Just because a vote went a particular way neither means that it is fair/good, or that it is the will of the people.
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.
I just want uber and lyft back. The alternatives are awful. My friends have changed their weekend habits. I tried GetMe but it really sucks. Even the drivers were complaining the software had several bugs about billing, payment and mapping.
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.
If somebody suggested a new preventative drug for a rare disease, and offered zero studies to back it up, and suggested everyone should be required to receive it, they would get laughed out of the room.
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.)
[+] [-] spamlord|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryan-c|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] hartator|9 years ago|reply
Anyway, I don't think I see why I couldn't pay anyone I want to drive me from point A to point B.
[+] [-] brianbarker|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ef4|9 years ago|reply
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.)
[+] [-] bluesilver07|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] EliRivers|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GFK_of_xmaspast|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dragonwriter|9 years ago|reply