
Ride-hailing apps may help to curb drunk driving - petergatsby
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/04/daily-chart-0
======
jhpaul
Based on personal experiences this isn't surprising. When I was in college in
a small town in the late 00's, many friends and acquaintances would drive
across town after heavy drinking. 10-15 minutes, straight roads, little
traffic. Other than not going out, or not getting home, you didn't have many
options. It was a hour long walk or a $20-40 cab ride, if you could get one.

I was recently back in town for a wedding and our uber to the hotel from the
venue (about the same distance) was $9.

Once came to town (now on the east coast) I instantly noticed many friends who
used to drive would take an uber. It's cheap, it's easy to call one from a
crowded/loud place, you know how much it will cost, they don't use cash, they
know where you are, and you don't have to give directions. For someone
intoxicated (or anyone really), these are game changers.

It's the difference between "who's going to drive?" and "who's calling an
uber?"

Company politics aside, the accessibility of ride-sharing services introduces
numerous real safety benefits on top of the obvious convenience.

~~~
metafunctor
It has always amazed me how casually people drink and drive in some countries;
the US especially springs to mind.

Over here, drinking and driving is an extremely shameful and embarrassing
thing to do. I would say it's on par with hitting a child. You just don't do
it, not to save 20 bucks, or to save you from walking an hour.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
It isn't that, the cab rides are never just $20, and often there are no cabs
at all. The USA just has crappy non car transportation options. And it isn't
just an hour walk in many places, but a few hours walk on dark streets with no
side walks. When I was living in the Deep South, I sometimes had to take
people home 20+ miles out in the middle of nowhere.

~~~
wapz
> 20+ miles out in the middle of nowhere

That's the reason there are no cabs and I don't blame cab drivers. They don't
get paid to sit around 40 minutes to find a passenger. I'm surprised that
finding an uber in one of those places is not difficult either.

Outside of the US, a lot of the population is very condensed (well the US is
to some degree) making cabs and public transportation much more
efficient/effective IMO.

~~~
Kihashi
I remember reading a post from an Uber driver in a small town. Basically,
instead of idling, he'd just use his house as a waiting area. So instead of
just waiting around, he'd be at home, doing other stuff until he got an rider.
Then he'd get in his car and drive them where they needed to be.

~~~
wapz
If he lived next to the bars or downtown that would probably be reasonable,
but I can't imagine he would bring in too much money (as opposed to living in
a large metropolitan area).

~~~
ehoogland
It really depends on how close the rural area is to a population center.

------
ericfrederich
Let's file this one under "duh"

It's not ride-hailing apps themselves. Has nothing to do with the fact that
it's someone else's car or that you use an app instead of a phone number to
order it.

It's the fact that you can get home now for $10 only waiting 5 minutes from
the time you decided you want to leave.... compared to paying $60 and waiting
an hour.

~~~
domfletcher
I disagree, Uber for all its obvious faults has a top notch UX, I don't need
to find cash, I barely need to break off conversation with my friend let alone
speak to a person on the phone who will inevitably be confused about where I
am. All that stuff drives adoption and retention.

------
kalleboo
Or conversely, the taxi medallion system is likely responsible for 24-35% of
drunk driving incidents...

~~~
sergers
In Vancouver,

If going out downtown, it's a 80$ cab ride each way atleast.

Transit would take atleast an hour but good luck taking it back at 2am when
service is very limited.

I could drive after drinking and spend 30-40 minutes.

There is no ride sharing allowed here yet.

I usually don't go out if I don't have a designated driver as it's just not
affordable or takes too long.

Many friends, and I admit myself when younger, would have just drove home
drunk as it was cheapest quickest option

We have actually found it cheaper to drive downtown, find a cheap decent hotel
on priceline and drive back home after a good sleep.

I can't wait for ride sharing here, I use it everywhere else when traveling.

Ride sharing makes it affordable convenient and quick... Can definately see
how it attributes to less drunk drivers.

~~~
pm90
Without great public transportation, it seems rather unlikely for suburban
folks to enjoy a lifestyle where you can drink downtown and safely get back
home at a decent rate. Ridesharing might be cheaper for now, but I'm not sure
what it will be like when the prices truly represent the market value;
currently, most ridesharing companies seem to be operating at loss. The
ultimate solution might come when autonomous driving becomes possible, I
really can't see it another way.

BTW even with public transportation, if you're drunk enough to think it unsafe
to drive, you're probably gonna want to use the restroom more often.

I've gone over this issue a LOT, and right now I'm planning to move to the
city center and just take the hit of higher rent for now. Luckily, I am single
so this is a lot more convenient than if you have a family with kids and
stuff.

~~~
mikekchar
I wish the US and Canada would relax zoning restrictions. I've spent the last
decade or so in Japan and the UK and it's just so much better. Admittedly,
when you are young and going out clubbing then you want access to the big
city. But for quieter/older people, just having access to a decent restaurant
or pub within walking distance of your house is amazing. These days my wife
and I might go out to the big city maybe once a month or two, but at that
frequency booking a hotel is feasible. Every other time we go out we stay in
our neighbourhood because there are really great places to go -- even though I
live in a tiny town. In Canada, you really _do_ need to live downtown if you
want any kind of social life outside of your house.

~~~
posguy
Cities could easily dezone. Most areas have only had zoning for 60 to 80
years, prior to that there was just fire & building code constraining you.
What was added by zoning was height restrictions, parking minimums, building
type eg. single family detached, and lot/building size minimums.

The value that zoning provides is to segregate and disenfranchise the bulk of
the populace, while spreading them out during the Cold War so as to make the
US more resilient towards bombings supposedly. This is the same culture that
thought sidewalks were bad.

~~~
utexaspunk
I dunno- Houston is notorious for its lack of zoning, yet it still grew the
same sprawling manner. The fact is most of our cities did most of their growth
after WWII. A baby boom, affordable automobiles, the interstate highway
system, advertising, and FHA subsidies made mass suburban developments like
Levittown profitable and desirable.

~~~
nommm-nommm
Houston pretty much has zoning they just don't call it zoning.

[https://urbanedge.blogs.rice.edu/2015/09/08/forget-what-
youv...](https://urbanedge.blogs.rice.edu/2015/09/08/forget-what-youve-heard-
houston-really-does-have-zoning-sort-of/)

>Matthew Festa [is] a land use professor in Houston...

>For all that’s been made of Houston’s infamous lack of zoning, Festa said it
increasingly seems that reputation isn’t deserved or even accurate.

>“We do have a lot of land-use regulations,” Festa said. “We still have a lot
of stuff that looks and smells like zoning.”

>To be more precise, Houston doesn’t exactly have official zoning. But it has
what Festa calls “de facto zoning,” which closely resembles the real thing.
“We’ve got a lot of regulations that in other cities would be in the zoning
code,” Festa said. “When we use it here, we just don’t use the ‘z’ word.”

------
petergatsby
The cited CUNY study:
[http://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10...](http://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&amp;context=gc_econ_wp)

~~~
andrew-lucker
Wow, this was treated pretty well wrt stats, almost like a clinical trial. The
article makes it sound like just an anecdote.

~~~
VHRanger
Applied microeconomics is full of these sort of studies. It thrives on finding
"natural experiments" to exploit and identify/measure an effect.

------
robbiet480
Another study from July 2016 said that Uber doesn't save many drunk driving
accidents although the study referenced in the Economist only focused on NYC,
whereas the study from 2016 was focused on multiple metropolitan areas.

[1]:
[http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/07/22/aje.k...](http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/07/22/aje.kww062)

~~~
jnordwick
I think he's overfitting. Also the way he controls for Lyft seems poor, I
think, because if both services led to a reduction them controlling for Lyft
would reduce Uber's contribution it seems (that is while Uber's effect might
be small as well as Lyfts, together they would be larger). He really should be
asking "Do ride sharing services reduce drunk driving fatalities?" Not Uber
specific.

Also his variable for Uber is only a one or zero. It should instead be the
number of drivers in the county.

They quotes a study done on only California that shows Uber reduces
fatalities, but doesn't ask himself if maybe county by county is important.
Instead he groups everything together, even some countries that have very few.

Here's the sentence that should indicate something is wrong with his analysis,
he finds Uber increases fatalities (a noticably but not significant):

> This model shows that on average, the presence of Uber was associated with a
> 2.0% (95% confidence interval: 0.98, 1.06) increase in traffic fatalities
> among all drivers; however, this association was not statistically
> significant at conventional levels.

I think he definitely needs to break out the results data into county by
county results to see if maybe there is a different result for maybe more
populous counties.

------
itchyjunk
Hmm, the study [0] credits over all reduction of drunk driving accidents to
Uber. If ride sharing is the source of reduction, shouldn't ride sharing in
general be credited? Maybe Uber was the only ride-share available during the
study though since it's data from 1989-2013.

"A recent increase in the ease and availability of alternative rides for
intoxicated passengers partially explains the steep decrease in alcohol-
related collisions in New York City since 2011.I examine the specific case of
Uber’s car service launch in New York Cityin May 2011, a unique example of a
sudden increase in cab availability for intoxicated passengers.7This study
draws on a dataset of all New York State alcohol-related collisions maintained
by the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles from 1989 through 2013. My
inference is based on the variation in Uber access across New York State
counties over time and the careful choice of New York State counties that
provide an appropriate control group for New York City’s drunk- driving
behavior"

Edit:

Fair enough, looks like lyft only came to NYC around 2014[1]. But does anyone
know if the ride share prices in NYC from 2011 [2] to now has significantly
changed? I vaguely remember a lot of people using it initially because of dirt
cheap prices during the first few month of introduction but I don't trust my
memory over facts if someone has some.

\-----------

[0][http://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10...](http://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&amp;context=gc_econ_wp)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyft#History](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyft#History)

[2] [https://techcrunch.com/2011/04/06/i-just-rode-in-an-uber-
car...](https://techcrunch.com/2011/04/06/i-just-rode-in-an-uber-car-in-new-
york-city-and-you-can-too/)

~~~
soperj
It's not just about dirt cheap. You know that you're not going to get screwed
by an uber driver, even if you're drunk. Can't say the same about cab drivers,
who've definitely tried to pull things when they see drunk people. Not to
mention the ones that'll just pass you by over and over, or won't come to your
location at a certain time, or just not answer the phone. Cabs in general have
been horrible.

~~~
AdamJacobMuller
I've been taken advantage of by Uber drivers while drunk.

That said, when I woke up the next day^Wmonth and saw the charges and the
loop-de-loops they took to get me home, I complained and Uber refunded me the
whole fare, which I didn't even ask for. If this was a cab and even with a
credit card charge (forget about cash) I would have just written it off.

~~~
hueving
Well if you didn't end up paying for it then they didn't really take
advantage. They just attempted to and were stopped by the feedback loop ride
sharing systems offer.

~~~
linkregister
Yes, that's the parent poster's point.

------
spodek
I've wondered if cell phones have led to fewer altercations on subways as
people spend more time focused on them, giving them less reason or chance to
argue and fight with others.

~~~
saddestcatever
That's a funny hypothesis to think about. I wish there was a good data set we
could analyze on this matter. I'd really like to be able to answer the
question: "Have smartphones reduced human interaction. Especially with
strangers."

------
vannevar
Proving another benefit of subsidized public transportation. In Uber's case,
low-cost rides subsidized by its investors.

~~~
adventured
Would you mind showing me their financials in the US market, so we can see the
extent of the subsidization across different cities? I would like to see the
numbers that you derived your claim from in regards to Uber's operations in
the US.

~~~
vannevar
Uber's history of subsidies is well-known:

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2014/07/02/ubers-
newe...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2014/07/02/ubers-newest-
tactic-pay-drivers-more-than-they-earn/#732da1591011) (2014)

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
switch/wp/2016/08/23...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
switch/wp/2016/08/23/ubers-controversial-strategy-to-finally-defeat-
lyft/?utm_term=.f58ce2c0d2d9) (2016)

[https://qz.com/940605/is-the-era-of-cheap-uber-rides-
over/](https://qz.com/940605/is-the-era-of-cheap-uber-rides-over/) (2017)

But I don't have a breakdown per-market.

------
rubicon33
Another bright light on the horizon: Self driving cars. I'm hugely optimistic
that within the next 100 years, we could very possibly see deaths from drunk
driving shrink to a small fraction of it's current value. It's a great thing
when profit driven businesses also have positive side effects for everyone.

~~~
plytheman
I'm curious when self-driving cars become common place how the law will react
to it. It's my assumption that the law will still require a driver to be sober
in the event that manual control is needed, though I suppose if the car is
driving itself perfectly fine police would have no reasonable grounds to pull
anyone over and discover they're drunk in the first place.

~~~
BigJono
> though I suppose if the car is driving itself perfectly fine police would
> have no reasonable grounds to pull anyone over and discover they're drunk in
> the first place.

I can't speak for America, but here (Australia) I'd guess the vast majority of
drunk driving tickets are from booze busses. I can't even remember the last
time I saw somebody pulled over and breathalysed.

~~~
harpastum
Could you elaborate? What's a booze bus? In the US, It's a pretty common
occurrence to see someone pulled over and breathalyzed if they're driving
erratically.

~~~
mctx
A booze bus is a random breath test - the police have labelled busses that
they park on the road. I believe if you blow over the limit then you get on
the bus and are tested again in 30 minutes.

They look like this: [http://www.ranted.com.au/wp-
content/uploads/2012/09/109890-b...](http://www.ranted.com.au/wp-
content/uploads/2012/09/109890-booze-bus.jpg)

------
dsacco
The study was originally published in January. This article is being published
in April.

I subscribe to the Economist and I enjoy it, but I am cynical about why this
is being published now, amidst significant negative publicity for Uber.

~~~
mcast
I would not be surprised if Uber hired a company to astroturf their branding
after the Lyft boycotts and constant negative hits to their image.

In fact, this is exactly something I see Travis doing to "fix" the problem.

------
Dotnaught
Perhaps that should be phrased "the availability of drivers using a ride
sharing platform has helped reduce drunk driving accidents."

If Uber doesn't accept drivers as employees and isn't responsible for their
actions, it shouldn't be credited with their collective contributions to a
safer society.

~~~
lend000
That's a strangely bitter way of looking at things. Ride sharing companies,
including Uber, have brought tremendous benefits to society, and drunk driving
prevention is probably at the top of the list. Uber has made the largest
difference of all these companies because it has been the most aggressive in
disrupting rent-seekers like taxi companies.

The drivers and the general willingness of people to embrace the gig economy
should also be credited, but not to the discredit of the companies that
created the ride-sharing platforms that made it all possible.

~~~
username223
Perhaps, but don't call it "sharing," because sharing is reciprocal. If it
were actually sharing, you would be driving for Uber as much as the people who
chauffeur you around. Call them what they are: unlicensed taxis.

Also, "the general willingness of people to embrace the gig economy" is just
another way of saying "many people are desperate enough to do sub-minimum-wage
piecework."

~~~
nikcub
> because sharing is reciprocal.

This didn't sound right so I looked it up[0]

No mention of it being reciprocal - which makes sense for almost every use of
"sharing" I can think of

When I share my sandwich I'm not receiving any other sandwich from anybody
else (perhaps if I was I'd share more often)

Anyway, its not easy to defend Uber and I don't want to be labeled that way -
since I've boycotted the service more than once, but some of the arguments in
this thread on this page seem really petty

[0]
[http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sharing](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sharing)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
It's only ride "sharing" if the driver is already driving that way. You're
going along with them.

If someone shares their sandwich they are eating it too. If someone makes a
sandwich to give to you that's not sharing.

~~~
sokoloff
If you come visit my house, I'm likely to offer you a drink when you arrive.

If you take me up on a water, I'm sharing my water with you, _whether or not I
drink a water myself at that moment_.

(I'm perfectly happy to call Uber, Lyft, etc "unlicensed taxis" as I do think
that's _more_ accurate than "ride sharing"; I just don't agree that it's
_completely_ inaccurate to call them ride shares.)

------
LoonyBalloony
If society really cared about drunk driving, there would be a free bus outside
of every bar at bar close. We can do it for kids going to school, we can do it
for adults going home.

But they don't care, they just want the money and power (unconstitutional DUI
check points) involved in the DUI process.

~~~
irishloop
Bus riding has a social stigma outside of the very largest cities. Also,
people in the US love complaining about taxes, and you know what costs money?
Buses.

------
BatFastard
I observe this is true with my 21 year old son who is in college. After a few
drinks and dancing downtown, they all grab an Uber back home, they don't even
consider driving. Now it is a small town, but you can still pick up an Uber at
2 am for a 5 dollar ride home. Awesome!

------
london888
At least in London people are saying these apps are adding to road traffic and
congestion, so the extra pollution (by other traffic being stuck also) might
be harming health and causing early deaths to balance out any lives saved by
stopping drunk drivers.

~~~
dx034
But that's because in London, Uber competes against public transport. That's
not the case for many US cities (New York is an exception).

Even though as a London resident, I've never heard that argument. Most Ubers
are either new petrol or even hybrid. Black cabs are (mostly old) diesel.

------
thewhitetulip
Uber's PR team would be rejoicing right now! It is great that technological
advances have both positive and negative effects, and some times, the positive
effects saves a ton of lives.

~~~
septimus111
Ummm... I'm sure Uber's PR team had absolutely nothing to do with this article
;)

~~~
thewhitetulip
Exactly, they are getting free publicity, it isn't bad anytime.

------
deftturtle
How is this even up for speculation? Why is there a need to quantify this with
a study? _Of course_ it curbs drunk driving. When you have better options,
they're used.

~~~
manarth

      How is this even up for speculation?
      Why is there a need to quantify this with a study?
    

Legislation and governance is influenced by statistics. If a City Hall meeting
is discussing legislating against Uber, and a taxi commission presents a paper
demonstrating that Uber will cost $X in economic loss to the commission, it
behooves Uber to present a competing analysis: showing $Y savings relating to
drunk driving (or whatever else they can show).

On the face of it, it seems sad that everything - even the cost of human life
- is quantified.

But it is a rational argument when making trade-offs:

"This new pill is better than aspirin." "OK, let's use that instead of
aspirin."

Vs

"This new pill is 0.1% better than aspirin." "How much does it cost?" "Ten
times the price of aspirin." "OK, so the effect is 0.1% better, but we can
only treat a tenth of the number of patients? Better stick with aspirin."

------
dbg31415
* Without Uber or Lyft, Austin Experiences Skyrocketing DUI Rates - Foundation for Economic Education - Working for a free and prosperous world || [https://fee.org/articles/without-uber-or-lyft-austin-experie...](https://fee.org/articles/without-uber-or-lyft-austin-experiences-skyrocketing-dui-rates/)

> Before Uber came to town in 2014, Austin Police Department’s data showed
> that the city had an average of 525 drunk driving arrests per month. When
> these numbers were revisited a year after ridesharing came to Austin, drunk
> driving arrests had dropped by five percent. This trend continued the
> following year when the number of drunk driving arrests dropped by an
> additional 12 percent, bringing the average number of arrests to about 438
> per month.

> In May of 2016, the same month Uber and Lyft made the decision to leave
> Austin, the monthly rate of drunk driving incidents was down to an average
> of 358. However, within the first few months of Uber and Lyft’s absence, the
> number of DUI arrests increased by 7.5 percent from the previous year. In
> the month of July alone, the city had 476 drunk driving arrests.

------
devdoomari
...but what about cars left on the parking lot by the drunk ppl? a lot of ppl
might choose to drink&drive because they have to go back & get their cars
again...

In South Korea they have 'substitute driver service' that drives customer's
car (obviously, with customer in it) back to the customer's home.

I'm sure this can be done logistically (have a large bus carry around drivers,
etc.)

~~~
pluma
> ...but what about cars left on the parking lot by the drunk ppl?

1\. This may sound obvious but maybe don't drive yourself if you're not going
to be able to drive back. Ask a friend to take you or plan to pay for both
ways.

2\. Plan for the extra time the following day to pick your car up where you
left it.

3\. Drive with someone who can drive the car (and you) back.

I'm surprised you think this is a difficult problem. People have been doing
these things for decades.

~~~
papabrown
In many cities like Los Angeles public transportation is either non-existant
or extremely poor, the most common scenario is that someone goes to work and
is invited to go have a drink with the office gang after hours. It's not
realistic for them to drive an hour home in rush hour traffic and then take
Uber back to meet everyone as they'll already be gone. Instead they go have a
drink, start thinking, "Geez, I probably should get Uber but then I'm going to
have to get Uber in the morning to get to work and then I have to get my car
from the parking lot at the bar. I guess I'm not really that drunk I can
probably make it home okay."

------
visakanv
A separate discussion that I'd like to have is – why do people drink so much,
to the point of drunkenness? Why is this so common? Has this always been the
case? Will this change?

~~~
ssttoo
> why do people drink so much, to the point of drunkenness?

Many reasons. To the point of darkness because it's a thin line between a
light buzz and over-the-top-cannot-even-say-my-name

> Why is this so common?

human nature. Not only human, actually, monkeys drunk on fermented fruit, etc
[1]

> Has this always been the case?

Yes

> Will this change?

No.

[1]
[http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/wildlife/2011/...](http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/wildlife/2011/10/animals-
getting-high-10-common-drunks/)

~~~
papabrown
Elephants too. They've been known to raid villages and steal booze. [1]

[1] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229334/Fifty-
drunke...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229334/Fifty-drunken-
elephants-ransack-village-gulping-500-litres-alcohol.html)

------
vidoc
No question ride-hailing has a net plus impact on reducing drunk driving.
Though, it only works for the most fortunate of us (1) who live in urban areas
(2). Also, let's not forget that the most important driver to prevent drunk
driving in the United States, is the severity (or extremism) of DUI laws. As a
matter of fact, punishments for such infractions are so extreme that they
achieve deterrence not by fear of punishment, but fear of unfair punishment.

~~~
papabrown
See Fighting MADD [1]

Don't be put off by the site's domain. There are plenty of other articles that
say the same exact thing. In fact, Wikipedia contains several links to
articles critical of MADD's mission and fundraising [2]

[1]
[http://www.drunkard.com/08_02_fighting_madd/](http://www.drunkard.com/08_02_fighting_madd/)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothers_Against_Drunk_Driving](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothers_Against_Drunk_Driving)

------
jnordwick
To all those complaining about ride sharing systems: phhffft!

------
abvdasker
I wonder if this conclusion could be further validated using other signals
like drunk driving arrests or the same set of statistics in other cities.

~~~
nhf
Economists like to use natural experiments—when comparable populations are
exposed to different conditions through policy or chance. It would be
interesting to compare Austin (no Lyft/Uber) to a similar city in the vacuum
between the locally-grown solutions coming in and U/L leaving. I'm not sure
how robust the findings would be though.

------
amyjess
I discovered Lyft after a friend of mine got a DWI.

His DWI was enough to get him to turn himself around, so he started using Lyft
every time he went out drinking (years later, he's still steadfast about not
driving when he's drinking), and he told me about Lyft, so now I use it all
the time instead of relying on public transit or asking my friends to give me
rides.

------
icw
I'm a little late to the party, but I did a similar study on ridesharing's
influence on DWI rates in Austin, TX before and after Uber and Lyft arrived
and then exited the city, you can read it here:
[http://rpubs.com/ianwells/247645](http://rpubs.com/ianwells/247645)

------
mc32
So on the one hand technology allows for better taxi services resulting in
fewer impaired-driving accidents, on the other hand, technology in the form or
gadgets (entertainment systems, phones, GPS, etc., distract drivers as well as
pedestrians resulting in more accidents on the not-under-the-influence side of
things.

Still 24+% reduction is quite an nice result.

------
akgerber
Note that Uber was not the only taxi reform in NYC. A quote from the paper:
"For my analysis, I use data from collisions that occurred from January 2007
through July 2013. This period includes Uber’s entrance into the New York
market in May 2011, allows for a substantial pre-intervention period, and
omits two potentially confounding entrances in the New York City
transportation market that could influence the alcohol-related collision rate.
The first entrance occurred in August 2013 as New York City introduced a new
form of taxi medallion to serve only the “outer boroughs” of Brooklyn, Queens,
the Bronx, Staten Island, and northern Manhattan. These “boro” taxis were
painted green rather than the typical yellow medallion taxis, and banned from
picking up in lower Manhattan, where most street-hail yellow taxi rides
originate."

Note also that Uber in NYC is operated by TLC-licensed drivers against whom it
is very easy to file a complaint for dangerous driving, which is different
from many other cities. I used NYC's lovely 311 app to file a complaint
against just such a driver for shouting at me after he drove at me head-on in
a 2-way bike lane. I expect he'll face a significant fine.

~~~
sokoloff
> I used NYC's lovely 311 app to file a complaint against just such a driver
> for shouting at me after he drove at me head-on in a 2-way bike lane. I
> expect he'll face a significant fine.

I'd wager against that outcome from a due process and practicality standpoint.
If dropping a dime on someone using their ID number would result in a
significant fine absent other evidence, there would be chaos.

~~~
akgerber
The fines happen. The evidence is photographs and my testimony if the driver
doesn't plead guilty.

One Twitter user documents his use of the process quite thoroughly:
[https://twitter.com/D00RZ0NE](https://twitter.com/D00RZ0NE)

------
ryan606
I seem to recall a Freakonomics chapter or podcast episode that discussed
drunk driving vs. walking home drunk, and concluded that walking home drunk
was even more dangerous than driving home drunk. Either choice is much worse
than ride-sharing or cabbing or public transit, obviously.

~~~
passivepinetree
There's a huge caveat that's imperative to note:

It's safer to drive only for the driver, as the driver usually survives car
accidents and is less likely to drunkenly wander into traffic or get mugged,
for example. For others, it's much more dangerous if a drunk person drives
(such a person will hit pedestrians, other cars, etc).

------
culturalzero
My instinct is that Uber fed this story to the Economist to try and counter
their recently bad PR

~~~
dx034
My instinct is that this is wrong. Probably rather hard to bribe the
economist.

~~~
garethsprice
Timely media coverage isn't necessarily the result of bribes.

The survey was done in January and is now being published in April. A savvy PR
agent doing crisis management would be combing Uber's research archives
looking for things they could spin into positive press releases.

The press is always hungry for content, and it's not too hard to write
something that appeals to a particular publication - no bribes involved.

------
roystonvassey
?! Does this even require stating, let alone an entire article? What am I
missing?

When Uber launched in my city, that's the first thing I began using it for.
Lack of other options meant that I either had to wrap up drinking sessions
early or risk DUI.

~~~
dx034
It's important to have statistics instead of just opinions. Especially if you
want to change future regulation.

------
tryitnow
This seems pretty obvious. Is this considered newsworthy in part because the
recently popular media refrain has been "Uber is bad"?

So now articles that point out the good that ride-hailing apps do are
considered interesting?

------
arrty88
Even 35% seems to low to me... I really thought/wish it was lower. Hopefully
the reduction in bad driving practices start to reduce car insurance premiums
as well.

------
mshenfield
I don't know... this credits Uber, and Uber is bad.

~~~
divanvisagie
Because things can only be bad or only be good right?

------
aaron695
It's amusing seeing people try and spin this against Uber, wouldn't want to
leave the bubble for to long.

------
redsummer
"Ride-hailing apps may increase alcohol-related health problems"

------
bernardlunn
So do trains and trams

------
chrisvoss
...but not Uber CEO drunk arguing with drivers...lol

------
Shinchy
Makes total sense, I certainly have seen it.

------
papabrown
Let me start off by saying that I don't approve of drunk driving. That said,
the laws and how law enforcement treats drunk driving and how alcohol related
accidents are reported tell a very distorted picture. After the MADD campaigns
picked up sufficient steam and states began taking drunk driving more
seriously, numbers dropped. But then they quit dropping. So many states
lowered BAC limits from .10 to .08 in order to include more drivers in the
impaired category even though there was no evidence to support it. With
numbers stagnating again, you see another push for states to lower BAC levels
to .05 even though there is zero evidence that this will lead to fewer
accidents. All it does is create more criminals on the road which the police
can then catch, fine, and profit from.

In the US, more people are arrested for drunk driving than for any other
crime. Nearly 1% of all licensed drivers has received a DUI in the last 3
years.

As all of this was happening, the definition of what was alcohol related began
to expand. Currently if any party in an accident is under the influence, even
if they were not operating a vehicle, it's alcohol related. These inflated
statistics then fuel calls for more oppressive crackdowns on drunk driving.

Again, I'm not advocating drunk driving but we have to focus on the right
problems. Like, how do you keep the people who are the most dangerous off the
road? While the police are out spending resources racking up arrests for
people who had a couple of glasses of wine with their meal, a large percentage
of accidents are caused by repeat offenders. Nationally, over 33% of people
arrested for DUI get another DUI. And people with multiple DUIs are
overrepresented in fatal car accidents (4.1x more likely).

Considering the fact that the most common BAC of someone who has been pulled
over for suspicion of DUI is .16, continuously lowering the BAC threshold in
order to snare more people in DUI convictions is not the answer. They're not
the ones getting into accidents.

Believe me, if they changed the laws and made it a crime to serve more than
two drinks to someone unless they could prove they had a ride home (other than
them driving, of course), the alcohol companies would quickly come up with
solutions.

Clearly the government's interests are not aligned with lowering drunk
driving. Lowering drunk driving costs money (public transportation options,
better city planning, etc). Arresting people for drunk driving generates
revenue from fines. If they were successful in lowering drunk drivers on the
road they would be decreasing their budgets.

Until you can align motives with profits, you'll never fix the problem. You'll
just keep increasing the base of people who are considered criminals.

------
mkagenius
What caused the drop in 2008? o_O

~~~
josu
The financial crisis? You can see its effect in almost every graph.

------
raushanraj88
ya

