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."
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.
Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
An hour to show up? Where I live, Pittsburgh, you could be anywhere in the city and be unable to get a cab. You could be in the middle of downtown, call a cab, and it would never show up. Or you'd find another way home and the cab company would call you three hours later wondering where you were. Everyone I know who lived here before Uber has some story about spending four hours walking home because they couldn't get a cab. That's why I take issue with this study, particularly this line: "They also suggest that the tipsy riders who now call Uber are the ones who formerly would have called a taxi." Guess what? That wasn't always possible. Uber and Lyft gave us something we didn't have before, and in Pittsburgh specifically, there is a clear decline in DUI citations since 2013/14, when the ride sharing companies arrived. Looking only at country-level data is going to obscure Uber's impact in markets where cab service did not exist.
hi