3 ms·

I think his point is simply that if the regulation limiting the number of cabs had not been in place, DUIs would have already been reduced due to that. It's not

by beaner 12y ago

I think his point is simply that if the regulation limiting the number of cabs had not been in place, DUIs would have already been reduced due to that. It's not anything about how uber of lyft work in particular that is contributing to the positive affect, just the increased ability to hitch a ride. So it sounds like you are not actually disagreeing with him, other than for the fact that uber/lyft deserve any sort of credit for it.

eruditely 12y ago
And unfortunately for him the original point is quite cogent, and that no doubt Uber/Lyft should be given credit, for the bypassed regulations that negatively affect the world and thus have reduced total DUI's and deaths.
- robg 12y ago
  In fact, I'd argue that because Uber/Lyft are more trustworthy than traditional cabs, the result on DUIs is more robust. Using Uber is far safer for a drunk person than trying to hail a taxi, haggle with a driver, and hope you make it home.
robg 12y ago
That's a hypothetical ("if the regulation limiting the number of cabs had not been in place") made real exactly by Uber/Lyft. Let me put it this way: Hypothesis: Too few cabs mean more DUIs Experiment: Add more "cabs" Expected Result: More cabs will lead to fewer DUIs Uber/Lyft is the Experiment. The argument about other Experiments is irrelevant. Sure, less regulation could mean more cabs. But that wasn't the Experiment. That counter argument is logically equivalent to saying "Drones, Blimps, Automated Cars all could have been cabs. There's nothing special about Uber/Lyft". There the difference is between a hypothetical and an actual result. I'd also add that Uber offers far more than just "More cabs". It offers more safety, convenience, and trust. The driver is known, the car arrives when you are ready, and you don't have to haggle about not using cash.

3 ms·

I think his point is simply that if the regulation limiting the number of cabs had not been in place, DUIs would have already been reduced due to that. It's not

by beaner 12y ago

eruditely 12y ago
And unfortunately for him the original point is quite cogent, and that no doubt Uber/Lyft should be given credit, for the bypassed regulations that negatively affect the world and thus have reduced total DUI's and deaths.
- robg 12y ago
  In fact, I'd argue that because Uber/Lyft are more trustworthy than traditional cabs, the result on DUIs is more robust. Using Uber is far safer for a drunk person than trying to hail a taxi, haggle with a driver, and hope you make it home.
robg 12y ago
That's a hypothetical ("if the regulation limiting the number of cabs had not been in place") made real exactly by Uber/Lyft. Let me put it this way: Hypothesis: Too few cabs mean more DUIs Experiment: Add more "cabs" Expected Result: More cabs will lead to fewer DUIs Uber/Lyft is the Experiment. The argument about other Experiments is irrelevant. Sure, less regulation could mean more cabs. But that wasn't the Experiment. That counter argument is logically equivalent to saying "Drones, Blimps, Automated Cars all could have been cabs. There's nothing special about Uber/Lyft". There the difference is between a hypothetical and an actual result. I'd also add that Uber offers far more than just "More cabs". It offers more safety, convenience, and trust. The driver is known, the car arrives when you are ready, and you don't have to haggle about not using cash.