4 ms·

> this is not childish, this is sinister. Some driver somewhere burned lot of gas and rubber only to be disappointed that there is no fare there. It could be e

> this is not childish, this is sinister. Some driver somewhere burned lot of gas and rubber only to be disappointed that there is no fare there. It could be even worse. Imagine a Lyft driver going to a Uber initiated non-existent fare. Now imagine him or her getting into an accident and dying on the way there.

untog 12y ago
That seems like a needless exaggeration. Traveling to a non-existent fare does not result in the driver doing anything they wouldn't have been doing otherwise. Uber's behaviour is already bad, we don't need to add hyperbole.
- acangiano 12y ago
  Actually, if it weren't for Uber's call they would not have been at the incident's location at the wrong time. Of course, it's a worse case scenario / exaggeration, but when they make thousands of calls, it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility.
  - untog 12y ago
    Yes, but they would have been driving around the same city. That they went down street X as opposed to street Y is a really, really tenuous attempt to pin responsibility on Uber. In fact, you could argue that Uber doesn't give them directions and that they drove down the wrong street of their own volition. More to the point: this thinking is just a distraction.
  - varkson 12y ago
    So that means that if anyone dies or is seriously injured on their way to a client, the blood is on the client then? Come on now, that doesn't make any real sense.
    - acangiano 12y ago
      My two previous comments were inundated with downvotes, so I gather that my original aside comment was seen by most as a stupid or irrelevant one. I accept that, but assigning responsibility for a possible accident wasn't really where I was coming from. It was more about increasing the odds of something tragic happening, for absolutely no justifiable reason. To further elaborate on that point, I meant that driving is a fairly risky activity that we engage in. A driver is accepting that risk in order to make a living. A client is obviously not responsible if an accident happens, as the driver has accepted the risk associated with the transaction, in exchange for money. However, for every extra minute or mile on the road, a driver has a slightly higher chance of getting into an accident. Uber has made thousands of such calls, for absolutely no good reason and with no monetary benefit for the drivers. Although not directly responsible for possible accidents, the sheer number could have conceivably contributed to increasing the odds of one such accident/injury or even death (in a worse case scenario) happening. Which makes Uber's actions even shittier in my books. I understand that most people here don't see it that way. Note: Of course my assumption about the odds might be entirely false, if I misunderstood the way Uber works. For example if cars are just running around town until a fare is requested, instead of being parked somewhere.

untog 12y ago

That seems like a needless exaggeration. Traveling to a non-existent fare does not result in the driver doing anything they wouldn't have been doing otherwise. Uber's behaviour is already bad, we don't need to add hyperbole.

acangiano 12y ago
Actually, if it weren't for Uber's call they would not have been at the incident's location at the wrong time. Of course, it's a worse case scenario / exaggeration, but when they make thousands of calls, it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility.
- untog 12y ago
  Yes, but they would have been driving around the same city. That they went down street X as opposed to street Y is a really, really tenuous attempt to pin responsibility on Uber. In fact, you could argue that Uber doesn't give them directions and that they drove down the wrong street of their own volition. More to the point: this thinking is just a distraction.
- varkson 12y ago
  So that means that if anyone dies or is seriously injured on their way to a client, the blood is on the client then? Come on now, that doesn't make any real sense.
  - acangiano 12y ago
    My two previous comments were inundated with downvotes, so I gather that my original aside comment was seen by most as a stupid or irrelevant one. I accept that, but assigning responsibility for a possible accident wasn't really where I was coming from. It was more about increasing the odds of something tragic happening, for absolutely no justifiable reason. To further elaborate on that point, I meant that driving is a fairly risky activity that we engage in. A driver is accepting that risk in order to make a living. A client is obviously not responsible if an accident happens, as the driver has accepted the risk associated with the transaction, in exchange for money. However, for every extra minute or mile on the road, a driver has a slightly higher chance of getting into an accident. Uber has made thousands of such calls, for absolutely no good reason and with no monetary benefit for the drivers. Although not directly responsible for possible accidents, the sheer number could have conceivably contributed to increasing the odds of one such accident/injury or even death (in a worse case scenario) happening. Which makes Uber's actions even shittier in my books. I understand that most people here don't see it that way. Note: Of course my assumption about the odds might be entirely false, if I misunderstood the way Uber works. For example if cars are just running around town until a fare is requested, instead of being parked somewhere.