5 ms·

Sounds more like there is more demand of rides than there are drivers. Whether that's from less people driving or more people riding is the question. Maybe Lyft

by moftz 9y ago

Sounds more like there is more demand of rides than there are drivers. Whether that's from less people driving or more people riding is the question. Maybe Lyft is starting to become more popular. In my area, Lyft wasn't popular at all for a long time. You would wait forever meanwhile there was always an Uber driver in the next neighborhood. Now, they are pretty much the same in experience, wait times, and prices. Only time I've ever had "bad" drivers are when they call me before pickup and ask me where I'm going and demand I cancel since my destination would take them too long which I somewhat understand. There should be some sort of system to help drivers limit the amount of non-fare driving (giving them fares that might be a little further away to pickup but the drop off is right near the driver's home, kind of like pooling where the driver's home is the last "drop off"). I think both companies need to make sure that their drivers are happy. There will always be a demand for cab services so making sure you can keep drivers to match the demand will keep the fares coming in.

keithwhor 9y ago
> Only time I've ever had "bad" drivers are when they call me before pickup and ask me where I'm going and demand I cancel since my destination would take them too long which I somewhat understand. You understand this!? What? I haven't experienced this (thankfully), but this is ridiculous. This is the kind of behavior I experienced from cabs the led me to be an Uber evangelist to begin with. -20C, downtown Toronto, 2AM, cabs (illegally) outright refusing to drive you because they want to go a different direction. Uber was a godsend in comparison, at the time. If that behavior is making its way onto these platforms, I have to wonder whether the initial innovations in safety and value for the consumer are just getting absorbed and destroyed by the scale at which these companies have to operate (lack of ability to regulate and vet their drivers).
- megaman22 9y ago
  You can either have being driven somewhere as a public utility, or as a private venture. You want to be driven somewhere very inconvenient? Fine, but you may have to pay extra for it. Uber is still a godsend in the relatively rural area I'm in, where there are effectively no taxis, and the only alternatives are A.) calling a friend, B.) hitchhiking, C.) driving anyway when you really oughtn't, for whatever reason.
  - keithwhor 9y ago
    I don't think you understand: cab drivers in Toronto (and other cities) frequently turn down freezing cold passengers that just want a ride back home (still in the city) because the cab driver wants a route that brings them close to their home. They will not accept your fare. This is illegal in most major cities (or at least Toronto), but impossible to track and enforce. It has nothing to do with wanting a ride to somewhere "very inconvenient" - convenience is priced into the fact you pay by mile. Enabling this sort of behavior is outright regressive to Uber's value prop in some of their largest markets - not to mention a public safety concern. FWIW: I think both Uber and Lyft now have features designed to help drivers pick up fares towards their own homes at the end of a "shift" in order to make their drivers happier, I'm just saying that the behavior of cancelling fares shouldn't be considered "understandable" and undermines the value prop of these companies in major city centers.
    - megaman22 9y ago
      I do understand. My belief would be that if you are running a for-profit, private business, and not a public service, you have the right to refuse service if it's against your best interests. I don't go making websites for everybody that asks me to, when I have more productive things to do, and I would bridle a bit if anybody suggested that I had some kind of moral obligation to do so. I always thought it was a little idiotic that Uber doesn't just tell the drivers where you want to go before they come pick you up.
axus 9y ago
Uber could add an option to specify your destination, and provide the information (or lack of info) to the drivers.
- dbbk 9y ago
  ? I always have to specify my destination before booking.
  - zem 9y ago
    neither uber nor lyft share that with the drivers till they register that you are in the car, presumably to prevent just this sort of thing.
    - dv_dt 9y ago
      That makes little sense to me, if they can't get drivers to go to certain routes, then the fare should increase as an incentive should it not? Some sort of market matchup between drivers and passengers is part of what Uber/Lyft should be supplying in their platform. If a driver has say 15 mins of time part time, or left on their intended shift, as a passenger I really don't want that driver for a 45min trip thinking they need to be somewhere else..
      - zem 9y ago
        i used to feel that way, but then i started thinking of the "bad neighbourhood" problem. it's historically been a huge problem for people living in certain neighbourhoods (and typically poor and/or heavily non-white ones) that cabs don't want to take them there.
        dv_dt 9y ago
        The most I've run into route avoidance is with drivers who don't want to spend 2 hrs on a trip to the airport during rush hour. Is the "bad neighborhood" problem a race problem, or a problem of not enough fares in that area (i.e. by taking a fare in, if the density is too low then you lose the time/cost of fares getting back out of that area...). and of course, if historically, if fewer fares go there, that problem is exacerbated. I suppose one way to rebalance that issue without changing fares, is to preferentially schedule a driver for later fares until the earnings/trip/time etc are rebalanced. If Uber itself valued getting more uniform coverage, it seems like it could offer drivers to "undesirable" areas more, and shift some of the profits over from other areas into the low coverage areas too. But all of this seems more complex and less transparent than increasing fares. The whole point of a market is to exchange information and come to some double ended voluntary deal that is good for both parties. If you fix bad neighborhoods by imposition onto drivers who don't know what they're getting into in terms of start/end points. It's a hard set of tradeoffs.

by moftz 9y ago

keithwhor 9y ago

> Only time I've ever had "bad" drivers are when they call me before pickup and ask me where I'm going and demand I cancel since my destination would take them too long which I somewhat understand. You understand this!? What? I haven't experienced this (thankfully), but this is ridiculous. This is the kind of behavior I experienced from cabs the led me to be an Uber evangelist to begin with. -20C, downtown Toronto, 2AM, cabs (illegally) outright refusing to drive you because they want to go a different direction. Uber was a godsend in comparison, at the time. If that behavior is making its way onto these platforms, I have to wonder whether the initial innovations in safety and value for the consumer are just getting absorbed and destroyed by the scale at which these companies have to operate (lack of ability to regulate and vet their drivers).

megaman22 9y ago
You can either have being driven somewhere as a public utility, or as a private venture. You want to be driven somewhere very inconvenient? Fine, but you may have to pay extra for it. Uber is still a godsend in the relatively rural area I'm in, where there are effectively no taxis, and the only alternatives are A.) calling a friend, B.) hitchhiking, C.) driving anyway when you really oughtn't, for whatever reason.
- keithwhor 9y ago
  I don't think you understand: cab drivers in Toronto (and other cities) frequently turn down freezing cold passengers that just want a ride back home (still in the city) because the cab driver wants a route that brings them close to their home. They will not accept your fare. This is illegal in most major cities (or at least Toronto), but impossible to track and enforce. It has nothing to do with wanting a ride to somewhere "very inconvenient" - convenience is priced into the fact you pay by mile. Enabling this sort of behavior is outright regressive to Uber's value prop in some of their largest markets - not to mention a public safety concern. FWIW: I think both Uber and Lyft now have features designed to help drivers pick up fares towards their own homes at the end of a "shift" in order to make their drivers happier, I'm just saying that the behavior of cancelling fares shouldn't be considered "understandable" and undermines the value prop of these companies in major city centers.
  - megaman22 9y ago
    I do understand. My belief would be that if you are running a for-profit, private business, and not a public service, you have the right to refuse service if it's against your best interests. I don't go making websites for everybody that asks me to, when I have more productive things to do, and I would bridle a bit if anybody suggested that I had some kind of moral obligation to do so. I always thought it was a little idiotic that Uber doesn't just tell the drivers where you want to go before they come pick you up.

axus 9y ago

Uber could add an option to specify your destination, and provide the information (or lack of info) to the drivers.

dbbk 9y ago
? I always have to specify my destination before booking.
- zem 9y ago
  neither uber nor lyft share that with the drivers till they register that you are in the car, presumably to prevent just this sort of thing.
  - dv_dt 9y ago
    That makes little sense to me, if they can't get drivers to go to certain routes, then the fare should increase as an incentive should it not? Some sort of market matchup between drivers and passengers is part of what Uber/Lyft should be supplying in their platform. If a driver has say 15 mins of time part time, or left on their intended shift, as a passenger I really don't want that driver for a 45min trip thinking they need to be somewhere else..
    - zem 9y ago
      i used to feel that way, but then i started thinking of the "bad neighbourhood" problem. it's historically been a huge problem for people living in certain neighbourhoods (and typically poor and/or heavily non-white ones) that cabs don't want to take them there.
      - dv_dt 9y ago
        The most I've run into route avoidance is with drivers who don't want to spend 2 hrs on a trip to the airport during rush hour. Is the "bad neighborhood" problem a race problem, or a problem of not enough fares in that area (i.e. by taking a fare in, if the density is too low then you lose the time/cost of fares getting back out of that area...). and of course, if historically, if fewer fares go there, that problem is exacerbated. I suppose one way to rebalance that issue without changing fares, is to preferentially schedule a driver for later fares until the earnings/trip/time etc are rebalanced. If Uber itself valued getting more uniform coverage, it seems like it could offer drivers to "undesirable" areas more, and shift some of the profits over from other areas into the low coverage areas too. But all of this seems more complex and less transparent than increasing fares. The whole point of a market is to exchange information and come to some double ended voluntary deal that is good for both parties. If you fix bad neighborhoods by imposition onto drivers who don't know what they're getting into in terms of start/end points. It's a hard set of tradeoffs.