Hacker News Reader

Comment by aero142 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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).

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.

"For the Ordinance" would be against the repeal - wouldn't it? So if you wanted to say "Yes, I want to repeal" and saw a positive answer it would be very easy to support not repealing the ordinance by saying you were "for it". Or is it to approve a new ordinance to repeal the existing ordinance?

I can see people being very confused by this.

> Only 17.3% of the voters turned out. Hardly the will of the people

The will of the people willing to go out and vote. If you choose not to vote, that's on you.

You said "the citizens" when in fact it was less than 20% of the voters. Technically you are correct, but really, this vote was hardly representative of the citizenry.

Then there's the whole vague wording thing as explained above. For all we know, half of the voters didn't understand the ballot question. I'm not so sure I would have voted correctly either. What a fiasco.

I actually saw articles on mainstream news sites saying Uber/Lyft had threatened to leave if the vote passed. I'm sure plenty of people's votes weren't what they intended.

> Only 17.3% of the voters turned out.

Which is about 7% more than usually turn out for May elections, and about the same as chose the currently sitting governor. Please don't suggest it wasn't a valid election.

As to confusing ballot language, I've never seen anyone write any clearer language that passes legal muster. It has to talk about two ordinances, one to be repealed and one to replace it, and the major points of difference between them. Go ahead, give it a shot.

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

That is extremely interesting, thank you for posting that.

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.

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.

> 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.

Looks like its time to get involved in your local government! Have you considered campaigning and running for the next city council seat that goes to election?

I definitely plan to be more involved in future elections. That doesn't change my opinion that Austin is headed towards being a rather dysfunctional large city instead of the unique interesting medium sized city I've lived in for years. I'm not saying there isn't democracy or that there is some great injustice going on. I'm just mostly sad that a nice place to live is being slowly replaced by a poorly run place and it doesn't seem to be able to solve it's own problems. This Uber/Lyft deal is just one small example of moving in the wrong direction and fighting the wrong fights.

Consider that Austin citizens who have been there longer than tech workers might have thought they had a nice place that is turning into a poorly run place due to the tech scene influence. Not an insult, just a consideration. Something to consider for anyone who decides to move to a new locale.

Yes yes, we all hate the outsiders and the terrible ideas they bring. We must protect ourselves from them!

I didn't say that, I said consider an idea.

Some people like the way things are where they live, and if those people make up the majority, you're SOL. That's democracy.

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.

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.

If you count it like that you get at least four trips for turf car service where you have two for the private car. That's not counting potentially cruising around in areas where you have a higher likelihood of finding customers but no parking.

Yes, cruising around looking for customers is EXACTLY what you're counting when you include a "return trip" extra for a taxi. If they find another customer right after dropping off the prior then there are zero wasted miles.

Taxis use up more road spacetime the more time they spend looking for a customer, while private cars use up more road spacetime the more time they spend parked or looking for parking. Realistically, in dense places, private cars spend a lot of time looking for parking, and almost all of their lives parked, but cabs are occupied more often than not. On the other hand in sufficiently undense places, a cab would have to spend a lot of time looking for passengers while private cars never have to look for parking and have off-street parking -- but these kinds of places have low traffic anyway, so who cares? In the places where traffic is actually a pain, cabs improve it.

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.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com