Critique on "Transportation network companies: Yes!"

I critiqued Myriam Cisses post "Transporation network companies: yes!" posted on April 26, 2016 here.

---

Although I agree that, at the local level, the government has had some poor dealings with ridesharing services such as Uber and Lyft, I disagree that Uber and Lyft are entirely without fault. The city of Austin has been guilty of allowing the taxi companies to influence them into pushing anti-competitive legislation, but, even though Uber and Lyft have both left Austin as of this week, ridesharing services are here to stay. Taxi companies will have to evolve in order to become competitive, however, that does not mean that companies such as Uber and Lyft should be exempt from all of the regulations that the taxi companies have had to abide by.

Perceived motive plays a big part in the way voters react to legislation, and the public perception amongst those that support ridesharing services has generally been that taxi companies are lobbying to place unreasonable regulations on companies such as Uber and Lyft in order to suppress competition. This is not an unfair assertion to make, but it is an idea that Uber and Lyft have both exploited in their $8 million campaign to pass Prop 1, the most expensive election in Austin's history. But this is not as simple as a backwards city council trying to impose excessively harsh laws on the ridesharing services to try and run them out of town: this is Uber and Lyft trying to set a precedent to allow them to regulate themselves as they see fit, and withholding their services as some sort of punishment after the people of Austin failed to vote in their favor.

Ridesharing services are a unique institution, and deserve thoughtful legislation that is focused first and foremost on safety. While it is true that the city has antagonized them and generally failed to cooperate, they have attempted to use this as leverage in order to coerce their customers to pressure the local government into allowing them to run wild. By ending operations in Austin, they have dishonestly presented a non-binary issue to the public as a binary one: as if the only options that exist are to pass Prop 1 or to lose Uber and Lyft's services. While it is well within their rights to withdraw themselves from the city, we must not forget that they have done so voluntarily. Uber and Lyft have a history of doing this, and generally the cities have cracked under public pressure and submitted to the demands of the companies. Uber and Lyft do not intend nor do they expect to lose their customer base in Austin. In fact, if enough cities call their bluff, they will be forced to adapt and accept the regulations that we as a city have decided on through an election.