Ride-hailing apps may help to curb drunk driving(economist.com)
economist.com
Ride-hailing apps may help to curb drunk driving
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/04/daily-chart-0
378 comments
It has always amazed me how casually people drink and drive in some countries; the US especially springs to mind.
Over here, drinking and driving is an extremely shameful and embarrassing thing to do. I would say it's on par with hitting a child. You just don't do it, not to save 20 bucks, or to save you from walking an hour.
Over here, drinking and driving is an extremely shameful and embarrassing thing to do. I would say it's on par with hitting a child. You just don't do it, not to save 20 bucks, or to save you from walking an hour.
It isn't that, the cab rides are never just $20, and often there are no cabs at all. The USA just has crappy non car transportation options. And it isn't just an hour walk in many places, but a few hours walk on dark streets with no side walks. When I was living in the Deep South, I sometimes had to take people home 20+ miles out in the middle of nowhere.
I used to think the same - I've lived in plenty of places with no public transportation. No choice, I'd say, bemoaning the lack of decent public transport.
But then I was in a similar situation off in a small town in Norway. I was at a 80th birthday party in a small town. Most of the attendees were drunk. Everyone already knew someone to take them home, and organized themselves accordingly, some waiting a bit for the sober driver to return empty. A few found someone at the party (my spouse)- and then proceeded to drink. It was nearly surreal to be in the situation.
The truth is that in the states, it is OK to say, "I've only had X beers, so I'm ok to drive." IT is socailly acceptable behavior. And no one really keeps track most times, so if they seem sober enough to us or we know better, we'll let them go. The acceptable BAC level is much lower here - one beer can send you over the limit - and penalties are harsher, so that could be a major factor as well.
But then I was in a similar situation off in a small town in Norway. I was at a 80th birthday party in a small town. Most of the attendees were drunk. Everyone already knew someone to take them home, and organized themselves accordingly, some waiting a bit for the sober driver to return empty. A few found someone at the party (my spouse)- and then proceeded to drink. It was nearly surreal to be in the situation.
The truth is that in the states, it is OK to say, "I've only had X beers, so I'm ok to drive." IT is socailly acceptable behavior. And no one really keeps track most times, so if they seem sober enough to us or we know better, we'll let them go. The acceptable BAC level is much lower here - one beer can send you over the limit - and penalties are harsher, so that could be a major factor as well.
IIRC, the legal limit in Norway us basically the measurement error of the BAC tests; basically you should fail if you've had anything at all to drink.
That was one of those things my Norwegian spouse made sure I knew beforehand. It is .02 or something like that, and I believe it is measured slightly differently.
He's also said that I can get penalized - through loss of license and other means - just by being a sober passenger with a drunk driver. It benefits me to make sure the other person is sober.
He's also said that I can get penalized - through loss of license and other means - just by being a sober passenger with a drunk driver. It benefits me to make sure the other person is sober.
This makes me very uneasy.
If their field equipment is anything like SCRAM bracelets (same basic technology as a Breathalyzer) they're cutting all sorts of corners (demanding precise readings out of sensors that are running well outside their recommended operating environment with less calibration than recommended) and throwing false positives left and right.
Drunk driving penalties are too stiff to play fast and loose like that.
If their field equipment is anything like SCRAM bracelets (same basic technology as a Breathalyzer) they're cutting all sorts of corners (demanding precise readings out of sensors that are running well outside their recommended operating environment with less calibration than recommended) and throwing false positives left and right.
Drunk driving penalties are too stiff to play fast and loose like that.
In Australia, we're breathalyzed and if it's positive we go back to the police station/mobile testing unit for a blood test, so the breathalyzer is really only an early indicator.
> Vidar Refvik, director of police at the Justice Ministry, said police will use the same combination of "breathalyser" and blood tests to enforce the new law as they did the old one. He predicted the lower limit will yield anywhere from 1,000 to 1,500 more arrests, a rise of about 15-20 percent.
Seems like Norway would be the same.
Seems like Norway would be the same.
can a drunk passenger of a drunk driver be penalized as well?
That I'm not sure of, but I don't think so. Assumedly, the sober person is supposed to have the wherewithal to understand the danger the drunk driver is putting themselves and others. On the other hand, the drunk passenger might well be more drunk than the driver and be too impaired to make that judgement.
Thinking? I'm not thinking it is ok! No no, I'm just saying why people are idiotic enough to do this.
The BAC level now for Utah is .05. It isn't like all of the US states are slouching. Of course, Utah is different from the deep south.
The BAC level now for Utah is .05. It isn't like all of the US states are slouching. Of course, Utah is different from the deep south.
Sorry for that confusion. I quite understood and took it as a "collective thought", for lack of better words. I've heard the excuse from folks quite often and always thought it was a bit ridiculous, especially with the sideline, "but it isn't good to drink alone!". My personal solution was better public transport.
It's actually still .08, not .05 (yet). It will be in about 1.75 years from now if there's no successful repeal before then. Given the LDS majority in the state, good chance it will stand in some form.
This is the least important issue of all time but somehow it is getting the most press. It should just pass and be done with. By the way I get annoyed when people say LDS is the majority here - LDS only makes up 41% of the entire state, and closer to 30% in SLC. The citizens aren't voting on this bill anyway.
For anyone looking into this, the first sentence of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Utah#Religion literally says "A majority of the state's residents are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)."
The lowball estimates of 41% come from things like the following: "Professor Tim Heaton, who studies LDS demographics for church-owned Brigham Young University, says the county numbers probably come from church membership rolls, and that between half and one-third of those people are not active in the faith. If that's true, then, at most, 41.6 percent of Utahns are church-going Mormons." (2005 source http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/ci_2886596 ) It's at least slightly nontrivial to decide on the right definition, but I think church membership is a perfectly fine measurement.
As such, almost every other publication and measurement supports the "obvious" claim that Utah has a Mormon majority of (60+some)% and even Salt Lake County may have a (50+epsilon)% Mormon majority.
Exampe source from 2014: http://www.sltrib.com/news/1842825-155/mormon-populace-picks...
The lowball estimates of 41% come from things like the following: "Professor Tim Heaton, who studies LDS demographics for church-owned Brigham Young University, says the county numbers probably come from church membership rolls, and that between half and one-third of those people are not active in the faith. If that's true, then, at most, 41.6 percent of Utahns are church-going Mormons." (2005 source http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/ci_2886596 ) It's at least slightly nontrivial to decide on the right definition, but I think church membership is a perfectly fine measurement.
As such, almost every other publication and measurement supports the "obvious" claim that Utah has a Mormon majority of (60+some)% and even Salt Lake County may have a (50+epsilon)% Mormon majority.
Exampe source from 2014: http://www.sltrib.com/news/1842825-155/mormon-populace-picks...
> By the way I get annoyed when people say LDS is the majority here
Are you annoyed that the entire state was founded by LDS pioneers? Without the mormons, Utah would be west colorado wasteland or another desolate, sparsely populated state like Wyoming.
And 41% can be a majority depending on how you break down the remaining 59%
Are you annoyed that the entire state was founded by LDS pioneers? Without the mormons, Utah would be west colorado wasteland or another desolate, sparsely populated state like Wyoming.
And 41% can be a majority depending on how you break down the remaining 59%
No, why would I be annoyed about the history of the founding of the west? I am very very familiar with it.
I'm only annoyed that people have been stating that same old statistic which hasn't been true for at least a decade.
41% is never a majority. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority
I'm only annoyed that people have been stating that same old statistic which hasn't been true for at least a decade.
41% is never a majority. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority
> I'm only annoyed that people have been stating that same old statistic which hasn't been true for at least a decade.
Do you have a source? Wikipedia seems to still support the "same old statistic" in a lot of ways and indicates by all accounts an LDS majority in Utah.
Do you have a source? Wikipedia seems to still support the "same old statistic" in a lot of ways and indicates by all accounts an LDS majority in Utah.
> 41% is never a majority
In my country, 41% of people are red party, 38% are blue party, and 21% are green party. Which party has the majority share of voters?
In my country, 41% of people are red party, 38% are blue party, and 21% are green party. Which party has the majority share of voters?
I really doubt the penalties are harsher in Norway.
I live in one of the few areas of the US that still doesn't have ride sharing services -- upstate New York, where they are banned and still being debated in the state government[0].
I also live in an area where there are 4 colleges and universities in two towns within 10 miles of each other. I went to one of these colleges, and have seen what people do to get to and from the bars first hand. There's one taxi service that I'm aware of, and they charge $30 to go between the two towns, one way. It's a rural area and most roads have speed limits of 55 MPH. Most of the college students are not locals and don't know the roads. Our winters are also harsh and make for dangerous driving conditions even without alcohol. The blotters are full of DUI arrests, accidents, and deaths.
Therefore, unless I have a real need, I don't drive between like 9 PM and 4 AM Friday through Sunday. Why they still haven't passed legislation to allow Uber/Lyft here, other than partisan bickering, I have no idea... I have no doubt that it would help tremendously.
[0] https://ridesharingny.com/
I also live in an area where there are 4 colleges and universities in two towns within 10 miles of each other. I went to one of these colleges, and have seen what people do to get to and from the bars first hand. There's one taxi service that I'm aware of, and they charge $30 to go between the two towns, one way. It's a rural area and most roads have speed limits of 55 MPH. Most of the college students are not locals and don't know the roads. Our winters are also harsh and make for dangerous driving conditions even without alcohol. The blotters are full of DUI arrests, accidents, and deaths.
Therefore, unless I have a real need, I don't drive between like 9 PM and 4 AM Friday through Sunday. Why they still haven't passed legislation to allow Uber/Lyft here, other than partisan bickering, I have no idea... I have no doubt that it would help tremendously.
[0] https://ridesharingny.com/
Hey hows Potsdam? Sounds like it hasn't changed in the decade since I was there. Not that I expected it to.
Hahahaha, was it that obvious? I grew up around here and graduated from one of the four schools (gotta stay a little anonymous) in 2009. I'm not sure why I'm still here, really.
It was a little obvious but probably only for someone who lived there.
Fair enough. To answer your question no, not much has changed. There's a knockoff Chipotle restaurant in both towns now which is pretty good. Pretty sure the Tick Tock is closed for good. And...that's probably it.
Makes sense, but if you know that your only way back home is your car and you still pop the cork, you're acting like a bad person in my book ("hitting a child" level indeed).
Please note that I've never driven while drunk, I don't even drink that much, and I've always been the one to take people home who were drunk.
Understanding why people do shit is quite different from condoning shit.
Understanding why people do shit is quite different from condoning shit.
Oh sorry! I meant "you" as in "one". I didn't mean you personally! :-) Quite the contrary, and I didn't read your post as condoning anything.
Maybe the fact that there are no buses and cabs at night is because people are driving home from bars anyway?
Here's the thing: it's not that we have great transportation, what we don't have is bars and restaurants pop up in some random spot next to a road, with a big parking lot in front. If you build a restaurant like that, you kind of already made clear that it's a restaurant for people in cars.
Here's the thing: it's not that we have great transportation, what we don't have is bars and restaurants pop up in some random spot next to a road, with a big parking lot in front. If you build a restaurant like that, you kind of already made clear that it's a restaurant for people in cars.
I lived in a college town in the states. The popular bars were generally around campus or in the downtown area - both places known for having too little and/or inconvenient parking. Folks drove nonetheless, however. Only a portion of patrons lived or worked in the area, the rest had to travel. This is really more key, I think, than the lack of parking spaces. A good number of folks have to travel outside of walking range to go to any such establishment.
Most bars in the suburban US don't stand alone; they tend to be accompanied by other restaurants and strip centers. I'll post a few Street View links for the northern suburbs of Dallas:
https://goo.gl/maps/AfQX2VDpYaA2 - The Draft House, Far North Dallas. Note the strip center that contains, among others, a sushi/Thai food place, a pizzeria, and a food mart. (as a side note: I used to go to the Draft House regularly but stopped after management changes ran it into the ground)
https://goo.gl/maps/bmSsv6ZgGyQ2 - The Irishman, Far North Dallas. If you're not careful, you might not even notice it among all the other places there.
https://goo.gl/maps/mGFCmq669xP2 - Katy Trail Ice House Outpost, Plano. This is a huge, huge shopping center.
https://goo.gl/maps/kEdHh41QAJF2 - Lonestar Grill and Sports Cafe, Richardson. In the middle of a strip center with a freestanding Dickey's. If you don't see it, look waaaay in the back, just to the right of the Dickey's.
https://goo.gl/maps/Fy946RDP6Ly - The Hub & Ron's Place, Addison. Next to a UPS store and a whole bunch of other shops. The two bars are connected; the logo for Ron's Place is an R inside a square.
https://goo.gl/maps/AfQX2VDpYaA2 - The Draft House, Far North Dallas. Note the strip center that contains, among others, a sushi/Thai food place, a pizzeria, and a food mart. (as a side note: I used to go to the Draft House regularly but stopped after management changes ran it into the ground)
https://goo.gl/maps/bmSsv6ZgGyQ2 - The Irishman, Far North Dallas. If you're not careful, you might not even notice it among all the other places there.
https://goo.gl/maps/mGFCmq669xP2 - Katy Trail Ice House Outpost, Plano. This is a huge, huge shopping center.
https://goo.gl/maps/kEdHh41QAJF2 - Lonestar Grill and Sports Cafe, Richardson. In the middle of a strip center with a freestanding Dickey's. If you don't see it, look waaaay in the back, just to the right of the Dickey's.
https://goo.gl/maps/Fy946RDP6Ly - The Hub & Ron's Place, Addison. Next to a UPS store and a whole bunch of other shops. The two bars are connected; the logo for Ron's Place is an R inside a square.
> Most bars in the suburban US don't stand alone
I don't know if that is really true. Or to say, what is your definition of a suburb?
I've seen plenty of bars out in the middle of nowhere, especially in small towns surrounded by rural communities.
I don't know if that is really true. Or to say, what is your definition of a suburb?
I've seen plenty of bars out in the middle of nowhere, especially in small towns surrounded by rural communities.
Having frequented all of those places sans Lonestar, I can attest to their being plenty of parking in most cases (draft house a bit scary late w/ the clientele, and the hub you may have to park a bit off to the side but not too bad). Sadly, by those links you have described the problem: distances. Even with Uber's cheap cost, it is still prohibitive to hail one for a 20 min drive. HH for most companies in these areas include coworkers who may live 40+ miles from each other.
> 20+ miles out in the middle of nowhere
That's the reason there are no cabs and I don't blame cab drivers. They don't get paid to sit around 40 minutes to find a passenger. I'm surprised that finding an uber in one of those places is not difficult either.
Outside of the US, a lot of the population is very condensed (well the US is to some degree) making cabs and public transportation much more efficient/effective IMO.
That's the reason there are no cabs and I don't blame cab drivers. They don't get paid to sit around 40 minutes to find a passenger. I'm surprised that finding an uber in one of those places is not difficult either.
Outside of the US, a lot of the population is very condensed (well the US is to some degree) making cabs and public transportation much more efficient/effective IMO.
With Uber the driver can sit in his middle-of-nowhere house (or work on his garage, yard, etc.) for those 40 minutes with his driver app on, and get in his car only when the app alerts him that he has a fare. This will take the driver to a central location where there are short waits and frequent fares.
I remember reading a post from an Uber driver in a small town. Basically, instead of idling, he'd just use his house as a waiting area. So instead of just waiting around, he'd be at home, doing other stuff until he got an rider. Then he'd get in his car and drive them where they needed to be.
That only works if trips are originating from nearby. I've been to some shady Louisiana bars out in the middle of nowhere, I'm not sure how even Uber would work out there.
[deleted]
Sounds like a perfect case for autonomous cars. They don't have to be paid to wait.
I suspect that the main obstacle for self driving cars, if they do eventually exist, is not going to be finding use cases for them.
Gas, wear and tear & depreciation aren't free though, these are always going to be higher cost areas to serve.
How much wear and tear for a robot that is just sitting still listening to the internet uplink? If only every tenth of all cars currently stored on public parking would be hailable robots you would get very comfortable availability even in the remotest village. Occasional idle rebalancing drives would probably be less common than the idle leg of current “go pick someone up“ or “bring someone somewhere and return" trips.
If robot taxis happen, they won't be just like regular taxis without a driver. The mix between investment, hourly cost and per mile cost would change a lot, making entirely new business models possible and shifting the optimization peaks of existing ones.
Personally, if I would somehow happen upon a dozen robot taxis to turn into a business, I would select elderly people in a rural area as my target audience. Not your typical early adopter and quite some natural churn (short age window between should not drive anymore but still able to take care of themselves), but you get awesome ad targeting if you put out flyers in the doctor's waiting room. Oh, and you need to hire the one taxi driver who currently serves the doctor's appointment market in that area as your support guy who chats all the nice old ladies through the introductory phase over the car's hands free.
If robot taxis happen, they won't be just like regular taxis without a driver. The mix between investment, hourly cost and per mile cost would change a lot, making entirely new business models possible and shifting the optimization peaks of existing ones.
Personally, if I would somehow happen upon a dozen robot taxis to turn into a business, I would select elderly people in a rural area as my target audience. Not your typical early adopter and quite some natural churn (short age window between should not drive anymore but still able to take care of themselves), but you get awesome ad targeting if you put out flyers in the doctor's waiting room. Oh, and you need to hire the one taxi driver who currently serves the doctor's appointment market in that area as your support guy who chats all the nice old ladies through the introductory phase over the car's hands free.
Except that you are not paying for "gas, wear and tear & depreciation" when you call a taxi. You're not even paying for the human driver. You are paying for the monopoly.
Even if calling a driverless car cost more for remote areas, it would (or at least could) still cost a fraction of the cost of a taxi. $30 instead of $120 for a long distance drive is totally reasonable.
Even if calling a driverless car cost more for remote areas, it would (or at least could) still cost a fraction of the cost of a taxi. $30 instead of $120 for a long distance drive is totally reasonable.
$30 for a 8 mile trip when your making $7hr is really hard on the budget. It might be way cheaper, but it is still unfordable for the median person in a rural area.
You may have missed it, but my grandparent's comment - and my reply - were regarding driverless cars. There is no driver making $7/hour in an autonomous driverless car. (Off-topic aside: no taxi driver makes $7/hour). There's a reason an easy trip costs $50-80 in a taxi, and it has nothing to do with human labor or maintenance of the car. A driverless vehicle will not have to make $100+/hour to make up for maintenance costs.
Nor do driverless cars have to make up for "idle time". The only legitimate counter argument as to why a taxi should earn as much as they do is that they sit around not making any money for 10-60 minutes at a time. However, that goes away with driverless cars, and any excuse to charge exorbitant prices the way taxis do completely vanishes.
Nor do driverless cars have to make up for "idle time". The only legitimate counter argument as to why a taxi should earn as much as they do is that they sit around not making any money for 10-60 minutes at a time. However, that goes away with driverless cars, and any excuse to charge exorbitant prices the way taxis do completely vanishes.
No, the $7hr was in reference to what you make as a service sector employee in Idaho or Montana.
The real question is why work for so little money? The federal minimum wage is $7.25, tipped employees can make less per hour but only if the tips exceed the minimum wage for that time, but that isn't the real wage floor consider Walmart[0] has a minimum wage of $10.00 nationally and the average time between hire and promotion(with raise) is 3 months with an average fulltime compensation of $13.38 an hour. Construction labor, house cleaning, call centers and even dishwashing in non chain restaurants tends to pay similarly, I really don't know why anyone would make the minimum wage for any extended period of time, nor how employers offering it manage to find anyone given the competition.
[0]http://news.walmart.com/news-archive/2016/01/20/more-than-on...
[0]http://news.walmart.com/news-archive/2016/01/20/more-than-on...
Go to Idaho or Montana then, you'd be surprised what people will work for when there are no alternatives.
[deleted]
They do, right? Needs to be depreciated.
I lived in Beijing for 9 years and never had to worry about a DUI since I didn't even own a car. Some bad nights (no taxis available) I walked home for an hour or so, no big deal.
Population densities in the US suck, and everything is oriented around personal cars. Totally different things.
Population densities in the US suck, and everything is oriented around personal cars. Totally different things.
Still no excuse.
People downvoting me obviously haven't had anyone close killed by a drunk driver. Disgusting. Simple solution if you can't get home without driving: don't drink.
Your comment just isn't very constructive. Everyone knows that driving drunk is moral reprehensible. That's not the point.
I'm sorry for your loss but I could just as easily say something along the lines of
"Driving in general is not an excuse. People downvoting me obviously haven't had anyone close killed by a distracted driver. Simple solution: don't be distracted and drive."
You're not wrong, but as long as we continue to have an attitude of "drunk driving is just wrong so we shouldn't do anything because people who drive drunk are simply bad people" we will never create a proper solution and people will continue to die needlessly.
It's not an excuse, but understanding people's impetuses (that are more common than you probably believe) will help us in creating solutions and getting rid of this problem once and for all.
The post I replied to sounded like it tried to justify it, like there was no other choice than to drive drunk. I also don't agree with you at all. You speak like it's some kind of technical problem that needs to be disrupted. If you drink and drive you're messed up and have big issues. Of course we should try to find ways to reduce it but you can never blame the system.
I'm not saying you don't have big issues if you drive drunk but that statement is obvious and does nothing to solve the problem. No one is going to start accepting drunk drivers as good people. But maybe we can understand why people drive drunk and can fix that underlying cause. After all, all I want is for fewer people to drive drunk.
What you mention are circumstances and excuses that doesn't change anything. The point of the parent post was that in some countries (mine is Norway) you just don't do it, full stop.
Very hypothetically, if someone else got you drunk in the middle of nowhere without your knowledge and there are no taxis available, and it's freezing outside so that you can't sleep under a bush, then not letting you stay the night at whatever house you were in would be similar to murder I guess. A drunk person driving is just off the table and everyone understands it.
Very hypothetically, if someone else got you drunk in the middle of nowhere without your knowledge and there are no taxis available, and it's freezing outside so that you can't sleep under a bush, then not letting you stay the night at whatever house you were in would be similar to murder I guess. A drunk person driving is just off the table and everyone understands it.
>It has always amazed me how casually people drink and drive in some countries; the US especially springs to mind.
Drinking and driving is still very taboo in the US. It's just that most areas of the country require an automobile to get around and most people have a car.
One more thing, no one should be surprised that people drink and drive anywhere. People make all sorts of terrible decisions when they're intoxicated, they're drunk after all.
Drinking and driving is still very taboo in the US. It's just that most areas of the country require an automobile to get around and most people have a car.
One more thing, no one should be surprised that people drink and drive anywhere. People make all sorts of terrible decisions when they're intoxicated, they're drunk after all.
Not quite as taboo as many other countries [1], unfortunately.
You give two excuses to drink and drive. Both are indefensible.
The first excuse is "need a car to get around, have car". I live in a sparsely populated area as well, and everyone uses a car to get around. When we go out drinking, we plan ahead. The most common options are designated drivers, taxis, sleeping over, walking, or cycling.
The second excuse is "can't expect to make good decisions while drunk". That's a bit intellectually dishonest. The decision to think about how to get back later, knowing you're going to be drinking, is a bad decision made while entirely sober.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_in_the_United_St...
You give two excuses to drink and drive. Both are indefensible.
The first excuse is "need a car to get around, have car". I live in a sparsely populated area as well, and everyone uses a car to get around. When we go out drinking, we plan ahead. The most common options are designated drivers, taxis, sleeping over, walking, or cycling.
The second excuse is "can't expect to make good decisions while drunk". That's a bit intellectually dishonest. The decision to think about how to get back later, knowing you're going to be drinking, is a bad decision made while entirely sober.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_in_the_United_St...
A lot of people simply don't care. They feel they can make it, they're skilled enough. It's actually similar to speeding, which incidentally is responsible for more traffic deaths and accidents - drivers don't give a fuck, they're smarter than the system.
The only way I know of actually beating some reason into people thinking like that is through heavy and sure penalties. Lots of alcohol spot-checks. Automatic ticketing for speeding measured via average, not instantaneous speed. DUI, you lose license. Speed, you're half-way to losing one.
Politically untenable perhaps, but I could see it making a dent in deaths on the roads.
The only way I know of actually beating some reason into people thinking like that is through heavy and sure penalties. Lots of alcohol spot-checks. Automatic ticketing for speeding measured via average, not instantaneous speed. DUI, you lose license. Speed, you're half-way to losing one.
Politically untenable perhaps, but I could see it making a dent in deaths on the roads.
Exactly, it's more socially acceptable in the USA.
Walking and cycling are going to get you killed at the same rate if not higher as driving. I guess you're not as likely to kill someone else.
I think that's also something that's different in the US: individualism.
I wouldn't normally call e.g. Germany a "collectivist" society but in comparison to the attitudes I frequently hear about from Americans (especially in politics) Germans apparently genuinely care more about their fellow citizens.
Not being as likely to kill someone else is the entire point. Heck, drunk cycling is only slightly better than drunk driving because you're less likely to run someone over (but might still cause an accident when a driver has to do something dangerous to avoid you).
I wouldn't normally call e.g. Germany a "collectivist" society but in comparison to the attitudes I frequently hear about from Americans (especially in politics) Germans apparently genuinely care more about their fellow citizens.
Not being as likely to kill someone else is the entire point. Heck, drunk cycling is only slightly better than drunk driving because you're less likely to run someone over (but might still cause an accident when a driver has to do something dangerous to avoid you).
>Heck, drunk cycling is only slightly better than drunk driving because you're less likely to run someone over (but might still cause an accident when a driver has to do something dangerous to avoid you).
Drunk cyclists killed 1 person between 2007-2011 in Poland. Drunk pedestrians killed 3 persons. http://ibikekrakow.com/2012/03/28/ile-osob-zabili-pijani-row...
Drunk drivers killed hundreds.
50% of people caught for DUI are riding bicycles. And until recently, they were getting exactly the same prison sentences as drunk truck drivers. Almost half of people imprisoned for DUI were riding bicycles.
I think drunk cycling is completely harmless, and should be legal. If someone is too drunk, he can't keep balance on bicycle anymore and problem automatically fixes itself.
There is a lot of moral panic about drunk driving, but at BAC under 0.5 permille (vast majority of people caught) it's completely harmless or even safer than riding sober. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/WHO_BAC_... Only truly drunk people in cars should be punished.
Drunk cyclists killed 1 person between 2007-2011 in Poland. Drunk pedestrians killed 3 persons. http://ibikekrakow.com/2012/03/28/ile-osob-zabili-pijani-row...
Drunk drivers killed hundreds.
50% of people caught for DUI are riding bicycles. And until recently, they were getting exactly the same prison sentences as drunk truck drivers. Almost half of people imprisoned for DUI were riding bicycles.
I think drunk cycling is completely harmless, and should be legal. If someone is too drunk, he can't keep balance on bicycle anymore and problem automatically fixes itself.
There is a lot of moral panic about drunk driving, but at BAC under 0.5 permille (vast majority of people caught) it's completely harmless or even safer than riding sober. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/WHO_BAC_... Only truly drunk people in cars should be punished.
It's not about being able to balance on a bike, it's about reaction time, coordination, and judgement.
In some way it's self-correcting, drunk cyclist can't ride fast. If he's super drunk, he becomes more of a pedestrian than cyclist. I agree it's not the best argument.
I like numbers, and numbers say drunk bicyclists are not a problem.
Drunk cyclist is hundreds times less danger than drunk driver, and should get hundreds times less punishment.
I like numbers, and numbers say drunk bicyclists are not a problem.
Drunk cyclist is hundreds times less danger than drunk driver, and should get hundreds times less punishment.
[deleted]
I'm not saying necessarily that this is due to a lack of care about fellow citizens, but the closest i've come to being hit as a pedestrian was in germany. single lane windy road in the heart of town, porsche flying by at 60+kmph.
I get that different cultures have different jay-walking habbits, even within the US cities are vastly different, but if i really cared about well-being of others i wouldn't drive like that in a city. I think the theory in other comments that drunk driving is seen culturally as immature and stupid is a better explanation.
I get that different cultures have different jay-walking habbits, even within the US cities are vastly different, but if i really cared about well-being of others i wouldn't drive like that in a city. I think the theory in other comments that drunk driving is seen culturally as immature and stupid is a better explanation.
> different in the US: individualism
It's funny, but in the US it's common for college freshmen to have two choices of lodging: either in a fraternity (Animal House, the movie ;-) or in a dorm room, two people per room (hence the 'Roommate from Hell' stories that grace the internet).
Not big on leaving individuals alone.
It's funny, but in the US it's common for college freshmen to have two choices of lodging: either in a fraternity (Animal House, the movie ;-) or in a dorm room, two people per room (hence the 'Roommate from Hell' stories that grace the internet).
Not big on leaving individuals alone.
Just because you share a room with someone doesn't mean you do the same social activities as them. First roommate in college we kinda did, second roommate we barely did anything together other than be present in the same room (there was a point where we were playing Tony Hawk together regularly).
Yup. I think that as a culture, we need to think more about the risks we take with other people's lives.
I think this is best demonstrated by the minimum liability insurance required to operate a car. In California, right now, you can drive a car with only $35K in liability insurance... which is crazy. Sure, that will cover most cars, but it won't even cover a moderate injury. Very few people have the assets required to pay for a serious injury, and therefore, the victim is usually under-compensated.
Right now, cars are essentially being subsidized by the people who are getting hurt who get under compensated, because few people have enough liability insurance (or assets) to cover the cost of really hurting someone. If the injuries per mile were better factored into the cost of driving (which could be done by increasing the liability insurance minimum) driving would be a lot more expensive; quite possibly, once you factor in injuries, other, safer forms of transport would start looking practical.
I think this is best demonstrated by the minimum liability insurance required to operate a car. In California, right now, you can drive a car with only $35K in liability insurance... which is crazy. Sure, that will cover most cars, but it won't even cover a moderate injury. Very few people have the assets required to pay for a serious injury, and therefore, the victim is usually under-compensated.
Right now, cars are essentially being subsidized by the people who are getting hurt who get under compensated, because few people have enough liability insurance (or assets) to cover the cost of really hurting someone. If the injuries per mile were better factored into the cost of driving (which could be done by increasing the liability insurance minimum) driving would be a lot more expensive; quite possibly, once you factor in injuries, other, safer forms of transport would start looking practical.
> In California, right now, you can drive a car with only $35K in liability insurance... which is crazy. Sure, that will cover most cars, but it won't even cover a moderate injury. Very few people have the assets required to pay for a serious injury, and therefore, the victim is usually under-compensated.
In Germany, there are regulations for this. The mandatory insurance has a minimum coverage of 7.5M € for injuries, 1.12M € for property damages and 50 k€ for other accident related costs. And yet our car insurances are affordable AND the insurers make really nice profits.
In Germany, there are regulations for this. The mandatory insurance has a minimum coverage of 7.5M € for injuries, 1.12M € for property damages and 50 k€ for other accident related costs. And yet our car insurances are affordable AND the insurers make really nice profits.
The minimum insurance won't cover that much vehicle damage, it's mostly bodily injury coverage ($5000 property).
You guess? That is the whole thing with drunk driving. You endanger others. With a conscious choice I might add, when you go somewhere and drunk driving is the only way home.
You're being downvoted, but you make a good point. Here's some more commentary in support of your statement.
http://freakonomics.com/2011/12/28/the-perils-of-drunk-walki...
It's a damn shame the US has decided to build streets that are safer to drive on drunk than walk on.
http://freakonomics.com/2011/12/28/the-perils-of-drunk-walki...
It's a damn shame the US has decided to build streets that are safer to drive on drunk than walk on.
Cycling while intoxicated can also get you a DUI, though in practice it's probably rare.
Even walking can be risky. If you are seen falling down or even staggering a bit you can get a public intoxication charge.
Even walking can be risky. If you are seen falling down or even staggering a bit you can get a public intoxication charge.
The point of DUI being illegal isn't to protect drunk drivers; it's to protect everybody else (and everything) nearby.
Cycling while drunk is illegal in some places.
How is it a taboo? I notice that in almost every US TV show I watch, people drink and drive. Or drink and if you think, you know there is no other way for them to get home except in the car they arrived in. It's very visible once you notice it once.
>How is it a taboo? I notice that in almost every US TV show I watch, people drink and drive.
It's also quite common to see fictional murders on television but that doesn't make it any less taboo.
It's also quite common to see fictional murders on television but that doesn't make it any less taboo.
[deleted]
> no one should be surprised that people drink and drive anywhere.
> People make all sorts of terrible decisions when they're intoxicated
>Ulysses pact
I knew a guy in college who often got totally hammered when he went out. He would always give his bus money home to one of his companions he was out with to hold onto so that he wouldn't accidentally spend it or lose it.
I knew a guy in college who often got totally hammered when he went out. He would always give his bus money home to one of his companions he was out with to hold onto so that he wouldn't accidentally spend it or lose it.
> is still very taboo in the US
Depends on where you are. In rural America it's borderline socially acceptable (unfortunately).
Depends on where you are. In rural America it's borderline socially acceptable (unfortunately).
It isn't taboo in the US. Though, less socially acceptable than it used to be.
It depends on the social circle you are in though if you know very frequently drunk drivers vs responsible drivers. Most people I met in adulthood don't think twice drinking and driving but most people I meet in childhood will tend to discourage it. I don't really know why other than maybe different peer influence? When people see me call a cab they openly say "I just drive home drunk." Like it's nothing. Similarly I've had cab drivers commend me for not driving drunk. "Oh, you called a cab, that's good most people would just drive drunk."
I have co-workers who spend most Friday afternoons (12-5) at the bar and drive right home after like it's nothing. These people don't think driving drunk is a problem.
Personally, I can't understand why you'd go out and drink if you had no way to get home. It doesn't come unexpectedly out of nowhere. If there's no transportation you are still making a choice in the matter. I don't buy excuses, when you choose to go out and choose to start drinking while you are out without a designated driver you are making both choices and making them sober. If it was that taboo, people simply would either stay home or have a designated driver. It's really not that difficult. In fact, I know people who will all meet at the bar and instead of car pooling with a rotating DD they will just all travel in their own cars independently and all drive home drunk.
It depends on the social circle you are in though if you know very frequently drunk drivers vs responsible drivers. Most people I met in adulthood don't think twice drinking and driving but most people I meet in childhood will tend to discourage it. I don't really know why other than maybe different peer influence? When people see me call a cab they openly say "I just drive home drunk." Like it's nothing. Similarly I've had cab drivers commend me for not driving drunk. "Oh, you called a cab, that's good most people would just drive drunk."
I have co-workers who spend most Friday afternoons (12-5) at the bar and drive right home after like it's nothing. These people don't think driving drunk is a problem.
Personally, I can't understand why you'd go out and drink if you had no way to get home. It doesn't come unexpectedly out of nowhere. If there's no transportation you are still making a choice in the matter. I don't buy excuses, when you choose to go out and choose to start drinking while you are out without a designated driver you are making both choices and making them sober. If it was that taboo, people simply would either stay home or have a designated driver. It's really not that difficult. In fact, I know people who will all meet at the bar and instead of car pooling with a rotating DD they will just all travel in their own cars independently and all drive home drunk.
I know many people who wouldn't consider themselves "drunk drivers" because they have a high tolerance for alcohol and are still fine after 3 drinks. I think this is probably true for a lot of people, especially in rural areas.
I think it's not taboo, the (social, not legal) definition is just a different one. In most countries, having more than one beer and driving is considered drunk driving. In the US, as long as you're not wasted people assume it's ok to drive home (there's no alternative anyway).
Having 4-5 beer over a few hours and driving home is completely normal in most parts of the US. In most European countries, that's socially unacceptable.
Having 4-5 beer over a few hours and driving home is completely normal in most parts of the US. In most European countries, that's socially unacceptable.
Went to school in a college town in the US. I always based it on how much alcohol your body should can process, roughly a beer an hour. So if I started drinking at a party four hours ago and had five beers, I figured I was sober enough to go home.
I usually did most of my drinking at the beginning of the night anyway (intentionally so this would be a viable strategy), so I was mostly sobering up at the end.
But there were still plenty of nights where I slept on the host's couch or floor until morning, and a few times where I made poor decisions because I really, really didn't want to have to find other transportation (mostly just getting in the car with people who I couldn't determine if they were sober enough to drive). Taxis really are awful in small towns.
I usually did most of my drinking at the beginning of the night anyway (intentionally so this would be a viable strategy), so I was mostly sobering up at the end.
But there were still plenty of nights where I slept on the host's couch or floor until morning, and a few times where I made poor decisions because I really, really didn't want to have to find other transportation (mostly just getting in the car with people who I couldn't determine if they were sober enough to drive). Taxis really are awful in small towns.
I don't drive drunk, it's not worth the risk; BUT millions of people drive drunk every day and 99.999% get home safely so in their minds it seems safe enough.
It's not as if the instant your BAC goes over .08 you are driving like bumper cars.
It's not as if the instant your BAC goes over .08 you are driving like bumper cars.
I disagree with that number. You're saying that 1 in 100,000 people don't get home safely while drink driving.
That's 10 times lower than the yearly death rate from simply driving. And 1/3 road deaths are caused by drink driving.
That's 10 times lower than the yearly death rate from simply driving. And 1/3 road deaths are caused by drink driving.
My number is wrong, I just made it up. I think that actually number is more like 99.95% for a person with a .08.
My point is that if you didn't care about moral hazard, the odds are overwhelming that you will make it home safe even if you drive drunk.
I'm not condoning, just explaining drunk driving logic.
That 1/3 road deaths is artificially inflated because if you had 1 drink and well under the legal limit it still counts as alcohol related fatality.
My point is that if you didn't care about moral hazard, the odds are overwhelming that you will make it home safe even if you drive drunk.
I'm not condoning, just explaining drunk driving logic.
That 1/3 road deaths is artificially inflated because if you had 1 drink and well under the legal limit it still counts as alcohol related fatality.
> That 1/3 road deaths is artificially inflated because if you had 1 drink and well under the legal limit it still counts as alcohol related fatality.
As it should. 1 drink is enough to impair your ability to drive.
EDIT: I'm probably wrong, someone else in the comments posted data showing risk only increases after .03 BAC.
As it should. 1 drink is enough to impair your ability to drive.
EDIT: I'm probably wrong, someone else in the comments posted data showing risk only increases after .03 BAC.
> I think that actually number is more like 99.95% for a person with a .08.
But it isn't the .08 drunk drivers killing people, it is the .16+ BAC drunk drivers killing people.
But it isn't the .08 drunk drivers killing people, it is the .16+ BAC drunk drivers killing people.
I find the fact that people believe this to be really quite frightening.
Sure, you feel great after a few drinks, that is kinda the point. But you are still impaired. Driving is not an activity where confidence helps. Reaction time matters and that goes down from your first drink.
Sure, you feel great after a few drinks, that is kinda the point. But you are still impaired. Driving is not an activity where confidence helps. Reaction time matters and that goes down from your first drink.
[deleted]
I don't see how that is artificial. It is well known that your abilities are impacted long before you reach the legal limit.
I live in Bavaria. Everyone drives over the limit if home is not too far away. Noone ever gets caught. I on the other hand have lost my license for smoking weed 2 days earlier. Sigh..
Is it common to smoke in public places?
No. You go to jail. Drinking in public places is however legal and appreciated.
[deleted]
Just south of the US border, drinking and driving is the norm. Edit: Whoops, guess I hit a nerve with an uncomfortable truth. The lax enforcement in mexico, is just something industrialized people rarely think about...until you get there. But hey, argue about it on the internet and tell that to the drive-up neighborhood beer and fish taco stands from ensenada to tiajuana. I never go farther south, but I'm sure it's the same.
North of the border as well. Spend a Friday evening at the West Coast around LA, very few people driving home from bars or restaurants will be sober.
How is it even possible to drive on the roads during weekends? I imagine if there's lax enforcement, there will be a LOT more drunk driving related accidents??
erm, i've lived in the US for a few years and mexico about double that, and can say in Mexico it's similar to New Zealand, UK, etc where it's not really acceptable.
But yea the border towns are probably like the worst parts of the US, which is the worst country I've come across when it comes to drunk driving.
But yea the border towns are probably like the worst parts of the US, which is the worst country I've come across when it comes to drunk driving.
The [rural] US is much, much more spread out than most countries. This means that people in the rural US think of driving as a necessary and basic component of life; driving is just "how you get places", if there are places you need to get. So drinking and driving, though shameful, is necessarily normalized (not wholly, but somewhat) by people who are drunk, and yet need to go places.
That, and by the fact that in a lot of the very rural areas, drunk driving has a rather low fatality rate, given that there are no other cars on the road and no obstacles to crash into. If you run off the road, you just drive into some corn or wheat or alfalfa, or at worst hit somebody's cows. (These are the same places you'll see people e.g. allowing their young children to drive trucks or motorcycles—even by themselves, at night. There's just nothing much that can go wrong.)
(I think this is all also true of rural Russia, which is a large part of where the American stereotype of Russians as constantly drinking comes from.)
That, and by the fact that in a lot of the very rural areas, drunk driving has a rather low fatality rate, given that there are no other cars on the road and no obstacles to crash into. If you run off the road, you just drive into some corn or wheat or alfalfa, or at worst hit somebody's cows. (These are the same places you'll see people e.g. allowing their young children to drive trucks or motorcycles—even by themselves, at night. There's just nothing much that can go wrong.)
(I think this is all also true of rural Russia, which is a large part of where the American stereotype of Russians as constantly drinking comes from.)
Exactly this, but it should be made clear that this has nothing to do with the general safety of rural roads. In general there are dangers encountered when driving (especially at night) on rural roads which aren't encountered in urban environments, although the converse is also true.
People always compare the US to Western Europe when this topic comes up, but that's simply an invalid comparison. For this topic, the US should be compared to Russia or possibly Canada. These countries have rural areas which are neither completely deserted (where drunk driving would be irrelevant even if it were likely to happen) nor support a large enough population to have reasonable transportation alternatives.
I wish the US would recognize this fact and have two sets of drunk driving laws - one for urban areas (matching Western European conventions) and one for rural (matching current conventions). Unfortunately, this is probably impossible since it could be seen as permitting drunk driving.
People always compare the US to Western Europe when this topic comes up, but that's simply an invalid comparison. For this topic, the US should be compared to Russia or possibly Canada. These countries have rural areas which are neither completely deserted (where drunk driving would be irrelevant even if it were likely to happen) nor support a large enough population to have reasonable transportation alternatives.
I wish the US would recognize this fact and have two sets of drunk driving laws - one for urban areas (matching Western European conventions) and one for rural (matching current conventions). Unfortunately, this is probably impossible since it could be seen as permitting drunk driving.
It's a common misconception that rural roads are safer than urban, but it's just not true. The fatality rate is higher on rural roads (both in total and per mile driven) and rural roads are massively over represented in road accident stats for the percentage of the population that lives in them. Shitty google AMP link to a pdf: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...
> It has always amazed me how casually people drink and drive in some countries; the US especially springs to mind.
You should see Thailand. Many districts in Bangkok have their own dedicated pool of motorbike-taxis often located at specific points. The group of them outside my previous apartment frequently shared whiskey or beer with me after dropping me off.
You should see Thailand. Many districts in Bangkok have their own dedicated pool of motorbike-taxis often located at specific points. The group of them outside my previous apartment frequently shared whiskey or beer with me after dropping me off.
Our Uber driver in Tennessee came into the bar with us and had a few beers.
It's extremely shameful, and embarrassing here. No one looks up to you for that shit. Unfortunately we don't make it very easy for drunks to get home, so they do stupid things.
If you drive to a place you know you'll be drinking at, you're doing stupid things while sober.
Yeah, In my younger days I'd walk home 5 miles every Saturday from my local club, usually about 1.5-2 hours depending just how drunk I was. No one even thought of driving drunk, it's just something that you don't do.
I know of someone who got ticketed driving drunk and had their license suspended. They acted like they were the _victim_. I'm sorry, but there is just no excuse for driving drunk and if you get caught you deserve worse than just loosing your license.
> Over here
We don't know where you are, you need to tell us where "here" is.
We don't know where you are, you need to tell us where "here" is.
It may be wrong to drink and drive, but it happens pretty regularly (especially the "I've only had one beer" variety). From a policy (not a moral) perspective though, encouraging ride-sharing makes total sense here. It's a bit like teaching kids about birth control vs. abstinence. I don't condone minors having sex but a lot of them are going to regardless of what I think, so might as well make sure they're protected.
Up until very recently it was still legal to drink WHILE driving in Montana: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700061870/No-more-Montana...
I was recently in Madagascar - it's not uncommon to be driving while sipping a beer, or driving home at 3am after drinking since 9pm.
I theorize that they must just sweat it all out.
Eating while drinking helps, too.
As other people have pointed out, it's largely a byproduct of our development patterns, and it's also somewhat regional. Where I grew up, it was pretty common for people have driven drunk before they ever reached drinking age.
I've noticed how taboo it is differs dramatically by city. In the South with is sprawling roads and lack public transportation its more acceptable but in large cities in the North it's much more taboo.
> Over here, drinking and driving is an extremely shameful and embarrassing thing to do.
Over here (Hungary), drinking and driving is basically illegal. As in 0mg, zip. It makes things a lot simpler IMO.
Over here (Hungary), drinking and driving is basically illegal. As in 0mg, zip. It makes things a lot simpler IMO.
What country are you in? I'd wager a bet that many people still do it, just like many people in your country probably hit their children.
You should see British Virgin Islands.
Where are you from?
An interesting analogy because a lot of people in the USA also think it's good to hit (spank) children.
[deleted]
>Other than not going out, or not getting home, you didn't have many options.
I don't understand. Of course you do! Just go out and don't drink...!
When I grew up we would just take turns. A car seats 5, so you would be the driver every 5 times. That's not too bad...
You could still have a beer or two, or just have a sober evening and the next day without a hang-over.
Also, everyone knew the formula by which blood alcohol gets reduced over time, and how much alcohol would be in a glass of beer. At one rare event when I knew I would have pretty much maxed out my quota I once got in a police control and got tested at night. It was very accurate... I missed the limit by 0.02 per mill. I played a bit safer from then on, though. The limit in our area is at 0.5 per mill, but if you had an accident with over 0.2 you might already get in trouble with insurance coverage. Apart from the fact that of course the risk of having an accident goes up and can destroy lives.
I don't understand. Of course you do! Just go out and don't drink...!
When I grew up we would just take turns. A car seats 5, so you would be the driver every 5 times. That's not too bad...
You could still have a beer or two, or just have a sober evening and the next day without a hang-over.
Also, everyone knew the formula by which blood alcohol gets reduced over time, and how much alcohol would be in a glass of beer. At one rare event when I knew I would have pretty much maxed out my quota I once got in a police control and got tested at night. It was very accurate... I missed the limit by 0.02 per mill. I played a bit safer from then on, though. The limit in our area is at 0.5 per mill, but if you had an accident with over 0.2 you might already get in trouble with insurance coverage. Apart from the fact that of course the risk of having an accident goes up and can destroy lives.
I envy you for not being able to count your friends on a single hand.
And that as a grown adult his/her friends all live in the same general area so that one person can drop everyone off. That'd be absolutely ludicrous here in Austin. Everyone lives in the opposite 30 minute direction. I don't even ask where people live anymore because there's almost no chance they live within 30 minutes (10 miles) of me and I'm central so I'll probably never visit them.
The nights I can plan for a sober driver vs using a TNC are few and far between and usually on the weekend when one of my friends husbands or wives doesn't mind being the DD. This doesn't help during happy hour, etc at all.
Uber/Lyft/TNCs made going out far less anxiety ridden ("will I even be able to get a cab? When do the buses stop?")
The nights I can plan for a sober driver vs using a TNC are few and far between and usually on the weekend when one of my friends husbands or wives doesn't mind being the DD. This doesn't help during happy hour, etc at all.
Uber/Lyft/TNCs made going out far less anxiety ridden ("will I even be able to get a cab? When do the buses stop?")
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.
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?
> 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?
I upvoted you, but I think this needs reinforcement. These are very valuable considerations when getting a ride home after drinking.
In my personal experience, you call a cab, and they may not even come. There's no repercussion for that with traditional taxi services.
Uber may be subsidizing pricing now, but there is still a higher price point that provides additional value, particularly for those drinking.
Reliability, convenience, and accountability -- these are the keys.
In my personal experience, you call a cab, and they may not even come. There's no repercussion for that with traditional taxi services.
Uber may be subsidizing pricing now, but there is still a higher price point that provides additional value, particularly for those drinking.
Reliability, convenience, and accountability -- these are the keys.
Don't forget about the cost estimates.
Even if ridesharing services were the same price as a taxi, knowing roughly how much it will cost before I even call the thing is a huge plus, and knowing the route they will take me on is even better.
I don't need to be constantly on the lookout to make sure my uber driver isn't trying to fuck me by running the meter going the wrong direction giving me some bullshit about how his way is faster and then when we get there the credit card machine is broken and the fare is 3x what you expected (which is already 2x what it was in your home area).
With uber, if someone pulls that I know I can get a refund with a pretty good chance in success. I haven't ever had a taxi company call me back about anything, half the time the fucking taxi doesn't even show up.
Even if ridesharing services were the same price as a taxi, knowing roughly how much it will cost before I even call the thing is a huge plus, and knowing the route they will take me on is even better.
I don't need to be constantly on the lookout to make sure my uber driver isn't trying to fuck me by running the meter going the wrong direction giving me some bullshit about how his way is faster and then when we get there the credit card machine is broken and the fare is 3x what you expected (which is already 2x what it was in your home area).
With uber, if someone pulls that I know I can get a refund with a pretty good chance in success. I haven't ever had a taxi company call me back about anything, half the time the fucking taxi doesn't even show up.
All of these things are also huge for people who are disabled (deaf, mute, etc) and for people who are in foreign countries, and all sorts of other situations that most of us might not typically think of.
It's not even just that. I'm not sure about everywhere in the country but in parts of Texas good luck depending on a cab to show up within even an hour+ time frame you called in for it to. Everyone here has cars so there are very few cabs and the service is poor because of it.
I went to college in San Antonio and Uber was banned for about a semester or so after it became the norm. Too many people started drunk driving again. For all intents and purposes, you either found a designated driver or didn't go out. Many choose the illegal third option.
No matter what the price, the fact that you CAN get a timely ride via ride sharing apps is a game changer here.
I went to college in San Antonio and Uber was banned for about a semester or so after it became the norm. Too many people started drunk driving again. For all intents and purposes, you either found a designated driver or didn't go out. Many choose the illegal third option.
No matter what the price, the fact that you CAN get a timely ride via ride sharing apps is a game changer here.
> 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.
Subjective advantages which are not exclusive nor intrinsic to ride sharing services. They can be replicated by anyone in the industry if they are deemed as valuable to their business. I never denied they don't add value (for some), I'm saying that it is the hugely undercut pricing that is primarily driving this trend.
> 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?
Wow, generalize much? Who is "people like you" exactly? The answer to you question is pretty obvious if you put the snark aside: My problem is with the predatory pricing that companies like Uber are using. when I said their pricing is not sustainable that is exactly what I meant. In 5 years they will either be gone or will have raised their prices.
Subjective advantages which are not exclusive nor intrinsic to ride sharing services. They can be replicated by anyone in the industry if they are deemed as valuable to their business. I never denied they don't add value (for some), I'm saying that it is the hugely undercut pricing that is primarily driving this trend.
> 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?
Wow, generalize much? Who is "people like you" exactly? The answer to you question is pretty obvious if you put the snark aside: My problem is with the predatory pricing that companies like Uber are using. when I said their pricing is not sustainable that is exactly what I meant. In 5 years they will either be gone or will have raised their prices.
Even at the prices charged by traditional taxi companies, the service and convenience provided by Uber or Lyft is such an order of magnitude better that they should be viable competition.
You know, we have a few confounding variables and a clear effect. Where does your certainty that it's price, and not another variable that it comes from?
(Yes, I acknowledge you have a problem with the predatory pricing. I understand you. Was it not against taxis, I'd have a problem too, it's just that I hate taxis more than I hate powerful companies messing with small people. Yet, that does not make it any clear that the change is mostly due to prices.)
(Yes, I acknowledge you have a problem with the predatory pricing. I understand you. Was it not against taxis, I'd have a problem too, it's just that I hate taxis more than I hate powerful companies messing with small people. Yet, that does not make it any clear that the change is mostly due to prices.)
> 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?
What a strange way to respond to valid criticism. Flip this: why do people like you refuse to see these issues? No one is saying that the Uber experience, app, upfront pricing, etc. is the issue. I think everyone is positive to those innovations in the market.
What a strange way to respond to valid criticism. Flip this: why do people like you refuse to see these issues? No one is saying that the Uber experience, app, upfront pricing, etc. is the issue. I think everyone is positive to those innovations in the market.
It is not the cost of the ride, it is the fact that an Uber driver will actually show up. In many cities if you call a taxi company at 2am, no one will answer.
I've booked cabs before going out (UK) and had the agree to meeting me at 2/3am at a specific locstion, and they just don't show sometimes.
I've had one no show über driver, and when he didn't show another showed up in his place.
I've had one no show über driver, and when he didn't show another showed up in his place.
It's still safer and cheaper than a DUI* or worse. For many people, as long as it is convenient, those benefits are enough
Uber hopes to keep fares at their current level by replacing human drivers with autonomous vehicles.
During my first visit to the USA, back in 2007, I was shocked at casual drinking and driving habits of my co-workers. They were fine with having 5-6 bottles of beer and a couple of shots and then drop me in the hotel before driving home. Fortunately they don't have to do that anymore.
I think this might be related to another complaint you often hear about: the drinking culture in general.
Where I live in Europe it's normal to have designated drivers at parties and it's socially unacceptable to pressure them into drinking. If someone offers you a drink, "I'm driving" is a no-questions-asked way to turn it down (same goes for "I'm pregnant" or "I'm a recovering alcoholic").
That doesn't seem to be the case in much of the US. But it's one of those things that are hard to judge from across the pond.
Where I live in Europe it's normal to have designated drivers at parties and it's socially unacceptable to pressure them into drinking. If someone offers you a drink, "I'm driving" is a no-questions-asked way to turn it down (same goes for "I'm pregnant" or "I'm a recovering alcoholic").
That doesn't seem to be the case in much of the US. But it's one of those things that are hard to judge from across the pond.
This may have to do with the troubled history of alcohol in the US. You've had the temperance movement which lead to Prohibition, which was too extreme. After its repeal, the temperance movement faded somewhat, until automobiles became more common and you have MADD pressuring states to raise the drinking age to 21, which is now effective in all the states. That has inadvertently contributed to an extremely unhealthy culture of binge drinking on college campuses all across the US. That early experience with binge drinking may partially explain the lack of healthy drinking culture in the US.
However, anecdotally "I'm driving" is now pretty much the best reason to give and not to be pressured into drinking. But that's just been my personal experience.
However, anecdotally "I'm driving" is now pretty much the best reason to give and not to be pressured into drinking. But that's just been my personal experience.
It really depends on the circle of people that are at parties in the US. I've been the DD and have been at parties where there is at least one DD. I think there was a general consensus not to bother or pressure the guy DDing. All the fraternities and sororities would have a DD system running on fridays and saturday nights for their members as well, this is typical for a lot of universities but it only covers those members and their friends. I've also been at parties where I know there was no one DDing and I knew pretty much everyone drove there and didn't spend the night. Thankfully I lived in the college town with a decent bus system that got us around to most of the area for free so even if I couldn't get a ride, I could use the bus. I also purposely moved downtown just to have a ability to get almost anywhere without a car. The bus system was nice but getting between certain areas of town was hard depending on where you lived.
I've also seen how businesses do not like it if there's a person at a table ordering nothing while their buddies booze it up at high margins. That person gets treated poorly by waitstaff for not making any money or tips, even though their buddies wouldn't be able to drink nearly so much otherwise.
Your judgement matches my experience. I lived in the US then moved to Northern Europe.
"I'm on antibiotics" is another excuse.
I rarely drive, but a lot of my colleagues did exactly what you describe. It's most definitely unsettling, and thankfully that's one particular behavior I've barely seen since the ride sharing services came on the scene.
Actually one of the things that's most interesting about this study is that it's a study of NYC - where access to public transport might be the best in the United States.
Purely supposition on my part but my guess is that the market ride sharing services are capturing are suburbanites who are actually paying $50 to go to NJ/LI/CT as opposed to driving - as it's hard to imagine many locals driving anywhere, let alone drunk driving. The staten island graph is curious though (does it mean there is no non-locals visiting?
Purely supposition on my part but my guess is that the market ride sharing services are capturing are suburbanites who are actually paying $50 to go to NJ/LI/CT as opposed to driving - as it's hard to imagine many locals driving anywhere, let alone drunk driving. The staten island graph is curious though (does it mean there is no non-locals visiting?
> NYC - where access to public transport might be the best in the United States
Same with access to taxis… being able to just walk outside and find one vs in many other cities having to call one (and have their phone number already) and wait.
Same with access to taxis… being able to just walk outside and find one vs in many other cities having to call one (and have their phone number already) and wait.
This may not be the case for most people, but an hour walk after heavy drinking with music in my ears and nothing but empty road and darkness is something I really miss because of uber.
Also if you go out as a couple, its very boring if both can't have a glass of wine..
I'm thinking of selling my car just because of how well Uber works, and how expensive having a second car is (in Brazil at least).
I'm thinking of selling my car just because of how well Uber works, and how expensive having a second car is (in Brazil at least).
I completely agree. I wonder how self driving cars (i.e. no driver to watch you) are going to change that. The consensus is that we will be using shared cars as opposed to owning your own car. But if the tube in London gives us any indication, when you order a self driving car in London on a Saturday night, you are likely to find it covered with vomit and other bodily fluids. I do believe that owning a self driving car will still be a thing. (and for another reason: everyone will need it at the same time).
It's a lot easier to pull a self-driving car out of service for cleaning than a six-carriage train. It's not unreasonable to expect that some combination of machine vision, Mechanical Turk and hands-on inspection will be able to detect a car with a soiled interior before it gets dispatched to another customer.
I imagine there will be plenty of teething problems and horror stories, but I don't think it's an insoluble problem.
I imagine there will be plenty of teething problems and horror stories, but I don't think it's an insoluble problem.
I think you might have a wrong impression of the tube. I use it quite often but cannot remember when I last saw vomit on a train. If at all rather on the platform as many people try to get off if they feel very sick but don't make it to the exit of the station. There are certainly many drunk people but also a fair share of people going from/to work late at night.
People that drive drunk should be charged with attempted homicide because apparently the current penalties are not enough. Drunk drivers are just as deadly as your average mass shooting. Ram head first into a van and kill a family of 5 in one swoop. Nobody talks about it. The president doesn't address the nation if drunk drivers kill too many people in one year. Nobody seems to care. It's just "the price to be paid" for legal booze.
Pretty irresponsible of someone to drive drunk to save $20-30. I could never imagine doing that over the options (riding a bike, ignore going to the bar in the first place etc).
The real problem is not that $20 (or whatever) is too much to spend on a taxi, but there are no taxis at all.
Disclaimer: This isn't an excuse for drink-driving, you should think about this before you go out, but clearly there are a lot of people who either don't think about it or can't help themselves.
Disclaimer: This isn't an excuse for drink-driving, you should think about this before you go out, but clearly there are a lot of people who either don't think about it or can't help themselves.
In my college town, before Uber, you had three choices getting home:
- Taking the bus which didn't run anytime after 10pm - Calling a friend which really only worked when you planned ahead - Calling the local taxi service which was limited and was pretty expensive unless you had a ton of people riding with you. They did "drunk bus" kind of rides mostly.
Planning transportation (DD, drunk bus, etc) was really the only way to get home unless you just walked everywhere. The fraternities and sororities ran DD systems for their members and friends which I admired but couldn't take advantage of. After Uber came out, use exploded and the DUIs started going down.
- Taking the bus which didn't run anytime after 10pm - Calling a friend which really only worked when you planned ahead - Calling the local taxi service which was limited and was pretty expensive unless you had a ton of people riding with you. They did "drunk bus" kind of rides mostly.
Planning transportation (DD, drunk bus, etc) was really the only way to get home unless you just walked everywhere. The fraternities and sororities ran DD systems for their members and friends which I admired but couldn't take advantage of. After Uber came out, use exploded and the DUIs started going down.
And no public transport. The real difference to Europe is not the lack of taxis (you often don't get one in Europe at night when everyone leaves the bar), it's that you don't have acceptable and safe public transport (night buses) as an alternative.
in some place drunk riding a bike might have similar repercussions [incl. criminal charges above certain levels].
In Poland riding a bike while drunk results in losing your driving licence.
Same in Sweden. It's not so much riding the bike though - you can actually lose it by just being drunk walking too.
Wait, how can that be true? I worked in Gothenburg for several months a few years back, and there is a strong drinking culture. My poor language skills and memory may have me wrong, but all pubs advertise 'stor stark' happy hour, which means the beers are big and strong. If drunk walking can get your license revoked, how are there so many cars on the road?
You aren't going to get your license revoked because you are drunk, even very drunk.
But if you are the kind of person the police takes care of on a bench multiple times then it's within their (or rather the relevant authority, not the police) power to consider a person "unfit" for having a drivers license. Won't happen to "normal" people, even if on a bike.
But if you are the kind of person the police takes care of on a bench multiple times then it's within their (or rather the relevant authority, not the police) power to consider a person "unfit" for having a drivers license. Won't happen to "normal" people, even if on a bike.
And if you don't have a driver's licence?
See, this is where the intention of the law sort of falls apart - because in that case, you are only given a fine. So the punishment is disproportional towards people who have a driving licence. People who don't have one are punished a lot less for the exact same offence.
This reminds me of the old joke about the preacher. He is giving it the full fire and brimstone treatment, shouting that in hell there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth at the eternal punishment. One cheeky young lad asks, "But what if you have no teeth?"
The preacher roars back "Teeth will be PROVIDED!"
I think you already know this but: laws, like life, are unfair (well, Judicial Laws. Only the laws of nature are truly impartial).
Only if you're caught driving it on the road.
It's harder to kill someone on a bike tho.
Directly? Yes. Indirectly? No.
You're still posing a traffic hazard.
You're still posing a traffic hazard.
I'd say the risk of killing someone or causing an incident is much lower when riding drunk on a bike than in a car. To cause a major accident while drunk on a bike (that doesn't only involve yourself) you need an unfortunate chain of events such as a car avoiding you and running into someone else.
For starters, I can usually go most places by bike without doing it on the same roads as cars. (I know that's rarely the case in the US though). If that's not possible, and you are so drunk you can't ride a bike (I can certainly ride a bike safer than a car while drunk simply because the speed is much slower so the reaction times are longer) - then leave the bike too. Walk or get a cab.
For starters, I can usually go most places by bike without doing it on the same roads as cars. (I know that's rarely the case in the US though). If that's not possible, and you are so drunk you can't ride a bike (I can certainly ride a bike safer than a car while drunk simply because the speed is much slower so the reaction times are longer) - then leave the bike too. Walk or get a cab.
College years have provided me with both first and second person anecdotal evidence that cycling can have a higher incapability threshold than walking. That's for the motor control parts at least.
Situational awareness is an entirely different story though. In the dead of night traffic is on easy mode, where you notice the indirect illumination of a car's headlights around two corners and hear them from a mile away. That's just not very challenging (and probably plays a large role in the seemingly universal pattern of more drunk driving in rural areas, unfortunately cars come with an incredible amount of risk compensation through speed). Broad daylight city cycling on the other hand I consider a bad idea even at BAC levels well within the legal limits for driving cars (speaking of Germany here, where in terms of fines, cycling is tolerated at twice the BAC level as driving, a reasonable compromise)
Situational awareness is an entirely different story though. In the dead of night traffic is on easy mode, where you notice the indirect illumination of a car's headlights around two corners and hear them from a mile away. That's just not very challenging (and probably plays a large role in the seemingly universal pattern of more drunk driving in rural areas, unfortunately cars come with an incredible amount of risk compensation through speed). Broad daylight city cycling on the other hand I consider a bad idea even at BAC levels well within the legal limits for driving cars (speaking of Germany here, where in terms of fines, cycling is tolerated at twice the BAC level as driving, a reasonable compromise)
I guess if you're drunk driving at ~10mph the reduced reaction time isn't as important as when you're doing forty.
Except when you're driving at night without lights and are too buzzed to pay attention to traffic.
Road traffic relies on cooperation between the participants. If you can't pull your own weight (i.e. follow traffic laws, control your vehicle, etc), you don't belong on the road.
Also it's not about yourself. Sure, if you kill yourself in an accident on a bicycle you're less likely to injure somebody else but you're still inflicting all kinds of harm on others.
Road traffic relies on cooperation between the participants. If you can't pull your own weight (i.e. follow traffic laws, control your vehicle, etc), you don't belong on the road.
Also it's not about yourself. Sure, if you kill yourself in an accident on a bicycle you're less likely to injure somebody else but you're still inflicting all kinds of harm on others.
besides yourself running into cars, that try to avoid you... and run into someone else...
A ten to fifteen minute walk is less than a mile, unless heavy drinking somehow speeds one up. Where does that distance cost $20 in a cab? The NYC taxi & limousine website shows one mile in Manhattan as costing about $6.30--$5 for the fare, .80 for MTA and improvement surcharges, .50 for night surcharge.
Edit: My mistake, misread the text.
Edit: My mistake, misread the text.
NYC actually has far cheaper cabs than most US cities (who don't have Uber) because the market is extremely different. High demand and high supply 24/7 as opposed to surges. The pricing is also more tightly regulated iirc (haven't looked into the specifics).
When I took the train up to Albany, I wanted a cab to a coffee shop across the bridge. It was a half hour walk vs a 7min car ride. The cab was flat rate into the city so it would have cost $20+ just to take me across the bridge. This would've been a sub-$10 ride in NYC. I walked it, despite the rain.
When I took the train up to Albany, I wanted a cab to a coffee shop across the bridge. It was a half hour walk vs a 7min car ride. The cab was flat rate into the city so it would have cost $20+ just to take me across the bridge. This would've been a sub-$10 ride in NYC. I walked it, despite the rain.
I just saw a stat yesterday that NYC taxi medallions reached their lowest value with a total of 13.6k medallions in existence; compare with 50k Uber/Lyft drivers.
It's probably not just the cost but finding a cab at all. You have to call them and will likely go home when everyone leaves. Without surge pricing, there's no fluctuation in supply so that you don't get a cab.
That's my experience at least. It's also cheaper in the end but with an uber you know pretty well when you'll be in the car.
That's my experience at least. It's also cheaper in the end but with an uber you know pretty well when you'll be in the car.
It was a 10-15 min drive, or one hour walking. Which sounds about right (maybe a little less than $20.)
I remember in South Africa talking to a gentleman who was obviously quite inebriated about how he was going to get home. His response "I just put my head down, press the accelerator and get home as quickly as possible." I was horrified!
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.
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 $60 and waiting an hour.
I disagree, Uber for all its obvious faults has a top notch UX, I don't need to find cash, I barely need to break off conversation with my friend let alone speak to a person on the phone who will inevitably be confused about where I am. All that stuff drives adoption and retention.
I think it has a lot to do with the app. It's more about getting out than getting home. Sure, taxis are usually available if you're out in a town, but anyone who's ever tried to call one to pick them up from home on short notice is often going to be annoyed with the quality of dispatcher service. Even if the dispatcher is great and the taxi arrives quickly, anyone who has had a bad experience before will be anxious given the lack of reliable information. The ETA with a map is a huge factor in improving the experience.
I also wouldn't overlook the novelty factor in the idea gaining traction. It took a mundane process (calling a dispatcher) and made it sleek, hip, and fun. Especially in the early days, when you'd meet a lot of diverse drivers, not just professionals. This made a huge difference in making Uber a 'thing', not just a marginally improved commodity service.
I also wouldn't overlook the novelty factor in the idea gaining traction. It took a mundane process (calling a dispatcher) and made it sleek, hip, and fun. Especially in the early days, when you'd meet a lot of diverse drivers, not just professionals. This made a huge difference in making Uber a 'thing', not just a marginally improved commodity service.
Even if it's something we already knew, it's nice to see data confirming.
Or conversely, the taxi medallion system is likely responsible for 24-35% of drunk driving incidents...
In Vancouver,
If going out downtown, it's a 80$ 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.
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.
Without great public transportation, it seems rather unlikely for suburban folks to enjoy a lifestyle where you can drink downtown and safely get back home at a decent rate. Ridesharing might be cheaper for now, but I'm not sure what it will be like when the prices truly represent the market value; currently, most ridesharing companies seem to be operating at loss. The ultimate solution might come when autonomous driving becomes possible, I really can't see it another way.
BTW even with public transportation, if you're drunk enough to think it unsafe to drive, you're probably gonna want to use the restroom more often.
I've gone over this issue a LOT, and right now I'm planning to move to the city center and just take the hit of higher rent for now. Luckily, I am single so this is a lot more convenient than if you have a family with kids and stuff.
BTW even with public transportation, if you're drunk enough to think it unsafe to drive, you're probably gonna want to use the restroom more often.
I've gone over this issue a LOT, and right now I'm planning to move to the city center and just take the hit of higher rent for now. Luckily, I am single so this is a lot more convenient than if you have a family with kids and stuff.
I wish the US and Canada would relax zoning restrictions. I've spent the last decade or so in Japan and the UK and it's just so much better. Admittedly, when you are young and going out clubbing then you want access to the big city. But for quieter/older people, just having access to a decent restaurant or pub within walking distance of your house is amazing. These days my wife and I might go out to the big city maybe once a month or two, but at that frequency booking a hotel is feasible. Every other time we go out we stay in our neighbourhood because there are really great places to go -- even though I live in a tiny town. In Canada, you really do need to live downtown if you want any kind of social life outside of your house.
The zoning restrictions are one of the most startling things to be about the US. Especially since the US is in general very pro market but in this case is incredibly anti market.
The major my suburb recently sent out a survey asking people what kind of building projects people would like to see. The granularity of what was being asked for was shocking. It should not be the government's task to decide if we need to build single family homes or multi family homes and if they are allowed to be town houses etc. I felt like I was in the Soviet Union.
The major my suburb recently sent out a survey asking people what kind of building projects people would like to see. The granularity of what was being asked for was shocking. It should not be the government's task to decide if we need to build single family homes or multi family homes and if they are allowed to be town houses etc. I felt like I was in the Soviet Union.
I don't see zoning as black-and-white as you do. We have pretty strict zoning requirements in most of Germany too... with some exceptions of course, and you can immediately see that the quality of life in lesser regulated areas goes downhill.
The point is that you have to apply common sense to zoning, which given the countless comments about US zoning seems to be the difference.
The point is that you have to apply common sense to zoning, which given the countless comments about US zoning seems to be the difference.
I would like to see more of this in the US.
Common sense (zoning, and other things):
Japanese Zoning :: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8540845
http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html
Common sense (zoning, and other things):
Japanese Zoning :: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8540845
http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html
Cities could easily dezone. Most areas have only had zoning for 60 to 80 years, prior to that there was just fire & building code constraining you. What was added by zoning was height restrictions, parking minimums, building type eg. single family detached, and lot/building size minimums.
The value that zoning provides is to segregate and disenfranchise the bulk of the populace, while spreading them out during the Cold War so as to make the US more resilient towards bombings supposedly. This is the same culture that thought sidewalks were bad.
The value that zoning provides is to segregate and disenfranchise the bulk of the populace, while spreading them out during the Cold War so as to make the US more resilient towards bombings supposedly. This is the same culture that thought sidewalks were bad.
I dunno- Houston is notorious for its lack of zoning, yet it still grew the same sprawling manner. The fact is most of our cities did most of their growth after WWII. A baby boom, affordable automobiles, the interstate highway system, advertising, and FHA subsidies made mass suburban developments like Levittown profitable and desirable.
Houston pretty much has zoning they just don't call it zoning.
https://urbanedge.blogs.rice.edu/2015/09/08/forget-what-youv...
>Matthew Festa [is] a land use professor in Houston...
>For all that’s been made of Houston’s infamous lack of zoning, Festa said it increasingly seems that reputation isn’t deserved or even accurate.
>“We do have a lot of land-use regulations,” Festa said. “We still have a lot of stuff that looks and smells like zoning.”
>To be more precise, Houston doesn’t exactly have official zoning. But it has what Festa calls “de facto zoning,” which closely resembles the real thing. “We’ve got a lot of regulations that in other cities would be in the zoning code,” Festa said. “When we use it here, we just don’t use the ‘z’ word.”
https://urbanedge.blogs.rice.edu/2015/09/08/forget-what-youv...
>Matthew Festa [is] a land use professor in Houston...
>For all that’s been made of Houston’s infamous lack of zoning, Festa said it increasingly seems that reputation isn’t deserved or even accurate.
>“We do have a lot of land-use regulations,” Festa said. “We still have a lot of stuff that looks and smells like zoning.”
>To be more precise, Houston doesn’t exactly have official zoning. But it has what Festa calls “de facto zoning,” which closely resembles the real thing. “We’ve got a lot of regulations that in other cities would be in the zoning code,” Festa said. “When we use it here, we just don’t use the ‘z’ word.”
Got a source for the Cold War stuff?
One nice thing about ride sharing is that it can make a somewhat sparse public transit great. I frequently will take a Lyft to a nearby train stop and then go downtown from there. The entire thing still takes ~20m to get downtown. It's a third to a quarter of the price of taking Lyft all the way
When new cheaper thing comes to the market, I have heard a lot of sayings along the lines you're saying - they only doing it for now and after they have established themselves they'll jack up the prices. I can't remember any case when it actually happened. I don't mean things like "introductory pricing" when you get short time cheap and then the price rises - you know the deal upfront there. I mean some service company - not protected by some monopoly enforcement from state - jacking up the prices after they decided they have enough market share. Has it happened?
It won't be an explicit money grab. Once they have pushed out other competitors, they will IPO. Then, they will come under pressure from Wall Street to turn a profit (eventually...unless they do a la Amazon and keep creating/expanding into new markets). Then all Uber customers/drivers will see an email like: Dear Customers, Thanks for being a great part of our "community". Due to rising costs/regulations/some_generic_reason, we have to regretfully increase prices by $X.
That's what I am asking - the only companies I see such scenario playing out are in deeply monopolized and regulated industries (healthcare, ISPs, cable TV providers). I'm not saying Uber won't ever raise the prices ever, but I am yet to see a plan like this - capture the market, then drive up prices - actually happen and be sustainable. Amazon is surely not an example of it, even though it did capture the market, no sign of dramatic price increase.
It's one thing to increase your profit margin after becoming established, it's another thing if you aren't able to even have a profit margin at current pricing.
I agree Vancouver needs ride sharing! Although when I was there it didn't seem any more expensive for cabs than Seattle. From the downtown Hyatt to Kingsway & Commercial Dr was about $20 CAD. How far out do you live?
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.
Wasn't there an article here a few days ago that said Uber drivers were doing exactly the same thing?
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.
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.
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.
The cited CUNY study: http://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10...
Wow, this was treated pretty well wrt stats, almost like a clinical trial. The article makes it sound like just an anecdote.
Applied microeconomics is full of these sort of studies. It thrives on finding "natural experiments" to exploit and identify/measure an effect.
Nice to see such a great paper from a fellow CUNY grad. NY's city college system is underrated.
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.k...
[1]: http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/07/22/aje.k...
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.
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.
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=10...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyft#History
[2] https://techcrunch.com/2011/04/06/i-just-rode-in-an-uber-car...
"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=10...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyft#History
[2] https://techcrunch.com/2011/04/06/i-just-rode-in-an-uber-car...
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-pop...
Living in New York for 2012-2015: it felt like there was about a 50:50 split on Lyft vs Uber.
Lyft doesn't seem to have even near that sort of penetration in other cities from what I've experienced.
Lyft doesn't seem to have even near that sort of penetration in other cities from what I've experienced.
What gave you the impression that Lyft has 50%? Thats certainly not been my experience.
SF probably 60% Uber, 40% Lyft. Although to be honest, I'd argue Lyft is becoming a bit more common.
My feeling is that statistics figures based on feelings are probably at least 60% wrong.
50-50 seems unlikely: http://toddwschneider.com/posts/taxi-uber-lyft-usage-new-yor...
Lyft has a decent presence in Los Angeles and a number of people, including myself, find it to be consistently cheaper.
It's not just about dirt cheap. You know that you're not going to get screwed by an uber driver, even if you're drunk. Can't say the same about cab drivers, who've definitely tried to pull things when they see drunk people. Not to mention the ones that'll just pass you by over and over, or won't come to your location at a certain time, or just not answer the phone. Cabs in general have been horrible.
I've been taken advantage of by Uber drivers while drunk.
That said, when I woke up the next day^Wmonth and saw the charges and the loop-de-loops they took to get me home, I complained and Uber refunded me the whole fare, which I didn't even ask for. If this was a cab and even with a credit card charge (forget about cash) I would have just written it off.
That said, when I woke up the next day^Wmonth and saw the charges and the loop-de-loops they took to get me home, I complained and Uber refunded me the whole fare, which I didn't even ask for. If this was a cab and even with a credit card charge (forget about cash) I would have just written it off.
Well if you didn't end up paying for it then they didn't really take advantage. They just attempted to and were stopped by the feedback loop ride sharing systems offer.
Yes, that's the parent poster's point.
Uber has done that for me a couple times, either whole or in part, when the driver get very lost and it takes double the time and distance.
Exactly. My experience as a tourist in the US has been horrible. Even drunk I still realize that the driver makes considerable detours on the way. With Uber that will either not happen or I can complain and get a refund.
I sound like a tourist (Brit in NYC) and cabs will often take random detours hoping I don't notice. Ride shares are better than the yellow cabs. I've found that audibly turning on my GPS when I get into a cab seems to curb it.
> 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?
You would have to look at how the ride sharing services came about in different cities around the world.
The two most popular ways to measure those effects in economics are differences-in-differences (basically a clinical trial -- you need some very similar placebo city to compare it to) or regression discontinuity design (you need a fairly immediate effect, so assuming people learn to use uber this is out of the question).
You would have to look at how the ride sharing services came about in different cities around the world.
The two most popular ways to measure those effects in economics are differences-in-differences (basically a clinical trial -- you need some very similar placebo city to compare it to) or regression discontinuity design (you need a fairly immediate effect, so assuming people learn to use uber this is out of the question).
[deleted]
Convenient that PR timing for Uber as well.
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.
Of course, the results are probably applicable to other ride-sharing schemes.
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.
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."
Proving another benefit of subsidized public transportation. In Uber's case, low-cost rides subsidized by its investors.
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.
Uber's history of subsidies is well-known:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2014/07/02/ubers-newe... (2014)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/08/23... (2016)
https://qz.com/940605/is-the-era-of-cheap-uber-rides-over/ (2017)
But I don't have a breakdown per-market.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2014/07/02/ubers-newe... (2014)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/08/23... (2016)
https://qz.com/940605/is-the-era-of-cheap-uber-rides-over/ (2017)
But I don't have a breakdown per-market.
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
There was a really detailed breakdown posted somewhere on HN a while ago but I don't have it offhand.
There was a really detailed breakdown posted somewhere on HN a while ago but I don't have it offhand.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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-b...
They look like this: http://www.ranted.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/109890-b...
This may be the case in Melbourne - in Sydney cops aggressively breath test anyone who looks "suspect" (eg. P plates, any visible modifications, male w/ long hair, athletic wear) or who is "the right person at the right time" (say, if you're driving a utility around 4-5pm - many tradeworkers have a beer or two after work before going home).
Very soon. Some countries, such as Germany, already discussed rules around self driving cars. In countries with a strong car lobby it won't take long until laws are in place that provide self driving cars without human interaction (once this is safely possible). Otherwise it's not much of a selling argument.
Insurances are also very active developing models around it, so it shouldn't take too long from when we first see that car manufacturers can actually demonstrate the capabilities.
Insurances are also very active developing models around it, so it shouldn't take too long from when we first see that car manufacturers can actually demonstrate the capabilities.
[deleted]
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.
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.
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.
In fact, this is exactly something I see Travis doing to "fix" the problem.
Thank you. It's just too convenient a time isn't it?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Perhaps, but don't call it "sharing," because sharing is reciprocal. If it were actually sharing, you would be driving for Uber as much as the people who chauffeur you around. Call them what they are: unlicensed taxis.
Also, "the general willingness of people to embrace the gig economy" is just another way of saying "many people are desperate enough to do sub-minimum-wage piecework."
Also, "the general willingness of people to embrace the gig economy" is just another way of saying "many people are desperate enough to do sub-minimum-wage piecework."
> because sharing is reciprocal.
This didn't sound right so I looked it up[0]
No mention of it being reciprocal - which makes sense for almost every use of "sharing" I can think of
When I share my sandwich I'm not receiving any other sandwich from anybody else (perhaps if I was I'd share more often)
Anyway, its not easy to defend Uber and I don't want to be labeled that way - since I've boycotted the service more than once, but some of the arguments in this thread on this page seem really petty
[0] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sharing
This didn't sound right so I looked it up[0]
No mention of it being reciprocal - which makes sense for almost every use of "sharing" I can think of
When I share my sandwich I'm not receiving any other sandwich from anybody else (perhaps if I was I'd share more often)
Anyway, its not easy to defend Uber and I don't want to be labeled that way - since I've boycotted the service more than once, but some of the arguments in this thread on this page seem really petty
[0] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sharing
It's only ride "sharing" if the driver is already driving that way. You're going along with them.
If someone shares their sandwich they are eating it too. If someone makes a sandwich to give to you that's not sharing.
If someone shares their sandwich they are eating it too. If someone makes a sandwich to give to you that's not sharing.
If you come visit my house, I'm likely to offer you a drink when you arrive.
If you take me up on a water, I'm sharing my water with you, whether or not I drink a water myself at that moment.
(I'm perfectly happy to call Uber, Lyft, etc "unlicensed taxis" as I do think that's more accurate than "ride sharing"; I just don't agree that it's completely inaccurate to call them ride shares.)
If you take me up on a water, I'm sharing my water with you, whether or not I drink a water myself at that moment.
(I'm perfectly happy to call Uber, Lyft, etc "unlicensed taxis" as I do think that's more accurate than "ride sharing"; I just don't agree that it's completely inaccurate to call them ride shares.)
I agree that reciprocal doesn't really describe it.
Perhaps the concept they were trying to get at is that sharing suggests everyone involved is getting the same thing in some way. If I share a ride with you, it's because we're both going the same way. What's actually happening with uber is we each want something different. They want my money, and I want to be taken somewhere.
It is, however, an highly successful branding exercise.
Perhaps the concept they were trying to get at is that sharing suggests everyone involved is getting the same thing in some way. If I share a ride with you, it's because we're both going the same way. What's actually happening with uber is we each want something different. They want my money, and I want to be taken somewhere.
It is, however, an highly successful branding exercise.
I would just argue that dictionary.com has missed a context for sharing. Consider, "They shared everything." It's best understood as the reciprocal agreement to either partition or grant access to possessions.
Platforms should provide the opportunity to monetize your time in all sorts of ways. Ridesharing is just one example of ways people do it, and anything that adds liquidity to the overall ability to monetize time and existing capital is a good thing.
Everything else is just supply and demand. I don't see why we should stop anyone from ridesharing with the Uber platform, as long as the terms are clear enough. People are expected to think and make their own best judgments with these sorts of things, to some extent.
Everything else is just supply and demand. I don't see why we should stop anyone from ridesharing with the Uber platform, as long as the terms are clear enough. People are expected to think and make their own best judgments with these sorts of things, to some extent.
I too have struggled with the term "ride share", since it obviously isn't being used in the sense of "sharing is caring" we were all taught in kindergarten.
At some point I realized it means a share (in the economic sense) of a ride (the driver's car / time). As a rider, you are willing to pay for a portion of the driver's time and car mileage, and that's something you generally couldn't do before Uber/Lyft.
Sharing has connotations of kindness and altruism when this is really a transaction, so I like to avoid the term "ride sharing", but I feel "ride share" is accurate. As someone else posted nearby, there are plenty more substantive criticisms of Uber right now.
At some point I realized it means a share (in the economic sense) of a ride (the driver's car / time). As a rider, you are willing to pay for a portion of the driver's time and car mileage, and that's something you generally couldn't do before Uber/Lyft.
Sharing has connotations of kindness and altruism when this is really a transaction, so I like to avoid the term "ride sharing", but I feel "ride share" is accurate. As someone else posted nearby, there are plenty more substantive criticisms of Uber right now.
They're not always unlicensed. In the U.K. all Ubers are licensed private hire vehicles.
Unfortunately this does not play into the mass media narrative of today. Hopefully HN can evaluate statistics more objectively
"Bitter" is a strangely ad hominem argument.
The thing is that Uber explicitly disclaims responsibility for its drivers in its terms of service. And in court, when an Uber driver is accused of a crime, Uber maintains it's not responsible.
Eg.: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a242e2ad2fab4f57805aa047f8c06...
It's inconsistent to credit Uber with positive outcomes and not negative ones.
The thing is that Uber explicitly disclaims responsibility for its drivers in its terms of service. And in court, when an Uber driver is accused of a crime, Uber maintains it's not responsible.
Eg.: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a242e2ad2fab4f57805aa047f8c06...
It's inconsistent to credit Uber with positive outcomes and not negative ones.
> It's inconsistent to credit Uber with positive outcomes and not negative ones.
The world is not so black and white my friend. Uber is most definitely credited with both negative and positive outcomes; however, 'an Uber driver is accused of a crime' is not a good example, as such an accusation does not reflect on Uber anymore than you being accused of committing a crime reflects on your employer, assuming you work for a large company. If, however, there was an example that read 'Uber drivers commit crimes on the job at a statistically significant rate compared to taxis, Lyft, etc.,' then we have a means to blame the platform itself.
Or in the case of the sexual harassment allegations, if this is a systemic problem at high levels of leadership, then that's a major, blameworthy issue.
The world is not so black and white my friend. Uber is most definitely credited with both negative and positive outcomes; however, 'an Uber driver is accused of a crime' is not a good example, as such an accusation does not reflect on Uber anymore than you being accused of committing a crime reflects on your employer, assuming you work for a large company. If, however, there was an example that read 'Uber drivers commit crimes on the job at a statistically significant rate compared to taxis, Lyft, etc.,' then we have a means to blame the platform itself.
Or in the case of the sexual harassment allegations, if this is a systemic problem at high levels of leadership, then that's a major, blameworthy issue.
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!
Thanks independent contractors!
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.
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.
Actually most taxi drivers are independent contractors, which makes it even clearer that Uber added something to the equation, and always makes it kind of funny how upset people are about Uber drivers not being full time employees.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/29/labor...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/29/labor...
I'm happy with uber having contractors, workers or employees (three distinct categories in the UK). What I'm not happy with is them picking and choosing the parts of those definitions which benefit themselves.
I don't think it's particularly amusing to be upset at a multi-billion dollar company trying to skirt employment laws.
I don't think it's particularly amusing to be upset at a multi-billion dollar company trying to skirt employment laws.
> Before Uber, how many of those "independent contractors" were in the market?
A fair number were. I lived in Harlem from 2008-2011, and we often had to hail off-duty black car service vehicles due to the dearth of medallion cabs outside of central Manhattan. These were commonly known as "gypsy cabs," and the drivers were picking people up to make money on the side. I believe it was technically illegal but very, very common.
A fair number were. I lived in Harlem from 2008-2011, and we often had to hail off-duty black car service vehicles due to the dearth of medallion cabs outside of central Manhattan. These were commonly known as "gypsy cabs," and the drivers were picking people up to make money on the side. I believe it was technically illegal but very, very common.
By that logic, has then the AppStore not created any apps, Ebay not sold any goods, Kickstarter not created any products, and GoFundMe not funded any projects?
Bitter/hating much? I know Uber is not liked, but the fact that they have done a great job at disturbing the market in a great way. (Lyft as well, but they are still a minority player)
Having have to deal with NYC cabs often, when they will lock the doors and ask where you are going before letting you in, Uber is a great improvement overall.
Also, a NYC taxi medallion would cost 500k to almost 750k (that's like a mortgage). Basically half of your fare is going to some dude's coffers, and not to the drivers and taxis. Classical rent seeking behaviour caused by misguided regulation. Glad to see an outsider disrupt it.
Having have to deal with NYC cabs often, when they will lock the doors and ask where you are going before letting you in, Uber is a great improvement overall.
Also, a NYC taxi medallion would cost 500k to almost 750k (that's like a mortgage). Basically half of your fare is going to some dude's coffers, and not to the drivers and taxis. Classical rent seeking behaviour caused by misguided regulation. Glad to see an outsider disrupt it.
But aren't they just disrupting it temporarily? My understanding is that VC funding is propping up those low fares. I guess it is good until that runs out though.
Well, part of Uber's strategy was to subsidize rides with VC funding until they could have fleets of self-driving cars to provide rides at truly low costs (and thus efficient unit economics).
We'll see how well that plays out in light of the Waymo lawsuit.
We'll see how well that plays out in light of the Waymo lawsuit.
There is nothing wrong with their financial model at the moment - it's just high stakes, winner takes all, swing for the fences style of company building.
The most famous example is Amazon, fueling growth with raised capital over emphasis if profits. It lets them capture market and mindshare and do it extremely cheaply - Uber has raised $8B for what is likely less than a third of the company - including $5B at $90B+ only 8 months ago
This is exactly what investors want - turn what some might grow to be a respectable 20-30x return into 1000x and a shot at global domination.
Its amazing how global uber is - it really has total mindshare outside of the small number of areas competitors operate. I've heard "uber" used as a verb in 4 languages and in about a dozen different countries.
Uber claim they're profitable in older markets on a margin basis. That bodes well for being able to grow into profitability as you run out of countries to grow into, which is a little better and different to Amazon.com's "flicking the profit switch"
The most famous example is Amazon, fueling growth with raised capital over emphasis if profits. It lets them capture market and mindshare and do it extremely cheaply - Uber has raised $8B for what is likely less than a third of the company - including $5B at $90B+ only 8 months ago
This is exactly what investors want - turn what some might grow to be a respectable 20-30x return into 1000x and a shot at global domination.
Its amazing how global uber is - it really has total mindshare outside of the small number of areas competitors operate. I've heard "uber" used as a verb in 4 languages and in about a dozen different countries.
Uber claim they're profitable in older markets on a margin basis. That bodes well for being able to grow into profitability as you run out of countries to grow into, which is a little better and different to Amazon.com's "flicking the profit switch"
The medallion is a huge cost, that alone might be enough - not to mention economies of scale, logistics expertise, data collection value, uber pool network effect, etc.
It's not like medallion cabs were the only game in town before Uber came along. Black car services have been popular as taxi alternatives for decades.
But were only an option if you are from the city. There's a considerable risk ordering any minicab service if you don't know your way around the city. Uber and Lyft change that by verifying drivers.
That half of the cost due to medallions isn't temporary. Whatever was there due to supply restrictions isn't temporary either.
Uber still subsidizes the price beyond rents and supply restrictions. That part is temporary.
Uber still subsidizes the price beyond rents and supply restrictions. That part is temporary.
Your still not paying for a taxi medalion
[deleted]
Have you really had that experience in NYC? I've lived in Brooklyn for 10 years and have only once had a cab refuse to drive me home.
Perhaps you haven't committed the crime of living in a poor neighborhood or looking like a minority.
Aren't most taxi drivers [in NYC] from "minority" populations? Do they really discriminate in this way?
Yes, some the most racist taxi drivers I have encountered were minorities with prejudices against other minorities. Everyone is afraid to call a minority a bigot so this behavior tends to be unchecked compared to when a white guy does it.
That's a good point. I've lived in poor neighborhoods but I'm not a minority.
Try getting a cab in Manhattan at peak times, or during shift change (6pm-ish?). Technically they have to take you by law but even if you get in and refuse to move they will sit there until you are forced to get out.
It got to the point I was getting turned down more than accepted for rides from Manhattan to Brooklyn so now I just use ride share by default.
(For reference, I'm white so it's not a problem of being a minority. I do live pretty deep in Brooklyn in a "bad" neighborhood though - maybe getting a ride to Williamsburg etc is easier)
It got to the point I was getting turned down more than accepted for rides from Manhattan to Brooklyn so now I just use ride share by default.
(For reference, I'm white so it's not a problem of being a minority. I do live pretty deep in Brooklyn in a "bad" neighborhood though - maybe getting a ride to Williamsburg etc is easier)
Many times, yes.
Huh? "Employees" are a matter of legality, not causality.
That's some kind of bullshit. If "ride sharing" was the only causative factor then taxis would have addressed this already, given "ride sharing" is a euphemism for taxi.
Not really. If the marginal convenience and cheaper price of ride sharing firms led more drunk people to use them then it would be ride sharing that did it. Also, since there have always been taxis, it would have been a big coincidence to observe the statistical difference at the same time as the rise of ride sharing. Obviously, "ride sharing" is a bad description, but so what? The word "cab" is left over from horse drawn carriages.
Taxis and modern ride sharing services may appear to 'offer the same product,' but they do it in different ways. The accessibility of Uber and Lyft via smart phone apps put them worlds ahead.
Go back ten years. You need a taxi after leaving a social event. Your choice: bar, movie theater, wedding reception, whatever. Go stand outside in the wind/rain/snow/etc. on the corner of the intersection and hope that you aren't racially profiled and ignored by the driver and eventually someone will decide they want to pick you up... but for some strange reason they don't seem to turn on the meter and funny thing, when you arrive, the credit card machine is broken. This is the product that taxis have cultivated over decades of service.
Meanwhile, now, I sit inside protected from the elements, summon an Uber or Lyft on my phone quicker than it takes to call the taxi service (much less flag one down), and pay less than the taxi would have cost me. In my personal experience, I can get picked up by an Uber faster than I can even talk to a human being on the phone at a taxi dispatch.
You think this is the same service? It's not. Taxis are and have been a joke, and the evidence is in the walls they have built around themselves. The medallion system in New York as a prime example. What could be more absurd? What could be the logic, if not to fend off competition? Taxis have not offered the service that Uber and Lyft offer in decades, and even now that they are scrambling to roll out their own apps, they still fail to provide reliability. They have been playing by their own rules for so long, taxis completely lost sight of how to be a service industry.
Go back ten years. You need a taxi after leaving a social event. Your choice: bar, movie theater, wedding reception, whatever. Go stand outside in the wind/rain/snow/etc. on the corner of the intersection and hope that you aren't racially profiled and ignored by the driver and eventually someone will decide they want to pick you up... but for some strange reason they don't seem to turn on the meter and funny thing, when you arrive, the credit card machine is broken. This is the product that taxis have cultivated over decades of service.
Meanwhile, now, I sit inside protected from the elements, summon an Uber or Lyft on my phone quicker than it takes to call the taxi service (much less flag one down), and pay less than the taxi would have cost me. In my personal experience, I can get picked up by an Uber faster than I can even talk to a human being on the phone at a taxi dispatch.
You think this is the same service? It's not. Taxis are and have been a joke, and the evidence is in the walls they have built around themselves. The medallion system in New York as a prime example. What could be more absurd? What could be the logic, if not to fend off competition? Taxis have not offered the service that Uber and Lyft offer in decades, and even now that they are scrambling to roll out their own apps, they still fail to provide reliability. They have been playing by their own rules for so long, taxis completely lost sight of how to be a service industry.
I just really, really wish that Uber and Lyft could manage to pull off this grand revolution in transportation without dumping their negative externalities all on us.
Up front, I will say that this is just my experience and just what I've witnessed, but, damn, something--in my mind--about the Uber and Lyft driver platforms encourages their drivers to crap all over the public commons just for a fare. Some things I've seen just in the past week here in Seattle:
- Stopping in an active bus lane to pick up a fare.
- Stopping in an active bus stop to pick up a fare, then backing up against traffic when a bus goes around them to make its stop.
- Illegal U-turns, left- or right-turns, and blowing past all manner of other traffic control devices ("no turn on red," "must turn left or right except bicycles," etc).
- "Pressing" (that is, creeping forward into a crosswalk) pedestrians at crosswalks to make a turn.
- Stopping in a lane of traffic and, this is my favorite, turning on hazard lights while waiting for a fare.
- Generally clogging up traffic around major hotspots while waiting for a fare because "surge pricing" or maybe just good business.
In every single case, if a taxi did that then someone could complain to the city and have their taxi license revoked. Meanwhile, it is not readily possible to determine which TNC a driver is driving for or their TNC license number so making a complaint is difficult and there are so many TNC drivers that it's like a moth equipped with a lightning bug trying to burn down a building.
Then again, maybe I'm just jaded.
Up front, I will say that this is just my experience and just what I've witnessed, but, damn, something--in my mind--about the Uber and Lyft driver platforms encourages their drivers to crap all over the public commons just for a fare. Some things I've seen just in the past week here in Seattle:
- Stopping in an active bus lane to pick up a fare.
- Stopping in an active bus stop to pick up a fare, then backing up against traffic when a bus goes around them to make its stop.
- Illegal U-turns, left- or right-turns, and blowing past all manner of other traffic control devices ("no turn on red," "must turn left or right except bicycles," etc).
- "Pressing" (that is, creeping forward into a crosswalk) pedestrians at crosswalks to make a turn.
- Stopping in a lane of traffic and, this is my favorite, turning on hazard lights while waiting for a fare.
- Generally clogging up traffic around major hotspots while waiting for a fare because "surge pricing" or maybe just good business.
In every single case, if a taxi did that then someone could complain to the city and have their taxi license revoked. Meanwhile, it is not readily possible to determine which TNC a driver is driving for or their TNC license number so making a complaint is difficult and there are so many TNC drivers that it's like a moth equipped with a lightning bug trying to burn down a building.
Then again, maybe I'm just jaded.
I'm pretty sure I've seen traditional taxi cabs do everything in your enumerated list.
> Illegal U-turns, left- or right-turns, and blowing past all manner of other traffic control devices ("no turn on red," "must turn left or right except bicycles," etc).
I had a Lyft driver who tried to make an illegal U-turn while I was in the car with him.
Google Maps was telling him to go to the next light and make a U-turn. He insisted on making a U-turn at the light before. I saw the no U-turn sign, which explained why Google wanted him to go to the next light.
I repeatedly pointed out the no U-turn sign to him and told him again and again that it was illegal for him to make a U-turn there. I kept telling him over and over to get out of the left turn lane and go straight till the next light. He finally got out of the left turn lane after I raised my voice multiple times. If he hadn't gotten out of the left turn lane right then, my next step would have been to say "if you make an illegal U-turn, I will call the police on you right here".
After he got out of the lane, he was huffing and puffing for the rest of the ride. Fortunately, the ride wasn't much longer, but he was furious. I've never seen someone huff and puff like that outside of a cartoon.
He was also pretty unprofessional throughout the whole ride (example: he had a really tiny car, I'm a very large person, and when he picked me up he tried to make me ride in the backseat that I physically wouldn't be able to fit into... I had to tell him I would cancel the ride unless he unlocked the front door), so I didn't feel guilty whatsoever when I rated him 1 star and flagged him for navigation, friendliness, and safety.
I had a Lyft driver who tried to make an illegal U-turn while I was in the car with him.
Google Maps was telling him to go to the next light and make a U-turn. He insisted on making a U-turn at the light before. I saw the no U-turn sign, which explained why Google wanted him to go to the next light.
I repeatedly pointed out the no U-turn sign to him and told him again and again that it was illegal for him to make a U-turn there. I kept telling him over and over to get out of the left turn lane and go straight till the next light. He finally got out of the left turn lane after I raised my voice multiple times. If he hadn't gotten out of the left turn lane right then, my next step would have been to say "if you make an illegal U-turn, I will call the police on you right here".
After he got out of the lane, he was huffing and puffing for the rest of the ride. Fortunately, the ride wasn't much longer, but he was furious. I've never seen someone huff and puff like that outside of a cartoon.
He was also pretty unprofessional throughout the whole ride (example: he had a really tiny car, I'm a very large person, and when he picked me up he tried to make me ride in the backseat that I physically wouldn't be able to fit into... I had to tell him I would cancel the ride unless he unlocked the front door), so I didn't feel guilty whatsoever when I rated him 1 star and flagged him for navigation, friendliness, and safety.
You are entirely right, this is a puff piece, the 'may' in the title and the 'correction' at the end of the article shows the level of thought put into it.
The really interesting takeaway imo is how Uber made taxis cool (billions $ cool) with a bit of rebranding and made people defend 'our' taxis against 'their' taxis, doing all kind of mental gymnastics to rationalize their pick of taxi service in the process. Meanwhile social media seem to be condemning the company for all kind of shenanigans while their service is booming, fascinating.
The really interesting takeaway imo is how Uber made taxis cool (billions $ cool) with a bit of rebranding and made people defend 'our' taxis against 'their' taxis, doing all kind of mental gymnastics to rationalize their pick of taxi service in the process. Meanwhile social media seem to be condemning the company for all kind of shenanigans while their service is booming, fascinating.
That's like saying Hacker News can't be considered a nice place to discuss things, until they employ everyone who contributes to the discussion.
If someone starts posting threats or illegal material as discussion comments, wouldn't Hacker News be responsible for deleting it or else they would face penalties? Uber argues they shouldn't face penalties when an Uber driver does something illegal since they are "independent contractors".
Not really, under U.S. law HN or any other web forum is only responsible for deleting libelous or infringing comments after being notified: Digital Harbor, DCMA, etc.
The analogous situation for Uber would be "allowing a driver to continue using the platform after being notified of illegal on-the-job activity."
The analogous situation for Uber would be "allowing a driver to continue using the platform after being notified of illegal on-the-job activity."
In theory, Hacker News could still be a nice place to discuss things. I'm uninterested in Uber; I'm saying that Ggp is being silly.
Yeah, before Uber it was definitely easy to find someone to drive you home at 3 am from an arbitrary location with a full digital payment and accountability system.
Yeah, on the other hand people seem to use "uber" to mean "hired car" in the same way kleenex and xerox mean their unbranded equivalents
Cheer up, sounds like you're having a rough day!
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.
But they don't care, they just want the money and power (unconstitutional DUI check points) involved in the DUI process.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ummm... I'm sure Uber's PR team had absolutely nothing to do with this article ;)
Exactly, they are getting free publicity, it isn't bad anytime.
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.
How is this even up for speculation?
Why is there a need to quantify this with a study?
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."
Seriously. No shit it helps.
* 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-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.
> 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.
...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.)
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.)
> ...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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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?
> 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/...
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/...
Elephants too. They've been known to raid villages and steal booze. [1]
[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229334/Fifty-drunke...
[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229334/Fifty-drunke...
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.
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.
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.
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/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothers_Against_Drunk_Driving
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/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothers_Against_Drunk_Driving
To all those complaining about ride sharing systems: phhffft!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Still 24+% reduction is quite an nice result.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
The fines happen. The evidence is photographs and my testimony if the driver doesn't plead guilty.
One Twitter user documents his use of the process quite thoroughly: https://twitter.com/D00RZ0NE
One Twitter user documents his use of the process quite thoroughly: https://twitter.com/D00RZ0NE
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.
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).
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]
My instinct is that Uber fed this story to the Economist to try and counter their recently bad PR
My instinct is that this is wrong. Probably rather hard to bribe the economist.
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.
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.
?! 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.
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.
It's important to have statistics instead of just opinions. Especially if you want to change future regulation.
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?
So now articles that point out the good that ride-hailing apps do are considered interesting?
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.
I don't know... this credits Uber, and Uber is bad.
Because things can only be bad or only be good right?
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...
It's amusing seeing people try and spin this against Uber, wouldn't want to leave the bubble for to long.
"Ride-hailing apps may increase alcohol-related health problems"
So do trains and trams
...but not Uber CEO drunk arguing with drivers...lol
Makes total sense, I certainly have seen it.
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.
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.
[deleted]
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.