Alcohol-Related Car Accidents Declined In New York After Introduction of Uber, Analysis Finds (economist.com)

According to a new paper from Jessica Lynn Peck of the Graduate Center at the City University of New York, ride-hailing services may have helped reduce alcohol-related traffic accidents by 25-30% in New York City. The report specifically focuses on Uber, which was first introduced in the city in May 2011, and looks at how the ride-hailing service has impacted New York City. The Economist notes in its report that Uber is "largely banned outside of New York City." From the report: To control for factors unrelated to Uber's launch such as adverse weather conditions, Ms Peck compares accident rates in each of New York's five boroughs to those in the counties where Uber was not present, picking those that had the most similar population density and pre-2011 drunk-driving rate. The four boroughs which were quick to adopt Uber -- Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx-- all saw decreases in alcohol-related car crashes relative to their controls. By contrast, Staten Island, where Uber caught on more slowly, saw no such decrease.

Comments

Uh oh, slashdot hates uber, loves cabs!

[Anonymous Coward]

This will be interesting, uber is good, slashdot hate uber, slashdot gets mad! cabs for life!!

Re:Uh oh, slashdot hates uber, loves cabs!

[cayenne8]

Hey, I *LOVE* uber.

Ever since it came to my town, I"ve really hardly ever driving after or while drinking.

it is so convenient, I don't have to worry about parking, etc....and I can't get caught for a DWI, which with the unreasonably lowered BAC levels (.08 now I believe)....you can get popped as a grown man just having 2-3 glasses of wine with a meal out.

I live in New Orleans...and I know many will be appalled, but it isn't that big a deal here to drink and drive, it isn't as frowned upon here and other places in the south as it appears to be up in the NE and way out west.

But with uber, it is so convent and now economical, it just isn't worth any of the risk.

My only worry is, that I"m losing my practice and skill at driving after a few (the only time I actually bother looking at and trying to go the speed limit)...but I"ll trade that off for only a few $ and an app button push away and able to party all night and not have to worry if I"ve had too much or not.

I can't imagine that I'm alone in the least bit on this....

Re:Uh oh, slashdot hates uber, loves cabs!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm proud to never have your problem since I've never drunk a drop of liquor for all the forty years of my life.

Re:Uh oh, slashdot hates uber, loves cabs!

[R3d M3rcury]

I'll bet you don't own a TV, either...

Re:Uh oh, slashdot hates uber, loves cabs!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm proud to never have your problem since I've never drunk a drop of liquor for all the forty years of my life.

You might benefit from trying it but don't go overboard. I'm having a lovely glass of Joto Sake right now. My parents didn't drink. I saw what it cost them in terms of social isolation. Religion was a prime reason. I picked up the alcohol and dropped the religion. Both good life choices. Then again, if you are easily led by religion (I don't know that, just hypothesizing) then you might be easily led by the bottle too. The bars will do fine with or without out you.

Re:Uh oh, slashdot hates uber, loves cabs!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised you haven't been flamed for admitting that you sometimes drink and drive. Decades ago it used to be legal for a driver to drink (at least in Texas). You still couldn't be drunk, but no one I knew was really counting how many drinks they had when we went out and everyone drove.

Now here in Colorado I could be arrested for 0.05 BAC (DWAI - not quite as severe as a DWI, but still very bad).

I've never been arrested but in both states I had a cop tell me that if he saw me again that night (or day in one case) that he would arrest me.

I've had a friend serve nearly a year in prison in TX for a 4th DUI. I lost touch with him, but last time I googled him he still hadn't learned his lesson despite having attended AA and having some success for a while. Who knows how many he's up to now.

It really isn't worth the risk for me. I've known too many people who have gotten caught and in one case some sober lady ran a stop sign and t-boned him despite him not having any stop sign. Even if you're acquitted it's way too expensive and too much of a hassle.

Getting a cab after leaving bar is often a hassle. The cab driver doesn't care who he picks up and there's a bunch of other drunks looking for cabs too. The worst I saw was outside of Tipitina's about 6 AM Sunday morning after a concert. Hundreds of people all needed cabs and it seemed like very few cab drivers were still working at that hour.

I presume with Uber, you already have staked your claim on that ride-for-hire.

Re:Uh oh, slashdot hates uber, loves cabs!

[Altus]

Uber may be a crappy company but the concept is sound. Having and easy, cheep, reliable way to call a ride in the city makes it a lot less likely that someone is going to drive to someplace they might want to drink (or to someplace where parking is difficult). I visited Montreal where uber operates illegally (last i checked) and they had a legal, app summoned, taxi service. Far better than any taxi I had taken in the city before, very reasonably priced and very convenient. It might have been more expensive than uber but it served the purpose well.

Old school taxis suck... ride share services seem like they might be kind of a stopgap but ultimately many cities need something like uber as a part of their transit solution. In the meantime, I try my best to only use Lyft.

Re:Uh oh, slashdot hates uber, loves cabs!

[GNious]

Uber may be a crappy company but the concept is sound. Having and easy, cheep, reliable way to call a ride in the city makes it a lot less likely that someone is going to drive to someplace they might want to drink (or to someplace where parking is difficult).

Please explain how it's notably easier thank hitting the dial button, type "taxi" (if even that much), hit dial again, and then tell someone on the other end where you are...

Heck, in the past, lift phone, hit a single button, wait 5-8 seconds, hang up, have taxi ready and waiting outside in ca 5 minutes.

In Manhattan????

[gurps_npc]

Look, half the reason people come to NYC is the fact that you don't drive - you take cabs or the subways. I know drunkards that moved here JUST for the ability to get drunk at any time of day or night and get home without driving.

I could see Uber cutting down alcohol related driving accidents in any other part of the world - even in Queens or Brooklyn (as there are places far from subways that cabs don't visit).

But if you are drunk and driving in MANHATTAN, you should be put in prison for being stupid, rather than for DWI.

Re:In Manhattan????

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep .... they did the study in the place where most residents don't drive (because they don't own a car due to high cost of parking).

Less cars == less accidents.

Re:In Manhattan????

[KiloByte]

It's still the US, so people are far more mindboggingly car-crazy than in the rest of the world. And the study quoted an percentage decrease, so absolute values don't matter (as long as they're big enough for a meaningful difference).

Re:In Manhattan????

[utahjazz]

No gurps_npc is right. I've lived in NYC 20 years and I think I've driven a car in the city twice. You are right KiloByte that we are unusually into cars; I still drive cars when I'm in other parts of the US. But seriously, the statistical significance of people in NYC driving home from a bar after drinking is gotta be 0. Before Uber there was 0 reason to drive a car home, and you can't go down from 0.

Re:In Manhattan????

[cayenne8]

No gurps_npc is right. I've lived in NYC 20 years and I think I've driven a car in the city twice. You are right KiloByte that we are unusually into cars; I still drive cars when I'm in other parts of the US. But seriously, the statistical significance of people in NYC driving home from a bar after drinking is gotta be 0. Before Uber there was 0 reason to drive a car home, and you can't go down from 0.

They should do the study here in New Orleans.

I guarantee they'd see a significant drop and drunk driving since Uber came to town.

I know I use it for that now...

Re:In Manhattan????

[ShanghaiBill]

Look, half the reason people come to NYC is the fact that you don't drive - you take cabs or the subways.

Then why are the streets full of cars?

Re:In Manhattan????

[Dorianny]

Look, half the reason people come to NYC is the fact that you don't drive - you take cabs or the subways. I know drunkards that moved here JUST for the ability to get drunk at any time of day or night and get home without driving.

I could see Uber cutting down alcohol related driving accidents in any other part of the world - even in Queens or Brooklyn (as there are places far from subways that cabs don't visit).

But if you are drunk and driving in MANHATTAN, you should be put in prison for being stupid, rather than for DWI.

Of course by NYC, you really mean MANHATTAN. 80% of the NYC popluation lives outside Manhttan, most of them not withing walking distance to subway stations and far enough from Manhattan for a eye-watering cab bill. This without even mentioning the people living across the Hudson in NJ, many who work (and party) in Manhattan

Re:In Manhattan????

[phantomfive]

From 2009 to 2013, drunk-driving accidents in New York killed 1,715 people, according to the federal data.

Source. Maybe you just don't know your own city.

Re:In Manhattan????

[thegarbz]

Because people are stupid. They will drive 500m to the gym, and take an escalator to the first floor, just to use a treadmill.

Re:In Manhattan????

[russotto]

Because people are stupid. They will drive 500m to the gym, and take an escalator to the first floor, just to use a treadmill.

I just go to the mall and use the wrong escalator until security shows up. That's when it's time to practice sprinting.

Re:In Manhattan????

[fluffernutter]

You forgot about how they wait 10 minutes idling in the parking lot, for the person leaving from the really close spot to the doors so they don't have to walk. I think that's the best part.

Supply and Demand

[_Sharp'r_]

So what they're saying is that if you introduce a workaround to bypass government anti-competitive restrictions on the supply of something, people will be able to purchase more of it.

What a shocking result....

Re:Supply and Demand

[rtb61]

Either that or Uber just happened to coincide with a general switch from alchohol as the intoxicant of choice to marijuana. So it switch from drivers driving to fast, to drivers driving to slow (those slow drivers not being in accidents so much as triggering them, when they set off a alchohol fuelled driver). It would be interesting to see how stoned drivers perform on a racetrack with very safe vehicles of course, how fast could they actually go before panicking and giving up.

Re:Supply and Demand

[Anonymous Coward]

It's possible the app itself makes it easier to hail a cab instead. Instead of calling, they just use an app and they don't need to use cash.

Pairing the app with taxis could have the same result.

Re:Supply and Demand

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet you were high when you wrote that.

Re:Supply and Demand

[R3d M3rcury]

It's possible the app itself makes it easier to hail a cab instead. Instead of calling, they just use an app and they don't need to use cash.

Actually, over the last year or two I've taken cab rides here in Southern California, I've had no problem paying for my cab with a credit card. Can't speak for NYC, but it's a good point.

One excuse for driving instead of taking a cab would be that you don't have to worry about having enough cash for the ride home. I know that sometimes became an issue back in my drinking days.

Re:Supply and Demand

[AcidPenguin9873]

The app is nice, but the other really big thing that Uber brings to the table is surge pricing. A surge really does what it is designed to do: gets many more drivers out on the road to match the large demand with more supply. Taxis don't have anything like that. If there aren't enough taxis, you just have to wait.

Re:Supply and Demand

[Anonymous Coward]

the uber 'boom' just happen to also come right after the dismantling of the public pay phone infrastructure. taverns in most places aren't even required to have one anymore, so no cab numbers publicly posted anywhere (like next to their formerly-required public phones), barkeeps also now tend to leave rides up to the patron to get for themselves as everybody has a phone these days.

then you also have the 'no smoking.. *anywhere*' movement that's banning smoking in taverns and restaurants that serve booze. for many, that means staying home instead, or when you go out you don't stay as long (and so, you're drinking less when you are out). the booze is cheaper at home, you can smoke what you want, and you control the tv or music, not some sad schmuck playing nothing but hank williams jr on the digital jukebox.

so we have... the lack of pay phones and the lack of cab phone numbers posted by them.... fewer drunks in the bars.... and drunks finding their own rides home.

so, yes, besides the fewer drunks needing rides, it is most likely a simple case of it being more difficult to find a phone number for a local cab company on your tiny phone, call them, and actually talk to them to get a ride, than it is to use the uber app when you're drunk off your ass..

that's it.

uber isn't some special secret solution to drunk driving.. it's just coincidence and leveraging the cab company's slow entry into the 'ride-by-app' market (combined with their total disregard for local laws and regulations to steal market share, of course).

Re:Supply and Demand

[stephanruby]

It would be interesting to see how stoned drivers perform on a racetrack with very safe vehicles of course...

As interesting as this is.

I think your initial premise is wrong. People switching from alcohol to marijuana is not the cause of this slowdown in drunk driving.

In my area for instance, which is a suburb outside of San Francisco, a bartender told me that taxis were too difficult to get ten years ago, that's why many of his customers didn't use them. He'd call one for a patron, and it wouldn't even show up. And when he'd get off work, he'd call a taxi for himself and the operator would tell him that it was going to take 45 minutes to get there to pick him up.

Now it just takes 2 to 10 minutes to get an Uber/Lyft. That's the crucial difference because the number of people leaving his establishment drunk hasn't really changed in the past ten years.

And no, you don't have to believe me, I am an Uber driver so I could be very biased. And if you live an Uber/Lyft rich area, I only ask that you ask longtime bartenders to see what they can tell you about this question. I suspect that they'll tell you the same thing that the bartender I met said.

Re:Supply and Demand

[Major Blud]

I doubt Uber can be the cause of the decline, but I also doubt that marijuana use is the cause also. New York State only started to allow medical marijuana early last year, and only if it's in extracts or edible.
http://extract.suntimes.com/in...

I wouldn't think the number of people who started using medical marijuana would have an effect on the number of drunk drivers.

Re:Supply and Demand

[tsqr]

So what they're saying is that if you introduce a workaround to bypass government anti-competitive restrictions on the supply of something, people will be able to purchase more of it.

What a shocking result....

Or maybe they're saying that if drunks can take advantage of people who have been duped (or have fooled themselves) into providing a service at starvation wages, they will do it. That's shocking as well.

Re:Supply and Demand

[rtb61]

I also think slashdot does not have a sense of humour. I of course still think it would be hilarious watching a bunch of stoned drivers trying to race around a race track in fairly safe cars, the facial expressions trying to make their way around the track at speed would be really humorous.

Re:Supply and Demand

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been car club racing a couple of times a year for the past 20 years in the same car and there is no difference in my lap times whether I am straight or stoned. I just have more fun stoned.
My car https://voat.co/v/MR2/339520

Re:Supply and Demand

[strikethree]

It would be interesting to see how stoned drivers perform on a racetrack with very safe vehicles of course, how fast could they actually go before panicking and giving up.

I have done this. I was in a Mercedes Benz E55 AMG. I had amazing lap times. In fact, the owner of the track told me that he had never had a car that was street legal drive that fast on his track before. He took me aside and showed me his collection of race M3s.

I lapped every Porsche on the track. I suspect they were "noobs" (originally newbs).

There was a Z06 there. It could almost keep up with me in the curves and there was Viper which could almost keep up with me in the straights. There were only two cars that could pass me that day but they never did. One guy spun out on the curve behind the curve that I was in. I was disappointed for him. The other one was a race-modified BMW M3. It would have destroyed me but broke down before it could pass me.

I was doing all this while having the air conditioner on, rocking out to some seriously aggressive music, and smoking a bowl.

Some people should not do anything serious while stoned while others are able to concentrate more clearly while stoned.

TL;DR: People are all different.

Re:Supply and Demand

[sysrammer]

A little alcohol to help me drive assertively, and a little pot to get me in the groove: I wouldn't need a soundtrack, the roar of the engines would be enough. Man that sounds like fun. Moderation, of course, except for speed, of course.

Re:Supply and Demand

[rtb61]

Me I prefer a nice stroll through pleasant burbs, views down leafy streets, listening to tunes, I could not imagine racing in anything, no way, no how.

Re:Supply and Demand

[Major Blud]

Yeah I guess I missed the humor in your post. After all, it was modded +4 Interesting instead of +5 Funny :-)

Remarkably Convenient

[Anonymous Coward]

This finding is remarkably convenient, for Uber. But it's rather difficult to believe. There's not been any shortage of cabs in NYC and people weren't reluctant to pay for it. It's either a coincidence, or a bogus finding.

Re:Remarkably Convenient

[KiloByte]

There's not been any shortage of cabs in NYC and people weren't reluctant to pay for it.

I take it you haven't walked within ten meters of a cab in the last, say, 40 years, I guess? Cabbies have Microsoft marketroid levels of integrity.

It's either a coincidence, or a bogus finding.

You mean, an unbiased story slipping through the anti-Uber organized shit flinging fest we have in the media recently?

Re:Remarkably Convenient

[TechyImmigrant]

>There's not been any shortage of cabs in NYC

That depends heavily on the time of day and where in NYC you happen to be.
I tried their "mytaxi" app and it is shite beyond belief. I couldn't even pay with it. It couldn't connect.

The Lyft/Uber experience is so much better.

Re:Remarkably Convenient

[Anonymous Coward]

Cabbies have Microsoft marketroid levels of integrity.

What the fuck does that even mean?

It's a car ride on "public" transportation. I have zero fucks to give about the driver's integrity. I care about getting from A to B quickly and the driver's driving ability and safety record.

I don;t give a shit about integrity, sketchy bottles of water or how good the quality of their weed is supposed to be.

Re:Remarkably Convenient

[KiloByte]

It's a car ride on "public" transportation. I have zero fucks to give about the driver's integrity. I care about getting from A to B quickly and the driver's driving ability and safety record.

Like, say, the driver lying up front to you how long the trip is and how long will it cost? Or the price suddenly rising by a factor of three the moment you arrive at the destination? Or them always "not having the change"?

Uber fixes all of this. Their execs might be strangling fluffy bunnies in all of their free time for all I care, if they can get us rid of the vermin that current cab mafia are, they're still good.

Re:Remarkably Convenient

[Anonymous Coward]

have you ridden in a cab since 1920's?

In a city where "nobody" drives?

[darthsilun]

Then all those cars on the roads are from where exactly?

That aside, give people an even easier way not to drive, especially when drunk, and surprise, drunk driving goes down.

Whodathunkit?

In related news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Both the evasion of transportation laws and abuse of the working poor have spiked in areas where uber operates.

Every story

[110010001000]

Every story on this site is about Uber, Amazon, and Facebook. Who the fuck cares? More emDrive news please. I need to get off this rock stuck in a gravity well.

Re:Every story

[hackertourist]

I agree. By now every Uber story and its comments do nothing but rehash the same subject. I also noticed many of these stories never show up in the Firehose so we can't vote them down.

working paper, not published or peer reviewed

[Anonymous Coward]

This hasn't been peer reviewed.. hell, it hasn't even been finished.

gotta keep fightin that war on Alc

[Anonymous Coward]

one bottle at a time...

Seriously...

[Narcocide]

... how did taxi companies drop the ball on this one?

Re:Seriously...

[lucm]

... how did taxi companies drop the ball on this one?

they are not subsidized by private investors willing to sink billions in creating a customer base in the hope that one day with autonomous cars the company will make money.

Re:Seriously...

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

They're used to a monopoly, and charging obscene rates. Fuck them. Let them die.

Paid Advertisement Article

[TexasDiaz]

This article was brought to you by your friends at Uber.

People will catch cabs if they are not overpriced

[Anonymous Coward]

So the taxi cab monopoly costs lives but is kept in place by greedy local government officials keen to enrich their own coffers by selling overpriced taxi medallions.

People should just stop drinking alcohol

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm proud to have never drunk even a drop of alcohol in the forty years of my life. Rid the world of alcohol and the world would be a much better place!

Re: People should just stop drinking alcohol

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess prohibition times were heaven on earth.

New York is bringing down the average!

[PopeRatzo]

Here in Texas, we make up for all those coastal elite snowflakes who think there's something wrong with drinking and driving.

Re:New York is bringing down the average!

[R3d M3rcury]

Keep in mind that in Texas, there's nothing worthwhile to hit.

Re:New York is bringing down the average!

[TechyImmigrant]

Here in Texas, we make up for all those coastal elite snowflakes who think there's something wrong with drinking and driving.

Here in West coast liberal snowflake land, you would be surprised at the amount of drinking and driving in my neighborhood, we have walking distance to 3 bars and people still drive there. We have better government though, so it's a win-win.

Re:New York is bringing down the average!

[Huge_UID]

Being Texas, there are plenty of things to hit, but none of them are worth anything.

Re:New York is bringing down the average!

[sysrammer]

Mojave desert..."a paradise of Flying and Drinking and Drinking and Driving"

"Alcohol-Related Car Accident" is an oxymoron

[Ichijo]

The title is self-contradictory. When a crash is alcohol-related, it isn't accidental, it's criminally negligent.

Even the NYPD agrees that "accident" means "there's no criminality...that's why they call it an accident." But when alcohol is involved, there's criminality and therefore cannot logically be a true accident.

Re:"Alcohol-Related Car Accident" is an oxymoron

[Anonymous Coward]

The title is self-contradictory. When a crash is alcohol-related, it isn't accidental, it's criminally negligent.

I just crashed my methanol powered car, you insensitive clod

Re:"Alcohol-Related Car Accident" is an oxymoron

[Anonymous Coward]

What if someone accidentally runs into or otherwise causes a vehicle with an intoxicated driver to be involved in an incident?

Re:"Alcohol-Related Car Accident" is an oxymoron

[thegarbz]

it isn't accidental, it's criminally negligent

You're describing two different parts of the situation in one sentence. You can't be criminally negligent at a time when two cars come together without the process also being accidental. Otherwise it wouldn't be criminally negligent but rather attempted murder or something with similar criminal intent.

Criminal negligence is a process that ultimately leads to the accident. Negligent people don't actually try and injure others, but they possess poor judgement protecting others.

A car accident may be the result of criminal negligence or may be truly accidental. The only time it stops being a car accident is if you attempt to mow down someone on purpose.

Re:"Alcohol-Related Car Accident" is an oxymoron

[Ichijo]

One definition of "accidental" is "happening by chance". When you drive drunk, does a crash happen truly by chance?

Another definition is "unexpected". Is driving drunk not expected to lead to crashes?

Another definition is "arising from extrinsic causes". When you drive drunk and get into a crash, was the cause of the crash outside of your control?

So you see, it requires a remarkably narrow definition of the word "accidental" to make the claim that alcohol-related crashes are accidental. This is why the NYPD in my link above says that true accidents involve no criminality.

Re:"Alcohol-Related Car Accident" is an oxymoron

[thegarbz]

When you drive drunk, does a crash happen truly by chance?

Err yes. Changing the odds to anything other than 1.0 still leaves it truly to chance.

Is driving drunk not expected to lead to crashes?

No. It's expected to increase the probability of a crash due to impairment of motorskills.

When you drive drunk and get into a crash, was the cause of the crash outside of your control?

Depends on the circumstances of the crash.

So you see, it requires a remarkably narrow definition of the word "accidental" to make the claim that alcohol-related crashes are accidental.

Nope all I see are 3 irrelevant things that doesn't change the use of the word.

This is why the NYPD in my link above says that true accidents involve no criminality.

Criminality isn't an accident, the crash is. You're citing a different part of the event. You are criminally negligent when driving drunk, and you can't do that accidentally. That has nothing to do with the ultimate crash.

The NYPD may even agree with you and not understand the difference, but then I wouldn't say any Americans attribute any significant amount of intelligence to their police departments. If they were english majors they probably wouldn't be out trying to stop drunk drivers from having accidents.

Re:"Alcohol-Related Car Accident" is an oxymoron

[Ichijo]

driving drunk...has nothing to do with the ultimate crash.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Less Jobs Again

[JimSadler]

Think of how much unemployment Uber can cause if it eliminates 30% of drunk driving. Doctors, emergency rooms, ambulances, morticians, courts and even police forces can lay off workers due to less drunk driving. Insurance companies make huge sums raping the wallets of convicted drunk drivers and God only knows how many bricks in the court house were paid for by drunk drivers. Can society survive this kind of progress? Next they will find a way to beat down heroin addiction. Imagine the countless jobs created by junkies collapsing dying or requiring rehab or paying lawyers, courts and probation fees we will lose. Can we afford this sort of thing. Maybe the morticians should sue to halt such progress as it clearly eliminates many jobs in their profession. What next? Maybe they will find a way to close all out prisons?

Lies, Lies, Lies

[tailgunner_050]

And before this the pro-cannabis party were claiming the increased usage of pot was responsible. Everyone just trying to grab the credit because irrational statements keep pulling in the readers.