21 ms·

Ride-hailing apps may help to curb drunk driving

509 points by petergatsby 10y ago

abvdasker 10y ago
I wonder if this conclusion could be further validated using other signals like drunk driving arrests or the same set of statistics in other cities.
- nhf 10y ago
  Economists like to use natural experiments—when comparable populations are exposed to different conditions through policy or chance. It would be interesting to compare Austin (no Lyft/Uber) to a similar city in the vacuum between the locally-grown solutions coming in and U/L leaving. I'm not sure how robust the findings would be though.
petergatsby 10y ago
The cited CUNY study: http://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=gc_econ_wp http://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10...
- andrew-lucker 10y ago
  Wow, this was treated pretty well wrt stats, almost like a clinical trial. The article makes it sound like just an anecdote.
  - VHRanger 10y ago
    Applied microeconomics is full of these sort of studies. It thrives on finding "natural experiments" to exploit and identify/measure an effect.
- 40acres 10y ago
  Nice to see such a great paper from a fellow CUNY grad. NY's city college system is underrated.
  - VHRanger 10y ago
    I mean CUNY is objectively a great school. It's just overshadowed by NYU
    - TillE 10y ago
      Isn't the SUNY system generally better regarded as well? New York does a pretty good job overall with affordable public universities.
Dotnaught 10y ago
Perhaps that should be phrased "the availability of drivers using a ride sharing platform has helped reduce drunk driving accidents." If Uber doesn't accept drivers as employees and isn't responsible for their actions, it shouldn't be credited with their collective contributions to a safer society.
- webwielder2 10y ago
  Huh? "Employees" are a matter of legality, not causality.
- lend000 10y ago
  That's a strangely bitter way of looking at things. Ride sharing companies, including Uber, have brought tremendous benefits to society, and drunk driving prevention is probably at the top of the list. Uber has made the largest difference of all these companies because it has been the most aggressive in disrupting rent-seekers like taxi companies. The drivers and the general willingness of people to embrace the gig economy should also be credited, but not to the discredit of the companies that created the ride-sharing platforms that made it all possible.
  - jellicle 10y ago
    Incorrect. Independent contractors cheerfully 'sharing' their vehicles have made 100% of the difference; Uber does not employ anyone to drive anywhere. The number of drunks driven home by Uber employees is ~0. Thanks independent contractors!
    - jryle70 10y ago
      This is disingenuous at best. Before Uber, how many of those "independent contractors" were in the market? It's fair to criticize Uber's aggressive and shady practices, it's also fair to acknowledge the enormous changes that it has brought about to the transportation landscape.
      - giaour 10y ago
kalleboo 10y ago
Or conversely, the taxi medallion system is likely responsible for 24-35% of drunk driving incidents...
- trendia 10y ago
  The problem with cabs is that the drivers aren't sure if they will get another ride, so they are less likely to service more remote areas.
  - lutorm 10y ago
    Wasn't there an article here a few days ago that said Uber drivers were doing exactly the same thing?
    - peteretep 10y ago
      Uber drivers don't get a choice. Some do and try and skirt that system, but it's more obvious and they get in more trouble.
      - alikoneko 10y ago
        I take a short fare from my work to the train station near daily. If I am contacted by my driver, I never tell them where I am going. I have had MANY drivers, both Uber and Lyft, cancel because it was a sub-$10 fare. This is in Fort Lauderdale, so it isn't like its out in the boonies. That being said, I might have waited longer, but I always got service when I did live in rural Broward. I was 20+ minutes from everything though, so it was a guaranteed high fare ride for the driver.
- sergers 10y ago
  In Vancouver, If going out downtown, it's a 80$ cab ride each way atleast. Transit would take atleast an hour but good luck taking it back at 2am when service is very limited. I could drive after drinking and spend 30-40 minutes. There is no ride sharing allowed here yet. I usually don't go out if I don't have a designated driver as it's just not affordable or takes too long. Many friends, and I admit myself when younger, would have just drove home drunk as it was cheapest quickest option We have actually found it cheaper to drive downtown, find a cheap decent hotel on priceline and drive back home after a good sleep. I can't wait for ride sharing here, I use it everywhere else when traveling. Ride sharing makes it affordable convenient and quick... Can definately see how it attributes to less drunk drivers.
robbiet480 10y ago
Another study from July 2016 said that Uber doesn't save many drunk driving accidents although the study referenced in the Economist only focused on NYC, whereas the study from 2016 was focused on multiple metropolitan areas. [1]: http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/07/22/aje.kww062 http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/07/22/aje.k...
- jnordwick 10y ago
  I think he's overfitting. Also the way he controls for Lyft seems poor, I think, because if both services led to a reduction them controlling for Lyft would reduce Uber's contribution it seems (that is while Uber's effect might be small as well as Lyfts, together they would be larger). He really should be asking "Do ride sharing services reduce drunk driving fatalities?" Not Uber specific. Also his variable for Uber is only a one or zero. It should instead be the number of drivers in the county. They quotes a study done on only California that shows Uber reduces fatalities, but doesn't ask himself if maybe county by county is important. Instead he groups everything together, even some countries that have very few. Here's the sentence that should indicate something is wrong with his analysis, he finds Uber increases fatalities (a noticably but not significant): > This model shows that on average, the presence of Uber was associated with a 2.0% (95% confidence interval: 0.98, 1.06) increase in traffic fatalities among all drivers; however, this association was not statistically significant at conventional levels. I think he definitely needs to break out the results data into county by county results to see if maybe there is a different result for maybe more populous counties.
jnordwick 10y ago
To all those complaining about ride sharing systems: phhffft!
itchyjunk 10y ago
Hmm, the study [0] credits over all reduction of drunk driving accidents to Uber. If ride sharing is the source of reduction, shouldn't ride sharing in general be credited? Maybe Uber was the only ride-share available during the study though since it's data from 1989-2013. "A recent increase in the ease and availability of alternative rides for intoxicated passengers partially explains the steep decrease in alcohol-related collisions in New York City since 2011.I examine the specific case of Uber’s car service launch in New York Cityin May 2011, a unique example of a sudden increase in cab availability for intoxicated passengers.7This study draws on a dataset of all New York State alcohol-related collisions maintained by the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles from 1989 through 2013. My inference is based on the variation in Uber access across New York State counties over time and the careful choice of New York State counties that provide an appropriate control group for New York City’s drunk- driving behavior" Edit: Fair enough, looks like lyft only came to NYC around 2014[1]. But does anyone know if the ride share prices in NYC from 2011 [2] to now has significantly changed? I vaguely remember a lot of people using it initially because of dirt cheap prices during the first few month of introduction but I don't trust my memory over facts if someone has some. ----------- [0]http://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=gc_econ_wp http://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyft#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyft#History [2] https://techcrunch.com/2011/04/06/i-just-rode-in-an-uber-car-in-new-york-city-and-you-can-too/ https://techcrunch.com/2011/04/06/i-just-rode-in-an-uber-car...
- azernik 10y ago
  Only if the introduction of other ride-sharing services happened at the same time - I have no idea of the timeline in NY, but the author send to be using the sudden introduction as a natural experiment. Of course, the results are probably applicable to other ride-sharing schemes.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- petergatsby 10y ago
  Study credits Uber because specificity > vagueness. From 2011 - present Uber was responsible for vast the majority of ride-share rides: https://www.thestreet.com/story/13536061/1/uber-now-more-popular-than-taxis-in-new-york-city-among-business-travelers.html https://www.thestreet.com/story/13536061/1/uber-now-more-pop...
rubicon33 10y ago
Another bright light on the horizon: Self driving cars. I'm hugely optimistic that within the next 100 years, we could very possibly see deaths from drunk driving shrink to a small fraction of it's current value. It's a great thing when profit driven businesses also have positive side effects for everyone.
- plytheman 10y ago
  I'm curious when self-driving cars become common place how the law will react to it. It's my assumption that the law will still require a driver to be sober in the event that manual control is needed, though I suppose if the car is driving itself perfectly fine police would have no reasonable grounds to pull anyone over and discover they're drunk in the first place.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - BigJono 10y ago
    > though I suppose if the car is driving itself perfectly fine police would have no reasonable grounds to pull anyone over and discover they're drunk in the first place. I can't speak for America, but here (Australia) I'd guess the vast majority of drunk driving tickets are from booze busses. I can't even remember the last time I saw somebody pulled over and breathalysed.
    - harpastum 10y ago
      Could you elaborate? What's a booze bus? In the US, It's a pretty common occurrence to see someone pulled over and breathalyzed if they're driving erratically.
      - mctx 10y ago
        A booze bus is a random breath test - the police have labelled busses that they park on the road. I believe if you blow over the limit then you get on the bus and are tested again in 30 minutes. They look like this: http://www.ranted.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/109890-booze-bus.jpg http://www.ranted.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/109890-b...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
spodek 10y ago
I've wondered if cell phones have led to fewer altercations on subways as people spend more time focused on them, giving them less reason or chance to argue and fight with others.
- saddestcatever 10y ago
  That's a funny hypothesis to think about. I wish there was a good data set we could analyze on this matter. I'd really like to be able to answer the question: "Have smartphones reduced human interaction. Especially with strangers."
mshenfield 10y ago
I don't know... this credits Uber, and Uber is bad.
- hoozter 10y ago
  I have a feeling Uber might even have worked to get this article made in the first place. Maybe I'm just very cynical, I don't know. But it happens all the time so...
- divanvisagie 10y ago
  Because things can only be bad or only be good right?
vannevar 10y ago
Proving another benefit of subsidized public transportation. In Uber's case, low-cost rides subsidized by its investors.
- adventured 10y ago
  Would you mind showing me their financials in the US market, so we can see the extent of the subsidization across different cities? I would like to see the numbers that you derived your claim from in regards to Uber's operations in the US.
  - vannevar 10y ago
    Uber's history of subsidies is well-known: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2014/07/02/ubers-newest-tactic-pay-drivers-more-than-they-earn/#732da1591011 https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2014/07/02/ubers-newe... (2014) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/08/23/ubers-controversial-strategy-to-finally-defeat-lyft/?utm_term=.f58ce2c0d2d9 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/08/23... (2016) https://qz.com/940605/is-the-era-of-cheap-uber-rides-over/ https://qz.com/940605/is-the-era-of-cheap-uber-rides-over/ (2017) But I don't have a breakdown per-market.
  - nommm-nommm 10y ago
    If you Google "user is losing money" there's a whole crap ton of results. Here's one - https://news.vice.com/story/uber-is-losing-money https://news.vice.com/story/uber-is-losing-money There was a really detailed breakdown posted somewhere on HN a while ago but I don't have it offhand.
dsacco 10y ago
The study was originally published in January. This article is being published in April. I subscribe to the Economist and I enjoy it, but I am cynical about why this is being published now, amidst significant negative publicity for Uber.
- mcast 10y ago
  I would not be surprised if Uber hired a company to astroturf their branding after the Lyft boycotts and constant negative hits to their image. In fact, this is exactly something I see Travis doing to "fix" the problem.
- septimus111 10y ago
  Thank you. It's just too convenient a time isn't it?
akgerber 10y ago
Note that Uber was not the only taxi reform in NYC. A quote from the paper: "For my analysis, I use data from collisions that occurred from January 2007 through July 2013. This period includes Uber’s entrance into the New York market in May 2011, allows for a substantial pre-intervention period, and omits two potentially confounding entrances in the New York City transportation market that could influence the alcohol-related collision rate. The first entrance occurred in August 2013 as New York City introduced a new form of taxi medallion to serve only the “outer boroughs” of Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, Staten Island, and northern Manhattan. These “boro” taxis were painted green rather than the typical yellow medallion taxis, and banned from picking up in lower Manhattan, where most street-hail yellow taxi rides originate." Note also that Uber in NYC is operated by TLC-licensed drivers against whom it is very easy to file a complaint for dangerous driving, which is different from many other cities. I used NYC's lovely 311 app to file a complaint against just such a driver for shouting at me after he drove at me head-on in a 2-way bike lane. I expect he'll face a significant fine.
- isubkhankulov 10y ago
  i can only offer anecdotal evidence but from my experience, uber is much more popular in the outer boroughs than the new green cabs. in addition, up until late 2016, you could hail a green cab via Uber via their taxi mode. i think Uber is mostly responsible for this trend precisely because they compete with yellow/green taxi's and continously drive down prices. lower prices for consumers mean its an easy decision to choose an Uber vs drive yourself when drunk.
- sokoloff 10y ago
  > I used NYC's lovely 311 app to file a complaint against just such a driver for shouting at me after he drove at me head-on in a 2-way bike lane. I expect he'll face a significant fine. I'd wager against that outcome from a due process and practicality standpoint. If dropping a dime on someone using their ID number would result in a significant fine absent other evidence, there would be chaos.
  - akgerber 10y ago
aaron695 10y ago
It's amusing seeing people try and spin this against Uber, wouldn't want to leave the bubble for to long.
jhpaul 10y ago
Based on personal experiences this isn't surprising. When I was in college in a small town in the late 00's, many friends and acquaintances would drive across town after heavy drinking. 10-15 minutes, straight roads, little traffic. Other than not going out, or not getting home, you didn't have many options. It was a hour long walk or a $20-40 cab ride, if you could get one. I was recently back in town for a wedding and our uber to the hotel from the venue (about the same distance) was $9. Once came to town (now on the east coast) I instantly noticed many friends who used to drive would take an uber. It's cheap, it's easy to call one from a crowded/loud place, you know how much it will cost, they don't use cash, they know where you are, and you don't have to give directions. For someone intoxicated (or anyone really), these are game changers. It's the difference between "who's going to drive?" and "who's calling an uber?" Company politics aside, the accessibility of ride-sharing services introduces numerous real safety benefits on top of the obvious convenience.
- qyv 10y ago
  It's not he accessibility of ride-sharing services that is doing this, it is the ride-sharing services policy of artificially low pricing to facilitate rapid growth that is responsible. Those $9 rides are not sustainable. When the prices go back up to sustainable levels we will see many of these benefits evaporate.
  - psiclops 10y ago
    It's still safer and cheaper than a DUI* or worse. For many people, as long as it is convenient, those benefits are enough
  - jnordwick 10y ago
    And like you know, all the other things he listed: > it's easy to call one from a crowded/loud place, you know how much it will cost, they don't use cash, they know where you are, and you don't have to give directions. p.s., why do people like you want to hate on ride sharing services so much? Is it just that nothing can ever be good enough in your mind?
mc32 10y ago
So on the one hand technology allows for better taxi services resulting in fewer impaired-driving accidents, on the other hand, technology in the form or gadgets (entertainment systems, phones, GPS, etc., distract drivers as well as pedestrians resulting in more accidents on the not-under-the-influence side of things. Still 24+% reduction is quite an nice result.
arrty88 10y ago
Even 35% seems to low to me... I really thought/wish it was lower. Hopefully the reduction in bad driving practices start to reduce car insurance premiums as well.
thewhitetulip 10y ago
Uber's PR team would be rejoicing right now! It is great that technological advances have both positive and negative effects, and some times, the positive effects saves a ton of lives.
- septimus111 10y ago
  Ummm... I'm sure Uber's PR team had absolutely nothing to do with this article ;)
  - thewhitetulip 10y ago
    Exactly, they are getting free publicity, it isn't bad anytime.
vidoc 10y ago
No question ride-hailing has a net plus impact on reducing drunk driving. Though, it only works for the most fortunate of us (1) who live in urban areas (2). Also, let's not forget that the most important driver to prevent drunk driving in the United States, is the severity (or extremism) of DUI laws. As a matter of fact, punishments for such infractions are so extreme that they achieve deterrence not by fear of punishment, but fear of unfair punishment.
- papabrown 10y ago
  See Fighting MADD [1] Don't be put off by the site's domain. There are plenty of other articles that say the same exact thing. In fact, Wikipedia contains several links to articles critical of MADD's mission and fundraising [2] [1] http://www.drunkard.com/08_02_fighting_madd/ http://www.drunkard.com/08_02_fighting_madd/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothers_Against_Drunk_Driving https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothers_Against_Drunk_Driving
BatFastard 10y ago
I observe this is true with my 21 year old son who is in college. After a few drinks and dancing downtown, they all grab an Uber back home, they don't even consider driving. Now it is a small town, but you can still pick up an Uber at 2 am for a 5 dollar ride home. Awesome!
visakanv 10y ago
A separate discussion that I'd like to have is – why do people drink so much, to the point of drunkenness? Why is this so common? Has this always been the case? Will this change?
- ssttoo 10y ago
  > why do people drink so much, to the point of drunkenness? Many reasons. To the point of darkness because it's a thin line between a light buzz and over-the-top-cannot-even-say-my-name > Why is this so common? human nature. Not only human, actually, monkeys drunk on fermented fruit, etc [1] > Has this always been the case? Yes > Will this change? No. [1] http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/wildlife/2011/10/animals-getting-high-10-common-drunks/ http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/wildlife/2011/...
  - papabrown 10y ago
    Elephants too. They've been known to raid villages and steal booze. [1] [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229334/Fifty-drunken-elephants-ransack-village-gulping-500-litres-alcohol.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229334/Fifty-drunke...
- pluma 10y ago
  Apart from general questions about social norms, the basic problem with overdrinking is that alcohol generally boasts your confidence. Most people are already really bad judges of how much they can drink before reaching various stages of intoxication while they are sober; it only gets worse when they're drinking. This is further complicated when mixing drinks with different alcohol contents. So while sober you might guesstimate that you'll be "pleasantly buzzed" after about three drinks. Then you have one or two drinks and your self-reflection skills get worse and you become convinced four or five is fine too and six is really only just a bit more than three, so that'll be fine too. It's generally an aspect of maturity to learn not to trust "drunk you" when asking yourself how much you should drink but humans are humans, so even adults screw up a lot.
- macey 10y ago
devdoomari 10y ago
...but what about cars left on the parking lot by the drunk ppl? a lot of ppl might choose to drink&drive because they have to go back & get their cars again... In South Korea they have 'substitute driver service' that drives customer's car (obviously, with customer in it) back to the customer's home. I'm sure this can be done logistically (have a large bus carry around drivers, etc.)
- pluma 10y ago
  > ...but what about cars left on the parking lot by the drunk ppl? 1. This may sound obvious but maybe don't drive yourself if you're not going to be able to drive back. Ask a friend to take you or plan to pay for both ways. 2. Plan for the extra time the following day to pick your car up where you left it. 3. Drive with someone who can drive the car (and you) back. I'm surprised you think this is a difficult problem. People have been doing these things for decades.
  - alkonaut 10y ago
    While it's certainly a solved problem, what I found in the US was that people put bars and restaurants near roads. Some times a bar or restaurant could be a few km down some otherwise empty road, with a parking lot in front. That's a large part of the problem.
  - papabrown 10y ago
    In many cities like Los Angeles public transportation is either non-existant or extremely poor, the most common scenario is that someone goes to work and is invited to go have a drink with the office gang after hours. It's not realistic for them to drive an hour home in rush hour traffic and then take Uber back to meet everyone as they'll already be gone. Instead they go have a drink, start thinking, "Geez, I probably should get Uber but then I'm going to have to get Uber in the morning to get to work and then I have to get my car from the parking lot at the bar. I guess I'm not really that drunk I can probably make it home okay."
mkagenius 10y ago
What caused the drop in 2008? o_O
- josu 10y ago
  The financial crisis? You can see its effect in almost every graph.
roystonvassey 10y ago
?! Does this even require stating, let alone an entire article? What am I missing? When Uber launched in my city, that's the first thing I began using it for. Lack of other options meant that I either had to wrap up drinking sessions early or risk DUI.
- dx034 10y ago
  It's important to have statistics instead of just opinions. Especially if you want to change future regulation.
raushanraj88 10y ago
ya
deftturtle 10y ago
How is this even up for speculation? Why is there a need to quantify this with a study? Of course it curbs drunk driving. When you have better options, they're used.
- manarth 10y ago
  How is this even up for speculation? Why is there a need to quantify this with a study? Legislation and governance is influenced by statistics. If a City Hall meeting is discussing legislating against Uber, and a taxi commission presents a paper demonstrating that Uber will cost $X in economic loss to the commission, it behooves Uber to present a competing analysis: showing $Y savings relating to drunk driving (or whatever else they can show). On the face of it, it seems sad that everything - even the cost of human life - is quantified. But it is a rational argument when making trade-offs: "This new pill is better than aspirin." "OK, let's use that instead of aspirin." Vs "This new pill is 0.1% better than aspirin." "How much does it cost?" "Ten times the price of aspirin." "OK, so the effect is 0.1% better, but we can only treat a tenth of the number of patients? Better stick with aspirin."
- macey 10y ago
  Seriously. No shit it helps.
london888 10y ago
At least in London people are saying these apps are adding to road traffic and congestion, so the extra pollution (by other traffic being stuck also) might be harming health and causing early deaths to balance out any lives saved by stopping drunk drivers.
- dx034 10y ago
  But that's because in London, Uber competes against public transport. That's not the case for many US cities (New York is an exception). Even though as a London resident, I've never heard that argument. Most Ubers are either new petrol or even hybrid. Black cabs are (mostly old) diesel.
chrisvoss 10y ago
...but not Uber CEO drunk arguing with drivers...lol
Shinchy 10y ago
Makes total sense, I certainly have seen it.
ericfrederich 10y ago
Let's file this one under "duh" It's not ride-hailing apps themselves. Has nothing to do with the fact that it's someone else's car or that you use an app instead of a phone number to order it. It's the fact that you can get home now for $10 only waiting 5 minutes from the time you decided you want to leave.... compared to paying $60 and waiting an hour.
- domfletcher 10y ago
  I disagree, Uber for all its obvious faults has a top notch UX, I don't need to find cash, I barely need to break off conversation with my friend let alone speak to a person on the phone who will inevitably be confused about where I am. All that stuff drives adoption and retention.
- hectorr 10y ago
  I think it has a lot to do with the app. It's more about getting out than getting home. Sure, taxis are usually available if you're out in a town, but anyone who's ever tried to call one to pick them up from home on short notice is often going to be annoyed with the quality of dispatcher service. Even if the dispatcher is great and the taxi arrives quickly, anyone who has had a bad experience before will be anxious given the lack of reliable information. The ETA with a map is a huge factor in improving the experience. I also wouldn't overlook the novelty factor in the idea gaining traction. It took a mundane process (calling a dispatcher) and made it sleek, hip, and fun. Especially in the early days, when you'd meet a lot of diverse drivers, not just professionals. This made a huge difference in making Uber a 'thing', not just a marginally improved commodity service.
- jle 10y ago
  Even if it's something we already knew, it's nice to see data confirming.
culturalzero 10y ago
My instinct is that Uber fed this story to the Economist to try and counter their recently bad PR
- dx034 10y ago
  My instinct is that this is wrong. Probably rather hard to bribe the economist.
  - garethsprice 10y ago
    Timely media coverage isn't necessarily the result of bribes. The survey was done in January and is now being published in April. A savvy PR agent doing crisis management would be combing Uber's research archives looking for things they could spin into positive press releases. The press is always hungry for content, and it's not too hard to write something that appeals to a particular publication - no bribes involved.
ryan606 10y ago
I seem to recall a Freakonomics chapter or podcast episode that discussed drunk driving vs. walking home drunk, and concluded that walking home drunk was even more dangerous than driving home drunk. Either choice is much worse than ride-sharing or cabbing or public transit, obviously.
- passivepinetree 10y ago
  There's a huge caveat that's imperative to note: It's safer to drive only for the driver, as the driver usually survives car accidents and is less likely to drunkenly wander into traffic or get mugged, for example. For others, it's much more dangerous if a drunk person drives (such a person will hit pedestrians, other cars, etc).
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
chaser7016 10y ago
Is this Uber's PR machine at work?
tryitnow 10y ago
This seems pretty obvious. Is this considered newsworthy in part because the recently popular media refrain has been "Uber is bad"? So now articles that point out the good that ride-hailing apps do are considered interesting?
amyjess 10y ago
I discovered Lyft after a friend of mine got a DWI. His DWI was enough to get him to turn himself around, so he started using Lyft every time he went out drinking (years later, he's still steadfast about not driving when he's drinking), and he told me about Lyft, so now I use it all the time instead of relying on public transit or asking my friends to give me rides.
LoonyBalloony 10y ago
If society really cared about drunk driving, there would be a free bus outside of every bar at bar close. We can do it for kids going to school, we can do it for adults going home. But they don't care, they just want the money and power (unconstitutional DUI check points) involved in the DUI process.
- irishloop 10y ago
  Bus riding has a social stigma outside of the very largest cities. Also, people in the US love complaining about taxes, and you know what costs money? Buses.
redsummer 10y ago
"Ride-hailing apps may increase alcohol-related health problems"
dbg31415 10y ago
* Without Uber or Lyft, Austin Experiences Skyrocketing DUI Rates - Foundation for Economic Education - Working for a free and prosperous world || https://fee.org/articles/without-uber-or-lyft-austin-experiences-skyrocketing-dui-rates/ https://fee.org/articles/without-uber-or-lyft-austin-experie... > Before Uber came to town in 2014, Austin Police Department’s data showed that the city had an average of 525 drunk driving arrests per month. When these numbers were revisited a year after ridesharing came to Austin, drunk driving arrests had dropped by five percent. This trend continued the following year when the number of drunk driving arrests dropped by an additional 12 percent, bringing the average number of arrests to about 438 per month. > In May of 2016, the same month Uber and Lyft made the decision to leave Austin, the monthly rate of drunk driving incidents was down to an average of 358. However, within the first few months of Uber and Lyft’s absence, the number of DUI arrests increased by 7.5 percent from the previous year. In the month of July alone, the city had 476 drunk driving arrests.
icw 10y ago
I'm a little late to the party, but I did a similar study on ridesharing's influence on DWI rates in Austin, TX before and after Uber and Lyft arrived and then exited the city, you can read it here: http://rpubs.com/ianwells/247645 http://rpubs.com/ianwells/247645
papabrown 10y ago
Let me start off by saying that I don't approve of drunk driving. That said, the laws and how law enforcement treats drunk driving and how alcohol related accidents are reported tell a very distorted picture. After the MADD campaigns picked up sufficient steam and states began taking drunk driving more seriously, numbers dropped. But then they quit dropping. So many states lowered BAC limits from .10 to .08 in order to include more drivers in the impaired category even though there was no evidence to support it. With numbers stagnating again, you see another push for states to lower BAC levels to .05 even though there is zero evidence that this will lead to fewer accidents. All it does is create more criminals on the road which the police can then catch, fine, and profit from. In the US, more people are arrested for drunk driving than for any other crime. Nearly 1% of all licensed drivers has received a DUI in the last 3 years. As all of this was happening, the definition of what was alcohol related began to expand. Currently if any party in an accident is under the influence, even if they were not operating a vehicle, it's alcohol related. These inflated statistics then fuel calls for more oppressive crackdowns on drunk driving. Again, I'm not advocating drunk driving but we have to focus on the right problems. Like, how do you keep the people who are the most dangerous off the road? While the police are out spending resources racking up arrests for people who had a couple of glasses of wine with their meal, a large percentage of accidents are caused by repeat offenders. Nationally, over 33% of people arrested for DUI get another DUI. And people with multiple DUIs are overrepresented in fatal car accidents (4.1x more likely). Considering the fact that the most common BAC of someone who has been pulled over for suspicion of DUI is .16, continuously lowering the BAC threshold in order to snare more people in DUI convictions is not the answer. They're not the ones getting into accidents. Believe me, if they changed the laws and made it a crime to serve more than two drinks to someone unless they could prove they had a ride home (other than them driving, of course), the alcohol companies would quickly come up with solutions. Clearly the government's interests are not aligned with lowering drunk driving. Lowering drunk driving costs money (public transportation options, better city planning, etc). Arresting people for drunk driving generates revenue from fines. If they were successful in lowering drunk drivers on the road they would be decreasing their budgets. Until you can align motives with profits, you'll never fix the problem. You'll just keep increasing the base of people who are considered criminals.
bernardlunn 10y ago
So do trains and trams
bernardlunn 10y ago
So do trains and trams

509 points by petergatsby 10y ago

I wonder if this conclusion could be further validated using other signals like drunk driving arrests or the same set of statistics in other cities.

nhf 10y ago
Economists like to use natural experiments—when comparable populations are exposed to different conditions through policy or chance. It would be interesting to compare Austin (no Lyft/Uber) to a similar city in the vacuum between the locally-grown solutions coming in and U/L leaving. I'm not sure how robust the findings would be though.

petergatsby 10y ago

The cited CUNY study: http://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=gc_econ_wp http://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10...

andrew-lucker 10y ago
Wow, this was treated pretty well wrt stats, almost like a clinical trial. The article makes it sound like just an anecdote.
- VHRanger 10y ago
  Applied microeconomics is full of these sort of studies. It thrives on finding "natural experiments" to exploit and identify/measure an effect.
40acres 10y ago
Nice to see such a great paper from a fellow CUNY grad. NY's city college system is underrated.
- VHRanger 10y ago
  I mean CUNY is objectively a great school. It's just overshadowed by NYU
  - TillE 10y ago
    Isn't the SUNY system generally better regarded as well? New York does a pretty good job overall with affordable public universities.

Dotnaught 10y ago

Perhaps that should be phrased "the availability of drivers using a ride sharing platform has helped reduce drunk driving accidents." If Uber doesn't accept drivers as employees and isn't responsible for their actions, it shouldn't be credited with their collective contributions to a safer society.

webwielder2 10y ago
Huh? "Employees" are a matter of legality, not causality.
lend000 10y ago
That's a strangely bitter way of looking at things. Ride sharing companies, including Uber, have brought tremendous benefits to society, and drunk driving prevention is probably at the top of the list. Uber has made the largest difference of all these companies because it has been the most aggressive in disrupting rent-seekers like taxi companies. The drivers and the general willingness of people to embrace the gig economy should also be credited, but not to the discredit of the companies that created the ride-sharing platforms that made it all possible.
- jellicle 10y ago
  Incorrect. Independent contractors cheerfully 'sharing' their vehicles have made 100% of the difference; Uber does not employ anyone to drive anywhere. The number of drunks driven home by Uber employees is ~0. Thanks independent contractors!
  - jryle70 10y ago
    This is disingenuous at best. Before Uber, how many of those "independent contractors" were in the market? It's fair to criticize Uber's aggressive and shady practices, it's also fair to acknowledge the enormous changes that it has brought about to the transportation landscape.
    - giaour 10y ago

kalleboo 10y ago

Or conversely, the taxi medallion system is likely responsible for 24-35% of drunk driving incidents...

trendia 10y ago
The problem with cabs is that the drivers aren't sure if they will get another ride, so they are less likely to service more remote areas.
- lutorm 10y ago
  Wasn't there an article here a few days ago that said Uber drivers were doing exactly the same thing?
  - peteretep 10y ago
    Uber drivers don't get a choice. Some do and try and skirt that system, but it's more obvious and they get in more trouble.
    - alikoneko 10y ago
      I take a short fare from my work to the train station near daily. If I am contacted by my driver, I never tell them where I am going. I have had MANY drivers, both Uber and Lyft, cancel because it was a sub-$10 fare. This is in Fort Lauderdale, so it isn't like its out in the boonies. That being said, I might have waited longer, but I always got service when I did live in rural Broward. I was 20+ minutes from everything though, so it was a guaranteed high fare ride for the driver.
sergers 10y ago
In Vancouver, If going out downtown, it's a 80$ cab ride each way atleast. Transit would take atleast an hour but good luck taking it back at 2am when service is very limited. I could drive after drinking and spend 30-40 minutes. There is no ride sharing allowed here yet. I usually don't go out if I don't have a designated driver as it's just not affordable or takes too long. Many friends, and I admit myself when younger, would have just drove home drunk as it was cheapest quickest option We have actually found it cheaper to drive downtown, find a cheap decent hotel on priceline and drive back home after a good sleep. I can't wait for ride sharing here, I use it everywhere else when traveling. Ride sharing makes it affordable convenient and quick... Can definately see how it attributes to less drunk drivers.

robbiet480 10y ago

Another study from July 2016 said that Uber doesn't save many drunk driving accidents although the study referenced in the Economist only focused on NYC, whereas the study from 2016 was focused on multiple metropolitan areas. [1]: http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/07/22/aje.kww062 http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/07/22/aje.k...

jnordwick 10y ago
I think he's overfitting. Also the way he controls for Lyft seems poor, I think, because if both services led to a reduction them controlling for Lyft would reduce Uber's contribution it seems (that is while Uber's effect might be small as well as Lyfts, together they would be larger). He really should be asking "Do ride sharing services reduce drunk driving fatalities?" Not Uber specific. Also his variable for Uber is only a one or zero. It should instead be the number of drivers in the county. They quotes a study done on only California that shows Uber reduces fatalities, but doesn't ask himself if maybe county by county is important. Instead he groups everything together, even some countries that have very few. Here's the sentence that should indicate something is wrong with his analysis, he finds Uber increases fatalities (a noticably but not significant): > This model shows that on average, the presence of Uber was associated with a 2.0% (95% confidence interval: 0.98, 1.06) increase in traffic fatalities among all drivers; however, this association was not statistically significant at conventional levels. I think he definitely needs to break out the results data into county by county results to see if maybe there is a different result for maybe more populous counties.

jnordwick 10y ago

To all those complaining about ride sharing systems: phhffft!

itchyjunk 10y ago

Hmm, the study [0] credits over all reduction of drunk driving accidents to Uber. If ride sharing is the source of reduction, shouldn't ride sharing in general be credited? Maybe Uber was the only ride-share available during the study though since it's data from 1989-2013. "A recent increase in the ease and availability of alternative rides for intoxicated passengers partially explains the steep decrease in alcohol-related collisions in New York City since 2011.I examine the specific case of Uber’s car service launch in New York Cityin May 2011, a unique example of a sudden increase in cab availability for intoxicated passengers.7This study draws on a dataset of all New York State alcohol-related collisions maintained by the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles from 1989 through 2013. My inference is based on the variation in Uber access across New York State counties over time and the careful choice of New York State counties that provide an appropriate control group for New York City’s drunk- driving behavior" Edit: Fair enough, looks like lyft only came to NYC around 2014[1]. But does anyone know if the ride share prices in NYC from 2011 [2] to now has significantly changed? I vaguely remember a lot of people using it initially because of dirt cheap prices during the first few month of introduction but I don't trust my memory over facts if someone has some. ----------- [0]http://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=gc_econ_wp http://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyft#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyft#History [2] https://techcrunch.com/2011/04/06/i-just-rode-in-an-uber-car-in-new-york-city-and-you-can-too/ https://techcrunch.com/2011/04/06/i-just-rode-in-an-uber-car...

azernik 10y ago
Only if the introduction of other ride-sharing services happened at the same time - I have no idea of the timeline in NY, but the author send to be using the sudden introduction as a natural experiment. Of course, the results are probably applicable to other ride-sharing schemes.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
petergatsby 10y ago
Study credits Uber because specificity > vagueness. From 2011 - present Uber was responsible for vast the majority of ride-share rides: https://www.thestreet.com/story/13536061/1/uber-now-more-popular-than-taxis-in-new-york-city-among-business-travelers.html https://www.thestreet.com/story/13536061/1/uber-now-more-pop...

rubicon33 10y ago

Another bright light on the horizon: Self driving cars. I'm hugely optimistic that within the next 100 years, we could very possibly see deaths from drunk driving shrink to a small fraction of it's current value. It's a great thing when profit driven businesses also have positive side effects for everyone.

plytheman 10y ago
I'm curious when self-driving cars become common place how the law will react to it. It's my assumption that the law will still require a driver to be sober in the event that manual control is needed, though I suppose if the car is driving itself perfectly fine police would have no reasonable grounds to pull anyone over and discover they're drunk in the first place.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- BigJono 10y ago
  > though I suppose if the car is driving itself perfectly fine police would have no reasonable grounds to pull anyone over and discover they're drunk in the first place. I can't speak for America, but here (Australia) I'd guess the vast majority of drunk driving tickets are from booze busses. I can't even remember the last time I saw somebody pulled over and breathalysed.
  - harpastum 10y ago
    Could you elaborate? What's a booze bus? In the US, It's a pretty common occurrence to see someone pulled over and breathalyzed if they're driving erratically.
    - mctx 10y ago
      A booze bus is a random breath test - the police have labelled busses that they park on the road. I believe if you blow over the limit then you get on the bus and are tested again in 30 minutes. They look like this: http://www.ranted.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/109890-booze-bus.jpg http://www.ranted.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/109890-b...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

spodek 10y ago

I've wondered if cell phones have led to fewer altercations on subways as people spend more time focused on them, giving them less reason or chance to argue and fight with others.

saddestcatever 10y ago
That's a funny hypothesis to think about. I wish there was a good data set we could analyze on this matter. I'd really like to be able to answer the question: "Have smartphones reduced human interaction. Especially with strangers."

mshenfield 10y ago

I don't know... this credits Uber, and Uber is bad.

hoozter 10y ago
I have a feeling Uber might even have worked to get this article made in the first place. Maybe I'm just very cynical, I don't know. But it happens all the time so...
divanvisagie 10y ago
Because things can only be bad or only be good right?

vannevar 10y ago

Proving another benefit of subsidized public transportation. In Uber's case, low-cost rides subsidized by its investors.

adventured 10y ago
Would you mind showing me their financials in the US market, so we can see the extent of the subsidization across different cities? I would like to see the numbers that you derived your claim from in regards to Uber's operations in the US.
- vannevar 10y ago
  Uber's history of subsidies is well-known: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2014/07/02/ubers-newest-tactic-pay-drivers-more-than-they-earn/#732da1591011 https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2014/07/02/ubers-newe... (2014) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/08/23/ubers-controversial-strategy-to-finally-defeat-lyft/?utm_term=.f58ce2c0d2d9 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/08/23... (2016) https://qz.com/940605/is-the-era-of-cheap-uber-rides-over/ https://qz.com/940605/is-the-era-of-cheap-uber-rides-over/ (2017) But I don't have a breakdown per-market.
- nommm-nommm 10y ago
  If you Google "user is losing money" there's a whole crap ton of results. Here's one - https://news.vice.com/story/uber-is-losing-money https://news.vice.com/story/uber-is-losing-money There was a really detailed breakdown posted somewhere on HN a while ago but I don't have it offhand.

dsacco 10y ago

The study was originally published in January. This article is being published in April. I subscribe to the Economist and I enjoy it, but I am cynical about why this is being published now, amidst significant negative publicity for Uber.

mcast 10y ago
I would not be surprised if Uber hired a company to astroturf their branding after the Lyft boycotts and constant negative hits to their image. In fact, this is exactly something I see Travis doing to "fix" the problem.
septimus111 10y ago
Thank you. It's just too convenient a time isn't it?

akgerber 10y ago

Note that Uber was not the only taxi reform in NYC. A quote from the paper: "For my analysis, I use data from collisions that occurred from January 2007 through July 2013. This period includes Uber’s entrance into the New York market in May 2011, allows for a substantial pre-intervention period, and omits two potentially confounding entrances in the New York City transportation market that could influence the alcohol-related collision rate. The first entrance occurred in August 2013 as New York City introduced a new form of taxi medallion to serve only the “outer boroughs” of Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, Staten Island, and northern Manhattan. These “boro” taxis were painted green rather than the typical yellow medallion taxis, and banned from picking up in lower Manhattan, where most street-hail yellow taxi rides originate." Note also that Uber in NYC is operated by TLC-licensed drivers against whom it is very easy to file a complaint for dangerous driving, which is different from many other cities. I used NYC's lovely 311 app to file a complaint against just such a driver for shouting at me after he drove at me head-on in a 2-way bike lane. I expect he'll face a significant fine.

isubkhankulov 10y ago
i can only offer anecdotal evidence but from my experience, uber is much more popular in the outer boroughs than the new green cabs. in addition, up until late 2016, you could hail a green cab via Uber via their taxi mode. i think Uber is mostly responsible for this trend precisely because they compete with yellow/green taxi's and continously drive down prices. lower prices for consumers mean its an easy decision to choose an Uber vs drive yourself when drunk.
sokoloff 10y ago
> I used NYC's lovely 311 app to file a complaint against just such a driver for shouting at me after he drove at me head-on in a 2-way bike lane. I expect he'll face a significant fine. I'd wager against that outcome from a due process and practicality standpoint. If dropping a dime on someone using their ID number would result in a significant fine absent other evidence, there would be chaos.
- akgerber 10y ago

aaron695 10y ago

It's amusing seeing people try and spin this against Uber, wouldn't want to leave the bubble for to long.

jhpaul 10y ago

Based on personal experiences this isn't surprising. When I was in college in a small town in the late 00's, many friends and acquaintances would drive across town after heavy drinking. 10-15 minutes, straight roads, little traffic. Other than not going out, or not getting home, you didn't have many options. It was a hour long walk or a $20-40 cab ride, if you could get one. I was recently back in town for a wedding and our uber to the hotel from the venue (about the same distance) was $9. Once came to town (now on the east coast) I instantly noticed many friends who used to drive would take an uber. It's cheap, it's easy to call one from a crowded/loud place, you know how much it will cost, they don't use cash, they know where you are, and you don't have to give directions. For someone intoxicated (or anyone really), these are game changers. It's the difference between "who's going to drive?" and "who's calling an uber?" Company politics aside, the accessibility of ride-sharing services introduces numerous real safety benefits on top of the obvious convenience.

qyv 10y ago
It's not he accessibility of ride-sharing services that is doing this, it is the ride-sharing services policy of artificially low pricing to facilitate rapid growth that is responsible. Those $9 rides are not sustainable. When the prices go back up to sustainable levels we will see many of these benefits evaporate.
- psiclops 10y ago
  It's still safer and cheaper than a DUI* or worse. For many people, as long as it is convenient, those benefits are enough
- jnordwick 10y ago
  And like you know, all the other things he listed: > it's easy to call one from a crowded/loud place, you know how much it will cost, they don't use cash, they know where you are, and you don't have to give directions. p.s., why do people like you want to hate on ride sharing services so much? Is it just that nothing can ever be good enough in your mind?

mc32 10y ago

So on the one hand technology allows for better taxi services resulting in fewer impaired-driving accidents, on the other hand, technology in the form or gadgets (entertainment systems, phones, GPS, etc., distract drivers as well as pedestrians resulting in more accidents on the not-under-the-influence side of things. Still 24+% reduction is quite an nice result.

arrty88 10y ago

Even 35% seems to low to me... I really thought/wish it was lower. Hopefully the reduction in bad driving practices start to reduce car insurance premiums as well.

thewhitetulip 10y ago

Uber's PR team would be rejoicing right now! It is great that technological advances have both positive and negative effects, and some times, the positive effects saves a ton of lives.

septimus111 10y ago
Ummm... I'm sure Uber's PR team had absolutely nothing to do with this article ;)
- thewhitetulip 10y ago
  Exactly, they are getting free publicity, it isn't bad anytime.

vidoc 10y ago

No question ride-hailing has a net plus impact on reducing drunk driving. Though, it only works for the most fortunate of us (1) who live in urban areas (2). Also, let's not forget that the most important driver to prevent drunk driving in the United States, is the severity (or extremism) of DUI laws. As a matter of fact, punishments for such infractions are so extreme that they achieve deterrence not by fear of punishment, but fear of unfair punishment.

papabrown 10y ago
See Fighting MADD [1] Don't be put off by the site's domain. There are plenty of other articles that say the same exact thing. In fact, Wikipedia contains several links to articles critical of MADD's mission and fundraising [2] [1] http://www.drunkard.com/08_02_fighting_madd/ http://www.drunkard.com/08_02_fighting_madd/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothers_Against_Drunk_Driving https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothers_Against_Drunk_Driving

BatFastard 10y ago

I observe this is true with my 21 year old son who is in college. After a few drinks and dancing downtown, they all grab an Uber back home, they don't even consider driving. Now it is a small town, but you can still pick up an Uber at 2 am for a 5 dollar ride home. Awesome!

visakanv 10y ago

A separate discussion that I'd like to have is – why do people drink so much, to the point of drunkenness? Why is this so common? Has this always been the case? Will this change?

ssttoo 10y ago
> why do people drink so much, to the point of drunkenness? Many reasons. To the point of darkness because it's a thin line between a light buzz and over-the-top-cannot-even-say-my-name > Why is this so common? human nature. Not only human, actually, monkeys drunk on fermented fruit, etc [1] > Has this always been the case? Yes > Will this change? No. [1] http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/wildlife/2011/10/animals-getting-high-10-common-drunks/ http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/wildlife/2011/...
- papabrown 10y ago
  Elephants too. They've been known to raid villages and steal booze. [1] [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229334/Fifty-drunken-elephants-ransack-village-gulping-500-litres-alcohol.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229334/Fifty-drunke...
pluma 10y ago
Apart from general questions about social norms, the basic problem with overdrinking is that alcohol generally boasts your confidence. Most people are already really bad judges of how much they can drink before reaching various stages of intoxication while they are sober; it only gets worse when they're drinking. This is further complicated when mixing drinks with different alcohol contents. So while sober you might guesstimate that you'll be "pleasantly buzzed" after about three drinks. Then you have one or two drinks and your self-reflection skills get worse and you become convinced four or five is fine too and six is really only just a bit more than three, so that'll be fine too. It's generally an aspect of maturity to learn not to trust "drunk you" when asking yourself how much you should drink but humans are humans, so even adults screw up a lot.
macey 10y ago

devdoomari 10y ago

...but what about cars left on the parking lot by the drunk ppl? a lot of ppl might choose to drink&drive because they have to go back & get their cars again... In South Korea they have 'substitute driver service' that drives customer's car (obviously, with customer in it) back to the customer's home. I'm sure this can be done logistically (have a large bus carry around drivers, etc.)

pluma 10y ago
> ...but what about cars left on the parking lot by the drunk ppl? 1. This may sound obvious but maybe don't drive yourself if you're not going to be able to drive back. Ask a friend to take you or plan to pay for both ways. 2. Plan for the extra time the following day to pick your car up where you left it. 3. Drive with someone who can drive the car (and you) back. I'm surprised you think this is a difficult problem. People have been doing these things for decades.
- alkonaut 10y ago
  While it's certainly a solved problem, what I found in the US was that people put bars and restaurants near roads. Some times a bar or restaurant could be a few km down some otherwise empty road, with a parking lot in front. That's a large part of the problem.
- papabrown 10y ago
  In many cities like Los Angeles public transportation is either non-existant or extremely poor, the most common scenario is that someone goes to work and is invited to go have a drink with the office gang after hours. It's not realistic for them to drive an hour home in rush hour traffic and then take Uber back to meet everyone as they'll already be gone. Instead they go have a drink, start thinking, "Geez, I probably should get Uber but then I'm going to have to get Uber in the morning to get to work and then I have to get my car from the parking lot at the bar. I guess I'm not really that drunk I can probably make it home okay."

mkagenius 10y ago

What caused the drop in 2008? o_O

josu 10y ago
The financial crisis? You can see its effect in almost every graph.

roystonvassey 10y ago

?! Does this even require stating, let alone an entire article? What am I missing? When Uber launched in my city, that's the first thing I began using it for. Lack of other options meant that I either had to wrap up drinking sessions early or risk DUI.

dx034 10y ago
It's important to have statistics instead of just opinions. Especially if you want to change future regulation.

raushanraj88 10y ago

deftturtle 10y ago

How is this even up for speculation? Why is there a need to quantify this with a study? Of course it curbs drunk driving. When you have better options, they're used.

manarth 10y ago
How is this even up for speculation? Why is there a need to quantify this with a study? Legislation and governance is influenced by statistics. If a City Hall meeting is discussing legislating against Uber, and a taxi commission presents a paper demonstrating that Uber will cost $X in economic loss to the commission, it behooves Uber to present a competing analysis: showing $Y savings relating to drunk driving (or whatever else they can show). On the face of it, it seems sad that everything - even the cost of human life - is quantified. But it is a rational argument when making trade-offs: "This new pill is better than aspirin." "OK, let's use that instead of aspirin." Vs "This new pill is 0.1% better than aspirin." "How much does it cost?" "Ten times the price of aspirin." "OK, so the effect is 0.1% better, but we can only treat a tenth of the number of patients? Better stick with aspirin."
macey 10y ago
Seriously. No shit it helps.

london888 10y ago

At least in London people are saying these apps are adding to road traffic and congestion, so the extra pollution (by other traffic being stuck also) might be harming health and causing early deaths to balance out any lives saved by stopping drunk drivers.

dx034 10y ago
But that's because in London, Uber competes against public transport. That's not the case for many US cities (New York is an exception). Even though as a London resident, I've never heard that argument. Most Ubers are either new petrol or even hybrid. Black cabs are (mostly old) diesel.

chrisvoss 10y ago

...but not Uber CEO drunk arguing with drivers...lol

Shinchy 10y ago

Makes total sense, I certainly have seen it.

ericfrederich 10y ago

Let's file this one under "duh" It's not ride-hailing apps themselves. Has nothing to do with the fact that it's someone else's car or that you use an app instead of a phone number to order it. It's the fact that you can get home now for $10 only waiting 5 minutes from the time you decided you want to leave.... compared to paying $60 and waiting an hour.

domfletcher 10y ago
I disagree, Uber for all its obvious faults has a top notch UX, I don't need to find cash, I barely need to break off conversation with my friend let alone speak to a person on the phone who will inevitably be confused about where I am. All that stuff drives adoption and retention.
hectorr 10y ago
I think it has a lot to do with the app. It's more about getting out than getting home. Sure, taxis are usually available if you're out in a town, but anyone who's ever tried to call one to pick them up from home on short notice is often going to be annoyed with the quality of dispatcher service. Even if the dispatcher is great and the taxi arrives quickly, anyone who has had a bad experience before will be anxious given the lack of reliable information. The ETA with a map is a huge factor in improving the experience. I also wouldn't overlook the novelty factor in the idea gaining traction. It took a mundane process (calling a dispatcher) and made it sleek, hip, and fun. Especially in the early days, when you'd meet a lot of diverse drivers, not just professionals. This made a huge difference in making Uber a 'thing', not just a marginally improved commodity service.
jle 10y ago
Even if it's something we already knew, it's nice to see data confirming.

culturalzero 10y ago

My instinct is that Uber fed this story to the Economist to try and counter their recently bad PR

dx034 10y ago
My instinct is that this is wrong. Probably rather hard to bribe the economist.
- garethsprice 10y ago
  Timely media coverage isn't necessarily the result of bribes. The survey was done in January and is now being published in April. A savvy PR agent doing crisis management would be combing Uber's research archives looking for things they could spin into positive press releases. The press is always hungry for content, and it's not too hard to write something that appeals to a particular publication - no bribes involved.

ryan606 10y ago

I seem to recall a Freakonomics chapter or podcast episode that discussed drunk driving vs. walking home drunk, and concluded that walking home drunk was even more dangerous than driving home drunk. Either choice is much worse than ride-sharing or cabbing or public transit, obviously.

passivepinetree 10y ago
There's a huge caveat that's imperative to note: It's safer to drive only for the driver, as the driver usually survives car accidents and is less likely to drunkenly wander into traffic or get mugged, for example. For others, it's much more dangerous if a drunk person drives (such a person will hit pedestrians, other cars, etc).
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

chaser7016 10y ago

Is this Uber's PR machine at work?

tryitnow 10y ago

This seems pretty obvious. Is this considered newsworthy in part because the recently popular media refrain has been "Uber is bad"? So now articles that point out the good that ride-hailing apps do are considered interesting?

amyjess 10y ago

I discovered Lyft after a friend of mine got a DWI. His DWI was enough to get him to turn himself around, so he started using Lyft every time he went out drinking (years later, he's still steadfast about not driving when he's drinking), and he told me about Lyft, so now I use it all the time instead of relying on public transit or asking my friends to give me rides.

LoonyBalloony 10y ago

If society really cared about drunk driving, there would be a free bus outside of every bar at bar close. We can do it for kids going to school, we can do it for adults going home. But they don't care, they just want the money and power (unconstitutional DUI check points) involved in the DUI process.

irishloop 10y ago
Bus riding has a social stigma outside of the very largest cities. Also, people in the US love complaining about taxes, and you know what costs money? Buses.

redsummer 10y ago

"Ride-hailing apps may increase alcohol-related health problems"

dbg31415 10y ago

* Without Uber or Lyft, Austin Experiences Skyrocketing DUI Rates - Foundation for Economic Education - Working for a free and prosperous world || https://fee.org/articles/without-uber-or-lyft-austin-experiences-skyrocketing-dui-rates/ https://fee.org/articles/without-uber-or-lyft-austin-experie... > Before Uber came to town in 2014, Austin Police Department’s data showed that the city had an average of 525 drunk driving arrests per month. When these numbers were revisited a year after ridesharing came to Austin, drunk driving arrests had dropped by five percent. This trend continued the following year when the number of drunk driving arrests dropped by an additional 12 percent, bringing the average number of arrests to about 438 per month. > In May of 2016, the same month Uber and Lyft made the decision to leave Austin, the monthly rate of drunk driving incidents was down to an average of 358. However, within the first few months of Uber and Lyft’s absence, the number of DUI arrests increased by 7.5 percent from the previous year. In the month of July alone, the city had 476 drunk driving arrests.

icw 10y ago

I'm a little late to the party, but I did a similar study on ridesharing's influence on DWI rates in Austin, TX before and after Uber and Lyft arrived and then exited the city, you can read it here: http://rpubs.com/ianwells/247645 http://rpubs.com/ianwells/247645

papabrown 10y ago

Let me start off by saying that I don't approve of drunk driving. That said, the laws and how law enforcement treats drunk driving and how alcohol related accidents are reported tell a very distorted picture. After the MADD campaigns picked up sufficient steam and states began taking drunk driving more seriously, numbers dropped. But then they quit dropping. So many states lowered BAC limits from .10 to .08 in order to include more drivers in the impaired category even though there was no evidence to support it. With numbers stagnating again, you see another push for states to lower BAC levels to .05 even though there is zero evidence that this will lead to fewer accidents. All it does is create more criminals on the road which the police can then catch, fine, and profit from. In the US, more people are arrested for drunk driving than for any other crime. Nearly 1% of all licensed drivers has received a DUI in the last 3 years. As all of this was happening, the definition of what was alcohol related began to expand. Currently if any party in an accident is under the influence, even if they were not operating a vehicle, it's alcohol related. These inflated statistics then fuel calls for more oppressive crackdowns on drunk driving. Again, I'm not advocating drunk driving but we have to focus on the right problems. Like, how do you keep the people who are the most dangerous off the road? While the police are out spending resources racking up arrests for people who had a couple of glasses of wine with their meal, a large percentage of accidents are caused by repeat offenders. Nationally, over 33% of people arrested for DUI get another DUI. And people with multiple DUIs are overrepresented in fatal car accidents (4.1x more likely). Considering the fact that the most common BAC of someone who has been pulled over for suspicion of DUI is .16, continuously lowering the BAC threshold in order to snare more people in DUI convictions is not the answer. They're not the ones getting into accidents. Believe me, if they changed the laws and made it a crime to serve more than two drinks to someone unless they could prove they had a ride home (other than them driving, of course), the alcohol companies would quickly come up with solutions. Clearly the government's interests are not aligned with lowering drunk driving. Lowering drunk driving costs money (public transportation options, better city planning, etc). Arresting people for drunk driving generates revenue from fines. If they were successful in lowering drunk drivers on the road they would be decreasing their budgets. Until you can align motives with profits, you'll never fix the problem. You'll just keep increasing the base of people who are considered criminals.

bernardlunn 10y ago

So do trains and trams

bernardlunn 10y ago

So do trains and trams