Posted on 05/09/2016 10:15:29 AM PDT by matt04
Uber and Lyft spent more than $8 million and bombarded voters with mailers, ads, phone calls and text messages. In the end, it wasn’t enough to convince residents in Austin, Texas to vote against a new fingerprint requirement for drivers.
On Saturday, Austin voted 56% to 44% against Proposition 1, which would have allowed ride-hailing companies to continue using their own background check systems. The city will now go ahead with plans to require fingerprint background checks and other regulations.
Both Uber and Lyft have announced they will no longer operate in the city as a result of the loss. Uber will stop service Monday morning at 8 am. Lyft said it will also “pause operations” on Monday.
“Disappointment does not begin to describe how we feel about shutting down operations in Austin,” said an Uber spokesperson in a statement. “We hope the City Council will reconsider their ordinance so we can work together to make the streets of Austin a safer place for everyone.”
The companies argued that fingerprinting relies on out-of-date databases and makes it difficult to hire enough drivers in a timely fashion. Advocates for fingerprinting say it’s more effective at screening out potential criminals.
“The rules passed by City Council don’t allow true ridesharing to operate. Instead, they make it harder for part-time drivers, the heart of Lyft’s peer-to-peer model, to get on the road and harder for passengers to get a ride. Because of this, we have to take a stand for a long-term path forward that lets ridesharing continue to grow across the country,” a Lyft spokesperson said in a statement.
(Excerpt) Read more at fox8.com ...
I don’t understand the problem with having the drivers fingerprinted. It seems a pretty basic security precaution, and it seems pretty cheap to accomplish. I’m surprised the insurance companies didn’t demand it.
Government is in the business of selling monopolies.
Nothing must stand in the way of commerce.
Diversity at work. Enjoy. No? Obviously you’re not part of the Borg yet.
Somewhere in you explanation of your experiences with cab drivers lays a description of the utopian vision of Obama’s America.
Austin is the Texas equivalent of Berkeley (or maybe Moscow) and of course libs deserve everything they get.
Out West, there have been reports of female passengers for Uber being raped and or robbed. Uber and Lyft may feel encumbered by these antiqated systems of security as with fingerprints, but they have reason to be careful. I suspect someone else with money in Austin will be happy to form an Uber-like service that does allow for fingerprints. There is obviously a good market already there.
I like Uber too.
You smell. They stink.
There really is no need - EXCEPT Austin is a liberal dictatorship demonated by the liberals in the University of Texas and the TX state government bureaucracies and the extremists in the Austin and county governments.
Thus, any free-market non-government-approved system like ride-sharing for - gasp! - money is hated and to-be-destroyed.
Assuming they don't, perhaps it is not as effective relative to the cost as you might surmise. Perhaps for that reason we ought to be skeptical of any government, such as the Austin City Council, presuming to know how safe, comfortable convenient transportation is best organized.
And this assumes that the council wants what is best for potential drivers and passengers as a whole, not what is best for the existing taxi cartel. Needless to say, that assumption is very questionable.
The winners in the Austin Proposition 1 defeat are the Capital Metro/taxi cartel of the People’s Socialist Kakistocracy of Austin, and their leftist supporters.
I’m just thinking about it from the perspective if I had to insure Uber against misbehavior of any of its drivers. I’d want a basic background check at a minimum, and that would include fingerprints.
I am assuming that Uber has insurance. Maybe they don’t.
I soured on Uber when I found out that they forbid their drivers - at least in New York - from carrying, even if they have a Concealed Carry Permit. And if anyone needs one, it’s someone driving a cab.
So they claim that they’re just a website, not a cab company. But the imposed more gun control on their drivers (who supposedly are independent contractors) than even New York City does.
There have been incidents, but there are probably less incidents than taxis or buses. In uber or lyft, both the driver and rider are known to uber, as well as the route the car takes, when the ride gets to the destination, etc. People who commit crimes during an uber ride are caught easily.
Exactly. I’ve been traveling a lot recently and I would not rely on Uber to get to the airport on time.
Btw in Toronto now!
I think that this is another example of government regulation because we can. Of course, they use that power to reward their supporters and punish their opponents. In this case, they are protecting the taxi monopoly. When we were colonies, all trade from America to other countries including other possessions in North America were required to be carried in British bottoms (ships). They were simply protecting British shipping at our expense. We did like this, but we couldn’t do anything about it until we became an Independent Country. Once we had done that, our governments, both local, state, and federal started to do the same sort of thing. It’s what governments do, especially socialist ones.
“Advocates for fingerprinting say it’s more effective at screening out potential criminals.”
I would wager these advocates also tend to have ownership in traditional taxicab companies...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.