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!
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
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.