Can Uber really reduce drink driving deaths?

Uber, by night: Image: Getty.

It’s been 40 years since Britain enforced a legal limit of alcohol behind the wheel – but drink driving still took 220 lives in 2015.

One company trying to reduce this statistic is Uber, which is quite confident in its ability to lower alcohol-related road fatalities. It describes itself as a “powerful tool in the quest to protect families from drunk driving”, and has cited research backing this up in a number of major cities.

But while the intention is commendable, the data is not so conclusive. A study published earlier this year did find a 25 to 35 per cent reduction in alcohol-related car accidents in New York, following Uber’s arrival in 2011. Research from 2016, however, analysed data from the US’s 100 most populated metropolitan areas, and found Uber made no difference to traffic fatalities, including those involving alcohol.

So what explains the disparity? According to new research, it may come down to the design of individual cities.

Researchers from the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania zoomed in on for US cities where Uber services had ceased then been reintroduced. Analysing data from state Departments of Transportation, they found a 29 per cent decrease in alcohol-involved crashes in San Antonio and a 62 per cent decrease in Portland, but in Reno there was no noticeable change.

The study, published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, concludes that the impact of Uber on drink driving-related crashes could depend on a city's characteristics, and how much they discourage people from driving. A city with more congestion and limited parking, for example, may see a greater difference once Uber comes along. 

“Theoretically, ridesharing could reduce alcohol-involved crashes in locations where other modes of transportation are less attractive than driving one’s own vehicle while under the influence of alcohol,” the study states.

That said, this theory doesn’t explain the decrease in crashes in San Antonio, where public transport is scarce and most people rely on cars. And there are other factors at play, too. Disparities between cities may also be down to the willingness of locals to use other transportation, how expensive Uber fares are compared to the alternatives, even media attention and public interest in Uber. The study adds that, “The perceived attractiveness of ridesharing will depend, among other things, on a city’s topology and the strength and enforcement of drunk-driving laws.”


Despite the decrease in alcohol-involved crashes in Portland, there study found no changes to crashes with injury overall. “In our analyses the reductions in alcohol-involved crashes due to ridesharing were wholly offset by increases in non-alcohol crashes,” explains Christopher Morrison, the study’s lead researcher. “So it is possible that ridesharing doesn’t affect the overall number of crashes in a city.”  

What might cause these non-alcohol crashes? The paper states that rideshare drivers have to use a mobile phone when driving, which could cause “distraction in the form of glances away from the road,” subsequently increasing the risk of crashing.

But, Morrison adds, “Alcohol-involved crashes typically occur at higher speed and are more serious than non-alcohol crashes. So the benefits may still outweigh the costs.”

 
 
 
 

Barnet council has decided a name for its new mainline station. Exciting!

Artist's impression of the new Brent Cross. Image: Hammerson.

I’ve ranted before about the horror of naming stations after the lines that they’re served by (screw you, City Thameslink). So, keeping things in perspective as ever, I’ve been quietly dreading the opening of the proposed new station in north London which has been going by the name of Brent Cross Thameslink.

I’ve been cheered, then, by the news that station wouldn’t be called that at all, but will instead go by the much better name Brent Cross West. It’s hardly the cancellation of Brexit, I’ll grant, but in 2017 I’ll take my relief wherever I can find it.

Some background on this. When the Brent Cross shopping centre opened besides the A406 North Circular Road in 1976, it was only the third large shopping mall to arrive in Britain, and the first in London. (The Elephant & Castle one was earlier, but smaller.) Four decades later, though, it’s decidedly titchy compared to newer, shinier malls such as those thrown up by Westfield – so for some years now, its owners, Hammerson, have wanted to extend the place.

That, through the vagaries of the planning process, got folded into a much bigger regeneration scheme, known as Brent Cross Cricklewood (because, basically, it extends that far). A new bigger shopping centre will be connected, via a green bridge over the A406, to another site to the south. There you’ll find a whole new town centre, 200 more shops, four parks, 4m square feet of offices space and 7,500 homes.

This is all obviously tremendously exciting, if you’re into shops and homes and offices and not into depressing, car-based industrial wastelands, which is what the area largely consists of at the moment.

The Brent Cross site. Image: Google.

One element of the new development is the new station, which’ll sit between Hendon and Cricklewood on the Thameslink route. New stations are almost as exciting as new shops/homes/offices, so on balance I'm pro.

What I’ve not been pro is the name. For a long time, the proposed station has been colloquially referred to as Brent Cross Thameslink, which annoys me for two reasons:

1) Route names make rubbish modifiers because what if the route name changes? And:

2) It’s confusing, because it’s nearly a mile from Brent Cross tube station. West Hampstead Thameslink (euch), by contrast, is right next to West Hampstead tube.

Various other names have been proposed for the station. In one newsletter, it was Brent Cross Parkway; on Wikipedia, it’s currently Brent Cross South, apparently through confusion about the name of the new town centre development.

This week, though, Barnet council quietly confirmed it’d be Brent Cross West:

Whilst the marketing and branding of BXS needs to be developed further, all parties agree that the station name should build upon the Brent Cross identity already established. Given the station is located to the west of Brent Cross, it is considered that the station should be named Brent Cross West. Network Rail have confirmed that this name is acceptable for operational purposes. Consequently, the Committee is asked to approve that the new station be named Brent Cross West.

Where the new station will appear on the map, marked by a silly red arrow. Image: TfL.

That will introduce another irritating anomaly to the map, giving the impression that the existing Brent Cross station is somehow more central than the new one, when in fact they’re either side of the development. And so:

Consideration has also been given as to whether to pursue a name change for the tube station from “Brent Cross” to “Brent Cross East”.

Which would sort of make sense, wouldn’t it? But alas:

However owing to the very high cost of changing maps and signage London-wide this is not currently being pursued.

This is probably for the best. Only a handful of tube stations have been renamed since 1950: the last was Shepherd’s Bush Market, which was until 2008 was simply Shepherd's Bush, despite being quite a long way from the Shepherd's Bush station on the Central line. That, to me, suggests that one of the two Bethnal Green stations might be a more plausible candidate for an early rename.


At any rate: it seems unlikely that TfL will be renaming its Brent Cross station to encourage more people to use the new national rail one any time soon. But at least it won’t be Brent Cross Thameslink.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and also has a Facebook page now for some reason. 

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook