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.

Agreed.

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.

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.

>"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.

> This publicity stunt

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.

> A perverse incentive is an incentive that has an unintended and undesirable result

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.

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.

The good news is that if you're out drinking, your economic judgement might be impaired enough that this thought won't occur to you :V

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.

[0]0.08 in most states, I believe.

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.

>Who cares if some drunk guy kills himself

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 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 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.

[0] http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_l205403471...

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.

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.

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.

That was my thoughts exactly. It seems more like a challenge to see if you can get a free ride!

3 drinks puts almost everyone over the legal limit. Not much of a challenge...