4 ms·

Paul Graham on Uber and Lift Ban in Austin

25 points by hartator 10y ago

GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
In what kind of universe is "you must do actual background checks on drivers" a "ban".
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  In the kind of universe where "ban" means "anything that imposes a requirement on how we do business that we don't like".
spamlord 10y ago
Uber and Lyft were not 'banned', they are refusing to follow regulations approved by actual VOTERS. http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2016-04-22/chronicle-endorsements/ http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2016-04-22/chronicle-end...
- ryan-c 10y ago
  Just because a vote went a particular way neither means that it is fair/good, or that it is the will of the people. Voters have, in multiple instances, voted to deprive minorities of civil rights. There is also a strong bias in what sorts of people vote. This "special election" had no other ballot items. Few people voted, probably because not a lot of people cared enough to go to a polling place. One of the demographics most likely to use uber/lyft is also least likely to vote. On a personal note, I moved to Austin from the SF Bay Area a few months ago so that my spouse could pursue a PhD, and did vote on the issue. I don't really care about politics. I just don't want to have to wake up a loved one at 5am to get a ride to the airport (which I had to do Friday). I don't know who's more to blame, but I wish the city council and uber/lyft would stop their petty bickering and come to an agreement. Edit: Also note that the vote result was actually "change nothing" - the rules uber/lyft don't like were passed by the city months ago, but aren't in effect yet.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    Whether the vote was good, properly representative, or whatever, the fact is that it was not a ban on Uber and Lyft. It was a requirement that to operate such a service, background checks be conducted on drivers. This is a requirement in many types of non-banned operation, and is not anything like a ban. If Uber and Lyft prefer to not operate in Austin rather than comply with this rule, that's their choice and their service will be unavailable there, but not because of any "ban".
    - ryan-c 10y ago
      Actually, it was a vote on whether on not to repeal some rules passed by city council on their own, and I think also add some rules favorable to uber/lyft. The vote result was "change nothing".
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - flubert 10y ago
    >I just don't want to have to wake up a loved one at 5am to get a ride to the airport (which I had to do Friday). For next time... https://www.google.com/#q=austin%20tx%20taxi&rflfq=1&rlha=0&rllag=30357936,-97729147,11460&tbm=lcl&tbs=lf:1,lf_ui:2&fll=30.295702499999987,-97.73880020000001&fspn=1.307576286097948,2.3636602327767378&fz=9&oll=30.295702500000004,-97.73880020000001&ospn=0.5266116949786763,0.8269422496560992&oz=9&qop=1&rlfi=hd:;si https://www.google.com/#q=austin%20tx%20taxi&rflfq=1&rlha=0&...:
    - ryan-c 10y ago
      Taxis are not an option worth considering - too unreliable.
      - calbear81 10y ago
        Many taxi services are catching up in technology so you can be more confident of their reliability. For example, Flywheel here in the Bay Area has an app that lets you track your driver and pay them from within the app just like an Uber/Lyft.
- hartator 10y ago
  I live in Austin and I couldn't vote because I am just a permanent resident. Anyway, I don't think I see why I couldn't pay anyone I want to drive me from point A to point B.
  - JadeNB 10y ago
    > Anyway, I don't think I see why I couldn't pay anyone I want to drive me from point A to point B. You certainly can, just as you can pay anyone you want to have sex with you; but that is not the same as saying that prostitution is legal.
brianbarker 10y ago
I just want uber and lyft back. The alternatives are awful. My friends have changed their weekend habits. I tried GetMe but it really sucks. Even the drivers were complaining the software had several bugs about billing, payment and mapping. I don't think uber and lyft should have left over background checking and fingerprints. Idk which side will acquiesce first, I just hope someone does.
EliRivers 10y ago
PG, Jeff Atwood, various others; at some point they all start believing their own hype and become actors playing themselves.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
bluesilver07 10y ago
I'm curious - Why does the Govt. have such a hard time regulating Uber in the US? In India, the state governments quite easily crack the whip whenever they deem it necessary. http://tech.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/internet/karnataka-may-ban-surge-pricing-by-uber-ola-to-level-the-playing-field-for-cab-operators/50939743 http://tech.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/internet/karna... http://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi/yes-we-ll-do-it-arvind-kejriwal-on-suspending-surge-pricing-by-ola-uber/story-QUfbtCoggUmY9qqu4WU5mI.html http://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi/yes-we-ll-do-it-arvind-k...
ef4 10y ago
If somebody suggested a new preventative drug for a rare disease, and offered zero studies to back it up, and suggested everyone should be required to receive it, they would get laughed out of the room. Yet we still make public safety decisions on that kind of flimsy thinking all the time. Either new regulations improve outcomes or they don't. But we'll never find out by yelling at each other, or by taking a poll. Governments could conduct science-based regulation if they wanted to, especially when it comes to public health and safety -- areas where there is broad agreement on the desired outcomes, just disagreement on what will actually achieve those ends. Do these new regulations really improve safety? That's a testable hypothesis. (It seems unlikely that they do, given the low background rate of rideshare-driver crime. But I'm open to evidence.)

25 points by hartator 10y ago

GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago

In what kind of universe is "you must do actual background checks on drivers" a "ban".

dragonwriter 10y ago
In the kind of universe where "ban" means "anything that imposes a requirement on how we do business that we don't like".

spamlord 10y ago

Uber and Lyft were not 'banned', they are refusing to follow regulations approved by actual VOTERS. http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2016-04-22/chronicle-endorsements/ http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2016-04-22/chronicle-end...

ryan-c 10y ago
Just because a vote went a particular way neither means that it is fair/good, or that it is the will of the people. Voters have, in multiple instances, voted to deprive minorities of civil rights. There is also a strong bias in what sorts of people vote. This "special election" had no other ballot items. Few people voted, probably because not a lot of people cared enough to go to a polling place. One of the demographics most likely to use uber/lyft is also least likely to vote. On a personal note, I moved to Austin from the SF Bay Area a few months ago so that my spouse could pursue a PhD, and did vote on the issue. I don't really care about politics. I just don't want to have to wake up a loved one at 5am to get a ride to the airport (which I had to do Friday). I don't know who's more to blame, but I wish the city council and uber/lyft would stop their petty bickering and come to an agreement. Edit: Also note that the vote result was actually "change nothing" - the rules uber/lyft don't like were passed by the city months ago, but aren't in effect yet.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Whether the vote was good, properly representative, or whatever, the fact is that it was not a ban on Uber and Lyft. It was a requirement that to operate such a service, background checks be conducted on drivers. This is a requirement in many types of non-banned operation, and is not anything like a ban. If Uber and Lyft prefer to not operate in Austin rather than comply with this rule, that's their choice and their service will be unavailable there, but not because of any "ban".
  - ryan-c 10y ago
    Actually, it was a vote on whether on not to repeal some rules passed by city council on their own, and I think also add some rules favorable to uber/lyft. The vote result was "change nothing".
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- flubert 10y ago
  >I just don't want to have to wake up a loved one at 5am to get a ride to the airport (which I had to do Friday). For next time... https://www.google.com/#q=austin%20tx%20taxi&rflfq=1&rlha=0&rllag=30357936,-97729147,11460&tbm=lcl&tbs=lf:1,lf_ui:2&fll=30.295702499999987,-97.73880020000001&fspn=1.307576286097948,2.3636602327767378&fz=9&oll=30.295702500000004,-97.73880020000001&ospn=0.5266116949786763,0.8269422496560992&oz=9&qop=1&rlfi=hd:;si https://www.google.com/#q=austin%20tx%20taxi&rflfq=1&rlha=0&...:
  - ryan-c 10y ago
    Taxis are not an option worth considering - too unreliable.
    - calbear81 10y ago
      Many taxi services are catching up in technology so you can be more confident of their reliability. For example, Flywheel here in the Bay Area has an app that lets you track your driver and pay them from within the app just like an Uber/Lyft.
hartator 10y ago
I live in Austin and I couldn't vote because I am just a permanent resident. Anyway, I don't think I see why I couldn't pay anyone I want to drive me from point A to point B.
- JadeNB 10y ago
  > Anyway, I don't think I see why I couldn't pay anyone I want to drive me from point A to point B. You certainly can, just as you can pay anyone you want to have sex with you; but that is not the same as saying that prostitution is legal.

brianbarker 10y ago

I just want uber and lyft back. The alternatives are awful. My friends have changed their weekend habits. I tried GetMe but it really sucks. Even the drivers were complaining the software had several bugs about billing, payment and mapping. I don't think uber and lyft should have left over background checking and fingerprints. Idk which side will acquiesce first, I just hope someone does.

EliRivers 10y ago

PG, Jeff Atwood, various others; at some point they all start believing their own hype and become actors playing themselves.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

bluesilver07 10y ago

I'm curious - Why does the Govt. have such a hard time regulating Uber in the US? In India, the state governments quite easily crack the whip whenever they deem it necessary. http://tech.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/internet/karnataka-may-ban-surge-pricing-by-uber-ola-to-level-the-playing-field-for-cab-operators/50939743 http://tech.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/internet/karna... http://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi/yes-we-ll-do-it-arvind-kejriwal-on-suspending-surge-pricing-by-ola-uber/story-QUfbtCoggUmY9qqu4WU5mI.html http://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi/yes-we-ll-do-it-arvind-k...

ef4 10y ago

If somebody suggested a new preventative drug for a rare disease, and offered zero studies to back it up, and suggested everyone should be required to receive it, they would get laughed out of the room. Yet we still make public safety decisions on that kind of flimsy thinking all the time. Either new regulations improve outcomes or they don't. But we'll never find out by yelling at each other, or by taking a poll. Governments could conduct science-based regulation if they wanted to, especially when it comes to public health and safety -- areas where there is broad agreement on the desired outcomes, just disagreement on what will actually achieve those ends. Do these new regulations really improve safety? That's a testable hypothesis. (It seems unlikely that they do, given the low background rate of rideshare-driver crime. But I'm open to evidence.)