Uber Lowers Drunk Driving Arrests In San Francisco Dramatically 204
schwit1 writes: According to crime statistics from the San Francisco Police Department there were only two drunken driving arrests last New Year's Eve in San Francisco, the lowest since 2009. This news comes on the heels of a new study revealing that the introduction of UberX reduces drunk driving deaths across California. Temple University's Brad Greenwood and Sunil Wattal published a paper that shows cheap taxi-like options make it easier for people to make the safer decision to call for a ride rather than driving home themselves.
Uber = Public subsidized (Score:4, Insightful)
Uber rates are of course cheaper because the drivers don't carry commercial insurance, paying regular insurance rates, and thus raising the rates for everyone else as consequence.
Now, if the argument is that public subsidized taxi services can reduce drunk driving rates, then by all means, create public subsidies for taxis operating in areas and times that people often would otherwise drive drunk. Don't just use this hidden, across-the-board, everywhere-at-all-times subsidy-by-insurance-miscategorization.
Taxis = artificial barriers to competition (Score:4, Interesting)
Requiring taxis to have a "special" license to do something simple like driving others around is nothing more than an artificial barrier to competition.
Of course, that's what governments do - sell out to lobbying interests. So the solution must be to give governments more money and more power....
Re: (Score:3)
Requiring taxis to have a "special" license to do something simple like driving others around is nothing more than an artificial barrier to competition.
Of course, that's what governments do - sell out to lobbying interests. So the solution must be to give governments more money and more power....
If you think that the taxi companies lobbied for this restriction, then you are ignorant or misinformed. But now that the restriction is in place, then why should a newcomer to the field not have to play by the same rules that the taxi companies are forced to play by?
Re: (Score:2)
why should a newcomer to the field not have to play by the same rules that the taxi companies are forced to play by?
This is a good reason to remove unnecessary laws for all taxis, not force evryone to follow the same bad laws just to be fair. You could even have compensation for those who may have invested a lot of money taxi medallions, by purchasing them back at a recent high market price (not the post uber crash price).
Some regulations are good. Let's keep those. We just need to get rid of the bad ones.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think that the taxi companies lobbied for this restriction, then you are ignorant or misinformed.
Or perhaps, that it is you that is ignorant or misinformed.
It's called 'regulatory capture'. Because they're already 'in the business', larger businesses can handle larger amounts of regulation, much like how an experienced weightlifter can lift a heavier weight than a newcomer. And when it comes to regulation, the newcomer is typically expected to comply with all the regulations right from the beginning.
As such, usually the only time you get 'new' businesses in such industries is when somebody experience
Re: (Score:2)
Specific to New Years Eve, Uber is a great solution. Getting a taxi in San Francisco (or almost anywhere) after midnight is hopeless, which should drive up rates and incentivize additional drivers to participate. This is a specific failure of the regulated taxi industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They already have. Uber now provides primary insurance from the time the app is 'turned on' until it's turned off. Though you need to be careful of state variations.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, obviously. That's what a license is. The question is: is it a necessary barrier?
Re: (Score:2)
This does not sound like a response to the issues raised by the parent poster though.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This so stupid it hurts my head. How is requiring a drivers license which shows proficiency at operating a motor vehicle anywhere near the same as saying you need a license to have a passenger in the car? The anti-uber trolls are so clueless....
Re: (Score:3)
Commercial insurance for passenger livery is to ensure that when the inevitable accident happens, that commercial insurance pays for the medical treatment and loss-of-livelihood for that passenger regardless of how badly they're injured, or pays a life-insurance claim to dependents if they're killed. That's a teensy bit higher than the $50,000 coverage levels th
Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So no pizza deliveries on regular insurance?
I don't know about anybody else, but my insurance rates haven't gone up one bit since Uber and Lyft have been around. If anything, they've gotten lower.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting question. According to this discussion on a Pizza Delivery Drivers Forum, apparently not:
http://gregspages.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=32 [gregspages.com]
Re: (Score:2)
By any chance, have you also gotten any older in that time period?
Also, you are not a statistically significant sample size.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is if you ride on someone's car you assume they will cover in case of the worst, but that may not happen and
Re: (Score:2)
If you're a dangerous driver you're putting everyone else on the road at risk, not just yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
So yes, requiring a commercial-level insurance coverage is a prudent step. Requiring Uber drivers to spend millions of dollars to buy a license is not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You'd be covered by your friend's insurance, assuming that he has insurance. Limits are typically $50k or more. I think 'most' states require at least $100k worth per person today.
Re: (Score:2)
What I am asking TWX, is why it is so important to be covered beyond $50K in taxis, but not in other cars. The reasons of the people touting the need for taxis to have commercial insurance would seem like they should apply to everybody.
I can't imagine medical bills are higher in accidents involving taxis. It seems like the best thing to do would be to figure out how much coverage is necessary to cover medical bills (e.g. 50k 100k or 1 million, etc), force everyone to have that much insurance, and let insu
Re: (Score:2)
In the United States, which is where California is, comprehensive insurance does not cover business-use of your vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
Personal comprehensive insurance does not. Business comprehensive will.
In the USA, 'comprehensive' is an insurance type that covers more than the minimum required 'liability' insurance.
Liability - you hit somebody else, insurance will pay. Smack into a tree yourself? Nada. Your vehicle is stolen? Nope.
Comprehensive covers 'everything' from you hitting somebody else to a windstorm blowing a tree over onto your vehicle parked in your driveway.
The biggest exemption for insurance is indeed that personal in
Re: (Score:2)
I was speaking about personal comprehensive insurance because the person to who I was replying stated that business insurance is a fiction and comprehensive covers everything, including his passengers. Which is true, except that most comprehensive insurance policies exempt business use.
Re: (Score:2)
Commercial insurance is a thing here in the USA, and I'm sure it's a thing in the UK as well.
Remember that insurance polices attempt to charge based on risk. A commercial driver generally puts in far more miles over much longer times than a private driver. So the risk is higher that they'll be in an accident. So they have to pay a bit more money(they also tend to be professionals and not drive drunk while working, so there's some reduction there).
The problem is that they don't yet have a category to prop
Getting a CDL (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Medallions == artificial barriers. License != (Score:2)
If some states have taxi driver licenses, or chauffeur licenses, or similar licenses that require you to have a higher level of driving skill or rules knowledge, that's not a significant artificial barrier to becoming a taxi driver (as long as there's not a language restriction involved.)
Taxi medallions and similar restrictions on the number of taxis permitted in an city definitely are artificial barriers, but they're more than that - they're a mechanism for taxi companies to extort money from drivers in re
Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition (Score:4, Insightful)
Hey, I don't think any of us would argue against MORE competition in this market!!
I think that the gypsy cab thing, however, might not be the super competitor that Uber is, in that they don't have the great app that makes Uber so easy to use.
I just tried Uber for the first time this past week and I was blow away. The cars were all so nice, the drivers so polite and fun to talk with, and the PRICE was right. I also never had to wait more than 5 minutes to get a ride.
The Uber experience is SO much better than the cab experience in New Orleans, and this is a cab oriented city.
The price is easily half of what a cab is...and I too would be much less likely to drive myself when out drinking and have to get home....and just take and Uber that is really very cheap. Let's see...a $30+ cab ride across town or a $16 cab ride across town. Double those for coming back (and you don't have to tip with Uber on top of the fare)...then it becomes economical and a great incentive to leave my car at home. And this is NOLA...face it, EVERY activity here involves drinking before you try to make your way home, so this is a good option.
Re: (Score:2)
Do the cabs there have medallions? Do the Uber drivers need commercial insurance like cab drivers need? Do the cabs have cameras in them, and if so, what about Uber drivers? Could we just get rid of the requirements that cabs have so they can better compete against Uber?
If you want gypsy taxis (like Uber legally is) then this is the right answer. Not to let Uber skip on requirements put on others, but drop all requirements on all.
Re: Taxis = artificial barriers to competition (Score:2)
You seem to be using common sense vs actual knowledge, which is very problematic when talking about government regulations. Insurance products are mostly defined by government (originally modeled by what was in the market at the time of the regulations' creation). Do be allowed to call your insurance product commercial insurance, it must meet the definition set by government.
Further, this is not at all why uber is cheaper than taxis. This insurance issue is a red herring put forth by whining taxi drivers. T
Re: (Score:2)
Gee, one would guess that a person driving a car 8+ hours a day in the city is MORE LIKELY to have an accident than a person driving 1hour a day to/from work in the highway, and because if this he has to PAY MORE.
Just like MOST PEOPLE don't use their internet connection 24/7 so residential connections are often oversubscribed (and cheaper) than dedicated connections.
But this is liber-retard slashdot, anti-tax, anti-regulation, cubicle revolutionaries who expect the "free market" to take care of everything.
Re: (Score:2)
All you mindless anti-uber people who love pointless government regulations that only serve to funnel money to those in positions of power, just don't understand that regulations can sometimes be outdated and/or exploited to the detriment of the public good.
See, it's pretty easy to make a strawman argument.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
On Slashdot, an American-based website for geeks, slang, especially slang from science-fiction is standard usage.
Grok as hipsterness marker? (Score:2)
Using "grok" might have labeled you as a hippie decades ago. It only labels you as a hipster if you're using it ironically, or if you point out that you were using it before it was retro when you're too young to have been around then.
Re: (Score:2)
So not showering and being fat makes them criminals?
I'd still rather ride with them than the hipster uber drivers. Though to be honest, I'd rather ride with neither.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Uber = Public subsidized (Score:5, Informative)
Not this again. Uber provides insurance, with the same benefits as the commercial insurance. It is a little bit controversial, as Uber insurance is valid only when the driver's Uber app is running and they are "on duty". The rest of the time drivers will have to rely on their own insurance, which may deny any claims, because the car had been used for commercial reasons (even if it was not at the time of accident or the event that leads to the claim).
This is not a public subsidy at all.
Re: (Score:3)
In the UK, the way Uber provides their insurance ("only when on a job") would result in drivers being illegal - the driver would still need business-use insurance, even when between jobs.
Re:Uber = Public subsidized (Score:4, Informative)
Not only is Uber's "on duty" insurance not available when a person isn't "on duty", but the driver still needs personal auto insurance. Uber encourages its drivers to only pay for regular personal insurance, and the insurance companies say that this is a violation of their policy terms [buzzfeed.com]. Only recently have insurance companies started offering products to fill in the gaps [uberlyftsi...urance.com]. They, of course, come with extra premiums.
And of course, sometimes one wonders whether Uber should refer to their "insurance policy" in quotation marks [gas2.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
UberX does, not UberPOPs "car sharing" service
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I think that's the important point: cheap and more convenient taxis reduce drink driving. Increasing the number of taxis is also a way to boost employment, and it specifically boosts employment for people without diplomas and with a good-but-not-perfect level of the local language, which is a group with a higher risk of becoming long term unemployed.
Uber, in its current form, is problematic, but it has at least proven something.
(I don't use Uber. It requires an app that isn't free software [gnu.org] and has all
Re: (Score:2)
Uber rates are of course cheaper because the drivers don't carry commercial insurance, paying regular insurance rates, and thus raising the rates for everyone else as consequence.
Now, if the argument is that public subsidized taxi services can reduce drunk driving rates, then by all means, create public subsidies for taxis
Err... what would be the significant difference between a subsidized taxi service, paid into by all taxpayers, and raised insurance rates paid for by everyone driving vehicles?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally, subsidizing a ride from, say, the airport at 3 PM does little to fight drunk driving. Subsidizing a ride from a downtown party district at 2 AM certainly does. Drink driving is not at all a constant risk with respect to time or location.
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally, subsidizing a ride from, say, the airport at 3 PM does little to fight drunk driving. .
Depends how much one has been drinking on the plane - especially if one managed to get that free upgrade to business class with the free booze!
Re: (Score:2)
Drink driving is not at all a constant risk with respect to time or location.
People are creatures of habit though. If they're used to calling up Uber for XYZ driving needs, they're more likely to do so when drunk.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't raise the rates for EVERYONE. I find using taxis (and trains) far far cheaper than having a car (motorbike in my case). The cost of taxis in London may be high, but not as much as insurance (due to post-code orientated crime rates), huge parking costs, tax, petrol, maintenance...
Uber rates are cheaper due to lower overhead from their employer/agent, every single driver has told me they get far more work and make more money, and that is mostly due to the lack of heavy up-front cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not in any sense public subsidized, and it's a pretty huge stretch to assert so.
No, what people are getting in an Uber driver is an unlicensed cab service, with the risks that implies - ie the lack of coverage in case of a catastrophic event.
How is that public-subsidized? (Ok, yes, one can rationalize that if someone is hurt in an uber accident, and they end up on the public welfare, that's somehow public subsidy, but that would be no different than if they had a catastrophic sidewalk accident with no
Re: (Score:2)
(Ok, yes, one can rationalize that if someone is hurt in an uber accident, and they end up on the public welfare, that's somehow public subsidy, but that would be no different than if they had a catastrophic sidewalk accident with no insurance.)
The fact is, that risk is so tiny, people are willing to risk it.
Goddammit, the insurance companies are really ripping us off. Why are they charging so much more for car insurance than they do for standing on the sidewalk insurance?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed!
http://www.streetsblog.org/2014/12/17/eyes-on-the-street-dodging-drivers-on-the-sidewalk/ [streetsblog.org]
http://www.streetsblog.org/2015/07/22/vance-nets-felony-indictment-for-driver-in-beekman-sidewalk-hit-and-run/ [streetsblog.org]
http://www.streetsblog.org/2015/07/17/nypd-no-charges-for-driver-who-killed-woman-on-brooklyn-sidewalk/ [streetsblog.org]
http://www.streetsblog. [streetsblog.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Uber rates are of course cheaper because the drivers don't carry commercial insurance, paying regular insurance rates, and thus raising the rates for everyone else as consequence.
I'm not sure why this fiction keeps getting repeated. Uber carries commercial insurance covering its drivers to the tune of $100k in primary insurance and $200k in supplemental liability coverage while logged in awaiting a fare and $1 million while dispatched. Those limits are well above what's required for medallion taxis and livery cars in my area.
Re: Uber = Public subsidized (Score:2)
Now try to get your medallion cabs to pick up in a part of town where all the drunks are.
Re: (Score:2)
Uber rates are of course cheaper because...
The price is not the primary reason I use Uber, I use it because it is easier, more convenient, cleaner, and has better accountability than a phone taxi service. If I knew, for example, that the price of a ride from Uber would always be the same as a standard taxi, I would still use Uber every time. Taxi companies have been slow to upgrade their service to match Uber.
Re: (Score:2)
People picking up their drunk friends also don't carry a commercial license. Why is it even necessary for any taxis to have commercial insurance? Just let the insurance companies decide what to charge people for coverage, and simply have the law require all people to be insured.
Re: (Score:2)
Uber rates are of course cheaper because the drivers don't carry commercial insurance, paying regular insurance rates, and thus raising the rates for everyone else as consequence.
Citation, preferably recent? Because there's plenty of news articles that say the opposite [forbes.com]. I'm not saying that all drivers are properly covered, but you can find gypsy cabs out there that aren't as well, as well as pizza drivers and such.
I won't dispute that there was some 'shaking out' on who's responsible when on the insurance front.
Re: (Score:2)
Uber rates are of course cheaper because the drivers don't pay outrageous fees for a special 'medallion' from a non-driving monopoly/corporate entity .Now, if the argument is that public subsidized taxi services can reduce drunk driving rates, then by all means, create public subsidies for taxis operating in areas and times that people often would otherwise drive drunk. Don't just use this hidden, across-the-board, everywhere-at-all-times subsidy-by-insurance-miscategorization.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
You're just pissed because someone has managed to find a way around oppressive rules and regulations.
They have not found a way around the oppressive rules and regulations. They just aren't obeying them. If I use an app to hire a hitman, I haven't found a way around all the oppressive anti-conspiracy to commit murder laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell us all how taking my friend to the airport is any riskier, liability wise, than taking a stranger.
Because you take a friend to the airport once or twice a year, not ten times a day.
Re: (Score:2)
That being said, commercial insurance doesn't HAVE to be more expensive than a regular policy. I have commercial insurance on a truck that my property rental business owns. It
Uber Insurance. (Score:2)
Yes, Taxis would be expensive, but they're often 'cheaper' in the sense that a taxi business will insure ALL of it's vehicles under an umbrella policy for a fairly major discount. Still not cheap, but there.
However, remember we're looking at Uber and such. Uber's black car services are professional full time drivers with commercial insurance. They're technically not taxis in most locations, but in the same category as dealer convenience shuttles(Where they'll do things like drop you off at work while you
Uber didn't exist in 2009 (Score:5, Insightful)
So if it was lower in 2009, and Uber didn't exist in 2009, it follows that you haven't isolated the drunk drive factor!
Also you then need to figure out what makes them not drunk-drive. If its the easy booking by phone, well taxis can be ordered by phone so the reduction in recent years might be attributed to the easy book-by-smartphone apps, not specifically the unlicensed nature of Uber taxis!
Likewise if its price, then maybe reducing the price of taxis is the solution, rather than replacing taxis with unlicensed ones.
Re: (Score:3)
So if it was lower in 2009, and Uber didn't exist in 2009, it follows that you haven't isolated the drunk drive factor!
Also you then need to figure out what makes them not drunk-drive. If its the easy booking by phone, well taxis can be ordered by phone so the reduction in recent years might be attributed to the easy book-by-smartphone apps, not specifically the unlicensed nature of Uber taxis!
Likewise if its price, then maybe reducing the price of taxis is the solution, rather than replacing taxis with unlicensed ones.
It does seem that there are likely big correlation holes in this paper. The title should read "student paper suggests there might be a correlation between Uber and reduced drunk driving". But heck, why should accuracy matter when its good PR for Uber?
Re: (Score:2)
The oil industry has been trying to pay for anti-global-warming papers for ages, according to people I know who were offered money directly and didn't take any.
Maybe the title should read, "Uber offering big bucks for any sort of paper or report which appears to establish positive externalities for them doing exactly what they want" :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can actually talk to a person and give them details.
I'm a visual learner though. I consider talking to a person a downside. I can punch an address into the application, verify it on the map, READ the quoted price, SEE the time estimates to be picked up and dropped off, maybe even my ride's current location, etc...
As for being too drunk to use an app, in that case you're likely just trying to get home right? I'm sure your house would be in your 'address book'. Heck, you could have a big red button of an app: 'GET RIDE HOME'.
Although I am sure someone will be along shortly to ruin that for everyone by pretending to be drunk and getting rides home for free (they will only take you home).
Pretending? Why, when actually
Re: (Score:2)
Pretending? Why, when actually getting drunk* is so cheap?
Cheap? Maybe if your buying wino wine, but anything you buy at a bar is going to be $6 for a glass of beer. And it takes several of those to get drunk. I don't drink at all, partly for financial reasons, partly because alcohol tastes nasty, partly because I have alcoholics in the family and my grandmother died of kidney failure from lifelong drinking, partly because I am afraid I will get drunk and act as foolish as every drunk person I have ever seen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So if it was lower in 2009, and Uber didn't exist in 2009, it follows that you haven't isolated the drunk drive factor!
Also you then need to figure out what makes them not drunk-drive. If its the easy booking by phone, well taxis can be ordered by phone so the reduction in recent years might be attributed to the easy book-by-smartphone apps, not specifically the unlicensed nature of Uber taxis!
Likewise if its price, then maybe reducing the price of taxis is the solution, rather than replacing taxis with unlicensed ones.
I grew up in the Bay Area and a lot of places had free taxi service on new years eve. They do it here where I live now, also. Why would anyone want to drive drunk on NYE? Perhaps there is a long line to get your free taxi.
Insurance subsidy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Insurance companies should see this as an opportunity to subsidise late night taxi rides for those who have been drinking. It would cost them far less than paying out on a death or inury claim due to a drunk driver.
Re: (Score:2)
Insurance companies should see this as an opportunity to subsidise late night taxi rides for those who have been drinking. It would cost them far less than paying out on a death or inury claim due to a drunk driver.
Or perhaps ask those who profit the most from getting people drunk in public (the bars) to subsidize that cost instead.
Insurance companies don't solely exist to support drunks, and not every insurance claim revolves around alcohol.
Re: (Score:2)
and not every insurance claim revolves around alcohol.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all life's problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Or perhaps ask those who profit the most from getting people drunk in public (the bars) to subsidize that cost instead.
Why villainize the bar? It is the patron that went to the bar, ordered the drinks and drank the drinks. Make the patron pay the price.
Re: (Score:2)
Not when everyone just stops showing moderation and gets trashed because they don't have to drive home, they can just get a cheap cab because its on their insurance.
And then I end up paying way more cause you can rest assured that Insurance companies aren't going to eat the cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Where I grew up, there are several volunteer services that do just that for every big party or event. It sounds insane, but it works wonders. They also gamified staying sober... you received stuff if you left the party below the legal limit.
Where I lived 10 years ago, they have free public transport from the pub areas to the residential areas on weekend nights.
Re: (Score:2)
Hm...
24 rides from the insurance company(per year), 2 from the bank, call it another 12 using party specific stuff, another 12 from the bars, etc...
You could probably get drunk every Friday night and never have to pay for a ride.
FTFY (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you lived in SF, you would know that "adequate publicly available transport" is a noun-phrase that refers to Uber, and maybe Lyft.
Headline goes WAY too far? (Score:2)
According to crime statistics from the San Francisco Police Department there were only two drunken driving arrests last New Year's Eve in San Francisco
Those "crime statistics" amount to six numbers. Six. One for each year since 2009. And all of them are below 10. And we're not shown the stats before 2009, which would have helped to work out the normal variation.
This news comes on the heels of a new study revealing that the introduction of UberX reduces drunk driving deaths across California.
While I'm not going to dispute the results of the study mentioned (which covers the whole of California, and presumbly for a longer period than one day a year), it seems way too much to imply from it that Uber was also behind the "reduction" (actually more like a restoration to the 2009 figure) in
Drunk Driving Arrests went down... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even more accurate headline: drunk driving arrests went up, then they went down again, and Uber somethingsomething.
Now must be stopped (Score:2)
I'm really anxious about tomorrow's UBER story... (Score:3)
Uber Helps reducing child abuse in Vatican City?
Uber Lowers corruption in third world countries?
Uber Helps greek economy?
Uber reduces unemployment figures in Detroit metro area?
Uber linked to lower cancer rates in mice?
Uber helps opressed woman in middle east?
HOLD ON! That was last week!
So help me out on this one, let's predict TOMORROW'S UBER HEADLINE IN SLASHDOT!
I'm sure an unlicenced cab service/mafia, can use it's illegal revenue to get the best PR and legal services around, but we all can give a hand to slashdot to keep those headlines coming!
Re: (Score:2)
So help me out on this one, let's predict TOMORROW'S UBER HEADLINE IN SLASHDOT!
Uber is declared known to cause cancer by the State of California?
Free Taxis for drunks (Score:2)
If the price is the issue, then why not make it a requirement to get a taxis license that if someone blows drunk, they ride free and the state reimburses the taxi.
Big Trouble (Score:2)
How much do you wanna bet (Score:2)
The old "correlation is not causation" question .. (Score:2)
I'm asking this in all seriousness because traffic enforcement in NYC where I live has become nearly nonexistent. So the number of tickets for "failure to yield right of way", "reckless driving", passing a red light, and the rest of the traffic violations has "dramatically decreased" in NYC. But the number of drivers who do these things
Many cabbies really don't like hauling drunks (Score:2)
... and neither will Uber drivers once they've had enough bad experiences.
They pass out in cabs.
They vomit in cabs.
They become belligerent and refuse to pay or they don't have enough money.
They forget where they're going.
Re: (Score:2)
That's assuming you live really close to the bar. What if the distance were longer and you had to pay $75-100, each way, so $150 minimum just for the rides? Most people can't afford $200 just for the rides.