You go out with friends and by then end of the night find yourself drunk in the back of a taxi, searching for $10 to pay the driver. For those who stumble home, singing Sweet Caroline, we applaud you.
This is where Uber took initiative.
The popular ride sharing app is often at the center of global debate as it attempts to disrupt traditional taxis while battling employee wage suits and suppressing customer safety concerns.
However, recently the service has introduced free rides for anyone who passes a breathalyzer test. The concept is called Uber Safe, their attempt to suppress drunk driving. it consists of a massive breathalyzer machine on on a sidewalk. All you have to do is take a straw, from the machine, and see if you blow over the legal limit.
If you do pass, you’re too drunk to drive. Uber will hail you a car for a free ride home.
A site has appeared in Toronto as a marketing stunt, so don’t get excited. However, with the massive turnout Uber has told users to “stay tuned” for more kiosks in more areas.
Our only concern will be the lines at any NYC kiosk when at that point, drunks will have to decide between waiting for a possible free ride or taking their chances.
It's an interesting dilemma, because the goal of the project it to reduce drunk driving, which seems likely to be a successful goal. It's a tradeoff, but I think I would side with Uber on this one. I think what you're describing is more of an edge case.
You just have to be over the legal limit [0]. We're not talking about anywhere near lethal amounts. So...drink 3 beers instead of 2? Obviously it depends, but because it's such a low percentage, this is not an issue.
Most college campuses already do something similar with safe ride programs. Such programs are usually seen as a good thing, in my experience.
The amount of alcohol needed to be over the legal limit is actually remarkably small and Toronto and other major cities they might possibly do this promotion in aren't exactly known for cheap drinks. Based on that and the high probability that a person who goes out drinking in a major city will not venture too far from their residence, I expect that two drinks would usually be more expensive than a ride home.
Uber fucks up plenty of things that are worth taking issue with, it is my opinion that this is not one of those things. I think most people should see this as a morally positive promotion.
Every campus safe-ride I've heard of is free for all students no matter what. The issue here is the breathalyzer, not that they provide free rides for the drunk ones. At the college I went to, for example, you could use saferide as long as you had a campus id (now you can even use it without as long as you are with a group of <5 with an id among you, or if you pay $2). There's no incentive to get drunk there, because the ride will be there regardless. Since Uber is breathalyzing the clients, it's actually in your favor to be over the limit, hence the extra liability.
The saferide at schools I went to(large state schools) was limited to students who they deemed 'needed' it so if you stated you didn't feel safe, or that you were drunk they would provide a ride. If you were sober, felt safe, and were honest though they would not provide you with a ride. I know I tried at both schools I attended. Some of us would take more moral issue with lying to abuse a resource in way other than its intended purpose, than with getting drunk so we could use it honestly.
You can easily 'lie' to the breathalyzer to make yourself read as over the limit without drinking more also, so for me it is the same issue.
It's extremely common where I live for various entities (colleges, cities, bars, etc.) to offer safe ride home programs free of charge. Some places just do it during holidays or other alcohol-related events, but some do it year-round. It seems like it's been pretty much exclusively a good thing. I think the risks associated with driving under the influence far, far outweigh the other dangers typically associated with drinking.
Or the flip side, taking a cab is a PITA. I'll blow into the machine and if I pass I know I'm good to drive home. The limit in many places is on the edge or below any real impairment. I'd love to know easily if the 2 beers I had were too many b/c I had an empty stomach or whatnot.
The problem with saying I should just know is that by the definition of impairment, my judgement would be impaired.
This seems like a lot of hand wringing. Taxi drivers give rides to, and deal with, people in various stages of inebriation every night of the year. In fact, collecting drinkers at night is likely the best money making time of any every day.
The legal blood alcohol limit in basically any developed country is usually so low that people can readily hit it with a drink or two without feeling any sort of intoxication from it, let alone having their abilities grossly impaired.
I don't think this publicity stunt carries much danger for anyone involved beyond the usual dangers associated with operating a taxi at night. Drinkers will still get cabs, free or paid for, but this may cause more people "on the fence" to get a cab rather than driving their car home.
Even getting them into a line for a free cab may spur them to just take a paid one since they've made already made a moral choice to not drive after drinking by lining up for the cab in the first place.
It's a good idea overall, I think, so long as the cab drivers are properly compensated for it. I would also wonder about how it will affect the drivers in terms of lining up to collect these customers versus simply taking whatever is going through the app. There's an opportunity cost involved for them if they're sitting in a queue versus driving around waiting to be hailed with or without the app.
> The legal blood alcohol limit in basically any developed country is usually so low that people can readily hit it with a drink or two without feeling any sort of intoxication from it
a lot of places have basically zero tolerance to drinking and driving. here in brazil, anything higher than 0.05mg/l is subjected to fine and inability to drive for 12mo. [0]
so, even if you had one beer, you need to take a cab back home.
I wouldn't actually say that it's "a whole different league from anything else a drunkard might do." The freakonomics guys claimed that it was at least as dangerous to oneself (although not to others) to walk drunk as to drive drunk, and I also know people who have hurt themselves very badly biking drunk, but who view it much more nonchalantly than driving drunk. There are also often local stories about people hurting themselves or dying falling out of windows or off balconies or roofs while drunk.
Driving drunk is particularly bad for how it can affect other people, but there are lots of dangerous things that people do while drunk that are also very concerning.
Way to sneak in "(although not to others)". That's the whole argument. When you drive drunk you endanger others who did not make the same irresponsible choices you did. If drunk driving only injured drunk drivers, we, as a society, would not care nearly as much as we do.
Who cares if some drunk guy kills himself behind the wheel because he's too selfish to make the right choice? It's when he kills a family with a couple kids in the backseat that we have a problem.
I think lots of people care. I didn't mean to make it a small point that drunk driving endangers other people, but I wanted to point out that there are lots of life-threatening behaviors between drunk driving and sleeping with someone you wouldn't have slept with sober. I also think you're being far too flippant about people killing themselves with their own poor decisions. It's not the same problem as killing others, but there are lots of people in the world who would still like to prevent deaths from drug overdoses, alcohol poisoning, single-party drunk driving accidents, and so on.
I really doubt it, specially since getting drunk to the level of being very harmful is way pass the drinking limit.
But I agree with your concern, I'm sure there will be one or two instances when some incredibly stupid individual will do that and ruin it for everyone.
>"This publicity stunt by Uber actually creates a perverse incentive for drinkers to increase their blood alcohol level.
So what, as long as it keeps people who would otherwise drive drunk off the road?
>"But if your blood alcohol level is high enough to impair your ability to drive safely, who's to say what other abilities it might impair?"
Give me a break. I don't care if you are so drunk you can hardly walk, and fall and smash your face. That's your problem. Better than killing my friends and family behind the wheel. That's my problem.
So instead of drinking one or two drinks someone might drink two or three? Be still my heart! /sarcasm
If you want to talk about "perverse" incentives you've no sense of the big picture. Are you really going to criticize Uber when there is a multibillion dollar alcohol and nightlife industry advertising, giving away free samples, and over serving people? Get some perspective, you're way overthinking this.
You have zero evidence that this will increase drinking and it's pretty reasonable to hypothesize that it will decrease drunk driving. Ethical responsibility for drinking falls solely on the drinker anyway.
Of course its for publicity. Its a for profit business. If you can give something to the consumers and get something out of it at the same time, its daft not to do so.
> But if your blood alcohol level is high enough to impair your ability to drive safely, who's to say what other abilities it might impair?
I don't understand the concern here at all. Clearly you've maintained enough sense to call Uber instead of drive home, so what are you concerned about here?
Honestly, I think people need to step back from this negative image trying to be branded onto Uber to evaluate their projects a little more objectively. Calling it perverse, is rather extreme.
> But if your blood alcohol level is high enough to impair your ability to drive safely, who's to say what other abilities it might impair?
Dude, in most countries (including most US states) your blood alcohol is legally above the limit after two beers. Do you really think most people are royally fucked with their "other abilities" after just two beers?
Maybe not royally. But definitely shouldn't drive. The mistaken belief that you CAN still drive after 2 beers is the reason drunk driving is such a big problem.
This is really the top-voted comment right now? An adult male of average weight hits .08 BAC at about 4 drinks. $5 will get you about 4-5 miles in an Uber, and in many bars that won't even get you another drink. You're completely wrong no matter how you look at this.
Doesn't HN have a new rule about pointless negativity? If this doesn't violate that rule, I don't know what does.
If you want get a free ride and you're sober, just swish some hard liquor around your mouth before you blow. A little single serving bottle could probably get you 3-4 trips!
Yeah, this is a terrible idea, for all the reasons people have already listed. Perverse incentives, easily gamed.
You have to wonder how these kind of things even get past the initial brainstorming sessions. It only takes a couple reasonably intelligent people a bit of discussion to come up with why this is not a good idea.
But maybe Uber knows what they are doing, or how to handle the downsides. I'm skeptical.
If you're not going to think for yourself, at least try to choose more intelligent people to think for you instead of parroting the ridiculous opinion of the first poster on the thread.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, or why you think it's a ridiculous opinion.
People respond to incentives. If you add an incentive to drink more, they will do so. Whether the positives outweigh the negatives is hard to tell, but you can't ignore the fact that they are there.
I can and will ignore the hypothesis you are claiming is a fact, because even if it's true, it's too minor to be worth talking about.
Copy/pasting what I said elsewhere:
So instead of drinking one or two drinks someone might drink two or three? Be still my heart! /sarcasm
If you want to talk about "perverse" incentives you've no sense of the big picture. Are you really going to criticize Uber when there is a multibillion dollar alcohol and nightlife industry advertising, giving away free samples, and over serving people? Get some perspective, you're way overthinking this.
You have zero evidence that this will increase drinking and it's pretty reasonable to hypothesize that it will decrease drunk driving. Ethical responsibility for drinking falls solely on the drinker anyway.
"Perverse incentives" is a term, not a negation of the word incentives.
If you'd like me to criticize the alcohol and nightlife industry I could do that as well, but I was discussing Uber, as that is what the link discussed.
You've just described the multibillion dollar industry "giving away free samples, and over serving people" and then claimed that the responsibility falls solely on the drinker. You're all over the place copsarebastards.
There's no way to make assertions about the effects of Uber on alcohol consumption because any effect Uber might have is negligible comparison with the effects of the alcohol and nightlife industries. I'm not saying you should criticize those industries, I'm saying that if you're going to blame someone other than the drinker for the innocuous crime of drinking one more drink than usual, it's ridiculous to target Uber.
I talked about the alcohol and nightlife industries as a criticism of your statements. Alcohol consumption being the responsibility of the drinker is a statement of my own belief. If you can't understand why these ideas are not contradictory I can't help you.
You could probably increase your Breathalyzer reading sharply by gargling with a few mL of hard liquor seconds before taking the test. (I understood this as an unmanned device.)
"[C]ertified breath-test operators are trained to observe a test subject carefully for at least 15–20 minutes before administering the test [... A] very tiny amount of alcohol from the mouth, throat or stomach can have a significant impact on the breath-alcohol reading." If so, people who haven't been drinking at all but are willing to carry around a flask of liquor might be able to get free rides home at any time.
I didn't mean to join all of the other criticisms of the program; I was just interested in the reliability of the Breathalyzer as a way of achieving the apparent goal, which I think is low. I'm not particularly bothered or concerned that Uber is doing this.
Why should Uber drivers be forced to deal with shitfaced passengers? Unless the drivers have the choice of taking this category of passengers, this seems like a real shoddy deal for drivers, and a bad incentive for alcoholics.
So right now the #1 reason I use Uber/Lyft is because I am drunk or plan on drinking and don't want to:
A. Leave my car downtown and have to get it in the morning
B. Give drunk Josh the option to drive. I'd rather take a Lyft, not drink and take a Lyft back then take the chance that I will made a very stupid decision while drunk and drive home.
I'm rarely "shitfaced" but most of my friends use Uber/Lyft that same way I do so I'm always drunk or planning or being drunk when I take a Lyft. For everything else I just drive myself.
What I'm trying to say is Uber/Lyft drivers already deal with this so if this initiative helps to keep drunks off the road (both driving and walking, which I've heard can be even more dangerous than driving) then I'm all for it.
They have the choice of dealing with shitfaced passengers mainly through the hours they choose to work, pretty much all of them accept that working from late evening to early morning that most of their fares will be people who have been drinking, and a portion of those will be shitfaced.
The real issue is why are bars legal in the first place? Not being a user of alcohol but living next to a bar I constantly ask that question. If they really wanted to catch drunk drivers just sit in front of my house and you would pick up a couple an hour.
Also how can you call yourself a adult and then go out get completely shitfaced then go "Oh no, I don't have a way to get home." like it was a unavoidable consequence of existence.
*People who downvote (but have no correction, objection, or answer to) this may have to reevaluate the role bacteria feces plays in their lives.
If drinking and driving isn't legal and said bar is not within walking distance of any public transport then how can they legally serve more than a beer or two when you arrive alone or when the entire party is drinking? Either change the limit or bust them. The drunks near me even park their cars toward the street because they know when they leave they will be to drunk to back out.
I don't know if its the same in all cities, but in Austin I have actually had taxi services refuse to pick me up if I give an address that is a bar, regardless of my level of inebriation.
Uber may not be a model corporate citizen, but I have trouble as seeing this as anything but a good move. Particularly, given that my current city has a pretty big issue with drunk drivers.
I might be sounding as taking Uber for overly cynical, but it really sounds like yet another way to kill all competitors. And if it is, I am wondering what will happen when all competition is indeed killed. Will they keep burning money on it (as they do today on uberpool), or stop the whole program, andmake people chose between paying an uber or driving home wasted ?
I'd bet on the second case, in which case the reduction of DYI will only be temporary, followed to a potential increase compared to current rates (due to people drinking more becaus of this stunt). Am I paranoid ?
I thought something similar. In that I read this and immediately thought 'wow Uber came up with a way to cut into one of the Taxi systems cash cows even more' Now if they come up with something like cheaper rates when one end point of your trip is an airport they can take a cut of the other big one. It seems remarkably clever as an idea to hurt their competition, just enough evil to seem charming to me in this light.
Ahhh well I never claimed to be clever or original. Unfortunately for me in Boston they have an 8.75 airport surcharge, and no sign of flat rates from my experience.
This sounds like the exact opposite PR image that Uber wants to create. "We make it easier for you to get drunk." This would be like OpenDoor advertising "Sell your house more quickly during a divorce." Technically, yes, but that's not a sustainable image for your company.
This could get ugly if the kiosk tells someone they're below the limit, they drive off in their car and then the cop who pulls them over thinks otherwise.
Commenters on this thread have their heads so far up their asses that they are choking on their noses. Only on HN is a harm-reduction promo to decrease drunk driving a PR disaster because it might cause some people to drink one more drink to get a free ride.
Did you ever think that overthinking things might give people a perverse incentive to drink so they can forget your post?
Seriously, a huge uproar over a marketing 101 textbook promotion. Attempt to alter consumer behavior in a manner that favors your brand by giving away a free sample. Does anyone seriously think Uber will continue this promo indefinitely? Of course not. I'm guessing the culture in Toronto is most people drive drunk because cabs cost too much, so this kind of promo is intended to help gain traction in the most lucrative market segment for Uber, the bar/club closers.
60 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 156 ms ] threadVideo: https://youtu.be/VECIOprmHMg
We’ve all been there.
You go out with friends and by then end of the night find yourself drunk in the back of a taxi, searching for $10 to pay the driver. For those who stumble home, singing Sweet Caroline, we applaud you.
This is where Uber took initiative.
The popular ride sharing app is often at the center of global debate as it attempts to disrupt traditional taxis while battling employee wage suits and suppressing customer safety concerns.
However, recently the service has introduced free rides for anyone who passes a breathalyzer test. The concept is called Uber Safe, their attempt to suppress drunk driving. it consists of a massive breathalyzer machine on on a sidewalk. All you have to do is take a straw, from the machine, and see if you blow over the legal limit.
If you do pass, you’re too drunk to drive. Uber will hail you a car for a free ride home.
A site has appeared in Toronto as a marketing stunt, so don’t get excited. However, with the massive turnout Uber has told users to “stay tuned” for more kiosks in more areas.
Our only concern will be the lines at any NYC kiosk when at that point, drunks will have to decide between waiting for a possible free ride or taking their chances.
If cab fare home is more expensive than the cost of the drinks needed to get you over the limit, then it makes (financial) sense to drink up.
Which sounds harmless, since Uber's agreeing to drive you home.
But if your blood alcohol level is high enough to impair your ability to drive safely, who's to say what other abilities it might impair?
And does Uber really want to assume moral liability, if not legal liability, if something goes wrong?
[0]0.08 in most states, I believe.
The amount of alcohol needed to be over the legal limit is actually remarkably small and Toronto and other major cities they might possibly do this promotion in aren't exactly known for cheap drinks. Based on that and the high probability that a person who goes out drinking in a major city will not venture too far from their residence, I expect that two drinks would usually be more expensive than a ride home.
Uber fucks up plenty of things that are worth taking issue with, it is my opinion that this is not one of those things. I think most people should see this as a morally positive promotion.
You can easily 'lie' to the breathalyzer to make yourself read as over the limit without drinking more also, so for me it is the same issue.
It's extremely common where I live for various entities (colleges, cities, bars, etc.) to offer safe ride home programs free of charge. Some places just do it during holidays or other alcohol-related events, but some do it year-round. It seems like it's been pretty much exclusively a good thing. I think the risks associated with driving under the influence far, far outweigh the other dangers typically associated with drinking.
The problem with saying I should just know is that by the definition of impairment, my judgement would be impaired.
The legal blood alcohol limit in basically any developed country is usually so low that people can readily hit it with a drink or two without feeling any sort of intoxication from it, let alone having their abilities grossly impaired.
I don't think this publicity stunt carries much danger for anyone involved beyond the usual dangers associated with operating a taxi at night. Drinkers will still get cabs, free or paid for, but this may cause more people "on the fence" to get a cab rather than driving their car home.
Even getting them into a line for a free cab may spur them to just take a paid one since they've made already made a moral choice to not drive after drinking by lining up for the cab in the first place.
It's a good idea overall, I think, so long as the cab drivers are properly compensated for it. I would also wonder about how it will affect the drivers in terms of lining up to collect these customers versus simply taking whatever is going through the app. There's an opportunity cost involved for them if they're sitting in a queue versus driving around waiting to be hailed with or without the app.
a lot of places have basically zero tolerance to drinking and driving. here in brazil, anything higher than 0.05mg/l is subjected to fine and inability to drive for 12mo. [0]
so, even if you had one beer, you need to take a cab back home.
[0] http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_l205403471...
Driving drunk is particularly bad for how it can affect other people, but there are lots of dangerous things that people do while drunk that are also very concerning.
Who cares if some drunk guy kills himself behind the wheel because he's too selfish to make the right choice? It's when he kills a family with a couple kids in the backseat that we have a problem.
I think lots of people care. I didn't mean to make it a small point that drunk driving endangers other people, but I wanted to point out that there are lots of life-threatening behaviors between drunk driving and sleeping with someone you wouldn't have slept with sober. I also think you're being far too flippant about people killing themselves with their own poor decisions. It's not the same problem as killing others, but there are lots of people in the world who would still like to prevent deaths from drug overdoses, alcohol poisoning, single-party drunk driving accidents, and so on.
But I agree with your concern, I'm sure there will be one or two instances when some incredibly stupid individual will do that and ruin it for everyone.
So what, as long as it keeps people who would otherwise drive drunk off the road?
>"But if your blood alcohol level is high enough to impair your ability to drive safely, who's to say what other abilities it might impair?"
Give me a break. I don't care if you are so drunk you can hardly walk, and fall and smash your face. That's your problem. Better than killing my friends and family behind the wheel. That's my problem.
If you want to talk about "perverse" incentives you've no sense of the big picture. Are you really going to criticize Uber when there is a multibillion dollar alcohol and nightlife industry advertising, giving away free samples, and over serving people? Get some perspective, you're way overthinking this.
You have zero evidence that this will increase drinking and it's pretty reasonable to hypothesize that it will decrease drunk driving. Ethical responsibility for drinking falls solely on the drinker anyway.
Of course its for publicity. Its a for profit business. If you can give something to the consumers and get something out of it at the same time, its daft not to do so.
> But if your blood alcohol level is high enough to impair your ability to drive safely, who's to say what other abilities it might impair?
I don't understand the concern here at all. Clearly you've maintained enough sense to call Uber instead of drive home, so what are you concerned about here?
Honestly, I think people need to step back from this negative image trying to be branded onto Uber to evaluate their projects a little more objectively. Calling it perverse, is rather extreme.
It hasn't had ANY undesirable results. Calling it perverse at this point in time is definitely a pessimistic take on Uber's play here.
Dude, in most countries (including most US states) your blood alcohol is legally above the limit after two beers. Do you really think most people are royally fucked with their "other abilities" after just two beers?
Doesn't HN have a new rule about pointless negativity? If this doesn't violate that rule, I don't know what does.
You have to wonder how these kind of things even get past the initial brainstorming sessions. It only takes a couple reasonably intelligent people a bit of discussion to come up with why this is not a good idea.
But maybe Uber knows what they are doing, or how to handle the downsides. I'm skeptical.
People respond to incentives. If you add an incentive to drink more, they will do so. Whether the positives outweigh the negatives is hard to tell, but you can't ignore the fact that they are there.
Copy/pasting what I said elsewhere:
So instead of drinking one or two drinks someone might drink two or three? Be still my heart! /sarcasm
If you want to talk about "perverse" incentives you've no sense of the big picture. Are you really going to criticize Uber when there is a multibillion dollar alcohol and nightlife industry advertising, giving away free samples, and over serving people? Get some perspective, you're way overthinking this.
You have zero evidence that this will increase drinking and it's pretty reasonable to hypothesize that it will decrease drunk driving. Ethical responsibility for drinking falls solely on the drinker anyway.
If you'd like me to criticize the alcohol and nightlife industry I could do that as well, but I was discussing Uber, as that is what the link discussed.
You've just described the multibillion dollar industry "giving away free samples, and over serving people" and then claimed that the responsibility falls solely on the drinker. You're all over the place copsarebastards.
I talked about the alcohol and nightlife industries as a criticism of your statements. Alcohol consumption being the responsibility of the drinker is a statement of my own belief. If you can't understand why these ideas are not contradictory I can't help you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breathalyzer#Mouth_alcohol
"[C]ertified breath-test operators are trained to observe a test subject carefully for at least 15–20 minutes before administering the test [... A] very tiny amount of alcohol from the mouth, throat or stomach can have a significant impact on the breath-alcohol reading." If so, people who haven't been drinking at all but are willing to carry around a flask of liquor might be able to get free rides home at any time.
A. Leave my car downtown and have to get it in the morning
B. Give drunk Josh the option to drive. I'd rather take a Lyft, not drink and take a Lyft back then take the chance that I will made a very stupid decision while drunk and drive home.
I'm rarely "shitfaced" but most of my friends use Uber/Lyft that same way I do so I'm always drunk or planning or being drunk when I take a Lyft. For everything else I just drive myself.
What I'm trying to say is Uber/Lyft drivers already deal with this so if this initiative helps to keep drunks off the road (both driving and walking, which I've heard can be even more dangerous than driving) then I'm all for it.
I would go from spending $100/mo to $0
Also how can you call yourself a adult and then go out get completely shitfaced then go "Oh no, I don't have a way to get home." like it was a unavoidable consequence of existence.
*People who downvote (but have no correction, objection, or answer to) this may have to reevaluate the role bacteria feces plays in their lives.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designated_driver
Uber may not be a model corporate citizen, but I have trouble as seeing this as anything but a good move. Particularly, given that my current city has a pretty big issue with drunk drivers.
Did you ever think that overthinking things might give people a perverse incentive to drink so they can forget your post?