travis county sheriff against banning uber/lyft (Houston, Austin: buying, subsidized)

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Per period the length of the study - so, each year that cost goes down....

not 100% sure, but I think the reduction of 76 right angle crashes was over the same period. So 500 million to reduce right angle crashes by 76 and increase rear end collisions by 54.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by bpollard

KVUE (1 day ago) just had a piece using stats from *Austin* showing how Red Light Cameras have absolutely reduced accidents.
APD unit calling for more red light cameras

in chicago the city said the exact same thing. That tbones dropped by 47 percent. But when researchers looked at the data and removed confounding factors, they found that tbones had only dropped 15%


You cant look at straight data and simply attribute it to red light cameras. you can read the chicago tribune paper to understand some of the other things that can cause reductions.

some things that influence crashes

red/yellow duration
number of lanes
speed limit

[10scoachrick]

Other things that influence crashes:

NOT requiring the offender to pay the fine associated with running the red light.

SELDOM fully prosecuting the offender for A) No valid driver's license or 2) Improper insurance coverage, vehicle registration, etc

NO penalty to speak of for multiple DWI offenses

The list goes on.

[atxcio]

Originally Posted by 10scoachrick

NO penalty to speak of for multiple DWI offenses

Well, not always true...
10th DWI gets Texas man life sentence in jail
Woman Gets Life Sentence After 6th DUI
Texas Man Gets Life Sentence for Ninth DWI - ABC News

[Roadking2003]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

I agree this is mis information. All City Council is asking is that they phase in a requirement for drivers to get background checks before being allowed to drive for them. Seems completely reasonable to me.

But that's the point. It may seem reasonable to you but not to somebody else. That's why we don't need government making these decisions for us. Businesses should decide what hiring criteria they use. Then consumers can decide what is important to them and what they are willing to pay for. Personally, I wouldn't pay a dime extra for these kinds of hiring checks.

[Roadking2003]

Originally Posted by bpollard

KVUE (1 day ago) just had a piece using stats from *Austin* showing how Red Light Cameras have absolutely reduced accidents.
APD unit calling for more red light cameras

Or not. There certainly isn't a consensus on these cameras.

Study: Red Light Cameras Ineffective, Cause More Accidents | Big Think

[Roadking2003]

Originally Posted by bpollard

KVUE (1 day ago) just had a piece using stats from *Austin* showing how Red Light Cameras have absolutely reduced accidents.
APD unit calling for more red light cameras

It's interesting that your link only gives stats for two of the ten intersections and for only one year since they were installed. Cherry picking data?

[Aquitaine]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

I agree that "cheap and easy" alone isn't a reason to do it.

Would you support removing the requirement for cab drivers? Or do you want a driver not eligible to drive a cab to nevertheless be allowed to drive for Uber instead?

I like to approach these questions from the perspective of 'if there was no industry at all, how would you design it?'

As a bit of background, while I don't have a commercial driver's license, I've taken two 12-hour defensive driving courses for motorcycle safety (on purpose...not court-ordered!) and am a private pilot. I don't think I'm a better driver than your average person, but I have been exposed to the infrastructure of 'what are the requirements for getting around via x' more than your average person.

I don't see the benefit of a CDL to a passenger transport unless it's a huge vehicle. It makes sense for trucks or anything that's got to carry hazardous materials or where there are a lot of vehicle-specific things you have to worry about that your typical person hasn't ever had to worry about on their car. For the taxi industry, I regard it as just one more barrier to entry, not unlike the artificial limit on the number of medallions. It's the classic play of "persuade the government to hike up the requirements in the name of safety so we don't have to let people in to compete with us."

For me, the question you ask differs greatly on how much knowledge and control I have over the experience. If I call a cab, I don't know who is picking me up and I have to remember their plate or medallion number to file a complaint in a business that purposefully restricts supply, meaning they have less incentive to bust their drivers. Uber can and will deactivate a driver for a variety of reasons -- for instance, even though their rating system is five stars, you get deactivated if your average goes below 4.5.

That's two different transactions. In one, I am pretty much at the mercy of the cab driver. In the other, obviously the driver still has a lot of control, but there are safeguards and a pretty effective complaint valve available to me. So I don't mind reducing requirements for Uber in that sense.

Even so, I'm fine reducing them all around and letting the market sort it out. Who is going to call a cab in 2020?

[austin-steve]

Originally Posted by Aquitaine

I like to approach these questions from the perspective of 'if there was no industry at all, how would you design it?'

As a bit of background, while I don't have a commercial driver's license, I've taken two 12-hour defensive driving courses for motorcycle safety (on purpose...not court-ordered!) and am a private pilot. I don't think I'm a better driver than your average person, but I have been exposed to the infrastructure of 'what are the requirements for getting around via x' more than your average person.

Agreed. Using real estate as an example, the entire 800+ MLSs across the country is a relic of when real estate truly was local and there in fact would have been know way to have a single database for the entire country available to all Realtors or the public. Along comes the Internet and disrupts what was perfectly good for its time (I still remember the MLS "book"), but no longer works well. MLS consolidation and the emergence of an industry-side single search portal is going to be a long, painful slog, with winners and losers. Zillow got there first because our industry stupidly failed to see the future and step into it.

To your point, it wouldn't have been designed like that today.

Transportation for those without personal access to a vehicle would no doubt be designed differently today than the legacy systems were. It will be a painful long slog working that out too. It's not longer cost effective to build mass transportation infrastructure, like retrofitted light rail in Austin. So a different way is needed.

I personally miss hitch hiking. When I lived on a Navy base as teenager in Nevada, 5 miles outside town, we kids (and Sailors) hitch hiked back and forth from "town" (4 streetlights) all the time. In San Diego, before and after my high school years, people hitched to and from the beach and around the city all the time (I didn't see any hitch hikers last time I was in San Diego a couple of years ago).

Hitchhiking was the original "rideshare" technology. The thumb. Imagine that. It's still the "thumb", only it now taps a weird glass phone and then a stranger shows up at your house and it costs money.

I wonder what the "cost per ride" math would look like for subsidized Uber/Lyft as an alternative to light rail and/or replacement for busses, most of which are always empty. That's a different discussion I suppose.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

I wonder what the "cost per ride" math would look like for subsidized Uber/Lyft as an alternative to light rail and/or replacement for busses, most of which are always empty. That's a different discussion I suppose.

When I last did the math it was $9/ride