Are Uber and Lyft responsible for reducing DUIs?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/07/10/are-uber-and-lyft-responsible-for-reducing-duis/

by robg • 12 years ago

61 53 12 years ago

GeorgeOrr2• 12 years ago

I particularly like that I don't have to deal with cash while tipsy and in the dark of night.

I've never used Lyft, but I have used Uber and usually find them them be quick and very service oriented. From what I've heard Lyft is given them competition in both ways, so I look forward to trying them as well.

Far better than any cab I've ever taken.

AlexMax• 12 years ago

The cabs I've used in the last few years have all had credit card swipers in the car. I figured this would be a universal feature of any moderately populated cities' cab system in 2014.

GeorgeOrr2• 12 years ago

The way Uber works is that they already have my credit card on file. I don't have to fumble with the card or my wallet either.

ska• 12 years ago

It seems to be fairly universal, but cabbies also drag their feet a lot on using them, in my experience. Whether this is because the remote units are fiddly and slow, or they just don't like having a paper trail on the tip & fare, I don't know.

jpb0104• 12 years ago

I've been in cabs where they give you a hard time about paying with credit cards, I'm assuming because of the fees or they'd rather deal with cash maybe under the table?

minimaxir• 12 years ago

Some cabs "strongly encourage" the use of cash, since there are no fees paid to the credit card company.

Using the 2013 NYC Taxi data that was posted earlier, the amount of people who pay with cash vs. amount of people who pay with credit card is about 50:50.

Here's a quick spreadsheet of the distribution: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EaP9LJ7i1MPREuypejOr...

monksy• 12 years ago

Not all cabs want to use it because 1. it's recorded and 2. "fees" that they don't want to pay.

The strategy used in Chicago when a credit card machine isn't working is just to tell them you don't have cash and you're walking out if they won't accept a card ("for a 'broken machine'") Magically it starts working again. [The city of Chicago mandates that they must be able to accept credit cards]

clarkm• 12 years ago

Yet almost every time they discourage you from paying with a credit card. And even if they don't, there's a good chance they'll try to make you pay with Square or something (at least in SF).

robg6• 12 years ago

Exactly my experience coming home late from the office. I call an Uber, leave my building when it arrives, get into a vehicle that at least has some trust associated with it, and I get out at my destination without my wallet ever leaving my pocket.

Psychologically, trust and safety are huge multipliers. Most of the press I see on these companies is convenience-oriented. My experience, and with extensive self-defense training, is that the whole experience is just much safer.

Unlike other modes of transportation, there are few times I'm really at-risk. I'm not standing outside trying to hail a taxi or going on the subway or walking through a park. I'm not getting into an unknown vehicle. And I'm not having to pull out my wallet.

capkutay• 12 years ago

I have ZERO sympathy for San Francisco cabs. Even with credit card swipers in the back, the cab drivers typically pressure you to pay cash. I know there's a difference between pressuring a customer and kindly asking them to use cash if possible. It was certainly the former.

I've had cases where the cab driver told me upfront he wouldn't drive me if I paid with credit card, going so far as driving me to an ATM so I can get him cash as though I OWED them a tip.

Uber/lyft disrupted an industry infected with laziness and bad attitudes.

pavel_lishin• 12 years ago

In New York, if the credit card reader in a cab is broken, by law the driver has to tell you before you get in. None of this "Oh, yeah, BY THE WAY, I have to drive you to an ATM now, and you guess whether the meter stays on while I do this."

doxcf434• 12 years ago

Couldn't agree more. They often don't answer the phone, when you do get through to some Danny DeVito at the other end, you then have to explain where you are exactly (vs. GPS). ETAs for the drivers are normally wrong, they don't txt you are.

I lived in Marin, and a cabbie required me to tip him 100% of the ride cost coming from SFO otherwise he wouldn't take me. Frequently getting back to Marin, from SF is a pain with cabs, they often won't take you.

Yeah, so screw'em... they can work for uber/lyft, I tip them generously with cash in addition to the fare, much better that way.

mmanfrin• 12 years ago

I called a cab in SF in the middle of the day (Luxor, I think). They said it would be about 15 minutes. 20 minutes later I see the cab pull in to the parking lot I was waiting in, get flagged by someone else, and drive off with them. I waited another 15 minutes in case that wasn't my cab that just drove off, but no cab came.

I welcome the death of the SF cab companies. Long Live Uber/Lyft/Sidecar.

judk• 12 years ago

It's not complicated. Uber charges more, so drivers are happy. If you offerd a cabbie a big tip, he would happily accept credit. Uber gives the benefit of pre-setting the higher rate without negotiating. But many people prefer to pay less.

withdavidli• 12 years ago

While I hope this would be true, all the graphs tells me is that we're going back down to 2003-2005 levels of DUIs. There can be several causes for this, maybe education on not to DUI caused it, maybe less people can afford cars (just read an articles that teens/ people in their 20s have aren't buying cars as much as previous generations), or want to drive in cities like SF where a day's parking can cost more than $30, you have to circle around several blocks to find a free space.

I do like the idea of not driving, and think the DUI rate will rapidly decrease once things like self driving cars better enable us to give up personal vehicles.

ulisesrmzroche• 12 years ago

It's just plotting the number of monthly arrests, that doesn't tell you much.

jxf• 12 years ago

It seems very difficult to conclude that Uber and Lyft are responsible for reducing DUIs from that graph.

* There's already a downward trend well before Uber and Lyft come into play.

* Even if the downward trend is stronger more recently, Waze also came into existence a few years ago. Maybe people were, e.g., downloading Waze and using it to find police cars beforehand.

* The graph measures arrests, not incidents. So it could be that, for instance, police are getting laxer about DUI enforcement, rather than that people are driving drunk less.

In short, there's too many confounding factors here to conclude that Lyft and Uber should get credit.

jessaustin2• 12 years ago

So it could be that, for instance, police are getting laxer about DUI enforcement, rather than that people are driving drunk less.

This may be true somewhere, but not anywhere that federal anti-DUI funds are tied to purchase of new vehicles and equipment. In those places, i.e. most of the nation, there is no laxity, even though there certainly should be.

paulhauggis• 12 years ago

I find it quite interesting that when private schools are mentioned as an alternative to some of the terrible public schools we have in the US, the HN majority (which I now need to mention as a whole, since most things are down voted if they don't fit the opinion of HN) goes crazy and talks about how anti-union this, etc.

But, both Uber and Lyft are completely going around the taxi unions in many cities in the US by not paying regulatory fees and it's a-ok.

271828182842• 12 years ago

private schools are mentioned as an alternative to some of the terrible public schools

Those debates don't have anything in common which is why you'll probably receive downvotes. For example, voucher money goes directly from the government to a school. 85% of private schools are religious organizations. Etc. They just aren't the same animals. It is akin to saying a lightbulb is a transistor because they both use electricity. Though true, that misses a lot of detail.

dang• 12 years ago

most things are down voted if they don't fit the opinion of HN

There is no such thing as "the opinion of HN". The community is divided on most issues. Different constituencies upvote and downvote different things.

There's a bias on some issues, like NSA/Snowden (albeit with a substantial dissenting minority). But on typical left vs. right issues, my sense is that the community is about evenly split, and so are the complaints of bias.

nostromo• 12 years ago

I doubt it has anything to do with Uber/Lyft specifically and everything to do with the availability of cabs. So, another way of framing this: how many DUI deaths have been caused by artificial limitations on the number of cab licences over the years?

In Seattle when I was in my early 20s, it was nearly impossible to call or catch a cab when the bars closed, so often we just walked home. And on New Year's Eve? Forget about it...

Incidentally, walking in a city while drunk is also dangerous. For about a third of U.S. pedestrian deaths, the pedestrian was drunk, according to one study. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/drunk-walking-leads-pedestria...

robg6• 12 years ago

Isn't the purpose of Uber/Lyft exactly about increasing the number of "cabs"? I don't see a distinction here, your explanation is coincident with the causal factors driving the effect.

YokoZar3• 12 years ago

The implication of this reasoning is that local government policies designed to protect incumbent cab drivers have been doing more than creating tension when Uber wants to enter the market -- they've been literally killing people for years.

271828182842• 12 years ago

I doubt it has anything to do with Uber/Lyft

You're seeing individual trees but not the forest. It has everything to do with Uber and Lyft specifically because they're the first in (ever? my lifetime.) to break into this and in doing so, provide more cabs. Nobody is claiming that it is a specific chocolate chip cookie that Lyft gives out that is preventing DUIs. Put another way, the entire reason you're leaving a comment on this thread about the possible reduction in DUIs from alternative cab companies is because of the alternative cab companies. Give credit where credit is due—they changed the game.

beaner• 12 years ago

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

jessaustin2• 12 years ago

Incidentally, walking in a city while drunk is also dangerous.

The most chilling near-miss I've ever seen was when a very drunk pedestrian stumbled across a boulevard at about 3AM and a car driven by a drunk passed within a foot of him at about 50 mph. (I know the driver was drunk because he had been at the same bar I had.) Neither drunk noticed that anything had happened.

Well, there was a third drunk person present, but I was riding my bicycle at the edge of the street.

lsc3• 12 years ago

My impression is that it's primarily the interface and reliability that makes Uber/Lyft better. Sure, short wait times are a nice bonus, but the primary problem with regular cabs isn't the speed so much as the unpredictability.

The problem is that I can't count on the voice-operated cab system. I have to call, and then wait outside at the pickup point, with a 50% chance of the cab actually getting there, at which point you call and get another 50% chance of the cab getting there within 30 minutes, at which point you repeat.

I have no idea if it's going to be 5 minutes or 120 minutes. I have to stay outside, too, because they won't call me when it's there.

If a cab took an hour but I could set it up on my phone while I was still in the bar, and it would alert me when it got there? That would be just fine with me.

Now, the local cab company could (and perhaps has, I have not checked lately) create an app that does just this; I don't really mind waiting half an hour if I had some assurance that the car would be there in half an hour.

philwelch• 12 years ago

I don't really mind waiting half an hour if I had some assurance that the car would be there in half an hour.

But why would you, if you could get a car within minutes?

_delirium2• 12 years ago

Weird, the reliability of voice-dispatched cabs here is about 100%. They give you an estimate, like "we'll be there in 5 minutes", and they are almost always there within the estimated time, at worst a few minutes late. The more I hear about SF cabs, the more I wonder whether Uber's success there isn't just an anomaly due to SF having particularly bad taxi service.

_delirium2• 12 years ago

Incidentally, walking in a city while drunk is also dangerous.

I think this depends on the urban design more than anything inherently dangerous about walking while drunk. Walking and/or bicycling home while drunk is a weekly Copenhagen pasttime, and pedestrian/bike fatalities are extremely rare. Since almost all pedestrian deaths are caused by cars, two simple expedients almost entirely eliminate them: 1) don't have high-speed car traffic in the middle of a city; and 2) have a high standard of driver education, so drivers can reliably drive in a way that never hits pedestrians.

data_scientist• 12 years ago

Freakeconomics analyses how dangerous it is to walk while drunk, and found it was 8 times more dangerous than driving drunk, for the same distance. cf http://freakonomics.com/2011/12/28/the-perils-of-drunk-walki...

YokoZar3• 12 years ago

People drinking in urban centers are more likely to walk home drunk (since they can). Urban centers are more dangerous for pedestrians.

People drinking in remote areas are more likely to drive home drunk (since there is no other choice). These drunk drivers will come in potential contact with fewer cars, but generate a lot more miles for the statistic.

While the quoted statistic is true at a literal level ("you are 8 times more likely to die per mile walked drunk than mile driven drunk"), the intuitive implication that you'd be safer using your car is not. And that, of course, is not even considering the safety of others.

danso• 12 years ago

Spoiler alert. The answer to the headline is, "Who knows? But nice to wonder, eh?"

Again, caveats are in order. We've simply plotted arrests on a timeline here; we haven't adjusted for changes in the city's population, or bar scene, or the economy. Any number of other things may have changed in the city over the last few years affecting DUI arrests. It's possible police have changed how they conduct DUI stops and arrests, or that public pressure on them to crack down on DUIs has ebbed with time. Other changes in public transit service may have impacted alternative routes that bar-hoppers take home.

It's also striking that San Francisco and Philadelphia show a steep and parallel rise in DUIs long before these services ever came to town; on both charts, it looks as if DUI numbers may be returning to an older normal as much as they've been falling. Perhaps these services have arrived on the market just in time to ride the benefits of an improving economy? (More theories on this welcome below as well).

It's sad that traffic-desperate news sites have forgotten how to write a assertive, non-question headline...something like "Measuring ride-sharing's impact on DUIs requires more data" would do just fine.

JetSpiegel• 12 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline... continues to apply then.

Nothing to see here.

Nursie• 12 years ago

Meh. This just sounds like a rehash of the Uber press release from a while back - http://blog.uber.com/tag/dui/

I doubt they're having much impact, personally, unless in cities where there isn't much of a developed cab infrastructure already, and people drive for a night out. This probably doesn't describe anywhere outside the US.

parfe• 12 years ago

The interesting observation is how the economy correlates to dui arrests. Either through people maintaining their lifestyle but not being able to afford a cab or police departments reacting to cuts in funding.

Crediting uber is a startup echo-chamber delusion.

vampirechicken• 12 years ago

More interesting to me are the statistics on drunk walking deaths. According to freakonomics.com, it is more dangerous to walk drunk then to drive drunk. I'd like to see those stats with the DUI stats.

Are Uber and Lyft responsible for reducing DUIs?

Related Stories