Paul Graham on Uber and Lift Ban in Austin
twitter.com
twitter.com
Voters have, in multiple instances, voted to deprive minorities of civil rights.
There is also a strong bias in what sorts of people vote. This "special election" had no other ballot items. Few people voted, probably because not a lot of people cared enough to go to a polling place. One of the demographics most likely to use uber/lyft is also least likely to vote.
On a personal note, I moved to Austin from the SF Bay Area a few months ago so that my spouse could pursue a PhD, and did vote on the issue. I don't really care about politics. I just don't want to have to wake up a loved one at 5am to get a ride to the airport (which I had to do Friday). I don't know who's more to blame, but I wish the city council and uber/lyft would stop their petty bickering and come to an agreement.
Edit: Also note that the vote result was actually "change nothing" - the rules uber/lyft don't like were passed by the city months ago, but aren't in effect yet.
If Uber and Lyft prefer to not operate in Austin rather than comply with this rule, that's their choice and their service will be unavailable there, but not because of any "ban".
For next time...
https://www.google.com/#q=austin%20tx%20taxi&rflfq=1&rlha=0&...:
It could be argued that these sort of regulations are not needed at all in the first place - as long as companies are transparent about it and people can vote with their wallets. However, there is a line. Where that line is drawn is decided by the society. I'd be happy as long as that decision is transparent.
Democracy is by no means perfect - transparency and an involved populace would make it work better. If either is found lacking, we should try to make it better.
Anyway, I don't think I see why I couldn't pay anyone I want to drive me from point A to point B.
You certainly can, just as you can pay anyone you want to have sex with you; but that is not the same as saying that prostitution is legal.
I don't think uber and lyft should have left over background checking and fingerprints. Idk which side will acquiesce first, I just hope someone does.
Yet we still make public safety decisions on that kind of flimsy thinking all the time.
Either new regulations improve outcomes or they don't. But we'll never find out by yelling at each other, or by taking a poll. Governments could conduct science-based regulation if they wanted to, especially when it comes to public health and safety -- areas where there is broad agreement on the desired outcomes, just disagreement on what will actually achieve those ends.
Do these new regulations really improve safety? That's a testable hypothesis.
(It seems unlikely that they do, given the low background rate of rideshare-driver crime. But I'm open to evidence.)