Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal
1–10 of 206 posts
Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal
#2I feel like I'm missing something. Reasonable people can disagree about what jobs should/should not require a background check, but it doesn't seem entirely outrageous that the drivers of buses, taxis, and similar transportation services should have them.
> Unfortunately, the rules passed by the City Council don’t allow true ridesharing to operate.
Why? Like, I read the whole article twice, and I'm still confused. It's being presented as "Uber is literally unable to operate with this rule in place", but why? Do they need to fund the background checks? Are they too expensive? Would their drivers refuse to undergo them? Would their drivers fail them? Do taxi companies face the same rules? How is it they can maintain service?
I don't get it.
Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal
#3I feel like I'm missing something. Reasonable people can disagree about what jobs should/should not require a background check, but it doesn't seem entirely outrageous that the drivers of buses, taxis, and similar transportation services should have them. > Unfortunately, the rules passed by the City Council don’t allow true ridesharing to operate. Why? Like, I read the whole article twice, and I'm still confused. It…
This article by the founder of a well known Austin startup incubator explains it well: https://austinstartups.com/austin-tech-vote-for-prop-1-on-ma...
Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal
#4I feel like I'm missing something. Reasonable people can disagree about what jobs should/should not require a background check, but it doesn't seem entirely outrageous that the drivers of buses, taxis, and similar transportation services should have them. > Unfortunately, the rules passed by the City Council don’t allow true ridesharing to operate. Why? Like, I read the whole article twice, and I'm still confused. It…
This article by the founder of a well known Austin startup incubator explains it well: https://austinstartups.com/austin-tech-vote-for-prop-1-on-ma...
The author makes the false dilemma that you can either have fingerprint background checks OR less DUI accidents through ridesharing services. You can have both; you'll just need to fill the gap with ridesharing services who will comply with the new regulation.
This section is especially egregious:
> What happens if Prop 1 passes?
> Austin sends a message to the world, “Innovation is welcome here. Things are stable now and the people have spoken.”
Austin spoke (and not Austin's government, Austin's voters!). Innovation is welcome, simply with additional (voter desired and approved) regulations.
If ridesharing is sufficiently lucrative with these additional required regulations, competitors will fill the gap. If not, Austin's voters may re-evaluate their decision at a future date.
Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal
#5I feel like I'm missing something. Reasonable people can disagree about what jobs should/should not require a background check, but it doesn't seem entirely outrageous that the drivers of buses, taxis, and similar transportation services should have them. > Unfortunately, the rules passed by the City Council don’t allow true ridesharing to operate. Why? Like, I read the whole article twice, and I'm still confused. It…
Totally agree. Uber could come up with a quick way to do fingerprint background checks. Just have the driver, go through a drive-through background check stop. It might take 5 minutes, but I thought Uber & Lyft drivers had a short orientation anyway. Kill 2 birds.
After reading Josh Baer's article, I do agree with him that its a lot easier to point at a startup and say something is easy, without all the knowledge from the inside. I am sure there is a lot of data on why this is hard to do.
I do think that part of this boils down to liability. If a certain percentage of drivers are known offenders of some kind, Uber or Lyft could get sued for letting them remain on their platform.
Super sad to see Uber go. Its a great app. I use it almost daily. Reality hasn't set in yet.
Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal
#6Sounds like a business opportunity for a startup: we will operate in compliance in areas where Uber/Lyft won't.
Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal
#7Why do they still call it ride sharing?
Just yesterday it was in the news that Uber drivers will now accept tips.
How is this anything else than a glorified app based taxi service? Maybe call it freelancing taxi, but definitely not ride sharing.
On a positive note, I am glad to see Uber respecting the law for once!
Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal
#8Is the issue the cost of fingerprint checks? Can't fingerprint checks be made cheaper? Isn't there a YC company that is in the background check business?
Edit: Ah yes, https://checkr.com/
Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal
#9Checking in from Austin. Both companies are framing this as "pausing" operations. This is just another negotiation tactic, as far as I'm concerned.
Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal
#10I feel like I'm missing something. Reasonable people can disagree about what jobs should/should not require a background check, but it doesn't seem entirely outrageous that the drivers of buses, taxis, and similar transportation services should have them. > Unfortunately, the rules passed by the City Council don’t allow true ridesharing to operate. Why? Like, I read the whole article twice, and I'm still confused. It…
There are 2 answers to this.
Lyft, which made the above qoute and Uber, obviously could continue operating if breifly pausing to fingerprint their drivers. However, the first answer to your question is that they won't. The premise of ridesharing is about scalable technology that allows people to work together on a platform. It would be an expensive precedent for these companies to have to pay for this cost. This is regardless of how you the consumer feel. There is also a very non-trivial impediment to get drivers to do this, especially if they are barred for something like a felony, even non-violent or not related to a vehicle. The difference is who controls the process, which wasn't stated in the article. I suspect a 3rd prty (e.g. Austin) would want drivers to come into a public place (police staton/town hall) and get fingerprinted. I do not believe that could simply thumbprint a phone.
The second answer is privacy & convenience. A driver is unlikely to want to get fingerprinted and it probably makes little difference. Why should some agency get potentially millions of fingerprints (if this become national) when it would serve no purpose. Maybe they can serve warrants, ect. Again, idk if this is good or bad from a public standpoint but in practice Uber/Lyft already have a car, registration, license, picture, social media and very quickly a review system. So to the extent someone wanted to cheat, it would just be another small ipediment.