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

141–150 of 206 posts

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

#141

Post by gcek9 »

FussyZeus wrote: post #130

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…

I noticed that as well. If that's the case, it makes the reaction by Uber & Lyft seem much more reasonable. At the same time, it makes Uber & Lyft look like they did a poor job educating the public on these parts of the argument.

I followed the #Prop1 trend closely last night and there wasn't anything beyond fingerprinting mentioned by locals, news anchors, or even Uber / Lyft.

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

#142

Post by maxharris »

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.

Five days? $50? And you say that's not a hassle?

In the rest of the country, things work just fine with zero days, $0.

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

#143

Post by tptacek »

vonklaus wrote: post #10
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…

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…

If a state or municipality makes a public policy decision that people convicted of certain felonies can't drive taxis or livery vehicles, it seems especially strange that Uber and Lyft would take a stand over their right to bypass that decision.

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

#144

Post by tptacek »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #120
gonzo wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Fai…

The question is why is this limit good, but a different limit is bad? We are all aware that the law has various (mostly arbitrary) limits. The question being asked is what consistent limit should be applied in general?

Because the "no black people" limit is abusive, in large part intended to be abusive, and has no good-faith public policy purpose, and the other limits can't be described that way.

You can describe them as erroneous or ineffective --- the way you could describe virtually any regulation --- but you can't make that argument about them.

Since this distinction seems pretty obvious, I have to wonder why you'd pretend not to see it.

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

#145

Post by mindcrime »

snitko wrote: post #31
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…

If a business feels like regulations created by the government are not reasonable, it has all the right to decide to stop doing business. Government shouldn't be regulating such things in the first place, but since it does, it surely can't force businesses to continue working under them. > but it doesn't seem entirely outrageous that the drivers of buses, taxis, and similar transportation services should have them. I…

What right do you (or government, for that matter) have to tell other people what to use or not,

None. A just law is no more than a collective extension to our individual right to self defense. And we have a moral duty to ignore unjust laws.

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

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

#146

Post by cpher »

I would even go one step further. Certainly less than felons. For some reason in Chicago, I at least feel "safer" in a taxi because of the screaming decals and colors of the car.

I had an Uber from the southside to Midway, and I felt like just getting into his car I was being set up in a sting operation. I (white guy) shrunk down in the back seat the entire time. The dude was nice, but holy shit what does CPD think when white guys get in the backs of gangbanger's cars (yes, my driver was nice but sketchy, and his car was exactly the mid-90s low-riding Pontiac you see around here getting busted all the time). I felt like I was his "ride" while he circled the southside between drug pickups. It gave him an "out."

On the flip side, had an awesome middle aged white woman take us from A to B on the northside of Chicago. She was doing it as a part-timer and super nice.

I guess my point is that maybe with taxi companies you at least could/should have a hiring/interview process? I'll plead ignorance to the Uber/Lyft process, but is there even an interview? It's just hit or miss in Chicago.

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

#147

Post by tptacek »

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…

Maybe it's the fee. One of the three fee options, "the cost of one cab permit per drive", would put them out of business in New York, Chicago, and San Francisco. It would be survivable in Austin, but it would set a very bad precedent.

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

#148

Post by YuriNiyazov »

cpher wrote: post #146

I would even go one step further. Certainly less than felons. For some reason in Chicago, I at least feel "safer" in a taxi because of the screaming decals and colors of the car. I had an Uber from the southside to Midway, and I felt like just getting into his car I was being set up in a sting operation. I (white guy) shrunk down in the back seat the entire time. The dude was nice, but holy shit what does CPD think w…

Congratulations on your blatant racism. You go to southside, and you object that the person that is working in that neighborhood fits "the stereotype".

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

#149

Post by yummyfajitas »

tptacek wrote: post #144
yummyfajitas wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is why is this limit good, but a different limit is bad? We are all aware that the law has various (mostly arbitrary) limits. The question being asked is what consistent limit should be applied in general?

Because the "no black people" limit is abusive, in large part intended to be abusive, and has no good-faith public policy purpose, and the other limits can't be described that way. You can describe them as erroneous or ineffective --- the way you could describe virtually any regulation --- but you can't make that argument about them. Since this distinction seems pretty obvious, I have to wonder why you'd pretend not…

Many regulations of this sort - particularly within the taxi space - are merely economic protectionism favoring one group over another. Suppose the "no black people" limit were merely designed for economic protectionism with no malicious intent. Would that make it acceptable?

You can add to it various pretexts as erroneous and ineffective justification, e.g. "black people are more likely to be dangerous criminals than non-blacks, we don't want passengers getting robbed", if that makes the question clearer.

I'm also confused by your last line. Why do you believe I'm "pretending" something? I'm simply pointing out what the core philosophical question is.

I know how I justify my moral positions - my opposition to protectionism (either pro-white or pro-medallion owner) is driven by my opposition to violence. But when you give up opposition to violence - which you must do if it's acceptable to protect medallion owners with violence - I don't know how to oppose pro-white protectionism. What makes non-whites deserving of protection from bad laws but non-medallion owners undeserving?

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

#150

Post by JustUhThought »

Austin-ite and Texan here.

Uber sent a text to it's drivers the Friday before the vote that was a thinly veiled threat that they should vote or lose their pay check when Uber pulled out of Austin.

That sort of strong arming in our electoral process, yeah, never gonna go over well.

The proposition, if passed, would override regulations put in place by elected representatives. The proposition failed by popular vote in an election. Uber et al out spent their conpition several times over. The commercials they ran were so plainly attempting to confuse the issue that it was insulting. Also, the commercials were ran more frequently during the window for early voting. There were almost zero local voices speaking on behalf of both community and in favor of prop 1.

All arguments in favor of prop 1 where, imo, specious. If it causes on-boarding to become too slow, well then that is only a deal breaker if they were not yet at the critical mass to be profitable; not so. Fingerprinting is not prohibitively expensive. Uber and Lyft operate in other markets where this is a requirement. And at the end of the day, twice now, the electorate has expressed its position on the issue.

Living in Austin during this campaign, it felt like being in the middle of a proxy war.

Imho, Uber can't stand having terms dictated to them. Any terms beyond their terms are too restrictive. The citizens of Austin were simply pawns in their larger game of market domination.

With all due respect, from the city of Austin, from deep in the heart of Texas, Uber, if you don't want to work with us, you know where the door is.

Post reply on HN