Austin Runs Stings On New Ride Sharing Alternative

acIt’s called Arcade City, and they say it’s an even more anti-establishment version of Uber and Lyft. The middleman is completely cut out.

From their webpage:

What if riders and drivers were free to connect peer-to-peer with no middleman?

We know you’re accustomed to dealing with archaic institutions like governments and corporations.

We believe there’s a better way.

For a few months we’ve been laying the groundwork for a true decentralized ridesharing service — what some are now calling the ‘Uber killer’.

When Uber pulled out of Midland and Corpus Christi, Arcade City drivers entered. Even before we released the first version of our app, drivers took initiative and connected directly with riders on Facebook.

No concern about red tape or corporate BS — just people providing people a needed service.

Well, the city of Austin, TX, fresh off of kicking out Uber and Lyft, is now cracking down on Arcade City by running undercover stings on drivers, citing them and impounding their cars.

KVUE reports:

The service came into play after Austin voted ‘No’ to Proposition 1, and Uber and Lyft left town. Undercover detectives performed a sting operation Friday night: including one on Nueces and 3rd Street. There, they ticketed and impounded the cars of four Arcade City drivers. Most of the drivers used to work for Uber or Lyft.

“When they left, I had no source of income, period,” Cheri Hawes said. “‘Arcade City’ came in and thank God they did, because that was really what supplemented my income. That’s how I take care of my family.”

Hawes said Friday night two guys got in her car and agreed to pay her $15 for the ride. But when she dropped them off, that’s when she saw two police cars behind her.

“I was very upset,” Hawes said.  “I asked him ‘Please do not impound my car. I’m not going to be able to pay these fines, let alone my car getting out of impound and it is my source of income’.”
The officers cited her for not having a valid chauffeur’s permit and for not having operating authority. Her car was also impounded.

It cost $220 to get Hawes’ car out of impound, and each of the citations she received cost up to $500.

Activist Post adds that ride sharing services decreased the number of drunk driving instances in Austin, which have since gone up after Uber and Lyft were banned:

According to local CBS-affiliate KEYE TV, DWI arrests have increased 7.5 percent between May and June in the city of Austin in Texas. What changed? Uber and Lyft left town on May 9.

“The Austin Police Department released new numbers to KEYE TV that show there were 359 DWI arrests from May 9, the day Uber and Lyft shut down, to May 31st of this year,” KEYE TV reported. “Last year during the same time period, there were 334 arrests. That’s a 7.5 percent increase in the weeks following their departure.”

But before the ridesharing apps were essentially banned from Austin, Uber released a statement claiming drunk driving crashes had been decreasing in the region since the app became popular among locals. They urged Austin residents to help stand with them. A Politifact report reviewed Uber’s claim, ruling the ridesharing giant was mostly correct. Since ridesharing entered the Austin market, the rate of DWI crashes dropped 23 percent, suggesting that, perhaps, making rides widely available correlated with the rate shift.

Austin police chief Art Acevado can be reached at 512 974 5000.

Comments

  1. FlamingLimousineLiberal says

    What happens when someone gets attacked, robbed, or even killed by some psycho? What happens when an accident occurs and injuries are sustained?

    I’m no fan of heavy regulation but I’m also realistic. When, not if, any of these scenarios happen, the fallout is going to be quite interesting to watch.

    • Mark Peterson says

      And people like you are why we can’t have nice things lol.

      “What happens when someone gets attacked, robbed, or even killed by some psycho?”

      The same thing that would happen if a psycho attacks anyone else in the real world. They person gets charges and thrown in jail, and the victim has the right to take that person to court.

      But because this service is free and is simply providing a platform, it should not be held liable.

      Anyone can place classified ads in a newspaper and can offer to do ride sharing. Should every newspaper get sued if one of those drivers gets in an accident? no. Or what if the person turns out to be crazy? No. People should accept responsibility and understand the inherit risks that come along with everything.

      Psychos are everywhere. They live on your street (and maybe you even have 1 or 2 of them that live in the your house with you, lol), they work at your job, etc.. So should we ban everything? Should we stop going outside? No, that’s ridiculous lol. But be smart, be responsible, and take accountability of your own actions and quit blaming the world for all of your problems.

      • FlamingLimousineLiberal says

        We live in a highly litigious world. When things go wrong, blame others, and sue them and everyone around them until you “get yours”. All else fails, cry for the government to save you from yourself.

        That is the problem inherent today. “Ride sharing” is tantamount to picking up hitchhickers with the same risks.

        • Amerikztan says

          So why don’t you see the problem for what it is?

          LAWYERS!
          What makes a lawyer wealthy?

          Idiots like you facing charges for your reckless stupidity !
          We need tort reform, and we need to control our government RUN by those wealthy lawyers getting richer in office.

          Oh, I am a RWNJ? did you ever examine Hillary, Bill, Obama, Abedin, DWS, Pelosi, Reid, Boehner, or Chasen Boscolo ?
          Can you spell Mesothelioma? I bet you CAN.

        • obloodyhell says

          }}} “Ride sharing” is tantamount to picking up hitchhickers with the same risks.

          Over time, there would be ratings, so, no.

          And it goes the other way, too. The driver could be a loony out to put people in his/her trunk.

    • JY1 says

      We have all kinds of building codes, and very few city destroying fires or minor earthquakes that flatten everything for thousands of miles.
      We have health inspectors, and very few restaurants poisoning people by substituting road salt instead of table salt.
      We have the DOT, and when air bags are found to be defective and causing injuries and deaths with shrapnel, they recall the cars and fix them.

      Many people are lazy and dishonest by nature. Our safety laws hold those tendencies at bay.

      And everyone should be equally imposed upon by these laws that uphold public safety. It’s ll or none. Either everyone gets to jump through the same hoops, or we get rid of all the hoops and those ride sharing entrepreneurs can deal with cars that don’t work, crash safety that doesn’t exist, insurance companies that are not required by law to pay claims, gasoline that is contaminated and destroys their engines, roads that cave in beneath them, homes that fall on them and kill them, etc., etc., etc.

      • Mark Peterson says

        I’m all for safety, especially when people’s lives are at stake here.. But this has nothing to do with that. The reason Uber and Lyft got driven out of Austin had nothing to do with safety and everything to do with taxi cab lobbyists and unions that were freaking out about losing their power.

        http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/10/uber-lyft-were-driven-out-of-austin/

        The whole thing is ridiculous.. I mean seriously.. Austin wants me to believe that I am safer in the hands of a man who just came from a third world country like Ghana, who doesn’t speak English, doesn’t know the city, can’t drive.. Over someone who is a local?

        • JY1 says

          No, you are all for maintaining the safety net above yourself, while not ridding yourself of the obligation to extend that same safety net to everyone downhill from you.

          Ride share entrepreneurs are exempt from all of the laws governing charging for providing the service of transportation …

          Because no one gets killed riding in cars.
          Because no one ever gets injured riding in cars.

          And, therefore, ride share entrepreneurs are exempt from:
          Any licenses required for transporting people.
          Any vehicle inspection required for transporting people.
          Any insurance required for transporting people.

          All so that ride share entrepreneurs can make a quick buck, before they discover the reason that taxis are so expensive is that using cars to transport people professionally destroys vehicles and exposes the operator to a multitude of liabilities which cut-rate fees DO NOT COVER.

          You want ride share entrepreneurs, fine, deregulate the medical profession. Anyone, with any level of ability, has the right to practice medicine, no matter how negligent they may be. Somebody injects silicone gel into a patient expecting a professional level of cosmetic surgery. That’s OK by your argument, and the butcher should go free, it’s the fault of the patient for not looking up the butcher’s internet reputation. Here’s a hint, there is always a first victim in any long line of victims.

          Some guy from Ghana gets a job with a licensed taxi company… The company has an obligation to make sure he’s qualified, because they are liable. That liability provides a trail to a person who is responsible for anything that goes wrong.
          A ride share entrepreneur goes out in a car that is not safe, not insured, and has no commercial coverage. Someone gets killed in a car accident. Does not matter who is at fault, everyone runs away from the tragedy and no one is held accountable. The insurance company says the car was not being used within the limits of a private auto policy. The ride share entrepreneur, has no money or assets to go after. The victim is injured and recovers nothing.

          That’s why accountability is the most important thing, and this “we have a new business concept that doe snot fit your square, old world, archaic ideas”, is a total bunch of crap.

          • Mark Peterson says

            Wow, you’re an idiot. I can’t even take you seriously after some of the ridiculous things you just said lol

            “You want ride share entrepreneurs, fine, deregulate the medical profession”

            Yes, because giving someone a ride and operating on them is the exact same thing lol.
            Get out of here with your bs.

            “No, you are all for maintaining the safety net above yourself, while ridding yourself of the obligation to extend that same safety net to everyone downhill from you.”

            LOL. what are you smoking? I am a STRONG advocate for safety. But I do not blindly buy into this bs, which apparently you do. That’s fine, you’re entitled to your own opinion.

            What I believe is simple. I believe in free enterprise. I believe that over-regulation cripples economies and stops growth. I’ve seen it happen over and over again.
            This causes businesses to leave, jobs to leave, and ultimately loss of billions of dollars.

            Too many rules and regulations (for the illusion of safety) just ends up hurting the END USER because they are the ones having to foot the bill.

            And let’s get real here..

            There have been over 1.3 BILLION Uber rides taken, which comes out to over 1 MILLION rides a DAY. Out of that, how many people have been attacked or assaulted?

            5, 8, 10, 30? Whatever it is, it’s a TINY fraction out of the BILLION of rides.

            So your point is invalid.

            And look, if people truly felt that Uber was unsafe, then they have a RIGHT not to use it.. And if people stopped using it, the stock would plummet, and it would give a huge opportunity for a better company (that did much better background checks and vetting) to come in and steal their business. Bottom line.

            And if you really want to try to compare ride sharing and medical to each other.. At least do it right lol.

            Since you brought up ‘medical’, you do realize that the pharmaceutical industry is one of the most HEAVILY REGULATED industries in the world, right? You know, the same pharmaceuticals that your doctor prescribes to you.

            Interesting enough, pharmaceuticals are one of the LEADING causes of death in the US and are responsible for over 100k/deaths a year.

            So by your logic, should we should ban all meds? Should we stop meds from getting sold in Austin? No.. So how is this any different? lol (Hint, it’s not)

            I am with you that we should always try to improve things, and that there are always areas that we can grow in..

            But people need to stop being victims all the time and need to take accountability for themselves. They need to understand that there are risks with everything in life.. and get over it.

          • JY1 says

            And you, sir, are a moron.

            Parallel ride share to medical care:
            Americans injured by medical malpractice each year: 98,000

            Americans injured in automobile accidents each year: 2,313,000
            That’s more than twice as many injured by vehicle operators than by doctors.
            Hurtling along at 35-75 MPH in a container made of metal, glass, and plastic is DANGEROUS. More than twice as dangerous as seeking medical care. Those who are selling transportation should be subjected to a higher level of paperwork, scrutiny, and licensing, than those providing that service to themselves. And the same level as required of taxi and bus companies is appropriate.

            At no point in any of my responses did I ever mention, allude to, or discuss anything about drivers assaulting, kidnapping, or murdering their fares.
            Your action of bringing that topic into this conversation with me is a red herring and will be ignored, rendering 90+% of your response completely irrelevant.

            If anyone wants to operate as a taxi service, let them jump through all the hoops and fulfill all the obligations as set forth by the government for opening up a taxi company. If all that additional work and expense takes the profit out of running a taxi service, then tough noogy. And that fact should be a very good indication that operating a reputable taxi service is expensive, and there is a good reason that taxis cost as much as they do.

          • Amerikztan says

            LOL ! …”giving someone a ride and operating on them is the exact same thing lol.”..
            The sad thing is, while we see the humor in his Illogical contradictions – HE doesn’t, and HE votes.
            It’s obvious who he supports. Why must he spend so much energy pushing the lies, instead of seeking the truth? If only his brain was powered by solar energy. the sun just doesn’t reach the dark recesses he parks his mind into.

          • Amerikztan says

            Does Capt_ Kirk ever post comments, or do you just use him for cheap ‘up-votes’ so it doesn’t appear that it’s yourself?
            If you were intelligent life in your space vacuum suit, then you would follow your logic to it’s end, and realize your wisdom cannot support life in your outer space. Your 5 year mission fails before 5 years is up. I don’t think reruns are in your future. You. Are. Illogical.

          • obloodyhell says

            }}} All so that ride share entrepreneurs can make a quick buck, before they discover the reason that taxis are so expensive is that using cars to transport people professionally destroys vehicles and exposes the operator to a multitude of liabilities which cut-rate fees DO NOT COVER.

            1) Driver’s choice. If the fees don’t cover it, that’s still their option.

            2) The same rules apply to pizza and other food delivery. floral delivery and a host of similar jobs for the most part. Shall we ban those jobs, too?

            }}} No, you are all for maintaining the safety net above yourself, while ridding yourself of the obligation to extend that same safety net to everyone downhill from you.

            Not at all — eventually, the law could catch up, and it could reasonably demand that an uber style driver carry a certain specific insurance tailored to their obvious unique problems.

            THIS would be a reasonable response to your concerns.

            }}} they discover the reason that taxis are so expensive

            Dude, do you have the slightest fucking clue how much a taxi badge costs in NYC?

            NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS.

            No, that’s not a misprint. THOUSAND.

            That’s not the government protecting shit except for taxi services from competition.

            Q.E.D., you’re an idiot with no idea what you’re talking about. Are there rules and regulations which might be validly applied to Uber-like services? Sure. Should they cost tens of thousands of dollars to implement and verify? F*** no.

          • JY1 says

            The law is the law. The law remains the law because the people who vote keep it that way. Therm’s the rules, they apply to everyone equally, you don’t like the rules then don’t play the game.

            If Uber or whoever wants to operate a taxi service in New York, then they can pay the same NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS that every other taxi operator has paid. END OF STORY.

            The entire argument that “Our business model is outside reality and laws do not apply to it” is BS. Because it relies on lying to yourself. The people saying that the same rules do not apply to them, are the same ones who are first in line to sue the crap out of anyone, and demand prosecution to the fullest extent of the law, whenever they are injured or wronged.

            Hypocrite. Lie to yourself, I won;t entertain your fallacy.

          • obloodyhell says

            }}} If Uber or whoever wants to operate a taxi service in New York, then they can pay the same NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS that every other taxi operator has paid. END OF STORY.

            The law’s the law because it’s bought and paid to be the law, in this case.

            That’s not the basis for The Law under the Constitution.

            }}} Hypocrite.

            Nothing hypocritical about it. I don’t, nor will I ever, support people who blatantly cheat the system by buying politicians. And that is the ONLY possible cause of a taxi permit costing 900k ANYWHERE ON THIS PLANET. That has ZERO to do with safety or protecting the consumer OR the operator of the vehicle. It has EVERYTHING to do with limiting the COMPETITION.

            Which makes YOU the hypocrite for acting like “safety and protecting the consumer and the owner” was the reason behind this kind of thing.

            In case you’ve forgotten, I’ll quote you:
            “is that using cars to transport people professionally destroys vehicles and exposes the operator to a multitude of liabilities which cut-rate fees DO NOT COVER.”

            P.S., how does charging a 900k fee “protect” the owner of a car that is worth maybe 50-60k tops, from “destroying the vehicle”? Other than preventing them from using it in the first place in their chosen manner…?

            Yup:
            Q.E.D.
            You==Hypocrite.
            Me Hypocrite.

            Too bad, so sad. Thanks for playing.

          • JY1 says

            Please reread:


            The law is the law. The law remains the law because the people who vote keep it that way. Therm’s the rules, they apply to everyone equally, you don’t like the rules then don’t play the game.

            If Uber or whoever wants to operate a taxi service in New York, then they can pay the same NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS that every other taxi operator has paid. END OF STORY.

            The entire argument that “Our business model is outside reality and laws do not apply to it” is BS. Because it relies on lying to yourself. The people saying that the same rules do not apply to them, are the same ones who are first in line to sue the crap out of anyone, and demand prosecution to the fullest extent of the law, whenever they are injured or wronged.

            Hypocrite. Lie to yourself, I won;t entertain your fallacy.

      • Amerikztan says

        This comment [ http://www.progressivestoday.com/austin-runs-stings-new-ride-sharing-alternative/#comment-2752189464 ] is the logic of liberals. They attack Trump rallies, attack cops, block roads to stop commerce by preventing people from working, or getting to work. They waste fossil fuels, public resources, and deny someone needs to pay the cost for them to protest like hippies without a clue, like rebels without a genuine cause. JY1 exploits common sense by relating his one-sided logic.
        We DO need Standards. We DO need over-watch. We need common sense safety regulation. We only need overpriced insurance because of the greed and corruption money buys, and irresponsible individuals like JY1.

        We do NOT need government over-regulation, corporate monopolies that kill entrepreneurship, and criminals who are not restricted by the 2nd amendment that use the 1st amendment to justify their incomes and rights over those that DO respect those first two constitutional clauses in their basic forms. They benefit from the 10th, 14th, and 18th amendments because we, as anti-progressives support them all.

        • JY1 says

          Complete deregulation is the norm for communist China.

          China has no building codes.
          In 2008, an earthquake caused the collapse of 6.5 million buildings (6,500,000 buildings!).
          https://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=china+earthquake+2008&oq=china+earthquake+2008&gs_l=serp.3..0l6j0i22i30l4.161123.165653.1.166444.21.15.0.6.6.0.192.1750.3j11.14.0….0…1c.1.64.serp..1.20.1808…0i67j0i131.RplxgQRbp3o
          The execution of the corrupt architects and construction company heads did nothing to bring the 70,000 dead people back to life.

          China has no health department.
          On a regular basis, Chinese restaurant owners substitute road salt for table salt, to save a few cents per serving of food sold.
          https://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=china+salt+poisoning+restaurant&oq=china+salt+poisoning+restaurant&gs_l=serp.3…14687.20321.0.20999.16.16.0.0.0.0.245.1934.2j11j1.14.0….0…1c.1.64.serp..2.6.823…33i21.RamvSq1xA0M
          Tens of thousands of Chinese restaurant diners are killed each and every year due to this, and the executions of the cooks and restaurant owners does nothing to bring those victims back to life.

          Where do all the lead painted toys and products come from? China!

          How about the poisonous wood flooring from Lumber Liquidators? China!

          China is the example of communism and progressivism .
          China is also the example of the place that there is no regulation and no control over quality and safety for the population.

          In the US, buildings rarely collapse, and restaurants rarely kill their customers by substituting poisonous ingredients. We don’t make toys and products with lead paint, and we don’t make poisonous wood flooring.
          WHY?
          Strict, fair, and reasonable rules that keep everyone safe and stop people from risking their customer’s lives for a few more cents of profit.
          Capitalism thrives with live customers that return to buy more, and creative solutions to comply with the regulations that keep those customers living.

          So put your Mao shirt back on, and your Mao cap, and go back to your HilLiary fund raiser, you pinko-communist.

  2. Martin Hutchison says

    If liberals really cared about crime they would want less Muslim immigration and less leniency for criminals (who happen to be mostly black and Hispanic)

  3. salg says

    “just people providing people a service,” no way that can be allowed. how are the politicians going to get their cut. this has to be licensed and taxed to be any good.

  4. Ol' Jim, hisself says

    The City gets much bucks from a DWI conviction. They get mucho bucks from a taxi license. They didn’t get much bucks from Uber and Lyft. They are not getting mucho bucks from Arcade City.

    Shut down the ride sharing services. The drunks will either try to drive home (DWI – big bucks to city), or call a taxi (again, big bucks to city).

    Liberal paradise! Lots of taxpayer money to throw away on pet projects!

      • RightSideUp says

        Oh like the rapeugees all the libertards are importing…or better yet the “I feel like a chick today so I’m going to use the women’s room to spy on girls” crowd.

Leave a Reply