Austin Voters Say “No” to Uber and Lyft

Comments (10)

  1. Biff Majestic says:

    Typical Liberal hypocrisy. While a great town for music and food, Austin politics is a blight on the freedoms the rest of the State of Texas enjoys. Of course, with Austin being mostly Democrat, that is to be expected.


  2. Lee says:

    It would be nice if you did some research as to Taxis, also safety, you write that it is faster for Uber & lefty checks, fingerprints take 24 hours and are more accurate, ask some victims of Uber’s driver of they would have preferred an independent agency overlooking, for YEARS in my town everyitme ideas were put forth by Taxi industry to regulate less, government fought back, why don’t you interview the other side and be balanced. Level the regulations same for all !!


  3. Lt Scrounge says:

    From what I have read, the fingerprint and background check requirement was a result of numerous instances of Uber drivers engaging in criminal activity against their passengers. IIRC one is pending trial for either raping or murdering a rider in the Austin area. Not hard to understand why the voters would want actual background checks done under those circumstances. I had to have fingerprints taken to get a license to sell insurance to people over the phone, shouldn’t people who are picking up strangers in their cars have to pass the same requirement to insure they aren’t criminals?


  4. Taxi Partisan says:

    Lee is correct. Just a bit of research on taxi regulation, that began and has evolved since 1647 in London, might have helped make your argument somewhat persuasive. Instead, you adopt the Uber media release message; can you give a few examples of this “cozy” relationship of taxi with regulators? Here in Seattle, it has been for years a bitter fight, over petty if not altogether mindless regulatory overreach. And was it tossed with the entry of Uber? Hell, no, not for taxi, just for Uber!! How cozy is that? With us shackled by the regulation we supposedly love, Uber walks away unregulated with half of our business?


  5. Steve says:

    As a former taxi operator, I applaud the voters for using good sense. Some of these clowns and jokers driving for Uber and Lyft are often drunk, on drugs, disrespectful, and unprofessional. They also cut into the livelihoods of taxi drivers, who have a hard enough time making money after paying the leases on their cabs. Undercutting taxi drivers’ income is not a good idea if you are a taxi driver.


  6. Kim says:

    This idea that Uber and Lyft are technology companies is nonsense. Their business is driving people around. Every business uses some kind of technology. Pizza delivery companies use technology, but don’t claim to be technology companies — they make pizzas.


  7. says:

    I disagree uber is excellent ….their cars are new and very clean. Their drivers are very polite and helpful as they are rated after every ride. Plus they are very affordable all over the world and have put a dent in the monopoly of traditional taxi service. Regardless of all the checks you put in place there will always a black sheep somewhere that does not mean all are bad apples. It so safe as you can watch if the drivet is taking the right route as you can see it on the uber app. They are safe as one does not have to carry money for the driver and the passenger.Its the BEST thing which has happened for employment and for the people who need taxi service. Long Live UBER


  8. Ken Davis says:

    This is a very poorly researched and highly biased article. The main thing I object to is the misrepresentation that this was done by bureaucrats. This was done by our duly elected city council and followed up by citizens voting. Uber/Lyft twisted the truth so many times in their strongarm media blitz that we threw the bums out. Do you believe that identity theft is an issue? If not I wish I lived on your isolated island. One Houston driver had more than 15 stolen identities. Fingerprinting busted them. Criminals lie. Austin voters did their due diligence – as did the city council.


  9. Meredith Alleruzzo says:

    Folks who object to comprehensive background checks and fingerprints might want to rethink that, for their own safety as Uber and Lyft passengers. Taxi drivers can be dicey enough. But without at least those procedures how the heck do you know that the person driving you isn’t a maniac with a history of unsafe driving? I want at the very least to know that my driver is a legal resident who can be tracked down if there’s a problem.


  10. Kevin Beck says:

    I would disagree with the initial characterization of Austin. It may be a trendy city, but it is also home of the state’s government. And this is not anything about how those trying to create trends…it’s about the role of local governance.

    The last point of the article said more about the story than anything presented before. So you did make a point of saving the biggest arrow for the last point. It was also the only point that mattered.


Add Comment