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

71–80 of 206 posts

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

#71

Post by morgante »

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…

I agree. People's fear over Uber drivers makes absolutely no sense. It's rooted in prejudiced fears of taxis which did make sense in the older context of taxis (no GPS, no log of who you're picking up, etc.).

If you are a nefarious individual, the last thing you want to do is drive an Uber. If you try to commit criminal activity, there is a complete log of who you picked up and everywhere you went.

Of course, there will still occasionally be incidents. But there are incidents with taxi drivers. There are incidents with people who have to undergo even more intensive background checks. Past behavior is no guarantee of future legality.

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

#72

Post by morgante »

laurentoget wrote: post #70
darawk wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't making an argument about whether or not the government has the authority to do this. Of course they do, and of course the people have the right to vote for it, and the companies are bound by it. I was arguing that the regulation itself is inadvisable, and I don't think the position is particularly absolutist. The government should step in to regulate areas that pose a significant risk to the public, but that…

The uber review system is a good protection against a driver who is rude or unprofessional to most of their customer. It does not do anything against a repeat sex offender who will randomly assault a customer every few months. Fingerprinting would. Two different systems for two different purposes.

> It does not do anything against a repeat sex offender who will randomly assault a customer every few months.

This would never happen. The first time they assault a passenger, they'd immediately get kicked off the platform and likely referred to police.

You can commit a crime as an Uber driver, but there's no way you're getting away with it. There's a precise log of who you drove and where.

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

#73

Post by partiallypro »

drewcrawford wrote: post #46
partiallypro wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Getting mailers does not at all mean you have lobbying power, and even spending large sums of money on a campaign doesn't mean you have lobbying power. Often times power comes from who you know. Uber and Lyft are not local like cab companies, so they have no local precedent or representation in local governments. People have this Aaron Sorkin view of government lobbying where dropping dollars from helicopters can get you anything, that is patently false, even in DC.

Look up "regulatory capture," a Nobel was won because of it. It's exactly what's happening here.

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

#74

Post by iopq »

natrius wrote: post #65
mruniverse wrote: post #39

Lyft could try to take market share by complying. They can even use it to differentiate themselves. "The Safer Ride-Share Company!", "We Know Who are Drivers Are", etc.

It's probably a bad gamble. Lyft wants to catch up to Uber, but they also need to grow fast enough that upstarts can't unseat them from second place. Accepting regulations that slow their growth is a bad deal for them, too.

it also sets a dangerous precedent, where governments can restrict Uber to the point that Uber quit the market and expect Lyft to come and fill the void

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

#75

Post by ashitlerferad »

drewcrawford wrote: post #46
partiallypro wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How did they get your unlisted cell? Hack into a cell company?

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

#76

Post by dizzystar »

I worked on the Prop 1 campaign, and I'm not happy with this result.

At first, I thought Prop 1 would pass by a good margin, but I wasn't sure once we started hitting the outer parts of the city, where public transportation was clearly not an option. In contrast, the closer one lived to downtown, the more likely it seemed to me that they were for Prop 1. In fact, many residents in downtown don't even own a car. I felt the balance would shift on what region was more likely to go vote. Living in Austin without a car is very difficult, as the wait for a taxi can be over 30 minutes and a bus can be basically non existent. Some taxi companies only serve certain regions. Uber and Lyft usually takes five minutes.

Yes, it appeared to me that the constant barrage of flyers, canvassers, and phone calls did upset some people, and that may well have turned people away or even activated people who wouldn't have cared either way. I think that many people thought the leaving threat was a bluff and they were more than willing to call it.

In any case, I got a lot of exercise these past few weeks and got the opportunity to see many parts of this amazing city.

I'm not sure about any argument about who can or cannot write petitions. The entire point of petitions is to act as a way for the public to make a direct vote without using the proxy of representatives. Every petition is backed by money.

I hope Austin does something to improve the public transport and taxi service without sacrificing the charm of the city. Try taking a cross town bus after 10pm on a Sunday night. You won't get very far and may end up sleeping on a bench until 5:30 am. For me, this is the prevailing cost of this whole situation.

Anyways, I'm not here to debate the merits of Prop 1. Just wanted to put in my 2 cents.

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

#78

Post by MichaelGG »

mruniverse wrote: post #39

Lyft could try to take market share by complying. They can even use it to differentiate themselves. "The Safer Ride-Share Company!", "We Know Who are Drivers Are", etc.

They don't want to be too cozy with the drivers. They need to keep them at arms length to maintain the idea that they are not employees.

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

#79

Post by gonzo »

jdminhbg wrote: post #43
jtchang wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> 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)

Your example is specifically barred by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as decided in Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1917), and Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), as well as Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, codified at 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619, aka "The Fair Housing Act"

Because it used to happen.

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

#80

Post by madeofpalk »

courtneypowell wrote: post #14
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…

The real issue for Uber and Lyft may be the fact that fingerprinting puts them closer to needing to classify drivers as employees instead of contractors. They could surely solve any friction around fingerprinting, but requiring drivers to be classified as employees would put them out of business. Fingerprinting through a government clearinghouse is typically reserved for employees. IMO, they spent $8M on this local v…

I'm also confused because similar legislation has passed elsewhere (like here in Australia) and Uber 'welcomed' it (in the sense that Uber was not made illegal) and continues to operate with the added sensible legislation.
Post reply on HN