Black Market Ride-Sharing Increases in Austin

http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/23/black-market-ride-sharing-uber-lyft/

by ALee • 10 years ago

59 73 10 years ago

keyanp• 10 years ago

This article is inflammatory and slanted. It seems like the author cares less about reporting than about driving an anti-regulatory agenda.

Loughla2• 10 years ago

Slanted is an understatement. The following words are from the article, written by the author, and take the article out of the realm of actual reporting, and into the realm of bullshit --opinion--

hilariously
The City Of Austin Is Embarrassing Itself
ham-fisted
absurd
un-ironic cluelessness
senior correspondent for The Federalist.

That last one was an insult.

deftnerd• 10 years ago

This link was originally dead but I vouched for it as I was just a few paragraphs into reading it. If I read all the way through, I would have left it dead.

The content started just fine but progressively gets worse and worse with the authors opinions and vitriolic anger coloring the work.

peterwwillis4• 10 years ago

Go check out the rest of The Federalist's articles. For example, The Federalist Editors And Friends Discuss Kim Kardashian's Butt, Why Bernie Sanders Supporters Should Vote Trump, How Environmentalists Opened The Door For Zika, and my favorite, America’s War On The Confederacy Is Really A War On The Past.

wahsd• 10 years ago

The newcomer Austinites that have flooded into the city over the last years are immensely butt-hurt about the whole Lyft/Uber ordeal.

I suspect the first time someone is robbed or raped we'll get a cry-bully rant pushing blame onto the city.

peterwwillis4• 10 years ago

Forcing people to use illegal transportation does victimize people, and if the city is forcing the transportation to be illegal, said victims are the city's responsibility.

ncr1002• 10 years ago

+1 - not an analytical article / bit of authorship.

The author labels as "onerous [regulations imposed by Austin City]" (in the linked article he wrote) avoiding providing detail for the regulations he judges as onerous:

"It seems there’s no new product or service that meddling liberals won’t figure out a way to regulate out of existence under the pretense of knowing what’s best for you.

"Over the weekend in the liberal bastion of Austin, Texas, a handful of pro-regulation voters opted to keep in place a host of petty, irrational, and burdensome regulations the city council imposed on ridesharing companies like Uber and Lyft in December."

Ironically ending the unanalytical article with: "I know it sounds crazy, but it’s almost like they don’t care about solving these problems."

- http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/10/uber-lyft-were-driven-ou...

ncr1002• 10 years ago

Why is this particular article on HN?

Look at the poster image - using a commonly maligned ethnic minority as the "face" of this movement. An attempt at bigotry IMO.

Aelinsaar2• 10 years ago

"The City Of Austin Is Embarrassing Itself."

I wouldn't go that far. They're not handling this very well, but this article is a bit of demagoguery in the skin of "news".

exelius2• 10 years ago

How so, by requiring background checks for Uber drivers? When I lived there, they required the same livery license for pedicab drivers as well -- which was basically getting fingerprinted and paying a $25 fee.

Uber and Lyft were the ones who pulled out. The regulation that Austin passed was in no way overbearing; it just required fingerprints. They claim this "destroys the ridesharing economy" but in my experience, Uber is basically a part-time job for most drivers. Most people will go get fingerprinted for a part-time job. Very few people are ridesharing; but maybe this undercuts the argument that Lyft and Uber use for the drivers not being employees...

yarou2• 10 years ago

Most people will go get fingerprinted for a part-time job.

That's how it starts. Then the government starts mandating transdermal implants at birth that contain a GPS chipset, and a kill switch. We're headed to a level of dystopian control that would make a brutal banana republic dictator shudder.

alistairSH• 10 years ago

Were Uber and Lyft being required to perform a level of background check beyond what was required of existing taxi cab drivers? Or, were the new set of regulations simply bringing Uber/Lyft drivers in line with other professional drivers?

The whole thing is weird to me. I've used Uber a few times and the car that showed up has always been a licensed limo (just dumb luck, I suppose). Pretty sure I'd turn down a ride in some clapped-out Civic, should that be the car that showed up (but, perhaps that's why I usually use car services and not Uber).

kybernetyk• 10 years ago

The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.

The free market interprets regulation as damage and routes around it.

Wanting to control either of both is an exercise in futility.

tacos• 10 years ago

The problem with these platitudes is that they distract from the real issue: all the money is made by the players who control the "routing around."

It is not futility at all. It is a vital energy input to the system. Broken to you -- fixed (as in "rigged") to them.

bdcravens• 10 years ago

Gun owners see gun control as damage and routes around it.

Business owners see labor laws as damage and route around it.

vonklaus2• 10 years ago

correct. I agree with you as well as parent to some degree. However, chiefly, it shoud be noted that

Business Owners and Gun Owners operate in the free market and presumably use the internet. Wherease everyone who is operating within a freemarket or active on the internet may not be a gun owner or business owner.

The parent is talking about at a system level. You are talking, at least my charrachterization of it, about a layer of abstraction within a system.

SilasX2• 10 years ago

The Void interprets Existence as damage and

FordPrefectAO• 10 years ago

What about the article today: Chinese censorship can teach the world that it works?

illumen• 10 years ago

“My sense is we were innovating too quickly for Uber and Lyft. You get to be a big company, you’re less nimble. But these companies have to expect disruption.”

Gold. Reminds me of how Slowgle is getting disrupted by Paris.

vonklaus2• 10 years ago

I think this is great. However, if you are Austin and you're idea was to strong arm Lyft & Uber into allowing background checks to make ride sharing "safer", one would imagine spawning a comleteley unregulated black market would be "suboptimal" to the desired outcome.

peterwwillis4• 10 years ago

In Baltimore, the black market cabs are called "hacks". They exist mainly because people don't have enough money to afford cabs and there aren't enough bus routes.

"Hacking" involves driving along popular roads looking for people who use their index and middle finger to claw at the air ("hawkin'") to indicate they'd like a ride. Fares are hashed out before the ride begins, usually a flat rate, and well under the price of a cab. These illegal cabs sometimes take advantage of the riders because they can't complain to the police. Though in many cases one might develop a relationship with a particular hack and call them directly for rides.

6stringmerc2• 10 years ago

Can genuinely say that back when I was in Austin for a couple years, partying hard and occasionally linked up with some other go-getters, most of them had business cards for Taxis or Town Cars that would cater to well-to-do individuals, mostly college-aged party scene people. This was about a decade ago and I thought it was quite useful at the time.

peterwwillis4• 10 years ago

That's traditionally called a "black car service", a sort of independent contractor fancy taxi. Different from a limousine or executive car service. http://www.allstarlimo.com/All-Star-Limo-Blog/2013/8/Executi...

aero1423• 10 years ago

As an Austinite, the whole think looked more like a childish pissing match rather than some real debate on regulation vs the free market. Austin City Council took up a fight where there wasn't a problem, and Uber paid 9 million to fight something that they are already doing 3 hours down the road. http://www.driveuberhouston.com/fingerprint-background-check...

The whole thing makes no sense to me. The City Council won a fight, but gained nothing, Uber/Lyft lost a market but will happily move on to some other place. Meanwhile, the only real losers are the people living in Austin who are stuck in some of the worst traffic in the nation and now have a worse on demand ride system. What a waste.

toomuchtodo8• 10 years ago

You might consider that the citizens of Austin voted on the measure that passed.

This wasn't Austin City Council against Uber and Lyft. It was the citizens of Austin voting for provisions Uber and Lyft needed to comply with (and choose not to).

blisterpeanuts2• 10 years ago

Only 17.3% of the voters turned out. Hardly the will of the people, just the ones who cared enough to vote, or were literate enough to understand what day of the week the vote was, or had a way to get to the voting station.

Also, the ballot question itself apparently was worded so confusingly that it wasn't clear what box to check. Here's the actual ballot question (from http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local/dont-mess-up-your...):

Shall the City Code be amended to repeal City Ordinance No. 20151217-075 relating to Transportation Network Companies; and replace with an ordinance that would repeal and prohibit required fingerprinting, repeal the requirement to identify the vehicle with a distinctive emblem, repeal the prohibition against loading and unloading passengers in a travel lane, and require other regulations for Transportation Network Companies?

Then there are two boxes below that. Next to one it says “For the Ordinance” and on the other, “Against the Ordinance.”

The writer points out that it's not clear which ordinance the boxes are referring to, or what the net effect of your vote. Usually, on ballots I've seen over the decades, there's a summary phrase on the ballot like "if you vote YES, you are supporting gay marriage" or something like that, nice and clear.

If a clear phrasing had been provided, I wonder whether it still would have gone that way.

vkou• 10 years ago

Taxis, traditional, or Uber-flavoured, actually make traffic worse. Unlike a private automobile, they add to congestion because they need to travel to their pickup point.

If you actually want to fix traffic, tax cars, and add some buses/trains.

aero1423• 10 years ago

Perhaps there are situations where this is true, and I'd be open to studies on this, but my experience says otherwise.

I know people who did not own a car and instead mostly used buses and/or bikes to get around Austin. They knew they always had a reliable Uber ride to fill in the gaps. Taxis adjust to demand terribly in Austin so they are not reliable or pleasant to use. So, now these people are using cars more often because they don't have a reliable way to fill in the gaps.

2) Uber reduces the need for parking which means more parking lots and garages, which pushes business further away from each other, making walking between places more difficult. As far as I know, increasing density is a reliable way of reducing traffic because it makes alternatives more attractive.

3) I would love to see more buses and trains in Austin. Unfortunately, Austin has failed to pass much on that front largely due to incompetence in government all over the place. If I had my way, we would be investing heavily in buses, trains, walkways, all of it. Uber is a great way to fill in gaps between these. I see the fingerprinting battle as a giant distraction from real traffic problems.

SilasX2• 10 years ago

The effect is more complex and there are more dynamics at play.

Certainly, any one car being used is less people-dense than a bus or train. But people are more likely to "take the leap" to a lower-car-use life when they have the option of being able to call an Uber to get to a destination that's not well served.

galdosdi2• 10 years ago

What? Private automobiles have to travel to their pickup point too. You just forgot about this because they usually do so at the end of the previous trip.

ProAm• 10 years ago

Uber/Lyft put more time on the clock in regards to viewing their employees as contractors. That is what this was all about.

naveen99• 10 years ago

Houston is much larger than austin (different market category). Uber also does fingerprints in nyc. Uber earlier left san antonio over fingerprints for 6 months, until san antonio compromised with optional finger prints.

If Uber was still in austin, i would think about taking the bus from houston instead of driving (or not bothering because its too much trouble).

With Uber, I frequently car pool with my wife, as i can always take uber back on the way, if our times don't match.

With Uber, I much more frequently consider bus / train, as i don't have to worry about transportation to and from the metro station.

clemensley• 10 years ago

I'd predict some decentralized service will fill that market need. Anything that works better than craigslist and is hard to take down.

ajford• 10 years ago

Problem is, Craigslist is full of spam/scams. It's hard to filter through, and takes time and effort. Not something I want to do via mobile at $arbitrary_time when I may or may not be in a hurry.

And decentralizing eliminates one of the best things going for Uber/Lyft, the background checks and tracking.

swang• 10 years ago

So a tech company is "facilitating" a "BLACK MARKET" for ride-sharing... what? Was Uber a "black market" too?

The Federalist view generally only has an inkling of the truth to whatever fits their conservative narrative. So if there is a story here, I doubt it is the full message

I find it hard to trust anything on the site when one of its founders, Ben Domenech, plagiarized articles while working at WaPo and had to resign. This was also on top of him lying and saying he had permission from one(?) of the authors.

Not that I support the Austin's City Council about the Uber/Lyft situation. But at the sign of anything happening they instantly write an article to reflect how "bad" the city council's decision was. See also: anything about Seattle's increased minimum wage.

beatpanda• 10 years ago

Uh huh. Listen. I've been around the world doing "black market ride sharing", where the ride is actually shared, for years. There aren't any regulations on it, other than "don't stand in the road asking for a ride". Government regulation isn't preventing anyone from sharing anything. It may give you some extra rules to follow if you're running a business though.

aluhut• 10 years ago

Since Uber was not allowed here (Black was I guess) in Germany, I wonder how does insurance work on Uber or those black market ride sharers in the US?

crispy20004• 10 years ago

Not sure about Germany, but in Austin, Uber wanted their drivers to carry auto insurance, although the company also has its own policy to cover drivers--many personal auto insurance policies explicitly do not cover accidents while the insured party is driving for hire.

joezydeco• 10 years ago

About as well as you think, which is zero. If an insurance company finds out your injured/killed passenger was for-hire under the table, most standard policies don't cover this especially in the age of Uber. You're screwed.

Yhippa• 10 years ago

Arcade City, the “Uber killer” ride-sharing company, as it’s known, says it’s developing a peer-to-peer ride-sharing app that will connect people who need a ride with people who have a car, and eliminate “concern about red tape or corporate BS—just people providing people a needed service.”

I like water, meat, and medical services, but prefer some amount of regulation on them. I'm sure there's a fine line between reasonable regulation and protectionism or irrationality when it comes to these things.

Here’s the big idea: We can cut out the corporate middlemen — and make government regulations obsolete — by transparently providing rider and driver with clear information about the other party to each transaction, including a strong reputation and ratings system where riders and drivers ‘level up’ after community-vetted good behavior on the platform.

Who's going to take a chance on the drivers and riders with no reputation?

forrestthewoods• 10 years ago

Regulation is necessary for health and safety reasons. Need for regulation beyond health and safety is quite small. Not zero, but on a relative scale quite small.

Uber and Lyft's track record for safety in the US is quite strong. As is the willingness of riders and drivers to participate in the system from no reputation.

The need for regulation has not been justified. Regulations shouldn't be passed unless there is a clear reason to do so and measurable way to declare that regulation a success or failure.

xyience• 10 years ago

Who's going to take a chance on the drivers and riders with no reputation?

Fake users.

6stringmerc2• 10 years ago

Pardon my amusement at the observation this conflagration is eerily like the City of Austin imported more California culture than it wanted - oh sure, everybody likes tech start ups, but the whole wasteful socially progressive government style that appartently tagged along isn't so loved. Hm, funny that.

toomuchtodo8• 10 years ago

Startup culture is more libertarian than socially progressive. Socially progressive would be Austin providing a robust public transportation system, thereby removing the need for ridesharing.

Wouldn't it be more efficient for public transportation to be provided via taxes and user fees versus Uber and Lyft siphoning off of the flow of transportation payments for their shareholders? That seems inefficient to me.

crispy20004• 10 years ago

More efficient? By what measurement? Certainly not the consumer's time nor the taxpayers' money!

Billion dollar light rail trains that roll empty are not a terribly efficient use of money. Buses are more flexible, but waiting for a bus then having to walk from the bus stop home is apparently an unsatisfactory use of time to many passengers.

A system that connects a passenger with the nearest available driver and doesn't take too much for their part in the transaction would seem to be efficient in time and money for both the passenger and driver. In addition, it provides a source of employment for people who are looking for work and meet the criteria.

Not saying that Uber, Lyft, and other "ride sharing" services are all on the side of the angels, but their success points to a need which they are meeting.

triangleman2• 10 years ago

It's the other way around. Tax-fleeing Californians who moved to Austin expected an anti-regulatory climate, and found that the city is more conservative than they wanted. Austinites are fine with tech startups but don't try and strong-arm them into changing their laws to suit the needs of out-of-state corporations.

crispy20004• 10 years ago

Had to laugh at the thought of Austin as too conservative.

And given that both Uber and Lyft have headquarters in San Francisco, they could hardly be less "tax-fleeing"!

tzs• 10 years ago

The author can't seem to keep his story straight. In paragraph 3 he makes this claim:

When a ballot proposal that would have replaced the city ordinance failed, Uber and Lyft left town as promised. Since May 9, there have been no ride-sharing services available in this city of almost a million people.

and then a few paragraphs later makes this claim, directly contradicting the above claim:

The city’s response is only making things worse. Last week it held a job fair for out-of-work Uber and Lyft drivers, at which it encouraged drivers to get fingerprinted and sign up for the only remaining ridesharing company in town, a local app called Get Me.

vannevar• 10 years ago

The decision by Uber and Lyft to temporarily abandon Austin (game theory suggests that both will be back, I suspect within months) may backfire on them, as the drivers discover that they really don't need them. All the drivers need is a dispatch service to coordinate the data from their phones. What makes an Uber driver? A sticker and an app on your phone? That's precious little value to deliver for the large bite Uber takes out of the driver's earnings. My prediction is that dispatch services like Uber and Lyft will become commodities, and the events in Austin will only accelerate that process.

hackbinary• 10 years ago

Didn't Austin get rid of Uber and Lyft because of the entrenched/encumband 'taxi' industry and the big finance industry owning and financing taxi 'licenses'?

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/cab-medallion-own...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2014/09/08/wish-yo...

Black Market Ride-Sharing Increases in Austin

Related Stories