty clearly suggest that the majority of people do not want the kinds of onerous restrictions on ride sharing services you advocate.

Re:7.5% increase in DUI - stop repeating this BS

[fluffernutter]

The anti-ridesharing laws weren't "made by millions of people", they were made by a small number of lobbyists and politicians to advance their own interests.

Fair enough, but don't punish the taxi industry for it.

Re:7.5% increase in DUI - stop repeating this BS

[ooloorie]

Fair enough, but don't punish the taxi industry for it.

The taxi industry is the special interest that wants government handouts. They are miffed that their monopoly is disappearing and that their medallions are becoming worthless.

And they aren't being punished, they are being replaced by newer, better services. Government licensing and supervision kind of made sense when people hailed taxis on the street and needed a place to complain. But with the advent of smartphones, ridesharing services provide far better supervision of drivers, tracking of rides, and evaluation by customers. When a ridesharing driver takes a passenger for a ride, the ridesharing company knows instantly; when a ridesharing driver is rude to a passenger, that is reflected instantly in their evaluation. Traditional taxi licensing does none of that and isn't necessary to provide it.

Re:7.5% increase in DUI - stop repeating this BS

[fluffernutter]

Please explain why the taxi regulations make less sense today. A city still needs taxis to be a certain way to fulfill their needs. People in less profitable areas still need service, physically disabled people still need access, there are still financially devastating car accidents, and there are ever more cars on the road today making it even more important that the number of taxi's be regulated. Furthermore, regulations are not blocking any company from hailing via phone, all they do is ensure the company meet certain obligations that contribute to the betterment of the city overall.

Furthermore, the taxi industry is miffed because the government set up a standard set of rules for everyone. If I buy a house in an area that is completely zoned residential and then it becomes worthless because a company decides to tear fifty houses down and build a big factory behind it and the government allows them to, damn rights I would be upset. How can people run a business if the market they have been guaranteed in law suddenly gets eroded because the government decides not to care about upholding the laws that they were holding everyone to in the first place. Back to the house example, if such a scenario were to happen the government would need to compensate me for changing a zoning from residential to commercial and the taxi industry should be compensated as well. Their only fault really is in trusting the government to do what they said they would do. You can't play a game without everyone knowing and following the rules. The taxi industry is a game that was set up a long time ago and if someone comes to the board and plays by a different set of rules then the original game no longer exists. Either everyone playing by the original set of rules gets level set to the new rules so they can go back to a fair playing field or the new player has to adopt to the old rules.

Re:7.5% increase in DUI - stop repeating this BS

[Uberbah]

What's idiotic is that people like you pretend to stand up for the little guy, while embracing policies that serve crony capitalists and the wealthy.

The corny capitalists are Uber and Lyft, idiot. The "little guy" is the Uber driver who makes less than minimum wage after costs. The "little guy" is the poor shlub passenger stuck with the drivers $25,000 in medial coverage, after an uninsured drunk causes a crash. The "little guy" is the disabled person (from the drunk driver) who's been left shit outta luck by Uber and Lyft, after the handy-capable taxi company has been driven out of business.

The only thing you're supporting here is exploitation....idiot.

Re:7.5% increase in DUI - stop repeating this BS

[ooloorie]

People in less profitable areas still need service, physically disabled people still need access,

Yes, and as I explained before: trying to provide those services through taxi regulation simply forces other taxi riders to pay for them through increased fares. But providing service to less profitable areas and disabled people is something that society as a whole is responsible for, so it should be paid out of taxes, not through some non-transparent cost shifting involving government-granted monopolies and crony capitalism.

there are still financially devastating car accidents, and there are ever more cars on the road today making it even more important that the number of taxi's be regulated

Operators of ride sharing cars already pay registration, gasoline taxes, tolls, and insurance; they already have the ride to drive around the city all day long anyway, like any other motorist. Furthermore, there is no evidence that they impose extra costs or create extra traffic.

Furthermore, the taxi industry is miffed because the government set up a standard set of rules for everyone. If I buy a house...

A taxi license is not property, it is a temporary license to operate, granted ostensibly for the benefit of the public. The government is under no obligation to preserve the value of that license or to compensate anyone for it should policy changes make it less valuable. (Note that you generally don't get compensated even for zoning changes or environmental regulations that decrease the value of your home either.)

How can people run a business if the market they have been guaranteed in law suddenly gets eroded because the government decides not to care about upholding the laws that they were holding everyone to in the first place.

Taxi licenses are licenses to pick up people who hail rides from the curb, nothing more and nothing less. The purpose of taxi licenses was to ensure that when people hail something, it is actually a taxi. That mechanism then got hijacked by taxi operators and turned into a restrictive monopoly that screwed over customers.

Ride-sharing services broker rides between riders and drivers in real time, and hence don't need a taxi license; in fact, the rationale for taxi licenses (namely to establish authenticity of unknown vehicles) is meaningless for ride sharing, since drivers, riders, and rides are tracked closely by the ride sharing company. The taxi business model (picking up people on the street anonymous) has been made obsolete by new technology.

Furthermore, nothing is stopping any taxi driver from switching over to providing ride sharing services, so it's not like they are out of business.

Re:7.5% increase in DUI - stop repeating this BS

[fluffernutter]

Well whether travel for the disabled should be paid for by the government or not is a debatable case. The point remains, making such a change should be done through government and not by starting a rogue company that ignores laws. The thing is, you say the taxi industry is a bunch of collusion, yet you are ushing in an industry where there may only be two major players. We'll see how open Uber and Lyft are to newcomers. And these companies aren't even employing anyone.

What do you do for a job that you ride around all day? Most people have desk jobs; drive to work, drive back. More cars on the road 24/7 means more cars on the road overall.

A taxi license is transferable for money. It's not some hot potato that some person should get stuck with and fuck him. It is a game chip in the market and has a value.

Furthermore, nothing is stopping any taxi driver from switching over to providing ride sharing services, so it's not like they are out of business.

Hey, amen to that. But he'll be going from bring able to support a family to working for practically minimum wage. But hey, as long as you got cheap rides right? Hail Uber.

Re:7.5% increase in DUI - stop repeating this BS

[ooloorie]

The point remains, making such a change should be done through government and not by starting a rogue company that ignores laws

Look, aren't you listening? Ride sharing companies were not covered by taxi laws; laws governing the ride sharing industry are new laws and I am pointing out that they are bad for consumers. And, you're absolutely right, I have no problem with people flaunting bad laws; as I was pointing out before: the US has a British legal system, not a Napoleonic one, so widespread civil disobedience is a legitimate and common way of changing the law.

he thing is, you say the taxi industry is a bunch of collusion, yet you are ushing in an industry where there may only be two major players.

There are only two major players because few companies are big enough to put up with the legal and political bullshit the people you favor are imposing on the industry.

Well whether travel for the disabled should be paid for by the government or not is a debatable case.

Anything is "debatable", but the side of the debate you are taking is the side of corruption and crony capitalism, because you are using "the disabled" as an excuse to hand monopolies to wealthy businesses.

Hey, amen to that. But he'll be going from bring able to support a family to working for practically minimum wage. But hey, as long as you got cheap rides right?

Yours is the typical, arrogant attitude of well-off people: "hey, I have enough money so that paying a little more doesn't bother me, so why should it bother anybody else?" And you don't even understand what's going on: taxi medallions are often held by well off investors who then rent out their fleet of taxis to drivers; those drivers are already at the bottom of the totem pole. For them to be able to drive for themselves as ride share drivers is often a step up.

Re:7.5% increase in DUI - stop repeating this BS

[ooloorie]

The "little guy" is the Uber driver who makes less than minimum wage after costs. The "little guy" is the poor shlub passenger stuck with the drivers $25,000 in medial coverage, after an uninsured drunk causes a crash

If taxicab businesses pay better and provide better services, then both drivers and passengers can continue to use them.

The only thing you're supporting here is exploitation....idiot.

How can people who have a free choice of jobs and services be "exploited"? Exploitation can only happen when people take away choices, and that is what you are defending.

Re:No surprise here

[gnupun]

7.5% $afer now.

Can we also deduce that the taxi medallion supply is well below taxi passenger demand?

Re:Drunk driving is a serious crime that kills peo

[Wrath0fb0b]

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.

Don't they have taxis in Austin, TX?

[jsepeta]

weird that people only trust Lyft and Uber.

Re:Don't they have taxis in Austin, TX?

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Taxis are artificially expensive, and generally as slow as they want to be. Particularly when legislation has driven competition out and they have no reason to be timely or reasonably priced.

Myself, I don't trust taxis, because the last time I did, I waited an hour for one at 2 AM, and when the one assigned to me showed up on tracking in the parking lot, it passed me by to pick up a bigger fare. The app then said that I had been picked up. When I tried to get another cab, the dispatcher called me, cursed me out, said it wasn't my cab and to keep waiting. After a SECOND hour of waiting, I had no alternative but to walk 2.5 miles home at 4 AM in shoes not suitable for walking in. I am now permanently disabled due to this walk aggravating a tissue disorder in my foot where the connective tissue holding my bones in place was not formed right. I wish I had documented this and sued the fuck out of the taxi company, but it was another 18 months before I really understood the extent or nature of my injury (I didn't know about the tissue disorder).

I've never waited more than 7 minutes for an uber or lyft, and that's only if they got delayed by a train or drawbridge.

Guess who I trust and who I don't?

Re:Don't they have taxis in Austin, TX?

[Pulzar]

For all practical purposes, we don't. The only time I ever needed one, I had to make a 30 minute walk to the nearest hotel, which was the only place they were willing to come to.

Re:Don't they have taxis in Austin, TX?

[CrashNBrn]

Was it snowing? And Uphill?

Re:Don't they have taxis in Austin, TX?

[fluffernutter]

Just because you don't understand the reason why they are so expensive doesn't mean they are artificially expensive.

Re:Follow the money

[Wrath0fb0b]

The whole purpose of the referendum was to demand that these companies do background checks for "public safety" you fucking twit. No one forced them to leave, they weren't able to get their way and out of fear that it would set a precedent which would impact their bottom line they chose to leave. If you are mad, that anger should be directed squarely at them

They are not obligated to serve the city if they don't want to. And you certainly cannot blame them for the fact that the same people that voted to restrict their operations chose to be shitheads and risk others' lives by driving drunk.

As to the public safety argument, I think one has to be aware that measures that were intended to increase public safety do not always work in the way intended. I'm sure the voters believed at the time (and perhaps justly so) that the background checks would increase safety. As an empirical matter, that may or may not turn out to be true -- the measures might have that effect, no effect or may have the opposite effect than what was intended.

Correlation != causation

[Megol]

I thought that was a popular meme around here?

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.

Re:Increase in hospital visits after legalization

[eth1]

Since Colorado legalized marijuana there has been a 300% increase in hospital visits related to marijuana usage.

You don't suppose that might be because people avoided actually seeking medical care before, because they were afraid of getting into legal trouble?

From that point of view, the 300% increase would be a positive outcome.

CSB

[hackwrench]

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.

Re:No surprise here

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Of course it is, how else do you "justify" insanely high fares and slow service?

That's how the taxi operators WANT it.

That's why THEY lobbied for the medallion laws, or however else taxi numbers are limited in Austin.

Doctored story...

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

If there are members of the public out all hours

[rsilvergun]

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.

Re: Drunk driving is a serious crime that kills pe

[AthanasiusKircher]

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."

Re: BS

[SQLGuru]

So, do that.......charge 54 cents with a "strongly encouraged" tip to make up the difference. Or add "non-optional" fees for things that aren't directly related to car maintenance (which is covered by the mileage reimbursement).....kind of like "shipping and handling" when you place an order. .54 cents per mile for the trip
$ 4.00 "convenience fee"
$ 2.00 "destination charge"
etc.

Are you opposed to the background checks?

[rsilvergun]

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.

Re:Are you opposed to the background checks?

[ooloorie]

or that Uber was required to comply with them.

It should be up to Uber and their customers: if customers demand background checks, the Uber will institute them. If not, then there is no need for the city to require them.

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.

And what magic technology would provide this infallible pre-crime analysis?

Re:Are you opposed to the background checks?

[mattwarden]

I oppose govt licensure of Uber drivers. Uber has background checks.

Why don't they just call a taxi?

[FunkSoulBrother]

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.

Re:Follow the money

[DRJlaw]

The best part of Brexit so far today is watching statist fuckfaces like yourself make shitty, spiteful comments and shake your tiny fists in rage. The people won, the elites lost. That doesn't happen very often and deserves celebrating.

A bunch of fifth graders voting that the supermarket should only be able to sell candy and ice cream? Real great referendum you have there. Voters are morons, Brexit proved it.

Wow, it took you less than a day to change from "the people won" to "voters are idiots."

Trolls are supposed to be less obvious. I think we've identified the true moron.

Re:Increase in hospital visits after legalization

[TopSpin]

Here is another story about Colorado marijuana legalization:

Marijuana charges filed in Colorado courts fell 81 percent between 2012 and 2015, from 10,340 to 1,954. Those dramatic changes saved thousands of people from unjust punishment and channeled law enforcement resources toward activities with a bigger public safety payoff.

I'll take a few knuckleheads that hurt themselves over thousands upon thousands of persecuted people, a distended justice system that thrives on a huge supply of drug cases, a violent underclass of contraband dealers and a militarized police force to deal with it. Idiots hurt themselves with illegal drugs every day; until you're ready to operate a large scale gulag system your laws can't prevent that.

Re: Drunk driving is a serious crime that kills pe

[Mitreya]

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.

Re: Drunk driving is a serious crime that kills pe

[AthanasiusKircher]

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.

Re:Follow the money

[Ichijo]

the city can not be responsible for the irresponsible decisions that people make while under the influence of alcohol that places the safety of others at risk.

When the city forces breweries to provide parking for their customers, then I think the city is at least partially responsible for the predictable drunk driving crashes that result, don't you?

And how is it not entrapment when the city encourages a behavior and then prosecutes people for doing it?

About protecting the Taxi Monopoly.

[Ke7dbx]

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.

Re:About protecting the Taxi Monopoly.

[fluffernutter]

If you don't understand the reasons why the taxi industry is regulated then just say so. You'll still look like an idiot, just a smaller one.

Forgot the Alamo

[transami]

So much for all that Big Texas "Freedom".

Why can't they just call taxis?

[AbRASiON]

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

Re:Why can't they just call taxis?

[RealityGone]

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

THIS! So much this!

Uber and Lyft are just Taxi companies anyway. They just ignore any regulations or laws put in place. They aren't "ride-sharing" at all. This isn't Joe Blow going to the Whole Foods and checking if anybody nearby needs a ride too. These are full-time (or part-time) drivers doing this as a JOB. Calling it "ride-sharing" is disingenuous at best and probably just a way for these horrible companies to try to get around the regulations put in place to make the taxi industry SAFE FOR RIDERS AND DRIVERS.

They treat their employees like crap and do everything they can to deny them benefits and wages.

They don't care about the riders because they ignore safety regulations.

They aren't "sticking it to the man" or "disrupting the industry." They're abusing laws and regulations to make as much money as possible by being HORRIBLE COMPANIES TO THEIR CUSTOMERS AND EMPLOYEES.

I do not understand why people love these companies so much.

Re:Why can't they just call taxis?

[Pulzar]

Are young people so fucking cool and hip that calling a fucking taxi is seen as passÃf©? Seriously?

No, it's just that there aren't any. There's too few of them in late hours, unpopular locations, destinations, etc...

It's not the coolness factor, it's the convenience and reliability, and, well, cost, too. You need a ride, you have a reasonably priced one in 10-15 minutes, in almost any part of the town.

Re:Why can't they just call taxis?

[fluffernutter]

Sounds like a reason to complain to the local government, not to usher in a totally unregulated company.

Re:Why can't they just call taxis?

[Pulzar]

Sounds like a reason to complain to the local government, not to usher in a totally unregulated company.

Can the local government force a cab company to work hours and locations it doesn't want to? Would you even want to see the government be able to do such things?

Re:Why can't they just call taxis?

[fluffernutter]

That happens where I live. Taxi companies are contracted to have a certain number of cabs outside hotels and other spots. They are required to have a certain number of vehicles for the handicapped. They can't refuse a fare no matter where it is called from and who. That's kind of the point of government and regulations.. to ensure companies give you the service that people need.

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.

Re:Uber & Lift left Austin

[fluffernutter]

left drunks without a plan

So people don't have to be responsible for themselves now? There is no claw that will pick a drunk up at the bar and drop them safely in bed so what else can they do but drive home drunk? HOW ABOUT NOT DRINK.

Re:Uber & Lift left Austin

[gwgwgw]

Most people knew both would probably keep to their promise to leave, but not on the very next day! Drunks (and Uber drivers, evidently) are not known for making long range plans. It was the suddenness that caught them all without a plan.

My wording could have been improved. My comments mostly result in TLDR. I'm working on that (except at this moment).

Re:Uber & Lift left Austin

[fluffernutter]

Someone suddenly lined up 10 shots of vodka, held the person down and made them swallow? Where are these places people go that force drinking upon entry? Can't say I've ever been to a place where I couldn't make a choice not to drink if I couldn't get home safely.

Re:If there are members of the public out all hour

[ooloorie]

then yeah, it should be 24 hours. It's pretty easy to justify the expense if you factor in the savings from the wrecks.

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.

Re:Increase in hospital visits after legalization

[zeugma-amp]

Idiots hurt themselves with illegal drugs every day; until you're ready to operate a large scale gulag system your laws can't prevent that.

Not even that would help. A prison is a practical example of the perfect police state, yet it doesn't keep out drugs.

Re: Drunk driving is a serious crime that kills pe

[Blaskowicz]

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.

proper public transport *does* run 24/7

[Uberbah]

No form of public transit I have ever used has had any kind of service after midnight, which is when all the drunks are out. Austin has a great bus system...until about 8pm. 11pm-midnight is pretty much the universal cutoff hour worldwide for public transit.

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.

Re:Follow the money

[Uberbah]

When the city forces breweries to provide parking for their customers [austintexas.gov], then I think the city is at least partially responsible for the predictable drunk driving crashes that result, don't you?

Then take a taxi to get home, then another taxi back to your car in the morning. Any other stupid questions?

Far, far, far more people are hurt after drinking

[Uberbah]

...alcohol. So, either you want to bring back Prohibition, or you're a concern troll.

Re:The old name for this...

[Pulzar]

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!

Because just about anyone can drive you safely from one place to another, and almost nobody can safely perform a root canal?

It doesn't even begin to compare.

Re:Follow the money

[geoskd]

Wow, it took you less than a day to change from "the people won" to "voters are idiots."

The people didn't win, they just think they did. In the long run, nothing of consequence will change. In the short run, some jobs will be lost, a fairly sizable amount of money has already been lost. In an aggregate sense, The people of Britain just voted to club their financial selves over the head with a 2x4. The folks who had very little money to lose will pay (statistically speaking) with their jobs and their very livelihood. In the end, its still the same breed of scumbag running things, even if it is a different set of faces, and you'd better bet that none of those so called leaders is in it for anyones well being except their own. If they were really in it for the good of the people, they would not be looking at polls to figure out whether they are doing a good job or not...

Re:Follow the money

[fluffernutter]

So you are the expert that alone will determine whether fingerprints work or not? That's for Austin to figure out.

Re:The old name for this...

[fluffernutter]

If just about everyone was a safe driver then there wouldn't be so many drunk drivers on the road for Uber to cause a 7.5% drop in.

Re:The old name for this...

[fluffernutter]

Because now the races that were referred to with racial slurs are driving proper taxi's.

Re:If there are members of the public out all hour

[bussdriver]

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.

Is Designated Driver now illegal?!

[martinfb]

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!

This is why I hate Austin despite people saying

[ToddInSF]

it's not like the rest of Texas. It IS just like the rest of Texas. Idiotic.

Mission Accomplished

[Bob_Who]

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."

Re:If there are members of the public out all hour

[ooloorie]

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.

Sorry to break it to you, but public transit has never been shown to be effective in helping with any of those issues.

Re:Follow the money

[DRJlaw]

I'm sorry, was there a point to this? Because my comment had very little to do with whether the people won or lost and far more to do with "obvious troll is obvious."

You're free to set me up as philosopher-king; otherwise you're prying my ability to vote from my cold dead hand, whether you think I'm a genius or an idiot.

Re:The old name for this...

[matbury]

The people referred to with the racial slur are Romanis.