Slashdot Mirror
Uber Doesn't Decrease Drunk Driving, Finds New Study (washingtonpost.com)
"A new study casts doubt on Uber's claim that ride-sharing has reduced drunken driving," reports the Washington Post. An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes their report:
Researchers at Oxford University and the University of Southern California who examined county-level data in the United States before and after the arrival of Uber and its competitors in those markets found that ride-sharing had no effect on drinking-related or holiday- and weekend-related fatalities. One reason could be that, despite the soaring popularity of Uber and other ride-sharing services, there still may not be enough ride-share drivers available yet to make a dent on drunken driving, the authors said.
They also suggest that the tipsy riders who now call Uber are the ones who formerly would have called a taxi. For others, the odds of getting a DUI are still so low that many would prefer to gamble rather than lay out money for a ride-sharing service. Drunks, after all, are just not rational.
One reason for the low number of Uber drivers may be that the 10-year study only examined data through 2014. While other studies have found a decrease in drunk driving arrests associated with Uber -- for example, in California -- the Post's article suggests that ridesharing drivers may just be a drop in the bucket. "Although approximately 450,000 people now drive for Uber, there are 210 million licensed drivers in the United States -- and an estimated 4.2 million adults who drive impaired, the study says."
They also suggest that the tipsy riders who now call Uber are the ones who formerly would have called a taxi. For others, the odds of getting a DUI are still so low that many would prefer to gamble rather than lay out money for a ride-sharing service. Drunks, after all, are just not rational.
One reason for the low number of Uber drivers may be that the 10-year study only examined data through 2014. While other studies have found a decrease in drunk driving arrests associated with Uber -- for example, in California -- the Post's article suggests that ridesharing drivers may just be a drop in the bucket. "Although approximately 450,000 people now drive for Uber, there are 210 million licensed drivers in the United States -- and an estimated 4.2 million adults who drive impaired, the study says."
Every Uber I've taken, the driver has been wasted. I just push him out of the car and drive myself. Then I have the car towed in the morning.
Since Uber hit the streets I can't remember the last time I drove even a little bit tipsy. There's just no need for it when for $5-6 bucks I can get home at a moments notice with zero risk of a DUI. Its incredibly affordable "insurance".
Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
The people who are either arrested for DUI or are involved in an accident aren't really Internet savvy / don't have a smartphone / ask "what's an Uber". This translates into only a percentage of people know everything about the Internet and smartphones.
We've seen an increase in drunk driving incidents since Uber and Lyft left Austin a couple of months ago. http://keyetv.com/news/local/d...
Just like politicians they will bend the truth and say whatever they like.
Some studies say dog shit smells good.
Well, I am a longtime fan of excellent ridiculous Kung Fu films from the Hong Kong Shaw brothers from the 70's for years.
One of their theme was "Drunken Boxer Style" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The hero gets tanked up . . . or pretends to get tanked up, and then defeats the bad guy with his unpredictable movements.
What works for Kung Fu, should also work on the road . . . so Drunken Driver Style is definitely in!
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Could it be that outside of a small number of big cities on the east coast (NYC, Boston, DC, ???) the vast overwhelming majority of US adults drive automobiles to go practically everywhere? Combine that with our inability to plan ahead (simple human nature), and it is not a stretch to think of something like this being extremely common:
The way to make something like uber have a dent in impaired driving is for the party organizer/host to "enforce" it. For example, I attended a party a while back where one of the hosts was the entry/exit summoning ubers/taxis for people as they left if they had been drinking or didn't have a designated driver with them. Sadly, that's the only occasion where I witnessed that sort of diligence.
The places where uber does really well are also the places where people are accustomed to and want to get around without driving themselves or owning their own cars. This sort of thing directly correlates with population density. Certainly that some suburban areas where uber does OK and provides a good service, but the vast majority of the American population is spread out over much larger and less populous areas. In a town of 1200 people with 8 bars on a downtown strip, I doubt that you will find 50 uber drivers ready to drive people home from the bars.
The fact is, humans suck at assessing risk. We are either wilfully ignorant of the risk (i.e., we do nothing to educate ourselves) or we don't care (i.e., I can do what I want, regardless of the impact/consequences to myself and others). This is why phishing, malware, and social engineering are such problems. This is also why people die of coronary diseases from a lifetime of poor diet and poor fitness, from smoking-related illnesses, and why people still drive impaired and get themselves and/or others killed.
They say 450.000 people are driving for Uber, but the interesting number should be the number of customers riding with Uber.
Further more, I think we really need to know how many are riding around midnight, or other times when people are most likely to be driving drunk.
If all Uber drivers are working when almost nobody was driving drunk anyway it's very unlikely they affect the statistics very much.
It may also be that many people riding with Uber are people who used to be the designated driver, now thinking Uber is better than staying sober all night.
If this is the case we might have just as many drunk drivers now as before, because people who were assholes that just don't give a fuck before Uber came along are still assholes that don't give a fuck.
No. Because where I live (Fort Worth Suburbs) a cab could take as much as an hour to show up and cost $50 bucks. Uber brought us something we never had before. Quick access and affordability.
Uber is about $40 - $100 where I live to do the same - metro Atlanta suburbs.
Uber and a lot of their investors proclaim ride sharing to be the innovative next great thing. I see GM and other car companies throwing billions at it and I just don't see where they expect to make their returns. IF it were to become what they expect it to be, it would mean they'd sell less cars.
I don't get it. It's just a (slight) discount taxi service with a lot of hype. This BS of folks don't need a car anymore is complete nonsense - at least if you live away from mass transportation. I thought of just using these ride sharing services instead of owning a car and owning a car is cheaper - of you don't live near mass transportation. I would LOVE not to have a car, but Uber, Lyft and who ever else there is isn't going to be the solution.
No ifs, not buts.
No drug removes critical thinking and common sense like alcohol. Even LSD isn't as bad. Many people seem to be more vulnerable to this effect than others. It's no suprise that a relatively cheap alternative to driving wouldn't help much as people who are too drunk to drive already start suffering from this judgement issue.
This is another misinterpreted result. Probably intentionally to get clicks. Not finding an effect is different from finding no effect.
Logically, it's quite silly to claim that everyone who calling an uber would have called a taxi. Taxis have a cost and ubers have a lower cost. This is like saying the opening of a McDonald's doesn't increase burger consumption because everyone patronizing would have previously patronized the 100% hippie-bullshit-fed $20 burger shop next door. Of course MOST people calling an uber would have called a taxi before; uber is a cheaper and higher service alternative. But that also means that on the margin people who would not have used a taxi service will use uber.
But that is a different question than asking whether people are choosing DUI-risk or Uber, because there is a third option of staying home. I find that much more likely: people more frequently drink or drink more because uber is available.
In Austin, people who will never use Uber voted to outlaw unlicensed ride sharing, which broke Uber's business model and they left. Since then, downtown bars report a drop in sales. To me the jury is still out because school at UT has been out and I don't know if these bar owners are comparing YoY or just before/after uber left. But if it's YoY, that would suggest support for the above.
I know, you have to do some bull crap studies for class, but seriously?
I bet you can show Uber doesn't have a statistical impact on heart disease, fertility rates, the price of depends undergarments, or even what time my dog has to take a dump as well.
The majority of who I know that ride share, ride share intra-city. The odds of being picked up while driving drunk in the city are much lower than someone who commuted 20 miles into the city, gets drunk, then has to drive 20 miles back home.
In addition you still have the issue of getting back down to your vehicle the next day. So you're ride share back? That means you're paying double. I think with the impairment of already being drunk they just decide to chance it probably deal with that back and forth headache?
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
An easier way to disprove this marketing claim is that Uber and Lyft won't actually accept riders who are too drunk to drive. Most Uber drivers I've talked to stop working around the time the bars let out because they don't want the drunks. If they do get a drunk passenger, they give that passenger a low rating and the person gets banned from the app. Given that they actively avoid taking people who've been drinking, there's no point of further examining the claim that they reduce drunk driving!
In theory this article and the study is about people who would have used cabs before, but the reality that is being put forward is that they are about those people being the only drunk people to use Uber.
Horse shit. There's a huge difference between slobbering hammered and simply having had enough to drink that you'd get arrested due to the draconian MADD sponsored alcohol laws. When I still drove, I used Uber all the time when drinking. I probably COULD have gotten away with driving in those situations, but I'd prefer not to risk my freedom.
Now I live and work downtown and walk everywhere. I still use Uber to get places outside walking distance, but sometimes I'll use it to get home if I don't think I'm safe to walk.
I have a perfect 5.0 rider rating. Of course I've never been beligerant or puked in a car or whatever.
And "most uber drivers I've talked to" isn't a scientific sample. I have NEVER had a problem getting a ride with Uber. I might have to pay a little more than usual if the supply of drivers is lower, but it's still FAR cheaper, more reliable, and safer than any cab service in this area I've ever used.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
If alcohol doesn't increase the rate of accidents, for example because tipsy drivers drive more carefully to avoid being pulled over, then these statistics mean nothing.
If people's motivation for driving home drunk instead of getting a cab, uber or lyft is because their car is parked in limited time parking where it would be subject to fines and/or towing when left overnight, then the availability of cabs is moot.
Statistics isn't hard if you do it right. Observational studies of rare events are highly likely to be confounded.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Can anyone explain why we continue to use the term "ride sharing" when Uber, Lyft, et al, have nothing to do with ride sharing? They're basic car-for-hire services. Ride sharing has always been used to mean "People who share a car to get to a common destination" (eg commuters who work together and live close by saving on gas, that kind of thing), and while Uber started by claiming that this was essentially what they were doing, it became obvious pretty quickly that the service resembles ride sharing in no way whatsoever.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
To believe.
Not every person who has a drink is drunk.
Drunk driving arrests increased....Fact.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Why do you come here just to make shit up? Is it a game to see who believes you?
Uber drivers are heavily influenced by surge pricing, which would cause people to decide to deal with drinks to get 3x normal fare if what you say were true. But the worst surge ratio I have seen here in Austin as the bars are closing is 1.8x, and it's usually 1.2x. That means there is enough supply to service almost everyone who wants in uber in whatever timeframe uber sets as its service level goal.
I'm sure they have something in their TOS to refuse the right to transport anyone for any reason, which covers unruly drunks. Just because it's in the TOS it doesn't mean they're going to enforce it at face value. Drivers will make a call when they pick people up. If the person seems like they're going to throw up or cause trouble, they're can refuse to give them a lift. Don't try and spin this to suit whatever story it is you're trying to sell.
I for one am glad that Uber at least found a new study after discovering that it doesn't decrease drunk driving.
Site & blog: http://www.mayaposch.com
> Most Uber drivers I've talked to stop working around the time the bars let out because they don't want the drunks.
Where on *earth* do you live? In my metro area Drunk O'Clock is a major moneymaker for Lyft & friends. I find it... difficult to believe that it's any different in any other area that has demand for taxi services.
One other factor is: what are the officer's quotas for DUI arrests? They are going to find a way to make that quota.
Why do people call it that? It is merely an app-driven unlicensed taxi service.
FBI get run over by drunk drivers more often than anticipated.
Ain't that right Terry aka FBI Editor David
In an effort to extract more money from its drivers, the Uber cab company has been pushing them to use Uberpool where riders traveling to similar destinations are grouped together in the same vehicle.
This sounds great in theory, the Uber cab driver can carry more riders, but the downsides are several. First, the cab driver has to go out of their way to pick up the second (or third) rider, this leads to the second issue where the rider "experience" is degraded because the other riders might be undesirable in one way or another or their trip delayed because of picking up the other riders. This can lead to lower ratings for the cab driver, not to mention the cab driver gets fewer tips this way.
However, if an Uber cab driver refuses to accept rides using Uberpool they are penalized by the Uber cab company via "timeouts". The company prevents the cab driver from obtaining any other rides for up to 15 minutes.
As one researcher into how the Uber cab company operates via this method said, "You're saying to someone -- you're your own boss, but also go into the penalty box because you didn't behave in the way that we suggested you should."
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
If there were 10,000 drunk drivers on Christmas and the police were capable of stopping, testing, and arresting 700 of them (which takes time for each officer to do... perhaps as much as a couple hours) then reducing the number of drunk drivers to 7,000 may not show up in there.
On a tablet and haven't read the fine article, but did the check the drunk accident rate?
Maxo-texas
There is a level of false confidence driver have to recognize to go "okay, I shouldn't drive." I started using Uber and it only costs about $7 without surge to get home. I had a few drinks the other night and I Uber'd home, picked up my car the next day. I get caught over the limit, I lose my job (company car) and perhaps my career (licensed medical personnel). I'm just one guy and there were a -lot- of people at that pub.
One thing to consider: how many drunk drivers actually get caught? Go to a average-sized bar with maybe 100 people inside and see how many get in their car and drive home. Do you really think they are not impaired? If your jail has a website listing arrests, check it out and you'll find maybe only a handful of people arrested for DUI. Now, consider the number of Uber drivers out there compared to licensed drivers alone. The difference in the number of DUIs may be a narrow margin and, therefore, considered statistically insignificant.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
maybe billions shoving it down our throats before we realized what they were doing. It's the same reason you buy your wife a diamond ring.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Seriously, AP will likely make a HUGE dent in drunken driving. By 2020, it will be apparent that owners of AP cars, such as Tesla, no longer get into accidents, including when drinking.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Or have sme countries so distorted their city plans so that a car is an absolute necessity (like air and water - and food in alternating months) instead of a luxury. What weird priorities.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"