# Detest Uber's surge pricing? Some drivers don't like it either



## OCDodgerFan (Jun 8, 2015)

http://www.cnet.com/news/detest-ubers-surge-pricing-some-drivers-dont-like-it-either/


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

OCDodgerFan said:


> http://www.cnet.com/news/detest-ubers-surge-pricing-some-drivers-dont-like-it-either/


Nah. Totally fair.

During Comic Con this year, Motel 6 downtown was charging $229 for a room. For a Motel 6. If you want the lino floor, the sandpaper towels and one bar of soap for $229, you pony up. If you don't, you don't. I didn't.

During the holidays I took a $600 flight that normally costs me $250. I wanted to fly, so I paid.

When the airport car rental places are short of cars, the price shoots up there too.

Dynamic pricing is everywhere. It's simple supply and demand; I'm not sure what the issue is.


----------



## OCDodgerFan (Jun 8, 2015)

elelegido said:


> Nah. Totally fair.
> 
> During Comic Con this year, Motel 6 downtown was charging $229 for a room. For a Motel 6. If you want the lino floor, the sandpaper towels and one bar of soap for $229, you pony up. If you don't, you don't.


I stayed at the Motel 6 in the Hotel Circle once. I got better sleep on the floor of a moving M577 Command Post Carrier.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

OCDodgerFan said:


> I stayed at the Motel 6 in the Hotel Circle once. I got better sleep on the floor of a moving M577 Command Post Carrier.


Earplugs are a must for any Motel 6 stay.


----------



## Emp9 (Apr 9, 2015)

i love how the pic shows 3.0 surge $42 min fare. yeah right. so misleading. uberx is freakin cheap. god forbid we get a 2.0 surge and make a decent wage for the milage and trouble. yes i think 5.0 or something is excessive but if 50 people need rides and only 10 drivers. there has to be a way to bring more drivers in.


----------



## LA#1x3 (Jul 9, 2015)

We don't need any more drivers we need better rates, and for the non tipping cheap pax to use lyft lol


----------



## madUber74 (Jun 3, 2015)

Surge is fine by me. It helps to subsidize the cheap-as-Hell non-surge rides given most of the time. If you're a smart pax you can generally avoid paying surges by simply having some patience and waiting them out. For those who lack patience or absolutely need the quick ride to wherever during a high-demand period, pony up. Try getting a cab to pick you up in less than 5 mins at 2 am, not gonna happen (unless you steal the cab that's waiting for some else).


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

elelegido said:


> For a Motel 6. If you want the lino floor, the sandpaper towels and one bar of soap for $229, you pony up.





OCDodgerFan said:


> I stayed at the Motel 6 in the Hotel Circle once. I got better sleep on the floor of a moving M577 Command Post Carrier.





elelegido said:


> Earplugs are a must for any Motel 6 stay.


Motel 6, here, took over a former streetwalker trick pad. They put up a fancy sign, put new false fronts on the buildings and jacked up the rates. The streetwalkers left, for the most part, anyhow.

Those that they interviewed must be in the minority, as, to read it here, more than a few drivers run surge trips, only. I do agree with the one driver about "chasing the surge", though. It is not worth it. If I find myself in a surge area, I might park and try to wait for a surge trip. I will reject far away requests, but I do that surge, or no surge. As I work in an urban environment, if you want me to travel through traffic and lights, there had better be a good reason for me to do so. If I get a request that is close, but outside the surge area, I will accept it. Considering how many faux surges that Uber's "heat map" shows, I receive enough requests that are clearly in the alleged "surge zone" that are not surge trips.


----------



## ATX 22 (Jun 17, 2015)

Surge is bullshit both ways. I was recently within a surge zone at 3.5x for almost 15 minutes with no ride. Dropped to 1.7, received a request which said 1.7x on screen. Uber then stiffed me on the surge rate and repeatedly says that it wasn't surging at the time despite sending them the screen shots. Lag between the pax app showing surge and driver app is long, sometimes it's 5 minutes behind on the driver side because uber wants drivers racing to take advantage of the demand. Total bullshit all the way around.


----------



## Lack9133 (Mar 26, 2015)

elelegido said:


> Nah. Totally fair.
> 
> During Comic Con this year, Motel 6 downtown was charging $229 for a room. For a Motel 6. If you want the lino floor, the sandpaper towels and one bar of soap for $229, you pony up. If you don't, you don't. I didn't.
> 
> ...


The issue is you're using examples where you have days if not months to review your options, weigh out the best course of action and decide if the trip is within your budget. When you're on a curb at 2:00A and you're stuck between paying 5x the normal rate or waiting in the cold for another hour, there is an issue. It's a safety issue for women and it could possibly put more drunk people on the road. People should never have to choose between their safety and breaking their bank.

While safety is not a factor in your example, imagine if airlines and hotels decided that they were going to remove advanced bookings. You were required to go to the airport and from there, they gave you the going rate for that flight based on the supply and demand for that particular flight. How satisfied of a customer would you be if you were required to be on site in order to get the rate? Imagine if hotels you were required to be in the hotel lobby before you got a rate. That is basically what Uber does when not providing a rate until you're on the street and ready to go.

I could understand the analogy if transportation services set the rate for NYE or any high demand night a week in advance and gave people the option to lock in transportation at those rates but that isn't the case. Just because dynamic pricing is everywhere doesn't mean there shouldn't be exemptions to it.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Lack9133 said:


> The issue is you're using examples where you have days if not months to review your options, weigh out the best course of action and decide if the trip is within your budget. When you're on a curb at 2:00A and you're stuck between paying 5x the normal rate or waiting in the cold for another hour, there is an issue.


By mentioning forward planning you invalidate your own argument. Yes, one can forward plan to avoid some peak price increases in hotels and air travel. In fact that's a great idea. Forward planing is good.

By exactly the same token, if I am going to be going out drinking of an evening, I plan what time I am going, where I am going, and how I will get home. Another option, as you suggest, is to make no plan for how to get home, and find yourself looking for options at 2am, drunk, and on a cold street corner somewhere. If you choose no plan as the plan for yourself, it's up to you, but last ditch options will very likely be limited. And it'd be your own fault.

This seems to be about a sense of entitlement. Is a 2am drunk entitled to have a third party lay on transport for him or her at the location of his or her choice, with no notice, and all at the price he or she chooses? I think not. In a free market economy, if a consumer chooses to place him/herself in a specific market where he/she will be competing with other consumers for a limited commodity or service, then he/she has the choice of paying what the market suppliers are charging for their respective services, or not paying. It's as simple as that. As far as any consumer being entitled to dictate what those suppliers charge goes, that's just not the way it works.

City councils are responsible for providing public transport. Many have handy online guides, where you input your starting point and your destination, and the website will tell you which buses/trains/trolleys/etc to get you to your destination, along with transit times and cost. But that's only during certain hours. What you could do is write in to your council, explaining that you plan to go out on Saturday night, get trashed on peach schnapps/beer/whatever, and will be available for pickup sometime around 2am somewhere in the city, and that you would like them to tell you how to get home, and the cost. You'd probably get no response, but if you did it may be quite entertaining.



> It's a safety issue for women and it could possibly put more drunk people on the road.


Even more reason for planning ahead; so that women do not expose themselves to avoidable risk and put themselves in unnecessary danger, and for drunks to not put themselves and others at risk by attempting to drive. Taking personal responsibility for one's own safety and for that of other road users is the key concept here.



> People should never have to choose between their safety and breaking their bank.


 Yes, they should. Each individual must decide whether they have sufficient funds to be able to afford to get home after a night's drinking, be it a free ride home from a friend right the way up to a private chauffered car ride home. If funds do not allow for a night out, including ride home, then you stay at home. Simple.



> While safety is not a factor in your example, imagine if airlines and hotels decided that they were going to remove advanced bookings.


We could while away the afternoon thinking about "what if" situations. What if I was 18 again, what if I owned a plantation of money trees etc etc.



> Just because dynamic pricing is everywhere doesn't mean there shouldn't be exemptions to it.


Price controls imposed in the private sector rarely work. In fact I can't think of any examples of when they have.


----------



## ATX 22 (Jun 17, 2015)

elelegido said:


> By mentioning forward planning you invalidate your own argument. Yes, one can forward plan to avoid some peak price increases in hotels and air travel. In fact that's a great idea. Forward planing is good.
> 
> But by exactly the same token, if I am going to be going out drinking of an evening, I plan what time I am going, where I am going, and how I will get home. Another option, as you suggest, is to make no plan for how to get home, and find yourself looking for options at 2am, drunk, and on a cold stret corner somewhere. If you choose no plan as the plan for yourself, it's up to you, but last ditch options will very likely be limited. And it'd be your own fault.
> 
> ...


While you make good points in the argument for dynamic pricing, what's not addressed is the fact that Uber doesn't allow pax to plan ahead if they want to use Uber. They can't reserve a car for 2am via the app. If they could, then dynamic pricing for those who didn't pre arrange would be more palatable. To simply price gouge because it is closing time makes both Uber and the driver appear predatory.
Surges are based upon an algorithm, not upon real demand, but upon perceived demand. Drivers can be available and receive no ride requests. If the surge weren't simply market manipulation by Uber, then dynamic pricing would be just as acceptable in ground transportation networks as in hotels and airlines, in my opinion.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

ATX 22 said:


> While you make good points in the argument for dynamic pricing, what's not addressed is the fact that Uber doesn't allow pax to plan ahead if they want to use Uber. They can't reserve a car for 2am via the app.


Well, no; it doesn't need addressing. By definition, advanced bookings are not possible with an on-demand only car service, which is UberLyft's business model. I'm no great fan of either company, but they can't legitimately be criticized for not offering services they choose not to provide. I'd like McDonalds to sell quality 10 oz steak dinners with all the trimmings, but they don't.

At the end of the day, all UberLyft has done is provide more options for transportation customers. The same number of cabs are still rolling up and down outside the bars each night, limo companies are still taking bookings, friends still drive friends home. All of the options that were available before the appearance of UberLyft are still there.

UberLyft offers an alternative option. Often that option will be at surge prices during drunk time. So the Pax has free choice to either say, "yes, I want that" or "no thanks, I'll take a cab/limo/ride from a friend".

If UberLyft had taken away any of the other options, you may have had a valid point. But all they've done is expand consumer choice, and I don't see how that can be criticised.


----------



## Lack9133 (Mar 26, 2015)

elelegido said:


> By mentioning forward planning you invalidate your own argument. Yes, one can forward plan to avoid some peak price increases in hotels and air travel. In fact that's a great idea. Forward planing is good.
> 
> By exactly the same token, if I am going to be going out drinking of an evening, I plan what time I am going, where I am going, and how I will get home. Another option, as you suggest, is to make no plan for how to get home, and find yourself looking for options at 2am, drunk, and on a cold street corner somewhere. If you choose no plan as the plan for yourself, it's up to you, but last ditch options will very likely be limited. And it'd be your own fault.


While I respect your opinion, you have missed a few key facts such as forward planning is not an option for ride-shares. You cannot lock down a price before you go out. You are rolling the dice in hope that when you want to return home, you can do so at a reasonable price. As you mentioned in your second paragraph, last ditch options are very limited which gives companies the ability to take advantage of the consumer knowing that the consumer has limited options as in pay the higher rate or be left in the cold.



elelegido said:


> Even more reason for planning ahead; so that women do not expose themselves to avoidable risk and put themselves in unnecessary danger, and for drunks to not put themselves and others at risk by attempting to drive. Taking personal responsibility for one's own safety and for that of other road users is the key concept here.


With the inability to plan ahead with ride-shares, you invalidate your second argument. Once again, when an individual is on the corner and their options are pay the rate or walk, it creates a safety concern. When someone is faced with a $500.00 Uber ride on NYE or risk getting a DUI, you're going to have people risking the DUI. While I agree that personal responsibility is a key concept here, but asking someone to pay $500 for a ride home will push some individuals who cannot afford that type of money to risk driving while intoxicated.



elelegido said:


> Yes, they should. Each individual must decide whether they have sufficient funds to be able to afford to get home after a night's drinking, be it a free ride home from a friend right the way up to a private chauffered car ride home. If funds do not allow for a night out, including ride home, then you stay at home. Simple.


I agree that each individuals should decide whether or not they have sufficient funds to be able to get home after a night of drinking, but those individuals should also be given an idea of what the actual rate of getting home should be. Once again, we are back at the inability to plan for surcharging argument. By not providing a customer an expected cost of getting home, how is one supported to know what those "sufficient funds" entail? Are they looking at $10.00 or $500.00. That is a big difference depending on your income level and puts individuals in a situation where they must choose between getting home safely and breaking the bank.



elelegido said:


> We could while away the afternoon thinking about "what if" situations. What if I was 18 again, what if I owned a plantation of money trees etc etc.


Not sure why you won't answer the question. I think everyone here would agree that a system where airlines required you to be at the airport with other travelers in order to figure out the demand and price you would have to pay to board the plane would be a horrible system. We don't do it in that industry, why should we do it with on demand transportation?



elelegido said:


> Price controls imposed in the private sector rarely work. In fact I can't think of any examples of when they have.


I can think of plenty of industries where price control works. Take the electric companies for example. Government regulation prevents them from raising and lowering their price to ensure that they don't raise prices in the winter when people need heat the most. There are plenty of examples where price control is needed so that the public isn't being taken advantage of by companies.


----------



## ReviTULize (Sep 29, 2014)

elelegido said:


> Nah. Totally fair.
> 
> During Comic Con this year, Motel 6 downtown was charging $229 for a room. For a Motel 6. If you want the lino floor, the sandpaper towels and one bar of soap for $229, you pony up. If you don't, you don't. I didn't.
> 
> ...


agreed!
You want someone to come pick you up(within minutes nonetheless) after a few button presses on your phone? After spending $200 at the bar? All while avoiding a DUI or worse? Well, guess what...so does everyone else. Nobody forces you to enter the multiplier. cha-ching!!


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Lack9133 said:


> While I respect your opinion, you have missed a few key facts such as forward planning is not an option for ride-shares. You cannot lock down a price before you go out.


Nope, didn't miss that, which is why I said that, by definition, on-demand car services can't be prebooked. 


> You are rolling the dice in hope that when you want to return home, you can do so at a reasonable price.


No, you're rolling the dice that you can get an UberLyft at a certain price. If the pax doesn't like the price of the moment, there are the same alternatives which existed before UberLyft - he/she can take a cab, seek a ride from a friend, call a limo company etc.



> Once again, when an individual is on the corner and their options are pay the rate or walk, it creates a safety concern.


 Agreed, which is why it's best to plan ahead and not put oneself in such a potentially dangerous situation in the first place.



> When someone is faced with a $500.00 Uber ride on NYE or risk getting a DUI, you're going to have people risking the DUI. Asking someone to pay $500 for a ride home will push some individuals who cannot afford that type of money to risk driving while intoxicated.


 "Honestly, your honor, I couldn't get an Uber - I was therefore pushed into trying to drive myself home drunk and killing that person I hit. It's all Uber's fault". One's mileage may vary with that one.



> By not providing a customer an expected cost of getting home, how is one supported to know what those "sufficient funds" entail? Are they looking at $10.00 or $500.00. That is a big difference depending on your income level and puts individuals in a situation where they must choose between getting home safely and breaking the bank.


Again, you like the price, you take the ride. You don't like the price, you take a cab, seek a ride from a friend etc etc. If the worst comes to the worst and there is absolutely no way home other than driving drunk, you find a 24 hour McDonalds, order a coffee, wait a few hours until public transport starts up again, and maybe decide to plan things better next time. You don't get in your car and drive home. No excuses.

Regarding price controls, protecting late night drunks from paying higher prices to get their intoxicated behinds home after a night out probably isn't going to be a priority for lawmakers anytime soon in any event.


----------



## ReviTULize (Sep 29, 2014)

elelegido said:


> "Honestly, your honor, I couldn't get an Uber - I was therefore pushed into trying to drive myself home drunk and killing that person I hit. It's all Uber's fault". One's mileage may vary with that one.


good answer!!
Also, if you think a hotel room will be cheaper than an Uber on NYE...plan ahead and get a hotel room.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

ReviTULize said:


> Also, if you think a hotel room will be cheaper than an Uber on NYE...plan ahead and get a hotel room.


Exactly


----------



## Lack9133 (Mar 26, 2015)

elelegido said:


> Nope, didn't miss that, which is why I said that, by definition, on-demand car services can't be prebooked.


With that being said, you can now agree that your original example of Uber being no different then airlines or hotels method of surcharging is incorrect. They are two different industries.



elelegido said:


> No, you're rolling the dice that you can get an UberLyft at a certain price. If the pax doesn't like the price of the moment, there are the same alternatives which existed before UberLyft - he/she can take a cab, seek a ride from a friend, call a limo company etc.


Which brings me back to my original point that customers shouldn't be put in a situation to "roll the dice" in order to receive a safe ride home. While the options you have mentioned are current options, the way regulations are changing, "calling a friend" is probably going to be your only option that will not change with government regulation in the near future. Cities are already looking at ways to make rates more fair across the board for both drivers and passengers. Expect either a regulation of Uber rates or a deregulation of taxi rates within the next year or two. I know for a fact of one taxi company who is in the process of issuing their drivers cell phones so that they may offer fluctuating rates once they get approval.



elelegido said:


> "Honestly, your honor, I couldn't get an Uber - I was therefore pushed into trying to drive myself home drunk and killing that person I hit. It's all Uber's fault". One's mileage may vary with that one.


Agreed, but in your statement lets change the word Uber to taxi and think about how many times people have used that excuse to blame taxi's for their irresponsibility. But once again, you put an individual who has had three drinks on NYE and they must choose between a $500.00 Uber ride and risking the drive home, you can't tell me that price won't push someone to risk being irresponsible. Even before Uber, people would risk driving rather then wait for a taxi to become available, I am not sure why you feel human behavior has changed so much in a few years.



elelegido said:


> Again, you like the price, you take the ride. You don't like the price, you take a cab, seek a ride from a friend etc etc. If the worst comes to the worst and there is absolutely no way home other than driving drunk, you find a 24 hour McDonalds, order a coffee, wait a few hours until public transport starts up again, and maybe decide to plan things better next time. You don't get in your car and drive home. No excuses.


Again, it brings me back to my previous point regarding the direction of regulations in the marketplace and my previous point that when put in a situation where you are forced to wait it out, you put individuals in danger. There is never an excuse to get in your car and drive home drunk but there is also no excuse for a company to take advantage of the situation by offering a rate that makes a person even consider paying that rate or driving home drunk.



elelegido said:


> Regarding price controls, protecting late night drunks from paying higher prices to get their intoxicated behinds home after a night out probably isn't going to be a priority for lawmakers anytime soon in any event.


You obviously haven't been paying much attention then. One example alone in NYC. http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/03/u...next-in-line-for-de-blasios-latest-crackdown/


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

> ="Lack9133, post: 435670, member: 11581"]With that being said, you can now agree that your original example of Uber being no different then airlines or hotels method of surcharging is incorrect.


 I never said anything of the kind. I alluded to the fact that Uber, airlines, hotels and car rental companies all use dynamic pricing, which is obviously correct.



> Agreed, but in your statement lets change the word Uber to taxi and think about how many times people have used that excuse to blame taxi's for their irresponsibility.


People use all kinds of excuses to justify all kinds of things they shouldn't be doing.


> Once again, you put an individual who has had three drinks on NYE and they must choose between a $500.00 Uber ride and risking the drive home, you can't tell me that price won't push someone to risk being irresponsible.


 Yes, I can. In a sitiation where Uber were not available, and there were no way for someone to get home other than driving drunk, a person so inclined may be tempted to try to drive themselves home drunk. If, in that exact same situation, an Uber vehicle became available for $5/$10/etc per mile, that same person may still be tempted to drive home drunk. Therefore, the presence or not of Uber is not a factor affecting a person's temptation to drive drunk. Temptation is there in both scenarios while the only constant is the drunk. It therefore has nothing to do with Uber, what it charges or even its existence/nonexistence.



> I am not sure why you feel human behavior has changed so much in a few years.


 There is no evidence that I believe human behaviour has changed in a few years.


> You obviously haven't been paying much attention then. One example alone in NYC.


Right, and LBJ was going to end poverty, Lenin was going to create an equal society, and Sarah Palin promised that the US would stand behind its "North Korean allies". Pro tip - big scale or small scake, don't believe anything from government officials until you see it.

I was driving along the interstate recently and was running low on gas. I passed a lone gas station in the middle of nowhere that was offering unleaded for $4.49 a gallon. "Outrageous", you might say. "This company is making people choose between not getting home or paying a rip-off price for gas!". What a terrible, exploitative company. Maybe we should regulate them to prevent price gouging.

As I was running very low, I pulled in. Certainly not to buy gas at $4.49 per gallon, but to fire up gasbuddy.com on my smartphone. The gas station I found was in a little town 5 miles out of my way, but I went there, filled up at $3 a gallon, and then made my way back to the interstate. No drama, no need for government intervention, no accusations of greed. I just mentally declined the offer of gas at a ridiculous price and gave my business to someone else. That someone made a (smaller) profit from my purchase while the heavily overpriced station on the highway profited $0.00 from me.

The $4.49 gas station was not obligated in any way to sell me gas at a price of my choosing, even if I had been totally out of gas and stuck there. In exactly the same way as Uber choosing its prices, these are examples of free enterprise; that's how it works. But whatever; I guess we'll have to disagree on that.


----------



## Lack9133 (Mar 26, 2015)

elelegido said:


> I never said anything of the kind. I alluded to the fact that Uber, airlines, hotels and car rental companies all use dynamic pricing, which is obviously correct.


You're all over the place with your arguments to the point where it's not even logical to keep to keep debating. First you mentioned that surcharging is the same as how the airlines/hotels surcharge, then back away from that statement that it is in fact different when you cannot prebook then try to argue it again. While they both have dynamic pricing which is obviously true, there is a huge difference between offering a rate in advance and offering a rate on the spot when someone needs it most.



elelegido said:


> People use all kinds of excuses to justify all kinds of things they shouldn't be doing. Yes, I can. In a sitiation where Uber were not available, and there were no way for someone to get home other than driving drunk, a person so inclined may be tempted to try to drive themselves home drunk. If, in that exact same situation, an Uber vehicle became available for $5/$10/etc per mile, that same person may still be tempted to drive home drunk. Therefore, the presence or not of Uber is not a factor affecting a person's temptation to drive drunk. Temptation is there in both scenarios while the only constant is the drunk. It therefore has nothing to do with Uber, what it charges or even its existence/nonexistence.


Once again more evidence on why rates should be regulated. Everyone regardless of income level should have an equal opportunity at to get home safely and no other motorists on the road should be put in danger because a company wants to surcharge.



elelegido said:


> Right, and LBJ was going to end poverty, Lenin was going to create an equal society, and Sarah Palin promised that the US would stand behind its "North Korean allies". Pro tip - big scale or small scake, don't believe anything from government officials until you see it.


We are seeing it. Go read the article. Do some research. It's happening before your eyes whether or not you want to see it or not.

Anyway, been fun debating. I'm sure I'll see you around in some other forums.


----------



## THIRDEYE (Jul 2, 2015)

Drivers who oppose surge rates... have fun driving people in less than desirable conditions. I will never lose sleep to drive drunk passengers, risk vomit in the car, sit in traffic for hours at a festival, risk picking up a low rated pax, etc. out of the goodness of my heart. No surge = no drivers available when needed the most = everybody loses. Ride share didn't exist when I was in my early twenties, I survived. There are other options. Stop feeling so damn entitled to control other people's income.


----------



## DexNex (Apr 18, 2015)

elelegido said:


> By mentioning forward planning you invalidate your own argument. Yes, one can forward plan to avoid some peak price increases in hotels and air travel. In fact that's a great idea. Forward planing is good.
> 
> By exactly the same token, if I am going to be going out drinking of an evening, I plan what time I am going, where I am going, and how I will get home. Another option, as you suggest, is to make no plan for how to get home, and find yourself looking for options at 2am, drunk, and on a cold street corner somewhere. If you choose no plan as the plan for yourself, it's up to you, but last ditch options will very likely be limited. And it'd be your own fault.
> 
> ...


I, for one, agree with "elelegido" on all points. All well stated (and later defended).


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Lack9133 said:


> First you mentioned that surcharging is the same as how the airlines/hotels surcharge, then back away from that statement that it is in fact different when you cannot prebook then try to argue it again. While they both have dynamic pricing which is obviously true, there is a huge difference between offering a rate in advance and offering a rate on the spot when someone needs it most.


 There is no inconsistency in what I've said. I think you're getting confused by and having difficulty in separating prebooking and dynamic pricing, which are two completely separate concepts. Either can exist in isolation, or companies can choose to employ both. Hotels and airlines employ both, while Uber features only the latter.



> Once again more evidence on why rates should be regulated.


 Whether or not fares should be regulated is opinion. Evidence can support only the veracity of claims of fact, not opinion.



> no other motoristson the road should be put in danger because a company wants to surcharge.


I don't see a causal link between Uber's surge pricing and people driving their cars while they are drunk. However, I do see a direct link between people choosing to drink alcohol before driving and drunk driving, which I think would be obvious to all.

What this all seems to boil down to is who is responsible for making sure people get home safely, legally and cheaply after they go out and get hammered.

You seem to think that Uber and therefore its drivers have a responsiblilty for laying on such a service for drunks. I believe that the drunks themselves have the responsibility to plan their own activities and plan for the inevitable expenses associated with choosing to go out and incapacitate themselves. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree!


----------



## John Deer (Feb 12, 2015)

Lack9133 said:


> I can think of plenty of industries where price control works. Take the electric companies for example. Government regulation prevents them from raising and lowering their price to ensure that they don't raise prices in the winter when people need heat the most. There are plenty of examples where price control is needed so that the public isn't being taken advantage of by companies.


Price control only makes sense when you have a monopoly (that's usually the case with utilities). In other situations, price control is usually the problem - not the solution. In cases where price control is/was tried (e.g. rent control; oil price way back in the 70s) the results are shortages.

What you need is competition to drive the price down. The problem: when the price goes down, it's the drivers - not PAX, not Uber, Lyft or whatever that pay the price.


----------



## Lack9133 (Mar 26, 2015)

John Deer said:


> Price control only makes sense when you have a monopoly (that's usually the case with utilities). In other situations, price control is usually the problem - not the solution. In cases where price control is/was tried (e.g. rent control; oil price way back in the 70s) the results are shortages.
> 
> What you need is competition to drive the price down. The problem: when the price goes down, it's the drivers - not PAX, not Uber, Lyft or whatever that pay the price.


You are correct in a sense. Price control usually does create shortages as you see on high demand nights in the taxi world when drivers do not have any extra monetary incentives to make themselves available. After all, as a driver, there are only so many miles you can drive in an hour.

But as you mentioned in your second paragraph, when there is increased competition in the taxi industry, drivers are the ones who are impacted. As a transportation company, you obviously cannot do business without drivers so how do transportation companies generally respond to increased competition/more drivers on the road to ensure drivers remain on the road with their company and profitable? They raise their meter rates to offset the driver profits lost by market saturation. As you mentioned, lowering the price would hurt the driver too much. Therefor, increased competition in the taxi industry does not generally lower rates for consumers, but instead raises them to keep drivers from having to pay the price of more competition. Because of this, it's the reason local governments put price caps on taxi rates and limit new companies into the market (among other reasons such as a company with a 1000 drivers has greater response time than 100 companies with 10 drivers covering the same area).

It's really a catch 22 for consumers and neither is a perfect system. One one hand we have the taxi world who limits the number of drivers on the road and the rates to ensure they are profitable enough to make themselves available during high demand nights but the catch is long wait times during high demand times. On the other hand, we could have a system where customers have short wait times but will have to pay extreme rates during those times. Neither system is right or wrong, there are positives and negatives to both systems.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

> how do transportation companies generally respond to increased competition/more drivers on the road to ensure drivers remain on the road with their company and profitable? They raise their meter rates to offset the driver profits lost by market saturation.


----------



## John Deer (Feb 12, 2015)

Lack9133 said:


> As a transportation company, you obviously cannot do business without drivers so how do transportation companies generally respond to increased competition/more drivers on the road to ensure drivers remain on the road with their company and profitable? They raise their meter rates to offset the driver profits lost by market saturation.


I don't follow. If there's market saturation (too much supply) the price would _fall_.
Taxis fare rate are pretty universally fixed by a regulator, while in some (many?) places - in particular NYC and SF - the number of taxis is capped (medallions) so supply can't increase to meet the demand - that's after all the reason why Uber/Lyft had a shot in the first place. The end result is that on New Year, it's almost impossible to find a taxi - but if you do, the price is the same as any other day.


----------



## Uber-Doober (Dec 16, 2014)

elelegido said:


> By mentioning forward planning you invalidate your own argument. Yes, one can forward plan to avoid some peak price increases in hotels and air travel. In fact that's a great idea. Forward planing is good.
> 
> By exactly the same token, if I am going to be going out drinking of an evening, I plan what time I am going, where I am going, and how I will get home. Another option, as you suggest, is to make no plan for how to get home, and find yourself looking for options at 2am, drunk, and on a cold street corner somewhere. If you choose no plan as the plan for yourself, it's up to you, but last ditch options will very likely be limited. And it'd be your own fault.
> 
> ...


^^^
There should also be 5x surge vomiting. 
You hurl in an Uber @ 2:AM and the cleaning fee is a Grand.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Uber-Doober said:


> ^^^
> There should also be 5x surge vomiting.
> You hurl in an Uber @ 2:AM and the cleaning fee is a Grand.


Sounds fair to me


----------



## Krishna (Sep 4, 2014)

Well, here in Tucson, I keep seeing the surge just kill demand.

Surge comes on, you know you won't get any fares until it goes off, then you're pinged instantly by people who clicked on "notify me when the surge ends."

Isn't that what the surge is meant to do anyway? Drive off customers who won't pay the surge. Meantime, the drivers compete for the handful of idiots who still call Uber during the surge.

I keep getting suckered in though. Today I sat around campus during a 3.4 surge for half an hour with no ping. When I got tired of it, Uber's all "Are you SURE you want to go offline?"

Yes, assholes, I'm sure.


----------

