4 ms·

"Uber and Lyft may have left town, but the city of Austin seems to be doing just fine without them." Wow, so all these people on Facebook are giving the finger

"Uber and Lyft may have left town, but the city of Austin seems to be doing just fine without them." Wow, so all these people on Facebook are giving the fingerprints and background checks that Austin now legally requires of all community sourced taxi services? Or ... are they not doing that, and also not paying taxes or subject to any regulation at all, unlike Uber and Lyft? Austin's goal in the law was to put controls and regulation on this industry. The result is trumpeted by this article as a success for that intent. However, it seems that what has actually been created due to the city's creating a void in needed services is a totally underground black market system with no accountability whatsoever. Reasonable observers might note this to be a step away from regulation and control.

makomk 10y ago
I don't think the fingerprinting requirements have taken effect yet. Uber and Lyft just chose to leave as soon as they lost the vote to stop them because they thought it'd give them more leverage.
- jeremyt 10y ago
  They have taken effect, it's just that the city has decided to not enforce them.
  - lobasaurusrex 10y ago
    City has said that it won't start enforcing until August (though technically could start enforcing as of May 1), and at that point only 50% of drivers need to be fingerprinted. Here's the original vote: http://kxan.com/2015/12/17/mayor-offers-11th-hour-compromise-to-rideshare-companies/ http://kxan.com/2015/12/17/mayor-offers-11th-hour-compromise...
wtbob 10y ago
> Austin's goal in the law was to put controls and regulation on this industry. I'm pretty sure Austin's goal was to protect the taxi magnates by putting their competition out of business. > However, it seems that what has actually been created due to the city's creating a void in needed services is a totally underground black market system with no accountability whatsoever. That's not actually bad when one considers the real purpose of the law: the taxi magnates get to keep their price floor, and they get to watch the police power of the State exercised against their underground competitors.
- mc32 10y ago
  It's easy to comply with the requirement, so I don't see how this requirement was meant to protect the incumbent taxi services. In other words, it's not that much of a burden. They could comply and they could continue to decimate the incumbents --but the new services, the taxi platform services see this as a stand they must take to control costs (and don't want other jurisdictions getting the same ideas) I believe that is all it is.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  >>I'm pretty sure Austin's goal was to protect the taxi magnates by putting their competition out of business. This is pure nonsense. The fingerprint requirements are nothing new. Taxi companies have been following them for years. Uber and Lyft simply did not think they should be treated as taxi services, and threw a hissy fit when the City of Austin decided otherwise. Furthermore, Uber and Lyft were not "put out of business." In fact, they continued to operate in Austin for two years after the law was passed. They left only when they failed to repeal the law. Also keep in mind they spent over $8 million on the public relations and lobbying campaign to get the law repealed. So yeah, make no mistake: they have plenty of money, and the only reason they left was as a way of saying "fuck you" to Austin.
- SwellJoe 10y ago
  That doesn't really make sense, and is an inaccurate representation of what happened and why. I wasn't in Austin while this was going down, but I know a lot of folks involved in city government (and I have more harsh words to say about the city's government than most people in many areas). Uber/Lyft is who wanted special treatment; not the other way around. Every company/individual that sells rides in Austin follows roughly the same rules (with some tweaks to suit the mode of transit): cabs, electric cabs, pedicabs, etc. They all do the same background check and fingerprinting process. Uber/Lyft wanted to do their own thing. The city said, no, you're going to have to do it the same way all of your competitors do it. Uber/Lyft spent nearly $10 million dollars (enough to pay for hundreds of thousands of fingerprint background checks, probably a decade worth of drivers) to do an end run around city council with a ballot proposition to not be subject to the same rules as their competitors. That proposition failed; badly. Uber/Lyft left in a huff because they would not receive special treatment. It is a remarkable act of rewriting history to claim that Uber/Lyft are being stifled by cab companies when they're only being asked to do what even the bicycle pedicab drivers do. If they wanted a level playing field without those requirements (i.e. cabs, e-cabs, and pedicabs, would have also been exempt from that process and instead could use a private background check instead of the city process), I might have been on their side...and, so would the pedicabbers, e-cabbers, and probably the rest of Austin. What I saw was some spoiled brats at the helm of billion dollar valuation companies trying to get special treatment and throwing a tantrum when they didn't get it. Also: The background check that Uber/Lyft claims prevents them from being able to operate at all in Austin costs about $40. And, both companies operate in other places that require similar processes (and every other company that provides rides in Austin does the same). They're acting like entitled spoiled brats.
x0x0 10y ago
Or this could be a temporary market gap while companies are both building tech to replace uber/lyft, and/or waiting to see if uber/lyft fold. My bet is in a year, if uber/lyft stay out of Austin, there will be a local replacement that obeys the laws that Austin decided on.
SwellJoe 10y ago
The companies that are trying to fill the void are following the rules. That facebook group is working outside of the law; some of the rides are probably illegal, and if it continues for long, it'll likely get cracked down on a bit. Before rules were formalized for pedicabs and for electric cabs (which happened at different points in Austin history), the drivers worked for "donations" to avoid some of the legal trouble of selling rides without being licensed to do so. So, it's likely that the "donation-based" rides are skirting the law (though riding pretty close to the edge of it, and the e-cab company had a variety of run-ins with the city over that while they were sorting out the legality of the thing). The ones with a set price probably aren't legal, at all. I know the fellow who owns the electric cab company in Austin, and I know a lot of pedicabbers. Those folks pushed the barriers to entry way down over the years, to the benefit of everybody wanting to offer ride services in Austin. The process is so much less onerous now than it was a decade ago, and, most importantly, it almost entirely stopped favoring traditional cabs a couple years ago. Everyone has cooked up a silly conspiracy theory where the taxi companies wield tremendous influence over city council; with the new 10-1 city council that's an absurd suggestion (Austin effectively ousted its entire city council and started over from scratch a couple years ago, with district-based council membership...it'd be pretty difficult to buy the current city council). I don't even believe it was a valid criticism of the old city council (I had many nasty things to say about the old city council, but being corrupt generally wasn't one of them). The TNC debate has pushed the barrier to entry down a little further, and that's a good thing in a city with very poor mass transit. But, and this is a big but: We really need to acknowledge that Uber/Lyft were not asking for equal treatment to cabs; they wanted special treatment that would make it harder for cabs, pedicabs, and e-cabs, to compete with them (because they would all be subject to the old rules, and only TNCs would be exempt).

makomk 10y ago

I don't think the fingerprinting requirements have taken effect yet. Uber and Lyft just chose to leave as soon as they lost the vote to stop them because they thought it'd give them more leverage.

jeremyt 10y ago
They have taken effect, it's just that the city has decided to not enforce them.
- lobasaurusrex 10y ago
  City has said that it won't start enforcing until August (though technically could start enforcing as of May 1), and at that point only 50% of drivers need to be fingerprinted. Here's the original vote: http://kxan.com/2015/12/17/mayor-offers-11th-hour-compromise-to-rideshare-companies/ http://kxan.com/2015/12/17/mayor-offers-11th-hour-compromise...

wtbob 10y ago

> Austin's goal in the law was to put controls and regulation on this industry. I'm pretty sure Austin's goal was to protect the taxi magnates by putting their competition out of business. > However, it seems that what has actually been created due to the city's creating a void in needed services is a totally underground black market system with no accountability whatsoever. That's not actually bad when one considers the real purpose of the law: the taxi magnates get to keep their price floor, and they get to watch the police power of the State exercised against their underground competitors.

mc32 10y ago
It's easy to comply with the requirement, so I don't see how this requirement was meant to protect the incumbent taxi services. In other words, it's not that much of a burden. They could comply and they could continue to decimate the incumbents --but the new services, the taxi platform services see this as a stand they must take to control costs (and don't want other jurisdictions getting the same ideas) I believe that is all it is.
enraged_camel 10y ago
>>I'm pretty sure Austin's goal was to protect the taxi magnates by putting their competition out of business. This is pure nonsense. The fingerprint requirements are nothing new. Taxi companies have been following them for years. Uber and Lyft simply did not think they should be treated as taxi services, and threw a hissy fit when the City of Austin decided otherwise. Furthermore, Uber and Lyft were not "put out of business." In fact, they continued to operate in Austin for two years after the law was passed. They left only when they failed to repeal the law. Also keep in mind they spent over $8 million on the public relations and lobbying campaign to get the law repealed. So yeah, make no mistake: they have plenty of money, and the only reason they left was as a way of saying "fuck you" to Austin.
SwellJoe 10y ago
That doesn't really make sense, and is an inaccurate representation of what happened and why. I wasn't in Austin while this was going down, but I know a lot of folks involved in city government (and I have more harsh words to say about the city's government than most people in many areas). Uber/Lyft is who wanted special treatment; not the other way around. Every company/individual that sells rides in Austin follows roughly the same rules (with some tweaks to suit the mode of transit): cabs, electric cabs, pedicabs, etc. They all do the same background check and fingerprinting process. Uber/Lyft wanted to do their own thing. The city said, no, you're going to have to do it the same way all of your competitors do it. Uber/Lyft spent nearly $10 million dollars (enough to pay for hundreds of thousands of fingerprint background checks, probably a decade worth of drivers) to do an end run around city council with a ballot proposition to not be subject to the same rules as their competitors. That proposition failed; badly. Uber/Lyft left in a huff because they would not receive special treatment. It is a remarkable act of rewriting history to claim that Uber/Lyft are being stifled by cab companies when they're only being asked to do what even the bicycle pedicab drivers do. If they wanted a level playing field without those requirements (i.e. cabs, e-cabs, and pedicabs, would have also been exempt from that process and instead could use a private background check instead of the city process), I might have been on their side...and, so would the pedicabbers, e-cabbers, and probably the rest of Austin. What I saw was some spoiled brats at the helm of billion dollar valuation companies trying to get special treatment and throwing a tantrum when they didn't get it. Also: The background check that Uber/Lyft claims prevents them from being able to operate at all in Austin costs about $40. And, both companies operate in other places that require similar processes (and every other company that provides rides in Austin does the same). They're acting like entitled spoiled brats.

x0x0 10y ago

Or this could be a temporary market gap while companies are both building tech to replace uber/lyft, and/or waiting to see if uber/lyft fold. My bet is in a year, if uber/lyft stay out of Austin, there will be a local replacement that obeys the laws that Austin decided on.

SwellJoe 10y ago

The companies that are trying to fill the void are following the rules. That facebook group is working outside of the law; some of the rides are probably illegal, and if it continues for long, it'll likely get cracked down on a bit. Before rules were formalized for pedicabs and for electric cabs (which happened at different points in Austin history), the drivers worked for "donations" to avoid some of the legal trouble of selling rides without being licensed to do so. So, it's likely that the "donation-based" rides are skirting the law (though riding pretty close to the edge of it, and the e-cab company had a variety of run-ins with the city over that while they were sorting out the legality of the thing). The ones with a set price probably aren't legal, at all. I know the fellow who owns the electric cab company in Austin, and I know a lot of pedicabbers. Those folks pushed the barriers to entry way down over the years, to the benefit of everybody wanting to offer ride services in Austin. The process is so much less onerous now than it was a decade ago, and, most importantly, it almost entirely stopped favoring traditional cabs a couple years ago. Everyone has cooked up a silly conspiracy theory where the taxi companies wield tremendous influence over city council; with the new 10-1 city council that's an absurd suggestion (Austin effectively ousted its entire city council and started over from scratch a couple years ago, with district-based council membership...it'd be pretty difficult to buy the current city council). I don't even believe it was a valid criticism of the old city council (I had many nasty things to say about the old city council, but being corrupt generally wasn't one of them). The TNC debate has pushed the barrier to entry down a little further, and that's a good thing in a city with very poor mass transit. But, and this is a big but: We really need to acknowledge that Uber/Lyft were not asking for equal treatment to cabs; they wanted special treatment that would make it harder for cabs, pedicabs, and e-cabs, to compete with them (because they would all be subject to the old rules, and only TNCs would be exempt).