4 ms·

No, Austin kicked them out for bullshit reasons, citing safety of riding with un-fingerprinted drivers, when if you simply go out downtown in Austin now or befo

No, Austin kicked them out for bullshit reasons, citing safety of riding with un-fingerprinted drivers, when if you simply go out downtown in Austin now or before Uber, you'd see dozens of people knocking on random car windows and offering them cash for a ride. None of whom were fingerprinted. The competitors who have gotten traction also do not fingerprint, but as they are decentralized, there's not really a way to regulate them out. Uber and Lyft should relaunch there with self-driving cars (the mayor is all about self-driving cars) and change their logo to a fingerprint.

bsder 10y ago
> The competitors who have gotten traction also do not fingerprint, but as they are decentralized, there's not really a way to regulate them out. So, that would be why the city was overwhelmed fingerprinting drivers. Uh, yeah, let's see some evidence behind your statements. And Austin didn't kick them out, Uber and Lyft LEFT. Uber and Lyft tried to hold Austin hostage, and, surprise, the Austin VOTERS bit them.
iamdave 10y ago
Austin kicked them out? That's news to me as a resident because the distinct impression I got was that we the people voted we wanted drivers fingerprinted, and if they could do that, they could stay but apparently it was more cost effective to launch a million+ dollar campaign against the proposal and try running a sitting councilmember (who, sure, I'll admit, probably doesn't have good approval ratings) out of office and then left when the people voted in favor of the fingerprinting rules. The same rules that Uber and Lyft seem to have no problem working under in Dallas and Houston. Austin didn't kick anyone out, they left and good riddance I say. Fare and Fasten aren't perfect, but I will much more readily support a local company than Uber.
- serge2k 10y ago
  I don't understand. Uber's a disruptive startup, surely that means they are right. Regulations are for companies that aren't startups disrupting. Taxpayers should be able to be disrupted by startups.
  - iamdave 10y ago
    You may want to indicate the sarcasm for those at home.

bsder 10y ago

> The competitors who have gotten traction also do not fingerprint, but as they are decentralized, there's not really a way to regulate them out. So, that would be why the city was overwhelmed fingerprinting drivers. Uh, yeah, let's see some evidence behind your statements. And Austin didn't kick them out, Uber and Lyft LEFT. Uber and Lyft tried to hold Austin hostage, and, surprise, the Austin VOTERS bit them.

iamdave 10y ago

Austin kicked them out? That's news to me as a resident because the distinct impression I got was that we the people voted we wanted drivers fingerprinted, and if they could do that, they could stay but apparently it was more cost effective to launch a million+ dollar campaign against the proposal and try running a sitting councilmember (who, sure, I'll admit, probably doesn't have good approval ratings) out of office and then left when the people voted in favor of the fingerprinting rules. The same rules that Uber and Lyft seem to have no problem working under in Dallas and Houston. Austin didn't kick anyone out, they left and good riddance I say. Fare and Fasten aren't perfect, but I will much more readily support a local company than Uber.

serge2k 10y ago
I don't understand. Uber's a disruptive startup, surely that means they are right. Regulations are for companies that aren't startups disrupting. Taxpayers should be able to be disrupted by startups.
- iamdave 10y ago
  You may want to indicate the sarcasm for those at home.