Prop 1 fails, marking defeat for Uber and Lyft in Austin - Polidicks

[quote] AUSTIN (KXAN) — As Proposition 1 failed Saturday, in a major defeat for ridesharing companies, all eyes are turned to Uber and Lyft to see if they will follow through on their promise to leave Austin. [/quote] [url]http://kxan.com/2016/05/07/prop-1-fails-marking-defeat-for-uber-and-lyft-in-austin/[/url] [editline]8th May 2016[/editline] Fun fact: [quote]The Council are hypocrites.... In March, City Council enacted the "Fair Chance" ordinance prohibiting employers from asking about or considering a job applicant’s criminal history before making a conditional offer of employment. In other words...an employer can not even ask about an applicant’s criminal history on a job application; An employer can not refuse to consider an applicant who does not provide criminal history information before receiving a conditional offer of employment.[/quote]

The proposition itself did not "ban" Uber or Lyft, but requires finger-printing for background checks. Still an enormous burden for someone who wants to make side-money and for Uber to advertise their services as being the cheapest possible alternative with almost zero overhead. For this, I can see why the voters failed. I doubt any city would vote to ban Uber/Lyft, but phrase the proposition to something like "Fingerprinting staff to ensure they have no criminal history so you can be safe" and everyone will vote yes. Also IIRC bus drivers are not finger printed though

Bus drivers aren't printed and the companies would be required to pay the city even -more- in addition to printing (which aren't subsidized either from what I can see). Way to trash Austins transport even more. [editline]8th May 2016[/editline] Oh and only 56% voted no

[quote]The Council are hypocrites.... In March, City Council enacted the "Fair Chance" ordinance prohibiting employers from asking about or considering a job applicant’s criminal history before making a conditional offer of employment. In other words...an employer can not even ask about an applicant’s criminal history on a job application; An employer can not refuse to consider an applicant who does not provide criminal history information before receiving a conditional offer of employment.[/quote] Cue every business that deals with sensitive information leaving Austin.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50279484]The proposition itself did not "ban" Uber or Lyft, but requires finger-printing for background checks. Still an enormous burden for someone who wants to make side-money and for Uber to advertise their services as being the cheapest possible alternative with almost zero overhead. For this, I can see why the voters failed. I doubt any city would vote to ban Uber/Lyft, but phrase the proposition to something like "Fingerprinting staff to ensure they have no criminal history so you can be safe" and everyone will vote yes. Also IIRC bus drivers are not finger printed though[/QUOTE] Well if you word it like that I can't see how its a bad thing, I probably would've voted against it too because I dont know any better

Honestly tho' after the whole scandal that happened at (iirc) new years' eve where people was charged several hundred dollars for a few miles' drive, I'm perfectly okay with the state going in on services like these. Still tho', it's ridicoulus to single them out. I'm fair sure no traditional taxi driver needs to go through something like this.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50279631]Well if you word it like that I can't see how its a bad thing, I probably would've voted against it too because I dont know any better[/QUOTE] There have been TONS of scare-mongering commercials in Austin the past few months trying to make it seem like drivers were 100% going to kill you.

I don't know man, I like the idea that the random driver I'm getting in a car with isn't some unknown person.

I got my fingerprints electronically scanned and sent to the government for $12 for my CC permit. It took about 5 minutes and was totally not a hassle.

[QUOTE=Ajacks;50281018]I got my fingerprints electronically scanned and sent to the government for $12 for my CC permit. It took about 5 minutes and was totally not a hassle.[/QUOTE] My local police station does fingerprinting for pretty cheap. sure it's an extra step, but it's usually not that expensive. [editline]8th May 2016[/editline] Plus it takes like 5 minutes.

[QUOTE=Tools;50280133]Honestly tho' after the whole scandal that happened at (iirc) new years' eve where people was charged several hundred dollars for a few miles' drive, I'm perfectly okay with the state going in on services like these. [/QUOTE] It was literally said before you accepted the ride. If it says "x43 rate" why would you still accept the ride? You are therefore accepting the 43 times higher rate whatever that may be. Of course every cab company and cab-esque company is swamped on new years night. Not like I'm like oh yeah it was totally fair, but business isn't fair and you don't have to accept the price for the ride...

[QUOTE=Demolitions2;50280882]There have been TONS of scare-mongering commercials in Austin the past few months trying to make it seem like drivers were 100% going to kill you.[/QUOTE] Ah gotcha. Even though I live here I dont really watch TV unless a Spurs game is on lol

This ban is stupid fearmongering. The taxis here, and most places, are terrible and much more expensive and unsafe than uber or lyft, as well as incredibly inconvenient and just generally poor experiences. Unclean cars, slow arrival, extortionate fees, poor knowledge of the area and best routes to take, and sometimes they don't even speak English. The incidence of crimes occurring in taxis, or just generally the likelihood of being screwed over by a taxi driver, is significantly higher than a lyft or uber because the monopoly on transportation means they don't need to provide an enjoyable or safe ride, because you have no choice of you need to get from point A to point B. This doesn't hurt the wealthy, only the poor and young who don't have easy access to a car because of income, or who are socially active and don't want to drive drunk. Uber and lyft have been godsends to prevent drunk driving because they are so convenient and relatively affordable, and because Austin is full of college kids and active adults who enjoy nights out on the town and don't mind an extra cost if there is a lot of requests for drivers. (leading to that 45x fee) The problem is that uber and lyft already have great background checks, because if they didn't, and bad things happened, people just wouldn't use their services. People would give poor reviews citing safety or cost, and the company would be forced to improve, or competition would succeed, or in the furthest case, regulation can be imposed. Since there was no monopoly on ride sharing the same way there is a pseudo-monopoly on taxi services, these innovations are able to occur. However, the incidences of these crimes has been minimal and overblown by the media, and no one has even attempted to look at the statistics; you're infinitely more endangered by using a taxi, walking home from 6th street to west campus at 2AM, and busses don't even run past 11:00PM, so those late nights out are even more risky because Austin completely lacks the infrastructure for public transport to replace uber and lyft. They're shooting their city in the foot. It doesn't help that the bill was worded in a scaremongering way, trying to paint uber and lyft as some corporate sell outs that let rapists and murderers be drivers, even though their background checks are even more intensive than those imposed on taxi services, without being so intrusive that a regular person can't become a driver quickly and easily. They're no-tolerance policy for reports of drunk driving or inappropriate actions is also very intense and I doubt many taxi drivers would get away with some of their actions under the same restraints. It's easy to make a complaint through uber or lyft since you see the exact name and profile of the driver and get asked to rate your experience afterwards, but you have to call a skeezy phone number to get some random guy to get you in his taxi, and complaints are difficult to make, because you need receipt information, ride dates, and you definitely don't know your driver's history. The only reason this passed is because those who rely on uber or lyft; the young and poor, didn't vote, and this only failed by 6%. Having to register with outdated finger print systems wouldn't improve safety, just raise the barrier of entry for drivers and make it harder for people crunched for time or money to apply for being a driver even though uber and lyft have significantly more intensive protocols. The taxi monopoly has returned, Austin public transport is still a joke, drunk drivers will now be back on the roads without an easy alternative, young people will have to walk unsafe walks from nights out that have already resulted in a number of sexual assaults, and people will have to rely on friends and awful busses and terrible $80 2 mile taxi rides in a disgusting 1999 Honda. People without cars who need to get to work or home from emergencies will now have to wait an upwards of 45 minutes if you're not downtown to get on a bus, and then wait another 45 minutes to get to the location, when a driver could get you there in 10 minutes. For a city that claims it's a metropolitan place like New York or San Fransisco, the transportation system is criminally neglected in anywhere besides downtown, and most of South Austin has one stop for an entire 5 mile radius. It took me 2 hours to get from campus to my workplace with this shitty transport, and the number of times I relied on uber to get me there or home in emergencies or for classes is uncountable. The bill passed almost fraudulently and its expectations and restrictions do nothing to make Austin safer. Citing the Kalamazoo shootings as the biggest incentive for this bill is criminal, because said restrictions would not have prevented the shooting, and these occurances are rare and stemmed from issues that need to be addressed at the health and welfare level, not the business level. [editline]8th May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=SashaWolf;50281006]I don't know man, I like the idea that the random driver I'm getting in a car with isn't some unknown person.[/QUOTE] Uber has done better at keeping drivers safe and respectable than taxi drivers. Every taxi ride I've been in has been terrible. My hundreds of uber and lyft rides have been nothing but pleasant. In uber rides I've gotten candy, my own music, water, even trivia games, and an efficient ride by a knowledgable local driver; all in a 2015 Honda Civic. Taxis have given my bloated $80 rides across the wrong parts of town by guys that didn't speak English, drove something from the 90s with peeling leather and a smell of musty old clothes. Plus I don't know my driver, whereas with uber, I get to see his profile, name, ride history, ratings, and even his location; plus it's easy to make a complaint, one bad review by some girl claiming you spoke inappropriately, and you're out of there. Making a taxi complain is convoluted and you're not even likely to get a response. I've even gotten full refunds for uber rides that weren't efficient based on uber's GPS system, and I had regular drivers that I actually got to know well. Hell, if you can't maintain 4/5 star rating, you don't get to drive with Uber.

[QUOTE=Loriborn;50282597] Uber has done better at keeping drivers safe and respectable than taxi drivers. Every taxi ride I've been in has been terrible. My hundreds of uber and lyft rides have been nothing but pleasant. In uber rides I've gotten candy, my own music, water, even trivia games, and an efficient ride by a knowledgable local driver; all in a 2015 Honda Civic. Taxis have given my bloated $80 rides across the wrong parts of town by guys that didn't speak English, drove something from the 90s with peeling leather and a smell of musty old clothes. Plus I don't know my driver, whereas with uber, I get to see his profile, name, ride history, ratings, and even his location; plus it's easy to make a complaint, one bad review by some girl claiming you spoke inappropriately, and you're out of there. Making a taxi complain is convoluted and you're not even likely to get a response. I've even gotten full refunds for uber rides that weren't efficient based on uber's GPS system, and I had regular drivers that I actually got to know well.[/QUOTE] tbf if this guy is dodgy about getting an uber from a stranger than I doubt hes gonna literally take candy from a stranger

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50282665]tbf if this guy is dodgy about getting an uber from a stranger than I doubt hes gonna literally take candy from a stranger[/QUOTE] The point being his uber driver is less a stranger than a neighbor you let your kids trick or treat because of their intensive background checks that 33% of current Austin taxi drivers would fail.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50279484]The proposition itself did not "ban" Uber or Lyft, but requires finger-printing for background checks. Still an enormous burden for someone who wants to make side-money and for Uber to advertise their services as being the cheapest possible alternative with almost zero overhead.[/QUOTE] So basically all they did was impose a fraction of the regulations normal cab companies have to abide by, and Uber / Lyft nope'd out. [editline]8th May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Aman;50282295]It was literally said before you accepted the ride. If it says "x43 rate" why would you still accept the ride? You are therefore accepting the 43 times higher rate whatever that may be. Of course every cab company and cab-esque company is swamped on new years night.[/QUOTE] That's just modern highway robbery.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;50284147]So basically all they did was impose a fraction of the regulations normal cab companies have to abide by, and Uber / Lyft nope'd out. [editline]8th May 2016[/editline] That's just modern highway robbery.[/QUOTE] Except lyft and uber already have their own regulation that they impose on themselves. If they didn't, they'd actually have these crimes occur, thus leading to safety concerns and poor reputation, meaning nobody would use these services. Taxis have shitty regulation, which is one of the reasons nobody wants to use them, but they had a monopoly on the transportation industry so what are we to do about it? Lyft and Uber come around, try to challenge the status quo and offer a great service while imposing heavy limits to ensure safety, and now the taxi unions are crying, lobbying for uber to have these restrictions that make it even harder and more expensive for drivers, take away the company's rights, and don't actually make the system safer because, as I've said, uber and lyft impose regulations that only 66% of taxi drivers could pass. Uber and lyft don't want to deal with this bullshit fearmongering that's only in place to put the taxi monopoly back in place. Lmao how is that highway robbery? Taxis are like $80 for a 5 mile trip but uber and lyft set their fares fairly based on supply and demand. If there is a limit on drivers and a bunch of requests because it's New Years, you have to be willing to pay extra, and most of it goes to the drivers dealing with that traffic, drunkenness, and busyness, so they get a nice paycheck for spending their New Years working. It's not like uber and lyft keep all that money. Plus, you're warned MULTIPLE TIMES beforehand the calculated cost with the EXACT percentage rate increase based on your location and destination. With taxis you're at the mercy of a guesstimate and the meter and a taxi driver's shitty knowledge of the area. Hell, the cost of a trip across town might even cost less than gas and parking, it's why people use these services so often. If it was highway robbery, they'd use a taxi or busses, except the former is even more expensive and the latter doesn't operate after 11:00PM. I can get to a place that would take 4 hours walking, 2 hours by bus, or $40 by taxi, for only $6 with Uber. That's not robbery. [editline]8th May 2016[/editline] If taxis regulation was all so great, no one would care about using it, and lyft and uber wouldn't exist. The point is, taxis are not safe, are not clean, are not pleasant experiences by any means, and are far from convenient, and the regulation does nothing to make them worth using, but because you're desperate, you use it anyway. With uber and lyft creating competition that is not only safer, but actually enjoyable and clean and nice, there is no reason to use taxis, and the unions know this. The incidences of uber crimes are so low that each time they've occurred it's been a national headline, and more often than not, these instances wouldn't have even been stopped by the taxis-imposed regulation. [editline]8th May 2016[/editline] [url]http://kxan.com/2015/10/27/uber-drivers-who-failed-its-background-check-have-austin-issued-permit/[/url] [quote] A memo to be sent to Mayor Steven Alder Tuesday afternoon from Uber Austin’s General Manager Marco McCottry says of 163 Austin cab drivers who applied to Uber, 53 “were prevented from partnering with Uber due to failing Uber’s background check process,” McCottry wrote in the memo obtained by KXAN News. Further, 19 of those 53 were rejected “because of a recent serious offense (conviction). Crimes included felony assaults, DWIs and a hit and run.” Uber says its staff used chauffeur’s license data from the city of Austin from 2012-2015.[/quote] [editline]8th May 2016[/editline] Yeah that city regulation on taxi drivers sure is making your trip safer when your driver can be a convicted felon and an uber driver has to have a clean record. /s

[QUOTE=Tools;50280133]Honestly tho' after the whole scandal that happened at (iirc) new years' eve where people was charged several hundred dollars for a few miles' drive, I'm perfectly okay with the state going in on services like these.[/QUOTE] I actually don't understand this line of thought. There are two scenarios: 1) You don't have Uber and you wait for a Taxi at the normal regulated rate. 2) You have Uber and you can choose to pay a lot during high demand times to get an Uber or you can wait for a Taxi at the normal regulated rate. You literally don't get hurt at all by Uber charging a lot when the demand is high. All that does is ensure that only people who REALLY want or need to get a driver quickly will use it. Force them to charge lower prices during those high demand times and you'll be in the same boat as normal taxis. You'll just have to wait longer.

+ they were shown the price and given a chance to confirm since it was an increased rate, how hammered do you have to be to accept a $1k bill. I just wish the city set up an easy to use location for being printed if they want this to be a thing, as well as an easy way to verify it for the Uber side.. as well as enforcing it for all public transportation otherwise its clear its an attack on Uber/Lyft

austin is a small city with a metro feel that wants to act as if it were a big city like new york or san francisco but without having the infrastructure in place to actually make those decisions rational

[QUOTE=Loriborn;50285022]austin is a small city with a metro feel that wants to act as if it were a big city like new york or san francisco but without having the infrastructure in place to actually make those decisions rational[/QUOTE] I've said it many times: the only way to fix Austin's traffic is to nuke the city and start all over. Lucky me I work on the east side at 5am but now I can't get hammered downtown without a DD

As someone who only followed this vaguely from friends' fb messages and shit, all of the opposition I saw was more ideological "corporations don't get to decide the laws that regulate them" stuff than actual problems with Uber/Lyft's background checking policies. Basically the city decided on regulations for these kinds of companies, and uber/lyft didn't want to comply so they tried to muscle in on the city government by threatening to leave (and buying supporters ofc). I'm not saying there wasn't fear mongering or that it didn't affect the results, just reporting what I saw personally. Also as others have said, the decision didn't require them to leave and it feels like they did mainly to show other cities that they'll follow through with their threats.