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 so callee study that was posted here a while back claiming uber reduced drunk driving had so many statistical abuses that it was basically a waste of time. I haven't had a chance to check if this one is any better, but such correlations are hard to prove or disprove if you just use publicly available data.
Most drunks are indeed on the lower end of the social curves, they spent all their money on booze and rarely if ever get caught. Most other people getting caught don't even recognize they are impaired, the limits are set so low in my state that you could get arrested after a single apple cider.
That's how DUI lawyers make their money though, you pay them $2k and you're pretty much off the hook if it's your first offense because there are so many loopholes and problems with the system. Second offenses will net you a 2y record and require state-sponsored religious classes (10 step program).
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
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...
That "study" is an abhorrent abuse of statistics. It tells us nothing.
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
Why do people call it that? It is merely an app-driven unlicensed taxi service.