Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal • Hacker News Board

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

#41

Post by rayiner » Sun, May 08, 2016, 5:49 AM UTC

darawk wrote: post #34

Lazare wrote: post #2

I 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…

Why is it even remotely reasonable that taxi drivers should have background checks? Are we really that worried about rogue taxi drivers? What is the worst case scenario here? What exactly does a background check for taxi drivers prevent? The idea that the state should have anything to say about driving a car in exchange for money is absurd on its face and nothing more than the worst, silliest kind of security theater…

Getting in a car with random strangers is a perfect case of information asymmetry. Passengers aren't going to be repeat customers with the same drivers. Each driver is pretty much an unknown that the passenger has little control over choosing.

On the broader point about what the government should be regulating: One of the worst things about living outside the developed world is how careful you have to be. You have to be careful what you eat, who you get in a car with, where you go. The consequences of not being careful are significant. In the developed world, the government ensures a minimum level for pretty much everything, and it's amazing. It's civilization.

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

#42

Post by drauh » Sun, May 08, 2016, 5:50 AM UTC

jevinskie wrote: post #32

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I don't see why fingerprinting has to be such a hassle. It wasn't for me. I was able to schedule, online, an appointment with my sheriff's department, get digitally fingerprinted, and background checked all within five days for under $50. Granted, the privacy aspect is the ever-present issue.

In Philly, the UPS Store does fingerprint checks. There are several locations in the city, and it seems to take under 10 minutes to do. The UPS Store also serves as Notary Public.

I assume the same is true in lots of other cities.

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

#43

Post by jdminhbg » Sun, May 08, 2016, 5:51 AM UTC

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.

> I also feel the city has a right to enact ordinances that the populace believes will help keep them "safer".

But there's a limit somewhere, right? You don't feel that a city has the right to enact an ordinance keeping black people out even if it made them feel safer (I assume), so there has to be some line around a city's democratic rights?

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

#44

Post by greenyoda » Sun, May 08, 2016, 5:51 AM UTC

viscanti wrote: post #36

Lazare wrote: post #2

I 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…

> Would their drivers refuse to undergo them? Refuse is probably a strong word here but I imagine significantly less people are willing to drive in somewhere to give their fingerprints for a background check than just entering a social security number in a web form. So there's more inherent friction. But then Uber needs to maintain an office (or a set of offices) in every city that provides convenient parking and som…

"But then Uber needs to maintain an office (or a set of offices) in every city that provides convenient parking and some kind of fingerprinting system. So it puts uber in a business that they're not in..."

Aren't there companies that that Uber could contract with to do the background checks?

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

#45

Post by peatmoss » Sun, May 08, 2016, 5:52 AM UTC

darawk wrote: post #34

Lazare wrote: post #2

I 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…

Why is it even remotely reasonable that taxi drivers should have background checks? Are we really that worried about rogue taxi drivers? What is the worst case scenario here? What exactly does a background check for taxi drivers prevent? The idea that the state should have anything to say about driving a car in exchange for money is absurd on its face and nothing more than the worst, silliest kind of security theater…

The state uses regulation for health and safety purposes all the time. Valid or not, the state, affirmed by democratic vote, wants fingerprinting as an additional assurance of driver fitness.

Let me turn this around: what in particular about driving passengers for profit means they should be exempt from regulation? Or do you simply reject regulation on some sort of absolutist libertarian principle?

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

#46

Post by drewcrawford » Sun, May 08, 2016, 5:53 AM UTC

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.

You're very misinformed.

I live in the area. Uber/Lyft have campaigned really aggressively. I've got stuff from them in the mail, they contacted me at my unlisted cell, they've been canvassing hard for months. I've never even seen an "anti" ad.

The "pro" Uber/Lyft PAC spent north of $8m, while the "anti" PAC spent 1/40th of that [0]. This is by far the most money ever spent on any election in this city's history, by a factor of about 5. And all of it is Silicon Valley money, which is just weird.

Quite frankly I have no idea whether the regulatory reforms Uber/Lyft wanted were sensible or not. I don't know whether they were really necessary for Uber/Lyft to continue operations or not. I just know a bunch of SV investors spent an absurd amount of money trying to convince everybody of that, and Austinites are a very skeptical bunch who decided not to take their terms.

[0] http://qz.com/677908/the-future-of-uber-and-lyft-is-at-stake...

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

#47

Post by tushar-r » Sun, May 08, 2016, 5:54 AM UTC

Lazare wrote: post #2

I 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…

> Do they need to fund the background checks? Are they too expensive?

I've been getting a $1 safe ride fee when using Uber in the US. So they do pass on the background check cost to the customer.

There is some other reason for this. Maybe like the poster said in a later comment - about their classification the drivers. Or just them throwing a fit because it did not got their way.

Here in India, couple of states have been telling Uber (and their competitor Ola), that they can have surge pricing recently.

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

#48

Post by [deleted] » Sun, May 08, 2016, 5:54 AM UTC

Lazare wrote: post #2

I 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…

[deleted]

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

#49

Post by jdminhbg » Sun, May 08, 2016, 5:55 AM UTC

peatmoss wrote: post #45

darawk wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it even remotely reasonable that taxi drivers should have background checks? Are we really that worried about rogue taxi drivers? What is the worst case scenario here? What exactly does a background check for taxi drivers prevent? The idea that the state should have anything to say about driving a car in exchange for money is absurd on its face and nothing more than the worst, silliest kind of security theater…

The state uses regulation for health and safety purposes all the time. Valid or not, the state, affirmed by democratic vote, wants fingerprinting as an additional assurance of driver fitness. Let me turn this around: what in particular about driving passengers for profit means they should be exempt from regulation? Or do you simply reject regulation on some sort of absolutist libertarian principle?

If I don't think airline passengers should be fingerprinted as a condition of flying, is it because I simply reject regulation on some sort of absolutist libertarian principle? Or are some regulations (don't bring a gun on board) ok, but others (submit to biometric scanning) not?

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

#50

Post by laurentoget » Sun, May 08, 2016, 5:57 AM UTC

viscanti wrote: post #36

Lazare wrote: post #2

I 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…

> Would their drivers refuse to undergo them? Refuse is probably a strong word here but I imagine significantly less people are willing to drive in somewhere to give their fingerprints for a background check than just entering a social security number in a web form. So there's more inherent friction. But then Uber needs to maintain an office (or a set of offices) in every city that provides convenient parking and som…

You need fingerprints for a number of occupations including real estate agents, teachers and foster parents. There are multiple businesses offering fingerprinting services. It takes 10 minutes and I think it cost me $12 last time i had to do it.