Uber ads on Prop 1 for May 7

[Davetex]

Then they didn't need to make it a law, thus giving them the protection of said law.

Would a city law supersede a state law? Just asking, not arguing.

 

[AustinN4]

Would a city law supersede a state law? Just asking, not arguing.

My primitive understanding of the law it that generally a city can make a tougher law, but not a laxer law, than the state has already made, unless preempted from doing so by existing state law.

 

[RstyShcklfrd]

Ride sharing fans have other choices. All is not lost.

********************************
5 alternative apps Austinites can use instead of Uber or Lyft:
http://www.mystatesman.com/news/new...rnallink_referralbox_free-to-premium-referral

I take it you've never used Uber or Lyft ever. Those options are way more inconvenient or downright stupid, except for maybe #1. I'm not sure how they'll continue to operate if they're subject to the same fingerprint background check though.

#2 is to and from the airport only.
#3 Austin's public transportation system is not large enough.
#4 You're using a normal taxi cab... you never use a normal taxi cab. Would you patronize a business that gave you poor customer service?
#5 Wouldn't it just make more sense to use your own car in the first place?

 

[zincwarrior]

Would a city law supersede a state law? Just asking, not arguing.

No. Here's the priority

Zincwarrior's Wife's Law
US Constitution
US federal law that is constitutional
State Constitution
State law that is constitutional vis a vis both state and federal constitutions and doesn't contravene federal law(looking at you Jim Crow)
Local Law that is constitutional vis a vis both state and federal constitutions and doesn't contravene federal or state law.

Austin4 is right-you can generally make a local law that is tougher that does not contravene the higher law, or if the higher law permits -it can get complicated. Constitutional procedure is a serious class. Mine was taught by a yankee who started the first day writing:"Trust No One! Believe Nothing!" That one line was the most education I ever had.

Whew that was a mouthful.

 

[AustinN4]

I take it you've never used Uber or Lyft ever. Those options are way more inconvenient or downright stupid, except for maybe #1. I'm not sure how they'll continue to operate if they're subject to the same fingerprint background check though.

#2 is to and from the airport only.
#3 Austin's public transportation system is not large enough.
#4 You're using a normal taxi cab... you never use a normal taxi cab. Would you patronize a business that gave you poor customer service?
#5 Wouldn't it just make more sense to use your own car in the first place?

Where did I say you would like the choices? I said you had other choices, period. Actually, it was AAS that said it, I just passed it on. Don't like 'em, don't use 'em.

 

[Davetex]

No. Here's the priority

Zincwarrior's Wife's Law
US Constitution
US federal law that is constitutional
State Constitution
State law that is constitutional vis a vis both state and federal constitutions and doesn't contravene federal law(looking at you Jim Crow)
Local Law that is constitutional vis a vis both state and federal constitutions and doesn't contravene federal or state law.

Austin4 is right-you can generally make a local law that is tougher that does not contravene the higher law, or if the higher law permits -it can get complicated. Constitutional procedure is a serious class. Mine was taught by a yankee who started the first day writing:"Trust No One! Believe Nothing!" That one line was the most education I ever had.

Whew that was a mouthful.

Thank you sir, and I agree with that first lesson more and more as I get older.

 

[AustinN4]

Trust No One!

https://www.google.com/search?q=tru...=RQEyV6OeGcrZmwGEh7fYCA#imgrc=zbFYQ9QTqBLo8M:

 

[rushthezeppelin]

The city was fucked on this. They have less onerous requirements to drive a city vehicle than they were putting on Uber/Lyft. Uber/Lyft had lower prices, faster response time and a very low rate of their drivers doing anything bad. They already had to submit to a pretty extensive background check too. IMO this was mostly about some of the city council being in the pockets of cab companies that have held veritable monopolies in most major cities for decades. Sadly the voters fell for the propaganda. I also wouldn't be surprised if there was at least a few percentage points of voter fraud involved in this as well, there is currently a pending lawsuit from Laura Presley because Travis County did not follow state laws with regards to record keeping in the last city council election.

My personal experience with Uber/Lyft has always been wonderful. Fast response, courteous drivers, nicer cars than old ass crown vics and better prices than cabs.

Edit: Almost forgot that the incidence of drunk drivers dropped a quite noticeable amount when Uber and Lyft came to town. Expect drunk driving rates to go back up because of the inconvenience of trying to get a cab at last call.

 

[RstyShcklfrd]

Where did I say you would like the choices? I said you had other choices, period. Actually, it was AAS that said it, I just passed it on. Don't like 'em, don't use 'em.

Forunately, I don't live there anymore, but when I do visit I know I won't be using them..... and neither will many of the people leaving the bar at 2am. But hey, y'all really stuck it to those big California corporations with y'all's California-style of thinking!

 

[zincwarrior]

But hey, y'all really stuck it to those big California corporations with y'all's California-style of thinking!

As a Texan, thats all that really matters.

 

[AustinN4]

Expect drunk driving rates to go back up because of the inconvenience of trying to get a cab at last call.

Yes, it would be a shame to expect people to not get drunk if they were driving. It's always somebody else's fault.

 

[Mreed911]

In any case, I'm actually considering running for council place 7 now. I looked at the results last year and 32% won the seat (plurality).

 

[rushthezeppelin]

Yes, it would be a shame to expect people to not get drunk if they were driving. It's always somebody else's fault.

I'm not trying to take agency away from drunk drivers, but the facts are that ride-shares did drop the rate of drunk drivers by a very substantial amount. Lets face it, Austin is a town that likes it's alcohol and there are NOT enough ways to get around at last call with just limited taxis and the piss poor public transportation system here. The free market offered more convenient ways of avoiding this and it got shot down. I will agree on the curbside dropoff stuff being a bad idea, although I never had a RS driver do that with me.

 

[zincwarrior]

I'm not trying to take agency away from drunk drivers, but the facts are that ride-shares did drop the rate of drunk drivers by a very substantial amount. Lets face it, Austin is a town that likes it's alcohol and there are NOT enough ways to get around at last call with just limited taxis and the piss poor public transportation system here. The free market offered more convenient ways of avoiding this and it got shot down. I will agree on the curbside dropoff stuff being a bad idea, although I never had a RS driver do that with me.

I am certain in reality Uber/Lyft will be back within a year.

 

[AustinN4]

In any case, I'm actually considering running for council place 7 now. I looked at the results last year and 32% won the seat (plurality).

I am not in your district, but I'll vote for you anyway!

 

[rushthezeppelin]

Not at all surprised that the vote was lost by the inner city folks though. They are the ones who have the least to gain from ride shares being in the core of the city. It's too bad those of us most affected that live in the suburbs were unable to even voice an opinion on this if we were out of city limits. We have a MUCH harder time getting taxis in the suburbs than anyone in the core of the city does and most of us have NO access to public transport (unless you live in N Leander).

 

[rushthezeppelin]

I am certain in reality Uber/Lyft will be back within a year.

And the prices will be higher for no tangible benefit : /

 

[AustinN4]

Not at all surprised that the vote was lost by the inner city folks though. They are the ones who have the least to gain from ride shares being in the core of the city.

Makes sense; although, initially I thought the city core were the heavy users.

It's too bad those of us most affected that live in the suburbs were unable to even voice an opinion on this if we were out of city limits. We have a MUCH harder time getting taxis in the suburbs than anyone in the core of the city does and most of us have NO access to public transport (unless you live in N Leander).

Plan accordingly, have a DD or don't drink.

 

[rushthezeppelin]

Makes sense; although, initially I thought the city core were the heavy users.

It's awesome for the suburb users. SUBSTANTIAL savings over taxis and much quicker response time (if the cabs will even come to your area). I personally started using them when I needed a ride to the airport at Xmas and I don't have much friends around here anymore. Probably paid half of what a taxi would have charged and would have taken twice as long.

Plan accordingly, have a DD or don't drink.

Certainly I do this (I don't drink out much at all though), but to just throw a free market solution that made a substantial impact out the window is folly. Saying the DD or don't drink line just ain't going to work on some people like giving them a convenient option that is win win for everyone. Somebody is able to make a good side income at peak hours and the drunks can get drunk to their hearts content.

 

[AustinN4]

More disgruntled drivers

Uber and Union Agree to Form Drivers Guild in New York City
Jing Cao May 10, 2016 — 10:53 AM CDT
Updated on May 10, 2016 — 11:40 AM CDT

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-agree-to-form-drivers-guild-in-new-york-city