21–30 of 383 posts
Hmm, the study [0] credits over all reduction of drunk driving accidents to Uber. If ride sharing is the source of reduction, shouldn't ride sharing in general be credited? Maybe Uber was the only ride-share available during the study though since it's data from 1989-2013. "A recent increase in the ease and availability of alternative rides for intoxicated passengers partially explains the steep decrease in alcohol-r…
Hmm, the study [0] credits over all reduction of drunk driving accidents to Uber. If ride sharing is the source of reduction, shouldn't ride sharing in general be credited? Maybe Uber was the only ride-share available during the study though since it's data from 1989-2013. "A recent increase in the ease and availability of alternative rides for intoxicated passengers partially explains the steep decrease in alcohol-r…
Or conversely, the taxi medallion system is likely responsible for 24-35% of drunk driving incidents...
If going out downtown, it's a 80$ cab ride each way atleast.
Transit would take atleast an hour but good luck taking it back at 2am when service is very limited.
I could drive after drinking and spend 30-40 minutes.
There is no ride sharing allowed here yet.
I usually don't go out if I don't have a designated driver as it's just not affordable or takes too long.
Many friends, and I admit myself when younger, would have just drove home drunk as it was cheapest quickest option
We have actually found it cheaper to drive downtown, find a cheap decent hotel on priceline and drive back home after a good sleep.
I can't wait for ride sharing here, I use it everywhere else when traveling.
Ride sharing makes it affordable convenient and quick... Can definately see how it attributes to less drunk drivers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bitter/hating much? I know Uber is not liked, but the fact that they have done a great job at disturbing the market in a great way. (Lyft as well, but they are still a minority player) Having have to deal with NYC cabs often, when they will lock the doors and ask where you are going before letting you in, Uber is a great improvement overall. Also, a NYC taxi medallion would cost 500k to almost 750k (that's like a mor…
But aren't they just disrupting it temporarily? My understanding is that VC funding is propping up those low fares. I guess it is good until that runs out though.
We'll see how well that plays out in light of the Waymo lawsuit.
Hmm, the study [0] credits over all reduction of drunk driving accidents to Uber. If ride sharing is the source of reduction, shouldn't ride sharing in general be credited? Maybe Uber was the only ride-share available during the study though since it's data from 1989-2013. "A recent increase in the ease and availability of alternative rides for intoxicated passengers partially explains the steep decrease in alcohol-r…
Study credits Uber because specificity > vagueness. From 2011 - present Uber was responsible for vast the majority of ride-share rides: https://www.thestreet.com/story/13536061/1/uber-now-more-pop...
Lyft doesn't seem to have even near that sort of penetration in other cities from what I've experienced.
Perhaps that should be phrased "the availability of drivers using a ride sharing platform has helped reduce drunk driving accidents." If Uber doesn't accept drivers as employees and isn't responsible for their actions, it shouldn't be credited with their collective contributions to a safer society.
That's some kind of bullshit. If "ride sharing" was the only causative factor then taxis would have addressed this already, given "ride sharing" is a euphemism for taxi.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bitter/hating much? I know Uber is not liked, but the fact that they have done a great job at disturbing the market in a great way. (Lyft as well, but they are still a minority player) Having have to deal with NYC cabs often, when they will lock the doors and ask where you are going before letting you in, Uber is a great improvement overall. Also, a NYC taxi medallion would cost 500k to almost 750k (that's like a mor…
But aren't they just disrupting it temporarily? My understanding is that VC funding is propping up those low fares. I guess it is good until that runs out though.
Another study from July 2016 said that Uber doesn't save many drunk driving accidents although the study referenced in the Economist only focused on NYC, whereas the study from 2016 was focused on multiple metropolitan areas. [1]: http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/07/22/aje.k...
Also his variable for Uber is only a one or zero. It should instead be the number of drivers in the county.
They quotes a study done on only California that shows Uber reduces fatalities, but doesn't ask himself if maybe county by county is important. Instead he groups everything together, even some countries that have very few.
Here's the sentence that should indicate something is wrong with his analysis, he finds Uber increases fatalities (a noticably but not significant):
> This model shows that on average, the presence of Uber was associated with a 2.0% (95% confidence interval: 0.98, 1.06) increase in traffic fatalities among all drivers; however, this association was not statistically significant at conventional levels.
I think he definitely needs to break out the results data into county by county results to see if maybe there is a different result for maybe more populous counties.