23 ms·

? I always have to specify my destination before booking.

by dbbk 9y ago

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.
      - zem 9y ago
        it's a race problem in that it disproportionately affects communities of certain races, due to historical systemic issues. so even if no single uber driver specifically thought "i don't want to go into a black area", all the other factors affecting that decision would tend to affect black people more than white people. this is nicely illustrative of how these things can feed off each other: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-amazon-same-day/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-amazon-same-day/

? I always have to specify my destination before booking.

by 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.
    - zem 9y ago
      it's a race problem in that it disproportionately affects communities of certain races, due to historical systemic issues. so even if no single uber driver specifically thought "i don't want to go into a black area", all the other factors affecting that decision would tend to affect black people more than white people. this is nicely illustrative of how these things can feed off each other: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-amazon-same-day/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-amazon-same-day/