Former Austin resident Kevin Williamson let's them have it: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435234/austin-uber-ban-bad
Austin Chooses the Taxi Cartel over Progress
- Thread starter Marshal Jim Duncan
- Start date
Fun and accurately written. Its off topic, but I love the description of NY:
"New Yorkers have Stockholm syndrome, and they will tolerate almost anything from their city: Show them hideous subterranean vermin and Pizza Rat becomes an unofficial city mascot"
"New Yorkers have Stockholm syndrome, and they will tolerate almost anything from their city: Show them hideous subterranean vermin and Pizza Rat becomes an unofficial city mascot"
That rant is not very good and off on some topics. To start, the title is completely inaccurate. TNCs are not banned, they choose to leave willfully. There is still a TNC operating in Austin (I used it Tuesday night). The reality is Uber and Lyft don't like the regulations, so they tried to buy an election. They lost and now they're throwing a temper tantrum to try to get their way. They aren't the first or last companies to have to deal with regulations. This will probably be addressed when eventually state-wide regulations are passed, but for now they're going to leave, but anyone with a brain knows they'll be back. Maybe this guy should move back to Austin so he will know what is actually going on here.
1: it isn't enitled Uber "banned". That is just the internet link. Nowhere in the article does the author say they were banned nor does the headline.
2. On the regulations: the city council recently passed an ordinance prohibiting OTHER companies from running criminal background checks up until right as they are going to be offered the job. http://kxan.com/2016/03/24/council-passes-fair-chance-hiring-ordinance-to-delay-background-checks/
3. They won't be back unless similar regulations are enacted in the majority of cities where they currently operate.
Great point they made about reduction in drunk driving. A very positive unintended consequence of Uber.
1. This is correct. It shows up when you read the article, and the intent of the article to me implies the same thought. They should change the URL to not include that phrase since it is not true at all.
2. Don't see how this would change anything. That ordinance was to require not having a check box for criminal history on initial application or interview. TNCs would still have to abide by that, and the background check wouldn't occur until after the driver is going to be hired.
3. They will be back. Whether the city council caves and changes the regulation to something they like or whether their lobbyists successfully get the state legislature to pass a statewide law, they will be back. They won't come back otherwise simply because they wouldn't want to lose face after throwing nearly $9 million into the pot to try to win the election.
While I think that TNCs do make an impact on the number of drunk drivers on the road, in Austin it has not had a significant impact on the number of drunk driving related crashes unfortunately. The numbers from the year before they arrived (2 WHOLE years ago) and now are similar. Way more time is needed to evaluate that impact definitively.
The article implies no such thing if you actually read it.
If the City Coucil changes the law/ordinance to something Uber likes they'll be back? Wow! That's an earth shattering observation, but sort of different from a blanket "they'll be back", don't you think?
When a governmental body implements onerous and ineffective regulations to address a NON- problem what is usually the reason for it?
If the City Coucil changes the law/ordinance to something Uber likes they'll be back? Wow! That's an earth shattering observation, but sort of different from a blanket "they'll be back", don't you think?
When a governmental body implements onerous and ineffective regulations to address a NON- problem what is usually the reason for it?
To extort $$. It's the same with permit fees to do repairs or minor construction at your house.
They will be back regardless. The fine for operating a unpermitted taxi in NJ is $1000, yet there are UBER drivers everywhere. They get the ticket, UBER pays it. UBER doesn't care about expenses they care about market share. The worst thing they could do businesswise is let a rival have Austin all to themselves. I think they blink first.
I did read it and I disagree with your statement. You obviously disagree with mine. Nothing about that will change.
Earth shattering? Nothing about this whole thing is earth shattering. They will be back one way or another. It is an old fashioned battle over control and money. I said they'll be back, and they will be eventually. Since I believe that to be true, I'm not sure what you expect in regards to earth shattering? They are already gearing up to get statewide changes in their favor, so if they don't come back before that, they'll be back at that point.
The ship has already sailed on the taxi cartel in Austin. They can't even get enough drivers to fill their licenses that they own currently. Even this temporary departure of Lyft and Uber is not going to sustain them longterm. The taxi industry as is has been dying a slow death. Another likely outcome is complete deregulation of the taxi industry here. Since TNCs and Taxi's aren't currently on a level playing field even though they're providing the same service.
As a frequent user of both Uber and Lyft in Austin I am saddened that they couldn't come to a compromise on these matter. There are plenty of companies and industries that can innovate within the confines of regulation and they're just using my city to draw the battle lines for what they want, so my city suffers. The effectiveness of fingerprinting was not even what the election was really about.
In my opinion it is about being able to write the regulations (in general, not any of the specific ones in this election) to control the taxi industries as they see fit. They do it from an approach that they have the public safety in mind of course, but that is the same as passing a bill for the children. It makes you look better and look like you're doing something, which is where my doubt of the efficacy of the safety actually being much different either way. Sure they use a different database when they do the fingerprint check, but that doesn't mean it will stop someone intent on breaking the law who has no record no matter which method you use.
I'm not a fan of heavy regulation, but I do feel that a city has the right to establish reasonable regulations. Pedicabs and taxi cabs already abide by similar regulation, and U/L do in other cities. They could easily operate in Austin with the regulations that were passed by the council, but for some reason truly only known to them they choose not to.
I'm not a fan of heavy regulation, but I do feel that a city has the right to establish reasonable regulations. Pedicabs and taxi cabs already abide by similar regulation, and U/L do in other cities. They could easily operate in Austin with the regulations that were passed by the council, but for some reason truly only known to them they choose not to.
But are they reasonable?
The FBI (as the FBI itself will tell you) database is NOTORIOUSLY inaccurate, and includes many, many "false positives" because it relies upon LOCAL law enforcement to go back and clean up arrests that don't lead to a conviction or even a trial.
So, what do the fingerprinting and FBI background checks accomplish above and beyond Uber's ('m less familiar with Lyft) own background checks? Has there been a rash of criminal activity associated with TNC's?
The FBI (as the FBI itself will tell you) database is NOTORIOUSLY inaccurate, and includes many, many "false positives" because it relies upon LOCAL law enforcement to go back and clean up arrests that don't lead to a conviction or even a trial.
So, what do the fingerprinting and FBI background checks accomplish above and beyond Uber's ('m less familiar with Lyft) own background checks? Has there been a rash of criminal activity associated with TNC's?
Not sure where else they have this, but in Czech they have "Drive and Drink" companies and you can drive your car to a local restaurant or bar, drink, then when you are ready they come with two people, one to drive you and one to drive your car home. I have wondered if you could do that in the states.
Not familiar with either them list out differences for you. Neither U/L or FBI will ever completely eliminate issues. There have been Lyft drivers in Austin arrested for DWI while in the middle of rides here in Austin. Perhaps that's why the drunk driving stats aren't improving. LOL
ctrawick, in Austin we have Sober Monkeys that provides that service: https://sobermonkeys.com/
Also Tipsy Taxi: https://tipsytaxiaustin.wordpress.com/
I know Atlanta has one, and I'm sure pretty much every major city has something like that. Depending on how far away you are, it could be cheaper than using taxi/GetMe to and from.
Taxi from Will Rogers to my house - $90 with tip. Uber to my house - $34. Uber from airport to Stillwater - $50.
I posted in another thread that Austin is now going after Airbnb and others who "short term" rent their properties.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/poli...aring-economy-fight-over-airbnb-in-austin.ece
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/poli...aring-economy-fight-over-airbnb-in-austin.ece
I wanted to come back to this. I had been meaning to bring up the point that the actions of these local liberals shows that the left is really pro-business. They are making and/or supporting policies that benefit the local businesses.
The right, on the other hand, is pro-consumer. Allowing Airbnb and Uber and others is what is best for the consumer.
The right, on the other hand, is pro-consumer. Allowing Airbnb and Uber and others is what is best for the consumer.
