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

121–130 of 206 posts

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

#121

Post by lkbm »

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…

I don't see any conflict between anything you said and partiallypro's statement.

How does campaign spending from one special interest to get rid of an ordinance prove the ordinance wasn't designed for an opposing special interest?

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

#122

Post by yummyfajitas »

rayiner wrote: post #41
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…

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…

In the developing world, Uber/Ola/etc do a great job of filling in for that role. The idea that government is needed for this is pretty silly - Uber/Ola/etc are doing a vastly better job of protecting customers than any government agency I'm aware of.

Even a week after the famous Delhi Uber rape case, every woman I know would still prefer to take an Uber/Ola rather than a (government regulated) auto or taxi. After all, Uber/Ola actually care about their reputation and immediately took steps to make rides safer (e.g. privately provided background checks) when they realized the government provided certificate of good character (cost: an 8k bribe) were insufficient.

All the government did in response was tell women to spend more money on less safe modes of transportation. (Recall that in the 2012 Delhi gang rape incident, the woman was only on the bus because the government regulated auto rickshaw was overcharging her and she couldn't afford to ride it.)

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

#123

Post by koolba »

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…

> Fingerprinting through a government clearinghouse is typically reserved for employees.

Source? Financial services corporations fingerprint both their employees and contractors. I've never seen a distinction in the process for either.

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

#126

Post by cobralibre »

tyingq wrote: post #115
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…

This article seems to point at the real issue: http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/uber-threatens-to-leave... Basically, that allowing cities to specify the implementation and rules around fingerprinting makes the onboarding process too slow. Slow enough that that they can't hire drivers fast enough to meet demand. I can see their point on this, since each city is free to make their own rules for the process. On the…

As it stands, it looks like neither side is willing to compromise.

Austin's mayor, Steve Adler, has specifically said that he would like to negotiate a mutually satisfactory solution with Uber and Lyft.

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/ele...

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

#127

Post by randommodnar »

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…

Because Uber and Lyft drivers should be fucking employees. I don't give two shits if the taxi industry is disrupted, but I do care about the treatment of their drivers.

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

#129

Post by pbreit »

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…

That doesn't sound right at all. Contractors are finger-printed, background checked, etc, all the time.

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

#130

Post by FussyZeus »

According to one of the top comments:

> This wasn't about the fingerprint background checks. This bill would've also required drivers to pay a yearly fee of $450/year to the city. It would've required a % fee of each ride to go the city. It would've mandated cars have logos for each service printed onto the side of the car. All these things make it harder to get drivers and increase the cost of ride sharing. This was a play by the Taxi companies to make ride sharing services as expensive and shitty (because of less drivers) as a cab service. Taxis have lost 30% of their business in Austin last 2 years and so they padded the current council's pockets during the 2014 elections to try and save their business. You can see how much they paid the council members by viewing public records. It's disgusting.

Interesting if true, I'm Googling around to see if I can find more information on this.

Post reply on HN