Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

buzzfeed.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 206 posts

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#21

Post by toomuchtodo »

vonklaus wrote: post #18
toomuchtodo wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 no…

You make a good point, however it is possible drunk driving could go up in between now (when the 2 biggest ridesharing services leave) and someone creates a competing Austin only startup, prototypes the technology, builds and deploys it, and in parrallel Austin builds the infrastructure to fingerprint all of the new drivers, then the services launches and all of the new people have a small bit of friction in finding…

You're right! Google could also, in the mean time, start providing ridesharing services with their self driving vehicles (note 1: they test them in Austin, in addition to Mountain View; note 2: Google Ventures invested in Uber, not Google proper, Google and Uber are competitors in the self-driving vehicle space). But we're just speculating at this point. Anything could happen!

> However, it isn't particularly "fair" but they voted againest their own interests (if they wanted ridesharing).

I argue this is subjective (they voted "against their own interests"). They voted for more knowledge about their drivers (something they can control). One should not need to forfeit additional safety regulations to a tech company due to irresponsible intoxicated/influenced drivers being used as the proverbial boogyman.

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#22

Post by rumcajz »

argonaut wrote: post #6

Sounds like a business opportunity for a startup: we will operate in compliance in areas where Uber/Lyft won't.

Would you invest in a startup which can be destroyed by its competition at will, i.e. by Uber agreeing to do the checks? Not gonna fly.

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#23

Post by vonklaus »

jtchang wrote: post #16
vonklaus wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

I actually feel fingerprints are a bad idea but I also feel the city has a right to enact ordinances that the populace believes will help keep them "safer". One other thought is that why wouldn't Uber/Lyft want these regulations. It seems like the are already the dominant party and fingerprint regulation would create a moat for other competitors to enter.

Because a regulatory moat keeps competitors out because it is a hassle and has increased compliance costs. There seems to be 0 leverage in fingerprinting and I would argue unlikely to provide a stepchange improvement in safety. So Austin would have to establish a way to fingerprint people and verify them which 1) Lyft and Uber have already, 2) WOuld be paid for by Lyft/Uber/Taxpayers 3) WOuld put a huge moat around the onboarding process and add a fuckton of friction.

I agree that cities should be able to enforce laws like this. I disagree with this one, but not their right to. However, to the degree Lyft & Uber provide leverage, they certainly have the right to leave and take their value with them in the hopes Austin reconsiders.

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#24

Post by nefitty »

rumcajz wrote: post #22
argonaut wrote: post #6

Sounds like a business opportunity for a startup: we will operate in compliance in areas where Uber/Lyft won't.

Would you invest in a startup which can be destroyed by its competition at will, i.e. by Uber agreeing to do the checks? Not gonna fly.

How about investing in a startup to battle the entrenched taxi interests, who seem to have just won a major battle?

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#25

Post by hdmoore »

Less people voted for Prop-1 than signed the petition to create it (39k vs 65k). Uber and Lyft spent over $8m and lost. Sources: https://www.texastribune.org/2016/01/19/austin-group-gathers..., http://kxan.com/election-results/, http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/ube...

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#26

Post by BinaryIdiot »

clamprecht wrote: post #8

Is 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/

> Is the issue the cost of fingerprint checks? Can't fingerprint checks be made cheaper?

The logistics and costs are both high. Honestly I'm all for background checks but fingerprinting is completely unrealistic. There are a lot of on-demand services nowadays some of which drive you places, others go into your home. I can't imagine Uber and Lyft will be the only ones required to do fingerprinting eventually.

Someone has to come up with a better way of doing this, remotely, otherwise it's simply not realistic in my opinion.

> Isn't there a YC company that is in the background check business? Edit: Ah yes, https://checkr.com/

Yeah but checkr doesn't do fingerprinting either.

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#27

Post by tristanj »

jtchang wrote: post #11

I am really confused at this article. Uber and Lyft don't want to operate in areas that require fingerprint based background checks. I get it. Harder to get drivers, more process, etc. But isn't that just a cost of doing business? On the surface this seems reasonable. Uber/Lyft are welcome to raise fares if the background checks result in less drivers on the road. Subsequently the consumer is welcome to not use Uber/…

It's not just about Austin, it's about every other market as well. If they don't fight this here then other cities may implement similar fingerprinting restrictions, citing Austin as example. Uber and Lyft have strong incentives to contain this kind of legislation before it spreads.

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#29

Post by [deleted] »

partiallypro wrote: post #19
callinize_cto wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fro…

Eh, it's not easy, and it's an artificial barrier to entry created by the government to enter the space. This has absolutely nothing to do with safety and everything to do with special interests (taxi companies) lobbying to keep competition out of the area.

[deleted]

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#30

Post by rumcajz »

nefitty wrote: post #24
rumcajz wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you invest in a startup which can be destroyed by its competition at will, i.e. by Uber agreeing to do the checks? Not gonna fly.

How about investing in a startup to battle the entrenched taxi interests, who seem to have just won a major battle?

And then losing your investment when you win the battle and Uber moves in? Why would anyone do that?
Post reply on HN