21 ms·

I said effectively banned and what I meant was because of the unusual and onerous requirement of fingerprinting drivers when other cities such as NYC (where I l

I said effectively banned and what I meant was because of the unusual and onerous requirement of fingerprinting drivers when other cities such as NYC (where I live and which is far more dangerous than Austin) has no such requirement, nor apparently, does any other major US city since I've taken Uber/Lyft in a number of them.

yladiz 10y ago
> unusual and onerous requirement of fingerprinting drivers Maybe it is unusual because it's not common in other cities, but let's not pretend it's onerous. Austin really tried to work with Uber/Lyft on this, such as offering to pay for the fingerprinting or have mobile fingerprinting stations, and Uber/Lyft still didn't like the idea because it would likely mean that other cities would see it as an example. And it's also not fair to say that it's even effectively banned because it's a law that's not difficult to work within.
- davidf18 10y ago
  If NYC, Boston, LA, Chicago, DC, SF, Las Vegas, and other major cities across the country didn't require fingerprinting then it was unreasonable and according to my view, "onerous" in terms of the implications. There is no reason except restraint of trade that Austin would need this fingerprinting when other larger and far more dangerous cities have done fine without it.
  - jhayward 10y ago
    I would like to direct your attention to the "principle of charity" suggestion that @dang recommends commenters use when evaluating discussion. By asserting facially false facts (NYC does indeed require fingerprinting[1]), and then attributing malice ("no reason except trade restraint") to Austin's referendum results your reply violates that principle in my opinion. [1] http://driveubernyc.com/tlc-license-checklist/ http://driveubernyc.com/tlc-license-checklist/
jhayward 10y ago
What on earth are you talking about? Uber drivers in NYC have far, far more onerous requirements - including fingerprinting, drug testing, and a medical exam [1]. [1] http://driveubernyc.com/tlc-license-checklist/ http://driveubernyc.com/tlc-license-checklist/

yladiz 10y ago

> unusual and onerous requirement of fingerprinting drivers Maybe it is unusual because it's not common in other cities, but let's not pretend it's onerous. Austin really tried to work with Uber/Lyft on this, such as offering to pay for the fingerprinting or have mobile fingerprinting stations, and Uber/Lyft still didn't like the idea because it would likely mean that other cities would see it as an example. And it's also not fair to say that it's even effectively banned because it's a law that's not difficult to work within.

davidf18 10y ago
If NYC, Boston, LA, Chicago, DC, SF, Las Vegas, and other major cities across the country didn't require fingerprinting then it was unreasonable and according to my view, "onerous" in terms of the implications. There is no reason except restraint of trade that Austin would need this fingerprinting when other larger and far more dangerous cities have done fine without it.
- jhayward 10y ago
  I would like to direct your attention to the "principle of charity" suggestion that @dang recommends commenters use when evaluating discussion. By asserting facially false facts (NYC does indeed require fingerprinting[1]), and then attributing malice ("no reason except trade restraint") to Austin's referendum results your reply violates that principle in my opinion. [1] http://driveubernyc.com/tlc-license-checklist/ http://driveubernyc.com/tlc-license-checklist/

jhayward 10y ago

What on earth are you talking about? Uber drivers in NYC have far, far more onerous requirements - including fingerprinting, drug testing, and a medical exam [1]. [1] http://driveubernyc.com/tlc-license-checklist/ http://driveubernyc.com/tlc-license-checklist/