@Dylan_Tynan, I “like” the journey in your thinking - so you have a first 
The last time I read the “Old Man & the Sea” I read it completely different than the first time. My life experience was different, so you should expect the same here.
I liked your points on, and introduction of statistics, because it is an area that so many misunderstand, and so come to the wrong conclusions because most writing about it in the press do not understand. I think what you may be missing though, is that if the number of issues are higher with taxi’s because of male % / part time / cash, etc variables, is that it does not matter, as @rcauvin said, what matters is the user experience. Why I am safer (or as safe) does not matter, just that I am.
I don’t like the tactics, but in the end Uber & Lyft are not going to be making the decision at the polling station - the people are. And for those who asked for a pledge at a recent DANA gathering, here it is.
1 Like
I agree with most of that. I will say though that my point about the male % / cash / etc. was not in reference to which one you should choose as a safer ride, it was solely related to whether or not you can use the crime statistics to determine if a tnc or a taxi background check is better. Because the populations of tnc and taxi drivers are so different, and other factors like cash come into play, I think it’s pretty questionable to draw any conclusions on the background checks. (Also, thanks for the like!)
To say that the people are deciding the outcome of this proposition is ignoring the power of marketing. If the people decided who and what to vote for simply based on a rational approach to a thorough analysis of both sides and then coming to a logical conclusion, then why would people spend millions of dollars on campaigns like Uber and Lyft are doing now? People can be easily deceived and manipulated. That’s what campaigns do. Why do you think there’s such a big pull to get money out of politics? It’s destroying our democracy.
Marketing works! Think Super Bowl. Why would these companies spend so much money advertising their products? These companies aren’t doing a lot of research seeing what people really want, then create such a product and simply state the facts as to why their product is better than Brand X. No. They create a picture or an illusion that usually involves emotion and in many instances based on things that aren’t even true or related to their product. The ads don’t even have to contain lies (though SCOTUS ruled that that was okay too). They just have to appeal to peoples’ emotions often by showing misleading facts.
So yes, people will ultimately decide the outcome by casting their votes at the polls. But how they vote will mostly depend on what they’ve seen and heard mostly thru the media. And when big money is spent creating false illusions, you get big money interests getting their way because they painted a picture that they wanted people to see that in the end reached more people.
Sorry for the long post, but I’m always skeptical when big special interest money is spent on issues where profits may be directly affected by the outcome of an election. Especially when those special interests fund deceptively named PACs like Ridesharing Works for Austin. Of course it does. But that’s not what’s being voted on here. I’m voting no on Prop 1 mostly because I do trust the people we elected. I love the concept of TNCs and I’m all for them. That’s the free market at work. Taxis will have to adjust or get shoved aside. But it should be done right and decisions by the City Council should be made on facts around the safety of the public, not on the impact on profits.
Complaints against a cab driver vs a TNC driver are irrelevant because of the system for getting fares for each are different. TNC drivers are working on ratings. Taxis are just getting assignments or picking up fares off the street. Very different model.
And to say that the City Council’s motives have nothing to do with safety, why then are they so up in arms? What are their motives? If this was Chicago or New York City I may agree that their motives may come into question. But we certainly aren’t there yet.
Consider this. If a cabbie commits a crime the cab company may be liable because the driver is an employee of that company. If an Uber driver commits a crime, their drivers are sub-contractors, Uber isn’t liable. I don’t know if Lyft works the same way but I assume it does. Then people will say but if their rides aren’t safe, people won’t ride with them. The market will dictate safety. True to some degree, but I think the City Council’s standards are a little higher than market standards. Why do we have agencies like the FAA if that were completely true?
Cab drivers and TNCs are both independent contractors. There is no difference there. And there’s a fair amount of anecdotal evidence that some local taxi drivers have been turned down for driving for Uber due to their more stringent background checks.
And I’m somewhat confused by your media comment. The media (chronicle and statesman) are supporting the political establishment where ANC members have poured thousands of dollars into defeating this campaign.
My apologies about assuming cab drivers weren’t independent contractors. I made the assumption based on an article about an anti-trust lawsuit Uber is facing. After further research I found that most cab drivers are independent contractors as well.
In regards to media, I’m speaking in general terms which include much more than newspapers. TV and radio ads are primarily what I’m referring to. That’s where most political money is spent. Besides, ANC is much more grassroots oriented and pouring thousands into a campaign pales in comparison to the well over $2 million spent by Uber.
