4 ms·

This article by the founder of a well known Austin startup incubator explains it well: https://austinstartups.com/austin-tech-vote-for-prop-1-on-may-7-e9a072ba5

by adevine 10y ago

This article by the founder of a well known Austin startup incubator explains it well: https://austinstartups.com/austin-tech-vote-for-prop-1-on-may-7-e9a072ba5bf0 https://austinstartups.com/austin-tech-vote-for-prop-1-on-ma...

toomuchtodo 10y ago
The author makes the false dilemma that you can either have fingerprint background checks OR less DUI accidents through ridesharing services. You can have both; you'll just need to fill the gap with ridesharing services who will comply with the new regulation. This section is especially egregious: > What happens if Prop 1 passes? > Austin sends a message to the world, “Innovation is welcome here. Things are stable now and the people have spoken.” Austin spoke (and not Austin's government, Austin's voters!). Innovation is welcome, simply with additional (voter desired and approved) regulations. If ridesharing is sufficiently lucrative with these additional required regulations, competitors will fill the gap. If not, Austin's voters may re-evaluate their decision at a future date.
- vonklaus 10y ago
  You make a good point, however it is possible drunk driving could go up in between now (when the 2 biggest ridesharing services leave) and someone creates a competing Austin only startup, prototypes the technology, builds and deploys it, and in parrallel Austin builds the infrastructure to fingerprint all of the new drivers, then the services launches and all of the new people have a small bit of friction in finding and adopting it. It's totally reasonable for Austin to vote and ask for something that honestly is pretty reasonable. However, it isn't particularly "fair" but they voted againest their own interests (if they wanted ridesharing).
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    You're right! Google could also, in the mean time, start providing ridesharing services with their self driving vehicles (note 1: they test them in Austin, in addition to Mountain View; note 2: Google Ventures invested in Uber, not Google proper, Google and Uber are competitors in the self-driving vehicle space). But we're just speculating at this point. Anything could happen! > However, it isn't particularly "fair" but they voted againest their own interests (if they wanted ridesharing). I argue this is subjective (they voted "against their own interests"). They voted for more knowledge about their drivers (something they can control). One should not need to forfeit additional safety regulations to a tech company due to irresponsible intoxicated/influenced drivers being used as the proverbial boogyman.
    - kyrra 10y ago
      Or Waze carpooling could come to the US. http://9to5google.com/2016/02/09/waze-rider-app/ http://9to5google.com/2016/02/09/waze-rider-app/
  - makomk 10y ago
    By that argument, Uber and Lyft can demand any change to the law they like and if they care enough about it to pull out of areas as a negotiating tactic, any government that doesn't immediately give in is causing drunk driving deaths.

by adevine 10y ago

toomuchtodo 10y ago

The author makes the false dilemma that you can either have fingerprint background checks OR less DUI accidents through ridesharing services. You can have both; you'll just need to fill the gap with ridesharing services who will comply with the new regulation. This section is especially egregious: > What happens if Prop 1 passes? > Austin sends a message to the world, “Innovation is welcome here. Things are stable now and the people have spoken.” Austin spoke (and not Austin's government, Austin's voters!). Innovation is welcome, simply with additional (voter desired and approved) regulations. If ridesharing is sufficiently lucrative with these additional required regulations, competitors will fill the gap. If not, Austin's voters may re-evaluate their decision at a future date.

vonklaus 10y ago
You make a good point, however it is possible drunk driving could go up in between now (when the 2 biggest ridesharing services leave) and someone creates a competing Austin only startup, prototypes the technology, builds and deploys it, and in parrallel Austin builds the infrastructure to fingerprint all of the new drivers, then the services launches and all of the new people have a small bit of friction in finding and adopting it. It's totally reasonable for Austin to vote and ask for something that honestly is pretty reasonable. However, it isn't particularly "fair" but they voted againest their own interests (if they wanted ridesharing).
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  You're right! Google could also, in the mean time, start providing ridesharing services with their self driving vehicles (note 1: they test them in Austin, in addition to Mountain View; note 2: Google Ventures invested in Uber, not Google proper, Google and Uber are competitors in the self-driving vehicle space). But we're just speculating at this point. Anything could happen! > However, it isn't particularly "fair" but they voted againest their own interests (if they wanted ridesharing). I argue this is subjective (they voted "against their own interests"). They voted for more knowledge about their drivers (something they can control). One should not need to forfeit additional safety regulations to a tech company due to irresponsible intoxicated/influenced drivers being used as the proverbial boogyman.
  - kyrra 10y ago
    Or Waze carpooling could come to the US. http://9to5google.com/2016/02/09/waze-rider-app/ http://9to5google.com/2016/02/09/waze-rider-app/
- makomk 10y ago
  By that argument, Uber and Lyft can demand any change to the law they like and if they care enough about it to pull out of areas as a negotiating tactic, any government that doesn't immediately give in is causing drunk driving deaths.