"Is it that realistic to expect significant decreases in drunk driving rates across the board just through better availability of alternatives (like ridesharing)? There are two issues that I can think of in this regard."
Outside of major cities, or college towns, probably not.
Which raises a good point -- that Uber may never be availably in truly rural areas since it depends on a certain population density to be profitable (for both driver and service). Although autonomous vehicles may change that.
It's also true that Uber/Lyft are better able to meet spikes in demand than taxis. They have a more flexible, largely part-time work force. Basically, surge pricing is a good thing.
Again, it's not really important to the argument. But the passage is:
"For the past few decades, we’ve been rigorously educated about the risks of driving under the influence of alcohol. A drunk driver is thirteen times more likely to cause an accident than a sober one. And yet a lot of people still drive drunk. In the United States, more than 30 percent of all fatal crashes involve at least one driver who has been drinking. During the late-night hours, when alcohol use is greatest, that proportion rises to nearly 60 percent. Overall, 1 of every 140 miles is driving drunk, or 21 billion miles each year. Why do so many people get behind the wheel after drinking? Maybe because—and this could be the most sobering statistic yet—drunk drivers are rarely caught. There is just one arrest for every 27,000 miles driven while drunk. That means you could expect to drive all the way across the country, and then back, and then back and forth three more times, chugging beers all the while, before you got pulled over. As with most bad behaviors, drunk driving could probably be wiped out entirely if a strong-enough incentive were instituted—random roadblocks, for instance, where drunk drivers are executed on the spot—but our society probably doesn’t have the appetite for that."
The "27,000" number is from pop-econ book "SuperFreakonomics" and based on NHTSA data. I don't see why it's "obviously bogus" but it's just an aside and not really important to my argument.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by zachgraves.
Re: Re: Logical Errors in Study
It's going to be hard to figure out how strong the effect is without more granular internal data from Uber/Lyft.
Re: Logical Errors in Study
"A can of wasp spray has no measurable effect on the mortality of wasps worldwide, but it has a substantial effect in my garage."
This is a great line!
Re: Driving drunk anyway
"Is it that realistic to expect significant decreases in drunk driving rates across the board just through better availability of alternatives (like ridesharing)? There are two issues that I can think of in this regard."
Outside of major cities, or college towns, probably not.
Re: Re:
Which raises a good point -- that Uber may never be availably in truly rural areas since it depends on a certain population density to be profitable (for both driver and service). Although autonomous vehicles may change that.
It's also true that Uber/Lyft are better able to meet spikes in demand than taxis. They have a more flexible, largely part-time work force. Basically, surge pricing is a good thing.
Re: Re: Re: A misquote of a misinterpretation of a non-study
Eh, I probably set it up wrong.
Re:
Again, it's not really important to the argument. But the passage is:
"For the past few decades, we’ve been rigorously educated about the risks of driving under the influence of alcohol. A drunk driver is thirteen times more likely to cause an accident than a sober one. And yet a lot of people still drive drunk. In the United States, more than 30 percent of all fatal crashes involve at least one driver who has been drinking. During the late-night hours, when alcohol use is greatest, that proportion rises to nearly 60 percent. Overall, 1 of every 140 miles is driving drunk, or 21 billion miles each year.
Why do so many people get behind the wheel after drinking? Maybe because—and this could be the most sobering statistic yet—drunk drivers are rarely caught. There is just one arrest for every 27,000 miles driven while drunk. That means you could expect to drive all the way across the country, and then back, and then back and forth three more times, chugging beers all the while, before you got pulled over. As with most bad behaviors, drunk driving could probably be wiped out entirely if a strong-enough incentive were instituted—random roadblocks, for instance, where drunk drivers are executed on the spot—but our society probably doesn’t have the appetite for that."
Re: A misquote of a misinterpretation of a non-study
The "27,000" number is from pop-econ book "SuperFreakonomics" and based on NHTSA data. I don't see why it's "obviously bogus" but it's just an aside and not really important to my argument.