I responded to Song Mayo's response about Uber and Lyft leaving Austin. My response follows as such:
While I totally agree that it’s inconvenient for Austin to lose a major source of transportation and employment, I don’t agree that everyone should have voted in its favor. I certainly don’t think it’s anything to question the government over. In fact, it’s something to question its contingents over.
Why are we so obsessed with keeping a simple security measure out of a ridesharing program? I, personally, have still not fully decided which way I would rather the program go, even after it’s left Austin. I consider Uber and Lyft to both be taxis and believe they should be held to that standard.
The response both companies gave after “yes” was ultimately decided upon was childish and immature. A major corporation like Uber should not pout about not getting their way. The fingerprinting law wouldn’t have even applied until February 2017, as stated in Councilwoman Delia Garza’s lengthy Facebook post regarding the issue, and businesses would be free to run as they had. Nobody was forcing them out of Austin.
Uber and Lyft are -- while mostly very reliable, especially if you’re not fit to drive -- not 100% safe. Every ridesharing and taxi company will have its downfalls and occasional unreliable, unpredictable driver. This is another reason why I believe fingerprinting isn’t such an evil thing after all, because it could just cut down the small percentage of less-than-safe drivers and make the whole experience just that much better.
