This was a frustrating article to read. More people are using Uber/Lyft when out partying/drinking so the results should have shown that DUI’s are down, accidents that are alcohol related. The article doesn’t seem to connect the dots of Uber/Lyft and more traffic accidents.
Hmmmmm- kinda like how they leave off data of how many people are saved by owning and using a gun to protect themselves. Funny how that works….media that spins facts to fit an agenda. Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmm.
“Importantly, in our research design we do not place our focus solely on fatalities resulting from drunk driving or alcohol consumption, as we are interested in overall effects on fatal accident rates. Rather, we focus on total fatal accidents, using a broad sample, and utilizing the introduction of both Uber and Lyft, including the different types of Uber and Lyft service. While RH may indeed displace some drunk drivers, our estimates suggest that overall accident rates and fatalities increase in the wake of RH introduction, despite the possible benefits from limiting impaired driving.”
Basically, their study didn’t focus on the change in DUI’s based on ride sharing options because (as cited), there are a lot of studies done on that already.
Which means their numbers are BS if they don’t account for the impact of ridesharing on lowering on-the-road accidents from fewer drunk driving accidents, and so their numbers don’t truly reflect ride sharing’s overall impact at all.
(But that wouldn’t make much of a story now would it: “Ridesharing’s Impact on Accidents Not Understood Completely by Insurance Journal, so Insurance Journal can’t blame them”.)
Not sure how that makes their numbers invalid. For example — if there were 100 deaths on the road per month before ridesharing and there are 200 deaths on the road after ridesharing, regardless of how many drunk driving fatalities ridesharing “saved”, there’s still a correlation between an increase in road deaths due to ridesharing.
That’s like looking at the number of murders committed with guns and never looking at the number of lives saved by a private citizen with a gun, and claiming guns are “bad”.
What if more lives are saved by a private citizen with a gun than there are murders with a gun? Then guns would be a net GOOD.
And if more lives are saved by ride-sharing’s reduction of drunk driving deaths than are lost due to more miles on the road . . .
July 12, 2019 at 6:36 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Keep in mind they attribute every additional accident from any source whatsoever to ride sharing, including all additional accidents from cars not ride sharing, simply because ride sharing activity grew as the number of overall accidents from all cars grew.
Causation? No connection whatsoever. If they counted the number of additional accidents from ride sharing ALONE, it might mean something.
But failing to focus on the actual accident numbers from ride sharing alone, and then subtracting the number of drunk driving accidents that didn’t happen as a result of ride sharing, is the only thing that would establish a causal connection.
July 12, 2019 at 6:36 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
And remember, texting-related road accidents grew dramatically in the last 10 years.
July 9, 2019 at 2:07 pm
The Value of Life? says:
Like or Dislike:
10
1
The study says 987 deaths could be attributed to ride-sharing then says the costs of those deaths was $10 billion. That’s over $10.1 million per death. Seems a little far fetched to me.
I obviously haven’t looked at the actual study, but these summarized results don’t make any sense. I’d expect the numbers of accidents to increase every year, especially as the population continues to increase. Without adjusting for population changes, using raw data is irresponsible at best. Or you could say it’s downright disingenuous and borderline malfeasance.
Data from the auto industry indicates more people are driving more miles every year, especially as gas prices and interest rates remain favorable. Comparing 2019/2019 to 2010 is a little like shooting fish in a barrel. The U.S. was just starting to come out of the recession and much higher gas prices, plus the debacle that was the cash for clunkers program, means the situations are radically different in that decade.
At best, they’re demonstrating a weak correlation between the launch of ride-hailing activities and changes in traffic fatalities without addressing other things like the prevalence of using handheld devices while operating vehicles.
What would be compelling would be the statistical percentage of ride-hailing operators who were in accidents, accidents with injury and fatalities vs. non-ride-hailing operators. Then adjust for population, economic influence and the influence of technology while we’re driving. Then you can draw some actual conclusions. As such, this is the equivalent of saying that global warming is the direct cause of the decrease in pirates in the Caribbean. Link for fun: https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaandersen/2012/03/23/true-fact-the-lack-of-pirates-is-causing-global-warming/#2a2b7f823a67
Why is everyone so consumed with Uber/Lyft? Taxicabs have been around for decades. All this talk about reduction in DUIs as a result of ridesharing is ridiculous. It’s almost as if people were driving drunk for decades and “poof” UBER/Lyft arrived to save the day. Come on folks. Taxicab companies and Taxi associations, along with limo and car services might be a bit behind in technology because of their structure, but you can walk outside in any major City and hail a cab. And with a little effort using your method of searching the internet or downloading apps from your phone, you can easily find a variety of Taxi apps for companies near you.
As for congestion, Uber / Lyft have multiplied faster rabbits do. They all flock to the Cities on weekends, jamming up the streets and causing congestion. At airports they are a disease that needs to be eradicated as they are clogging up parking lots, waiting areas, and shoulders of the roads. yet, they are complaining they need a place to stage. Maybe Uber /Lyft should have thought of that before signing up millions of drivers.
Taxicab drivers in many cities, like Chicago, go through a training class to learn streets, roads, routes and major destination points. Those driving for a TNC , have no special training or licensing. They rely on GPS and most often are driving distracted because they are not familiar with the streets and traffic flow and as a result, cause accidents or get in accidents. on the flipside, traxicab drivers can be erratic too, and do get in accidents as well, which is frustrating as they need some remedial training as well.
Lastly, as a Insurance Professional involved with the Transportation Industry, I have witnessed drivers excluded from driving a commercial or a public vehicle, who turn up driving for a TNC, so the TNC’s are not fully nor properly screening drivers. Just because a MVR is clear, does not mean that the driver is good as there are times accidents are not reported to the DMV and in some states, it is relatively routine to pay a fine and not have a accident or moving violation appear on the MVR.
So if we really care about people dying,
1. we ban those services
2. we sue the provider of those services
Ya know, kinda like guns.
Yeah! Tell it like it is Jacky boy! Just like guns, yep I see the connection too!
This was a frustrating article to read. More people are using Uber/Lyft when out partying/drinking so the results should have shown that DUI’s are down, accidents that are alcohol related. The article doesn’t seem to connect the dots of Uber/Lyft and more traffic accidents.
Hmmmmm- kinda like how they leave off data of how many people are saved by owning and using a gun to protect themselves. Funny how that works….media that spins facts to fit an agenda. Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmm.
and yet….we still click on the articles…
“Importantly, in our research design we do not place our focus solely on fatalities resulting from drunk driving or alcohol consumption, as we are interested in overall effects on fatal accident rates. Rather, we focus on total fatal accidents, using a broad sample, and utilizing the introduction of both Uber and Lyft, including the different types of Uber and Lyft service. While RH may indeed displace some drunk drivers, our estimates suggest that overall accident rates and fatalities increase in the wake of RH introduction, despite the possible benefits from limiting impaired driving.”
Basically, their study didn’t focus on the change in DUI’s based on ride sharing options because (as cited), there are a lot of studies done on that already.
Which means their numbers are BS if they don’t account for the impact of ridesharing on lowering on-the-road accidents from fewer drunk driving accidents, and so their numbers don’t truly reflect ride sharing’s overall impact at all.
(But that wouldn’t make much of a story now would it: “Ridesharing’s Impact on Accidents Not Understood Completely by Insurance Journal, so Insurance Journal can’t blame them”.)
Must be from climate change. . .
Not sure how that makes their numbers invalid. For example — if there were 100 deaths on the road per month before ridesharing and there are 200 deaths on the road after ridesharing, regardless of how many drunk driving fatalities ridesharing “saved”, there’s still a correlation between an increase in road deaths due to ridesharing.
Yikes! Logic Fail, 101.
That’s like looking at the number of murders committed with guns and never looking at the number of lives saved by a private citizen with a gun, and claiming guns are “bad”.
What if more lives are saved by a private citizen with a gun than there are murders with a gun? Then guns would be a net GOOD.
And if more lives are saved by ride-sharing’s reduction of drunk driving deaths than are lost due to more miles on the road . . .
Keep in mind they attribute every additional accident from any source whatsoever to ride sharing, including all additional accidents from cars not ride sharing, simply because ride sharing activity grew as the number of overall accidents from all cars grew.
Causation? No connection whatsoever. If they counted the number of additional accidents from ride sharing ALONE, it might mean something.
But failing to focus on the actual accident numbers from ride sharing alone, and then subtracting the number of drunk driving accidents that didn’t happen as a result of ride sharing, is the only thing that would establish a causal connection.
And remember, texting-related road accidents grew dramatically in the last 10 years.
The study says 987 deaths could be attributed to ride-sharing then says the costs of those deaths was $10 billion. That’s over $10.1 million per death. Seems a little far fetched to me.
Nobody but cardiologists in those accidents. What did you expect, careful writing from IJ?
I obviously haven’t looked at the actual study, but these summarized results don’t make any sense. I’d expect the numbers of accidents to increase every year, especially as the population continues to increase. Without adjusting for population changes, using raw data is irresponsible at best. Or you could say it’s downright disingenuous and borderline malfeasance.
Data from the auto industry indicates more people are driving more miles every year, especially as gas prices and interest rates remain favorable. Comparing 2019/2019 to 2010 is a little like shooting fish in a barrel. The U.S. was just starting to come out of the recession and much higher gas prices, plus the debacle that was the cash for clunkers program, means the situations are radically different in that decade.
At best, they’re demonstrating a weak correlation between the launch of ride-hailing activities and changes in traffic fatalities without addressing other things like the prevalence of using handheld devices while operating vehicles.
What would be compelling would be the statistical percentage of ride-hailing operators who were in accidents, accidents with injury and fatalities vs. non-ride-hailing operators. Then adjust for population, economic influence and the influence of technology while we’re driving. Then you can draw some actual conclusions. As such, this is the equivalent of saying that global warming is the direct cause of the decrease in pirates in the Caribbean. Link for fun: https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaandersen/2012/03/23/true-fact-the-lack-of-pirates-is-causing-global-warming/#2a2b7f823a67
Why is everyone so consumed with Uber/Lyft? Taxicabs have been around for decades. All this talk about reduction in DUIs as a result of ridesharing is ridiculous. It’s almost as if people were driving drunk for decades and “poof” UBER/Lyft arrived to save the day. Come on folks. Taxicab companies and Taxi associations, along with limo and car services might be a bit behind in technology because of their structure, but you can walk outside in any major City and hail a cab. And with a little effort using your method of searching the internet or downloading apps from your phone, you can easily find a variety of Taxi apps for companies near you.
As for congestion, Uber / Lyft have multiplied faster rabbits do. They all flock to the Cities on weekends, jamming up the streets and causing congestion. At airports they are a disease that needs to be eradicated as they are clogging up parking lots, waiting areas, and shoulders of the roads. yet, they are complaining they need a place to stage. Maybe Uber /Lyft should have thought of that before signing up millions of drivers.
Taxicab drivers in many cities, like Chicago, go through a training class to learn streets, roads, routes and major destination points. Those driving for a TNC , have no special training or licensing. They rely on GPS and most often are driving distracted because they are not familiar with the streets and traffic flow and as a result, cause accidents or get in accidents. on the flipside, traxicab drivers can be erratic too, and do get in accidents as well, which is frustrating as they need some remedial training as well.
Lastly, as a Insurance Professional involved with the Transportation Industry, I have witnessed drivers excluded from driving a commercial or a public vehicle, who turn up driving for a TNC, so the TNC’s are not fully nor properly screening drivers. Just because a MVR is clear, does not mean that the driver is good as there are times accidents are not reported to the DMV and in some states, it is relatively routine to pay a fine and not have a accident or moving violation appear on the MVR.