# Riders complaining of drivers calling, then refusing fare



## Squirming Like A Toad

Late night riders have been telling me the driver has been accepting the ping, calling them, asking where they are going and then cancelling the ride if they don't like it. There are at most 1 or 2 other drivers in the area when I am rolling so I think it's the same one. F him, if I can roll the dice so can he. Last night's event turned out to be a good fare, and it left me in a place where I got a $90 fare next. This is a slow period in the area, school is out and summer travel hasn't started yet and last night I went 2 hours without a fare, I'm either taking what I can get or staying home. Can't believe somebody can not be deactivated for too much of that.

Of course, I did my part to F him by telling the passenger to lie to the driver next time, look at the map and tell him you are going back to where he is, or I gave him a list of other places to tell the driver he is going to ensure he will come out. "Hey, my friend called and told me he wasn't going to be there, so I decided to go home instead."


----------



## ColdRider

Rider should have reported him


----------



## Mountainsoloist

I have no problem with drivers doing that. Since it doesn't show the destination on the app you have to ask the potential passenger directly to know where they are going. Also, if the passenger lied to me I would cancel.


----------



## Squirming Like A Toad

Mountainsoloist said:


> I have no problem with drivers doing that. Since it doesn't show the destination on the app you have to ask the potential passenger directly to know where they are going. Also, if the passenger lied to me I would cancel.


That's an expensive decision after you have already driven to meet the passenger.

If a destination was too far out of my area I would offer to take him across the state line and relay him to another driver, especially if the full trip would be dangerous due to lack of sleep. But no way am I driving and then refusing a fare. Calling passengers wasn't part of the deal and they're under no obligation to talk to us on the phone. Just either take the ping or leave it for someone else.


----------



## kes1981

It's fine for a driver to do that. Driver 6 miles to pick up someone going 1 mile???? No thanks. If you want those rides, they are all yours. TBH, you are kind of stupid if you are willing to lose money while driving. This is Uber's fault, not yours. You shouldn't have to pay to drive.


----------



## nickd8775

Tell the rider to promise a tip over the phone. Drivers are calling because they don't want to lose money.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Of course, I did my part to F him by telling the passenger to lie to the driver next time, look at the map and tell him you are going back to where he is, or I gave him a list of other places to tell the driver he is going to ensure he will come out. "Hey, my friend called and told me he wasn't going to be there, so I decided to go home instead."


Why would you screw around with your brother driver? All he was trying to do is to not take a fare that is a losing proposition.


----------



## Mountainsoloist

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> That's an expensive decision after you have already driven to meet the passenger.


People who lie to me don't ride with me.



Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Calling passengers wasn't part of the deal and they're under no obligation to talk to us on the phone. Just either take the ping or leave it for someone else.


If I am calling them for a destination it is because their pickup location is already putting the ride's profitability into question. At that point I will do the trip if the destination is worthwhile. Many pings over a few minutes away are a bust. If they add a destination to the initial ping I won't need to do this anymore.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

Here's what I can't wrap my brain around.

Drivers complain about being pinged from 47 minutes away for a trip of 0.2 miles, because they aren't going to make $$ on it, particularly when Mr. 2/10ths of a mile wipes out the supply of mints and bottled water.

Yet, when a driver acts proactively to find out the length of the trip before driving the far distance for the loser trip, some drivers want to snitch on the crafty driver.


----------



## Squirming Like A Toad

I_Like_Spam said:


> Why would you screw around with your brother driver? All he was trying to do is to not take a fare that is a losing proposition.


Because he is screwing around with me, and he is not my brother. There is an element of luck when picking up fares. Last night I got two good fares in a row, very lucky, and I did not have to call. Other times I'm not so lucky, them's the breaks. In slow times a driver who is cherry-picking only the most profitable fares is trying to cheat the luck element by doing something we are not supposed to do, and leaving the less profitable fares for the other drivers. I call that dirty pool.

When there are only a couple of drivers on these things become more personal. I intentionally space myself out from the other driver, when he is in one good waiting spot I take the other if he was there first because I think it is better for the drivers to have easier nights and the riders get better service than to try and squeeze out a couple more dollars per hour at the expense of another driver. But I am very good at cheating if I want to, and if he wants to send me only the less desirable fares I will take more than that.

Also this is bad for business in general. More riders is always better, and if people find out there are no drivers available when they need them or even worse drivers who refuse to pick them up they will stop trusting Uber to get them home and do something else. Then our reputation will be as bad as the taxis.


----------



## Squirming Like A Toad

I_Like_Spam said:


> Here's what I can't wrap my brain around.
> 
> Drivers complain about being pinged from 47 minutes away for a trip of 0.2 miles, because they aren't going to make $$ on it, particularly when Mr. 2/10ths of a mile wipes out the supply of mints and bottled water.
> 
> Yet, when a driver acts proactively to find out the length of the trip before driving the far distance for the loser trip, some drivers want to snitch on the crafty driver.


Then don't take the distant pings, that's all. It's a risk. Your deadhead to the ping is your investment. Anything more than 7 miles is unlikely to be profitable for me at regular X rates. It also makes a difference how much time it will take to cover those miles, and how busy the shift is and what else I might be missing in the time it takes to complete the ride. So I don't take such a ping.

Also what if the rider is lying about the destination or about a tip? When I get there I've already paid my investment, nothing I can do about it. So by calling the rider I am giving him a choice between lying to me or sleeping in a bus shelter for the night. And if I refuse to haul when I get there I get nothing at all for my investment. No matter what you choose, it's a loss if you don't get a fare once you start moving.


----------



## luberslur

ColdRider said:


> Rider should have reported him


You two are idiots....Uber it at fault for the cheap fare. driver did nothing wrong. Instead of reporting driver...why don't you report uber for the cheap fare they charge?...Uber loves you idiots!!!!


----------



## Jo3030

In a weird way, it all balances itself out sometimes.
It's the short ride that takes you somewhere else that takes you to a long ride. It's happened to me so many times.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Also this is bad for business in general. More riders is always better, and if people find out there are no drivers available when they need them or even worse drivers who refuse to pick them up they will stop trusting Uber to get them home and do something else. Then our reputation will be as bad as the taxis.


All of that would make a difference if you had any capital invested in Uber. But you really don't, if Uber were to go belly up in an area, another rideshare concern with a better program which allows transparency for the partners to see the trip before they commit to it may come down. And since you'll have the same car, I'm sure they'll sign you up.

Right now, it doesn't cost Uber 5 cents to dispatch a trip they know will cost the partner money to take. So why shouldn't they? They are still making their money.

Partners acting proactively might get Uber to refine its technology on this.


----------



## uber strike

if you think i am driving over 3 miles to drive entitled pax for $2.40 you are greatly mistaken.


----------



## Digip

Lie to me and I will leave you there, I'll eat the cost on principle alone. The next drivers that pick them up is welcome for the better trained rider. SAme with groups of five of more in X I will leave even if I drove a ways to get there.

Seriously though, the driver you complain about is doing exactly the right thing, it is not his responsibility to provide service at a personal loss. If you are willing to blindly make these pick ups awesome, keep doing it maybe you'll get lucky occasionally and it's great for me.

I work in a large geographic area with 0-2 other drivers most of the time, 25 minute or more pings are not unusual and I ignore them the first couple times. If they ping multiple times and there is low probability of a closer ping I'll give the rider a chance to get a cheap ride, (there are plenty of cabs at all hours not like they are ever stranded) if it's unprofitable or comes with an opportunity cost, sorry, but at least I gave you a shot, I could have just continued to ignore your ping.


----------



## Greguzzi

I_Like_Spam said:


> Here's what I can't wrap my brain around.
> 
> Drivers complain about being pinged from 47 minutes away for a trip of 0.2 miles, because they aren't going to make $$ on it, particularly when Mr. 2/10ths of a mile wipes out the supply of mints and bottled water.
> 
> Yet, when a driver acts proactively to find out the length of the trip before driving the far distance for the loser trip, some drivers want to snitch on the crafty driver.


A-****ing-men.

Snitches are assholes, whether they are drivers or passengers. Stay out of another driver's business, unless you are willing to pay his bills.


----------



## Greguzzi

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Then don't take the distant pings, that's all. It's a risk. Your deadhead to the ping is your investment. Anything more than 7 miles is unlikely to be profitable for me at regular X rates. It also makes a difference how much time it will take to cover those miles, and how busy the shift is and what else I might be missing in the time it takes to complete the ride. So I don't take such a ping.
> 
> Also what if the rider is lying about the destination or about a tip? When I get there I've already paid my investment, nothing I can do about it. So by calling the rider I am giving him a choice between lying to me or sleeping in a bus shelter for the night. And if I refuse to haul when I get there I get nothing at all for my investment. No matter what you choose, it's a loss if you don't get a fare once you start moving.


An "investment?" LOL.

It's not an investment. It's a gamble. It would be worth the gamble if I were sure the cheap-ass liar was spending a cold night in a bus shelter after I drive away.


----------



## ChortlingCrison

ColdRider said:


> Rider should have reported him


 One of travis' minions. He's very proud of you.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Because he is screwing around with me, and he is not my brother. There is an element of luck when picking up fares.


How is he screwing "with you"? He may be gaming the Uber Corporation's system, and he may be inconveniencing the prospective passenger, but he isn't screwing you or any other fellow partner. Its your choice, as well, if you don't think you can make $$ on the fare, you don't have to go for it either.

The facts are that if the Uber Corp wanted to make sure all that every would be passenger is picked up, they could do it by buying vehicles and hiring employees to go out and chauffeur these customers around. Or they could boost the payments so that current partners would be willing to make the trips- put outlying areas in perpetual "surge" status, example given.



> Last night I got two good fares in a row, very lucky, and I did not have to call. Other times I'm not so lucky, them's the breaks. In slow times a driver who is cherry-picking only the most profitable fares is trying to cheat the luck element by doing something we are not supposed to do, and leaving the less profitable fares for the other drivers. I call that dirty pool.
> .


I can appreciate the concept of a "lucky" trip, but if I want to roll the dice and risk losing money I'll head down to the casino and try to hit a few points.

Its not dirty pool , its looking out for your own self interest just as Uber looks out for their own.

When I was driving a cab, and people called from far, out of the way places and weren't going anywhere, I'd pick them up if I was out that way. If not, sometimes they waited for hours and even didn't get a cab. Part of the disadvantage of living in the boonies.


----------



## D Town

I understand why many drivers cherry pick however you ARE screwing over other drivers by doing this. The mentality that, "I don't care if it hurts Uber," is also flawed in the fact that though, yes, it will hurt Uber - deservedly so since the fares are so piss poor that it encourages this sort of behavior - it also causes public ire against us drivers. What happens when the public gets pissed? The same thing that happened to the taxi industry. Massive regulation. A few years of this and every advantage that is offered by rideshare will be gone. Maybe I'm pissing into the wind here but that's my two cents.


----------



## Greguzzi

D Town said:


> I understand why many drivers cherry pick however you ARE screwing over other drivers by doing this. The mentality that, "I don't care if it hurts Uber," is also flawed in the fact that though, yes, it will hurt Uber - deservedly so since the fares are so piss poor that it encourages this sort of behavior - it also causes public ire against us drivers. What happens when the public gets pissed? The same thing that happened to the taxi industry. Massive regulation. A few years of this and every advantage that is offered by rideshare will be gone. Maybe I'm pissing into the wind here but that's my two cents.


Hogwash.

A ride that is my nightmare would likely be the dream ride for another driver. If Uber wants to avoid further regulation, they need to figure out a better means of matching riders with drivers that want to go where the passenger wants to go. They claim to be a technology company. Let them prove that and earn their commission by solving this problem. Until they do that, we drivers are forced to do what we have to do to get the information to decide whether any given ride is one we want to take.


----------



## Alexander

Isn't this about picking up riders in a high-surge area, as opposed to the more general question of whether it is worth driving 10 minutes to pick someone up? If you're already in a high-surge area, then you'll probably only be traveling a few minutes to get to a rider who requests in that general area. At that point, if you're calling the rider to see how far they are going so you can maximize the effect of the surge by having it applied to a longer ride, then you're cherry-picking the best rides and making other drivers who don't select that way look like suckers. So, with that caveat about already being in a high-surge area, I agree with the OP: it is gaming the system and making other drivers look like suckers to call the rider to see how far they are going if you're already just a few minutes away from them. 

Now, it is a different issue altogether if you get a ping 15 minutes away and call the rider to see how far they are going...anyways, those are my 2 cents.


----------



## Flarpy

Given that drivers are "independent contractors," they can accept what they want, cancel what they want, cancel for any reason (as long as it's not discriminatory), call riders, ask riders questions, ask for more money, ask for tips, and generally do ALL the things that independent contractors do. 

Remember, Uber/Lyft are just your vendors. You hire them. They provide the network and take a cut of what you have charged your passenger (your client), kind of like Craigslist or eBay. They can't tell you how to run your business unless you're doing something illegal.


----------



## D Town

Flarpy said:


> Given that drivers are "independent contractors," they can accept what they want, cancel what they want, cancel for any reason (as long as it's not discriminatory), call riders, ask riders questions, ask for more money, ask for tips, and generally do ALL the things that independent contractors do.
> 
> Remember, Uber/Lyft are just your vendors. You hire them. They provide the network and take a cut of what you have charged your passenger (your client), kind of like Craigslist or eBay. They can't tell you how to run your business unless you're doing something illegal.


That's the fantasy version of how this is supposed to work in theory.


----------



## xlr8ed

I phone ahead to 100% of UBERX pickups and request the PAX destination. If the PAX questions my call, I politely explain that UBER fails to disclose this info to the Drivers. I've only had one lady get verbally nasty with me, and I retorted with "This is a rideSHARE application. I am SHARING MY RIDE - not UBER's". If you would like a TAXI you can call one.

Problem solved.

FWIW, 90% of the PAX I call don't mind. 8% dont answer the phone after 3 tries and I'm waiting, they get the Cancel-Rider No-Show all day long.


----------



## ColdRider

luberslur said:


> You two are idiots....Uber it at fault for the cheap fare. driver did nothing wrong. Instead of reporting driver...why don't you report uber for the cheap fare they charge?...Uber loves you idiots!!!!


is*

Maybe the idiot is the driver continuing to drive as uber cuts the rates? As long as you guys keep driving, they'll keep cutting. Thanks!



ChortlingCrison said:


> One of travis' minions. He's very proud of you.


You have 793 posts in less than two months.

Do you even work?


----------



## UberMensch2015

I don't do this because I only drive surge over 1.5 but I have no issue with it. Someone above said it right, Uber wants to call this "ridesharing" and insists that's why they don't have to play by the same rules as Taxi's re regulations and background checks. If its really a "share" then the driver has every right to pick and choose which jobs he wants to take. Its just another example of Uber wanting to hide behind the IC rules but treat drivers like employees when it suits them.


----------



## Tim In Cleveland

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Late night riders have been telling me the driver has been accepting the ping, calling them, asking where they are going and then cancelling the ride if they don't like it. There are at most 1 or 2 other drivers in the area when I am rolling so I think it's the same one. F him, if I can roll the dice so can he. Last night's event turned out to be a good fare, and it left me in a place where I got a $90 fare next. This is a slow period in the area, school is out and summer travel hasn't started yet and last night I went 2 hours without a fare, I'm either taking what I can get or staying home. Can't believe somebody can not be deactivated for too much of that.
> 
> Of course, I did my part to F him by telling the passenger to lie to the driver next time, look at the map and tell him you are going back to where he is, or I gave him a list of other places to tell the driver he is going to ensure he will come out. "Hey, my friend called and told me he wasn't going to be there, so I decided to go home instead."


You couldn't be any more WRONG. The other driver is a independent contractor with the RIGHT to choose the jobs he wants. Uber knocks themselves out to try and deprive you of that right by hiding the destination, hiding the pax name, and frequently even hiding their rating. It's just plain stupid to drive 20 minutes to a pax (then 20 minutes back to your home or the busy area) to give someone a 10 minute ride to earn $2.00. You should be embarrassed that you are so wrong. If I call and they claim a long ride and then I get there and find out it's a short trip, I will IMMEDIATELY kick their nasty, lying ass out of my car and not their name/location so I never pick them up again.


----------



## tohellwithu

Why are these discussion going on when it can be done, with this issue with "uber off" and stay back home or find a better job. But not a penny job like uber has to offer "slave"


----------



## I_Like_Spam

D Town said:


> What happens when the public gets pissed? The same thing that happened to the taxi industry.


The reasons why a taxi driver isn't going to want to go 10 miles out of their way for a short trip in the middle of nowhere is the same as it is for an uber driver. No one wants to lose $$, or at the very least lose the opportunity to actually make $$. That isn't going to change.

I suppose with hundreds of newly minted Uber drivers coming on board daily, and they are holding to their ideal of keeping the destinations top secret until the driver is there, they might be able to get a lot of these trips covered now. But in the long haul, I can't see how, people will wise up.

People who live in the sticks might be pissed about it, but it will never be profitable to haul them on short trips, and to expect drivers to take a loss on hauling them is a bit much. Paying more for travel is what living in distant places is about. The only solution is to put a surcharge on the trips.


----------



## dirtylee

On Friday & Sat nights, surge hits 4 - 5X but ends rather quickly. Most of them are jerk runs @ minimum. You only get one chance to hit a profitable ride. So yeah, I'm going to cherry pick for the suburb rides.


----------



## Old Rocker

D Town said:


> I understand why many drivers cherry pick however you ARE screwing over other drivers by doing this. The mentality that, "I don't care if it hurts Uber," is also flawed in the fact that though, yes, it will hurt Uber - deservedly so since the fares are so piss poor that it encourages this sort of behavior - it also causes public ire against us drivers. What happens when the public gets pissed? The same thing that happened to the taxi industry. Massive regulation. A few years of this and every advantage that is offered by rideshare will be gone. Maybe I'm pissing into the wind here but that's my two cents.


In Houston, since we have to abide by the same rules as taxis, a driver accepting a fare, then canceling once they find out the destination is breaking the law.


----------



## Old Rocker

I_Like_Spam said:


> The reasons why a taxi driver isn't going to want to go 10 miles out of their way for a short trip in the middle of nowhere is the same as it is for an uber driver. No one wants to lose $$, or at the very least lose the opportunity to actually make $$. That isn't going to change.
> 
> I suppose with hundreds of newly minted Uber drivers coming on board daily, and they are holding to their ideal of keeping the destinations top secret until the driver is there, they might be able to get a lot of these trips covered now. But in the long haul, I can't see how, people will wise up.
> 
> People who live in the sticks might be pissed about it, but it will never be profitable to haul them on short trips, and to expect drivers to take a loss on hauling them is a bit much. Paying more for travel is what living in distant places is about. The only solution is to put a surcharge on the trips.


Then the pax low rates you because they had to wait 18 minutes.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

Old Rocker said:


> In Houston, since we have to abide by the same rules as taxis, a driver accepting a fare, then canceling once they find out the destination is breaking the law.


When I was driving a taxi in Pittsburgh, the dispatcher's always indicated the destination or length of trip when the trip was out in the burbs, let the drivers know whether it was worth going there for, or to only go for the people if they happen to be out that way.


----------



## uber fool

When you call a cab what two question do they ask you
Where are you
Where are you going
If the trip is 2.80 cents the dispatcher will tell you it will be a half hour wait so you might as well walk.If you say i still want the cab I will wait,they just wont send anybody and you will be there all day


----------



## uber fool

The difference between taxi and uber short fares are simple 
Taxi short fare meter $7.25 usaully they give $10 do that 30 times a day $300 earned
Uber short fare $3 no tip do that 30times a day earn $30


----------



## Squirming Like A Toad

Tim In Cleveland said:


> You couldn't be any more WRONG. The other driver is a independent contractor with the RIGHT to choose the jobs he wants. Uber knocks themselves out to try and deprive you of that right by hiding the destination, hiding the pax name, and frequently even hiding their rating. It's just plain stupid to drive 20 minutes to a pax (then 20 minutes back to your home or the busy area) to give someone a 10 minute ride to earn $2.00. You should be embarrassed that you are so wrong. If I call and they claim a long ride and then I get there and find out it's a short trip, I will IMMEDIATELY kick their nasty, lying ass out of my car and not their name/location so I never pick them up again.


You earn $2 for a 10 minute ride? I think I see the problem. Still that would be $12 an hour, lots of people work harder for less.

Eventually Uber is just going to change the tech so you can't contact the rider until you are at the ping. Then what are you going to do, scream and stamp your feet? I heard there was a "Take Me Home" feature once that allowed you to get back to your regular area with a fare, and that would be very valuable to all of us, but it was abused and now it is no more. Don't be so greedy, take your fares and your luck will even out.


----------



## uber fool

ColdRider said:


> Rider should have reported him


HaHAha I have close to 3000 trips and i have cussed out and told countless cheapo s gtfo .They always say i gonna report you.They do to and i get the professional message blah blah big deal i have gotten this message upwards of 20 times


----------



## Squirming Like A Toad

Nothing to be proud of. I have never cussed or had any kind of unpleasant exchange with a passenger, never ejected anyone, and never gotten a reprimand from Uber.

Makes for good stories, but not funny when you're out there on your own. I know how to cuss, argue, grapple, whatever but not for the pay we get, I want nothing but smooth, conflict-free rides for that rate. Combat pay is a lot more for me.


----------



## S.A

I accept the long trip and I politely tell the pax to cancel and request again but most of the time they tell me they will tip me more.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> You earn $2 for a 10 minute ride? I think I see the problem. Still that would be $12 an hour, lots of people work harder for less.
> 
> Eventually Uber is just going to change the tech so you can't contact the rider until you are at the ping. Then what are you going to do, scream and stamp your feet? I heard there was a "Take Me Home" feature once that allowed you to get back to your regular area with a fare, and that would be very valuable to all of us, but it was abused and now it is no more. Don't be so greedy, take your fares and your luck will even out.


How in the hell is that $12 per hour? Each pax is sitting exactly where you dropped the last one off and is ready to immediately hop in? And you have no gas, no depreciation, no expenses whatsoever for your car?


----------



## dirtylee

Fuzzyelvis said:


> How in the hell is that $12 per hour? Each pax is sitting exactly where you dropped the last one off and is ready to immediately hop in? And you have no gas, no depreciation, no expenses whatsoever for your car?


I don't think he drives at all. Minimum fares that are 1 - 2 miles take 15 - 20 minutes.


----------



## Liquid

Fuzzyelvis said:


> How in the hell is that $12 per hour? Each pax is sitting exactly where you dropped the last one off and is ready to immediately hop in? And you have no gas, no depreciation, no expenses whatsoever for your car?


We are being reprimanded by an intern who has never driven a day.


----------



## james2ko

Greguzzi said:


> Hogwash.
> 
> A ride that is my nightmare would likely be the dream ride for another driver. If Uber wants to avoid further regulation, they need to figure out a better means of matching riders with drivers that want to go where the passenger wants to go. They claim to be a technology company. Let them prove that and earn their commission by solving this problem. Until they do that, we drivers are forced to do what we have to do to get the information to decide whether any given ride is one we want to take.


I proposed a solution to match drivers with passengers on this thread:

https://uberpeople.net/threads/stan...pp-for-riders-and-drivers.79813/#post-1106376

I also made the suggestion on uber's Facebook page. I got a canned "thank you" reply.


----------



## thomas1955

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Because he is screwing around with me


No, you are wrong, your like the dog looking at his reflection in the lake, you see another dog with a bone and want it. Mind your own business, learn how to provide the service and still make a profit. What the other driver is doing with his requests is really none of your business. I don't call my riders, but I do screen them, no pickups accepted if more than 5 or 6 min away, no pickups accepted if at certain locations, ie college dorms, low income housing, ect. So the riders are complaining, so what, they are mostly ignorant of the economics of the current ride share business model, they only want a cheap ride quickly. This other driver that is calling the riders and asking where they are going is being smart about accepting requests, instead of focusing on what he's doing, you should be focusing on what you can do to improve your business earnings, ie (like refusing the charity rides)

Now before you go and flame me, take a breath and think about what I just wrote, you may agree or disagree, it boils down to this, you can't control what the other driver does, you can't control what uber does, but you can control what you do, focus on that and you will find a solution that will benefit yourself.


----------



## Squirming Like A Toad

dirtylee said:


> I don't think he drives at all. Minimum fares that are 1 - 2 miles take 15 - 20 minutes.


Yeah, I suppose if you stop and call the rider every time! I'm quite quick about getting to the rider, and score about one CXL fee per shift to show for it.

The guy says he _earns_ $2 for a 10 minute trip. When someone talks about earnings I take that as net, after expenses. On a really slow night I'll take it, beats the $0 per hour I earn sitting in the parking lot.


----------



## Squirming Like A Toad

thomas1955 said:


> No, you are wrong, your like the dog looking at his reflection in the lake, you see another dog with a bone and want it. Mind your own business, learn how to provide the service and still make a profit. What the other driver is doing with his requests is really none of your business. I don't call my riders, but I do screen them, no pickups accepted if more than 5 or 6 min away, no pickups accepted if at certain locations, ie college dorms, low income housing, ect. So the riders are complaining, so what, they are mostly ignorant of the economics of the current ride share business model, they only want a cheap ride quickly. This other driver that is calling the riders and asking where they are going is being smart about accepting requests, instead of focusing on what he's doing, you should be focusing on what you can do to improve your business earnings, ie (like refusing the charity rides)
> 
> Now before you go and flame me, take a breath and think about what I just wrote, you may agree or disagree, it boils down to this, you can't control what the other driver does, you can't control what uber does, but you can control what you do, focus on that and you will find a solution that will benefit yourself.


Not going to flame you. This is a competitive game, and game theory applies. Like in a poker game, what the other players are doing affects what you do and what you must do to maximize your profits. Of course I can't control what another driver does, but let's say there are only two drivers in an area, despite never having seen each other we are strongly coupled. There is a limited amount of business within range, and whether we split it 70/30, 30/70, or 50/50 depends on the subtleties of our operation. If he is going to park on top of me he is taking at least half of the map, and if he is 100 yards closer to downtown or the train station he is effectively taking much more than that. Thus I can't be oblivious to what he is doing and still make money. It would be nice in the short term to take 70%, but in the long term I'd rather there be another driver around because transportation has to have a reputation for being reliable if overall business is to increase. Once people start saying "Uber sucks, you can never get a ride when you need it" we're all done. But if he's rejecting rides due to the nature of the rider or the destination he's not increasing the reputation for reliability and thus I have no reason to respect his turf, so I might just take my 70% and run him off the table.

I'm surprised you don't like college dorms, those are my best rides. Plenty of XL rates, and being the kids are mostly going to and from the same dorms and nightclubs there are a lot of stacked pings, no deadhead at all sometimes. Now that's an example of positive cooperation between drivers, if you can't stand the drunk kids that's fine, more for me, and while I'm busy there someone else can take the office parks and airport.


----------



## Tim In Cleveland

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> You earn $2 for a 10 minute ride? I think I see the problem. Still that would be $12 an hour, lots of people work harder for less.
> 
> Eventually Uber is just going to change the tech so you can't contact the rider until you are at the ping. Then what are you going to do, scream and stamp your feet? I heard there was a "Take Me Home" feature once that allowed you to get back to your regular area with a fare, and that would be very valuable to all of us, but it was abused and now it is no more. Don't be so greedy, take your fares and your luck will even out.


How DARE you call ANYONE greedy for being mad about getting paid $2 for 50 minutes work? It's NOT 10 you f-ing idiot. What driving to and from the job is leisure time? That kind of pay for that kind of time is abuse. What will I do? REFUSE pings over 10 minutes away and/or, say "No Thanks" if I arrive and don't care for the destination. It's my right to CHOOSE JOBS, not merely whether I am logged on or not. I am in no way obligated to take shit or dangerous fares. You are a shill posting on a board for drivers.


----------



## Tim In Cleveland

dirtylee said:


> I don't think he drives at all. Minimum fares that are 1 - 2 miles take 15 - 20 minutes.


 No, they take 15-20 minutes if the ping is CLOSE by and the customer doesn't keep you waiting. The average is 30 minutes. I have only RARELY started a 3rd short trip within an hour and have NEVER managed to complete even 3 trips so forget this horseshit about "I work in a college town and complete 3,000 trips an hour. I just luvs me some short trips. Long ones suck". That's utter horse manure. When I work in college areas I have never completed 3 trips, have NEVER had the pax with toes on the curb and couldn't possibly complete 3 trips without having to cancel because they are trying to stuff 6-7 pax into one car.


----------



## luberslur

Tim In Cleveland said:


> How DARE you call ANYONE greedy for being mad about getting paid $2 for 50 minutes work? It's NOT 10 you f-ing idiot. What driving to and from the job is leisure time? That kind of pay for that kind of time is abuse. What will I do? REFUSE pings over 10 minutes away and/or, say "No Thanks" if I arrive and don't care for the destination. It's my right to CHOOSE JOBS, not merely whether I am logged on or not. I am in no way obligated to take shit or dangerous fares. You are a shill posting on a board for drivers.


Tim...you have my respect......I'm a immigrant with sense. What mess this world up is dumb azz immigrants who have no sense or education to make a sensible decision. Uber is treating drivers like crap because now it's mostly immigrants driving for what they pay. A immigrant did not have anything in his or her country...now in the united states making $.85mi and think that is good because they are coming from nothing.
I was at fort lauderdale airport and had one idiot came up to my car talking to me and telling me to accept every ping, no matter how far because one never know how that job is going to pay. So to take all pings. Come on now, you got to be a serious idiot to take a ping 15 minutes out and the rider goes 1 mile on your azz!!!
Last night at the airport. I had one lady standing at the passenger door asking me if I'm going to get out and put her bangs in the trunk?...I laugh while looking out the window and ask her if she sees me still sitting in the car....Then I kindly says...the trunk is open, you put your own bags in the car. I don't get paid to touch your bag. I get paid to give you a ride. She puts the bags in the trunk and got in the car with her girlfriend and kept running her mouth. Her friend in backseat says to her...Girl, this is a uber car...if you wanted that kind of service, you should have call a taxi. just chill and stop complaining. He does not get pay to touch your bags....I responded...yeah....and uber passenger don't tip...she reply..you're not getting a tip...then I reply. I don't expect a tip from you, I just expect you to have a respectful attitude while you're in my car. Half way during the trip..she is all quiet. I ask her why is she so quiet...her response is.....didn't you tell me to be respectful while I'm in your car?... I laugh her friend laugh and says good for you, stay quiet.

Drivers need to learn...all the free water, car charger, trips to drive thru for food run needs to STOP!


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

thomas1955 said:


> No, you are wrong, your like the dog looking at his reflection in the lake, you see another dog with a bone and want it. Mind your own business, learn how to provide the service and still make a profit. What the other driver is doing with his requests is really none of your business. I don't call my riders, but I do screen them, no pickups accepted if more than 5 or 6 min away, no pickups accepted if at certain locations, ie college dorms, low income housing, ect. So the riders are complaining, so what, they are mostly ignorant of the economics of the current ride share business model, they only want a cheap ride quickly. This other driver that is calling the riders and asking where they are going is being smart about accepting requests, instead of focusing on what he's doing, you should be focusing on what you can do to improve your business earnings, ie (like refusing the charity rides)
> 
> Now before you go and flame me, take a breath and think about what I just wrote, you may agree or disagree, it boils down to this, you can't control what the other driver does, you can't control what uber does, but you can control what you do, focus on that and you will find a solution that will benefit yourself.


Notice how the same people who tell us Uber has a right to run their business any way they want have a,problem with us doing the same?


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Not going to flame you. This is a competitive game, and game theory applies. Like in a poker game, what the other players are doing affects what you do and what you must do to maximize your profits. Of course I can't control what another driver does, but let's say there are only two drivers in an area, despite never having seen each other we are strongly coupled. There is a limited amount of business within range, and whether we split it 70/30, 30/70, or 50/50 depends on the subtleties of our operation. If he is going to park on top of me he is taking at least half of the map, and if he is 100 yards closer to downtown or the train station he is effectively taking much more than that. Thus I can't be oblivious to what he is doing and still make money. It would be nice in the short term to take 70%, but in the long term I'd rather there be another driver around because transportation has to have a reputation for being reliable if overall business is to increase. Once people start saying "Uber sucks, you can never get a ride when you need it" we're all done. But if he's rejecting rides due to the nature of the rider or the destination he's not increasing the reputation for reliability and thus I have no reason to respect his turf, so I might just take my 70% and run him off the table.
> 
> I'm surprised you don't like college dorms, those are my best rides. Plenty of XL rates, and being the kids are mostly going to and from the same dorms and nightclubs there are a lot of stacked pings, no deadhead at all sometimes. Now that's an example of positive cooperation between drivers, if you can't stand the drunk kids that's fine, more for me, and while I'm busy there someone else can take the office parks and airport.


You should study game theory a little more.


----------



## james2ko

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Notice how the same people who tell us Uber has a right to run their business any way they want have a,problem with us doing the same?


It's called Uberology. Uber has done an excellent job making some drivers think like loyal company employees.


----------



## UberTrip

Greguzzi said:


> A-&%[email protected]!*ing-men.
> 
> Snitches are assholes, whether they are drivers or passengers. Stay out of another driver's business, unless you are willing to pay his bills.


Lazy drivers are a$$ - 0. Do you contracted job or quit. Short fares suck.... but that's how the game works. Just like snagging $100+ surge fares. Not all business is profitable . I would dime them out in a second. Do your job or quit....


----------



## Greguzzi

UberTrip said:


> Lazy drivers are a$$ - 0. Do you contracted job or quit. Short fares suck.... but that's how the game works. Just like snagging $100+ surge fares. Not all business is profitable . I would dime them out in a second. Do your job or quit....


Be an ubertool and snitch if you want. Travis laughs at your foolishness, as do all your fellow drivers. Karma will get you. But not soon enough.

There is nothing lazy about insisting that you know where you are going before you go there. It's quite proactive, in truth. I would not expect a genius of your caliber to recognize this truth, but there it is . . .


----------



## JJ/Uber/Miami

Greguzzi said:


> know where you are going before you go there. It's quite proactive, in truth. I would not expect a genius of your caliber to recognize this truth, but there it is . . .


Amen and Bravo !!!


----------



## ChortlingCrison

ColdRider said:


> is*
> 
> Maybe the idiot is the driver continuing to drive as uber cuts the rates? As long as you guys keep driving, they'll keep cutting. Thanks!
> 
> You have 793 posts in less than two months.
> 
> Do you even work?


So if uber decides to leave Chicago, what are you going to do? You might have to walk a few blocks. Or take the L train or worse yet an actual cab!!!

PS. Don't stand to close to the curb on a rainy day.


----------



## RamzFanz

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Late night riders have been telling me the driver has been accepting the ping, calling them, asking where they are going and then cancelling the ride if they don't like it. There are at most 1 or 2 other drivers in the area when I am rolling so I think it's the same one. F him, if I can roll the dice so can he. Last night's event turned out to be a good fare, and it left me in a place where I got a $90 fare next. This is a slow period in the area, school is out and summer travel hasn't started yet and last night I went 2 hours without a fare, I'm either taking what I can get or staying home. Can't believe somebody can not be deactivated for too much of that.
> 
> Of course, I did my part to F him by telling the passenger to lie to the driver next time, look at the map and tell him you are going back to where he is, or I gave him a list of other places to tell the driver he is going to ensure he will come out. "Hey, my friend called and told me he wasn't going to be there, so I decided to go home instead."


These are former taxi drivers. They won't last. I control the distances and directions I drive by using place and time. Anyone desperate enough to call and ask has already failed.


----------



## Rat

Old Rocker said:


> In Houston, since we have to abide by the same rules as taxis, a driver accepting a fare, then canceling once they find out the destination is breaking the law.


So do you charge the same rate as taxis? Even in Houston, they can't force you to pick up a passenger. If they do, they are liable if the passenger harms you. A wrongful death suit will cost them millions. Jacksonville, FL passed such an ordinance, but cancelled it after the state attorneys office pointed out that it was a huge liability problem


----------



## Rat

uber fool said:


> The difference between taxi and uber short fares are simple
> Taxi short fare meter $7.25 usaully they give $10 do that 30 times a day $300 earned
> Uber short fare $3 no tip do that 30times a day earn $30


Flunk math? 30 X $3=$90


----------



## Rat

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> You earn $2 for a 10 minute ride? I think I see the problem. Still that would be $12 an hour, lots of people work harder for less.
> 
> Eventually Uber is just going to change the tech so you can't contact the rider until you are at the ping. Then what are you going to do, scream and stamp your feet? I heard there was a "Take Me Home" feature once that allowed you to get back to your regular area with a fare, and that would be very valuable to all of us, but it was abused and now it is no more. Don't be so greedy, take your fares and your luck will even out.


You ignore that it took 10 minutes to get there, 5 minutes for the Pax to get in the car. So that's $4.00/hr, assuming only waiting 5 minutes between calls(unlikely) and totally ignoring that it costs money to drive the car. Uber never had a "take me home" feature, claiming it was"abused" is an outright lie.


----------



## Rat

UberTrip said:


> Lazy drivers are a$$ - 0. Do you contracted job or quit. Short fares suck.... but that's how the game works. Just like snagging $100+ surge fares. Not all business is profitable . I would dime them out in a second. Do your job or quit....


That's exactly what he did, quit and then got a new job hauling someone else. Only a fool does business he knows will be unprofitable. If you actually read the contract, you would know you are free to accept or reject any fare you like. I drove 10 minutes on a trip 20 minutes away and the passenger cancelled without being charged a fee, he didn't honor any "contract", did he? When Uber disregards the queue at airports, aren't they ignoring the contract?


----------



## Oscar Levant

I know this makes me sound like an Uber shill, and I'm not, not at all. But, on destination foreknowledge I take the company view.
I do this because I've been in the taxi business off and on since the late 70s, and I now that if drivers are given destination knowledge they will be cherry picking
and cherry picking is not fair to other drivers, who will then have fewer cherries for themselves because you are taking more than your fair share of them. Everyone loves longer fares, and no one likes to lose money on runs. but, runs that are not profitable are really part of the cost of doing business. States and cities who license drivers expect drivers in the transport business to take all ride requests ( not talking about pre-arranged livery, just on - demand transportation, like taxis and rideshares ), and do the less profitable ones as well out of civic duty with the knowledge that, over the long run, you'll get enough long trips to make it worth your while. You have bad days, and good days, but it averages out at the end of the month. In the Taxi business, drivers who strategized their shifts on quantity of runs, usually made more money than whose who strictly positioned their vehicles for a higher average of long runs ( such as working the outer burbs, instead of the city hub ).

Also, cherry picking results in worse service if you are calling riders and cancelling after finding out the destination as this will diminish the concept of "customer goodwill" When that happens, long enough, over time, the rider customer base shrinks and so does your job. For lawd sakes, if you are offered a trip that is 20 minutes away, don't accept it, let another driver who might be clearing soon closer to the fair take the run, and this is as it should be. If you work hub areas, you won't get that many of them. In my experience, paid miles is better in hub areas, downtown areas, etc. Sure, there are busy times when the do happen more often than other times. If I feel i am rejecting too many trips, and it does happen, I will email the office and explain what was going on, and why I did it it, so there will be a real time record of it, in case they do a review of my situation. It goes to "being conscientious", showing concern for the job, and being professional, caring about the job.

Yeah, I recognize some of you think Uber is screwing you ( and I agree on the rates being too low, which is why I quit UberX ) but still, my view is that if you decide to do a job, do it well, and doing it well is doing everything one can to build up customer goodwill. If you can't do that, then you should quit.


----------



## james2ko

Oscar Levant said:


> I know this makes me sound like an Uber shill, and I'm not, not at all. But, on destination foreknowledge I take the company view.
> I do this because I've been in the taxi business off and on since the late 70s, and *I now that if drivers are given destination knowledge they will be cherry picking*
> and cherry picking is not fair to other drivers, who will then have fewer cherries for themselves because you are taking more than your fair share of them. Everyone loves longer fares, and no one likes to lose money on runs. but, runs that are not profitable are really part of the cost of doing business. States and cities who license drivers expect drivers in the transport business to take all ride requests ( not talking about pre-arranged livery, just on - demand transportation, like taxis and rideshares ), and do the less profitable ones as well out of civic duty with the knowledge that, over the long run, you'll get enough long trips to make it worth your while. You have bad days, and good days, but it averages out at the end of the month. In the Taxi business, drivers who strategized their shifts on quantity of runs, usually made more money than whose who strictly positioned their vehicles for a higher average of long runs ( such as working the outer burbs, instead of the city hub ).
> 
> Also, cherry picking results in worse service if you are calling riders and cancelling after finding out the destination as this will diminish the concept of "customer goodwill" When that happens, long enough, over time, the rider customer base shrinks and so does your job. For lawd sakes, if you are offered a trip that is 20 minutes away, don't accept it, let another driver who might be clearing soon closer to the fair take the run, and this is as it should be. If you work hub areas, you won't get that many of them. In my experience, paid miles is better in hub areas, downtown areas, etc. Sure, there are busy times when the do happen more often than other times. If I feel i am rejecting too many trips, and it does happen, I will email the office and explain what was going on, and why I did it it, so there will be a real time record of it, in case they do a review of my situation. It goes to "being conscientious", showing concern for the job, and being professional, caring about the job.
> 
> Yeah, I recognize some of you think Uber is screwing you ( and I agree on the rates being too low, which is why I quit UberX ) but still, my view is that if you decide to do a job, do it well, and doing it well is doing everything one can to build up customer goodwill. If you can't do that, then you should quit.


In today's driver and passenger saturated uber environment, don't you think--I believe someone alluded to this earlier in the thread--one driver's garbage ride can be another driver's treasure? So cherry picking rides may not currently be as bad for the driver and passenger as once thought. This is why I believe an in app, standing request page would be a great option for drivers and passengers.


----------



## UberxGTA

ColdRider said:


> Rider should have reported him


Report him for WHAT???It's called rideshare. You are joining my ride. If you are not going in the same direction as the driver, he's not obligated to pick you up and Uber agrees with that so you would be wasting your time. Request another driver.


----------



## Old Rocker

Rat said:


> So do you charge the same rate as taxis? Even in Houston, they can't force you to pick up a passenger. If they do, they are liable if the passenger harms you. A wrongful death suit will cost them millions. Jacksonville, FL passed such an ordinance, but cancelled it after the state attorneys office pointed out that it was a huge liability problem


I don't write them...

"
Sec. 46-119. - Duty to transport within the corporate limits.

It shall be unlawful for a licensee to refuse to transport a person to a requested destination located within the corporate limits of the city."

"
Sec. 46-2. - Refusal to convey.

It shall be unlawful for any permittee, registrant, or licensee to refuse to transport a passenger on the basis of a passenger's race, color, ethnicity, religion, sex, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity, pregnancy or disability"


----------



## 75drive

Mountainsoloist said:


> I have no problem with drivers doing that. Since it doesn't show the destination on the app you have to ask the potential passenger directly to know where they are going. Also, if the passenger lied to me I would cancel.


I agree to a point like when you have somewhere to be and simply can't do it but all the time is ****ing ridiculous! That's why Lyft removed the destination because drivers were canceling short rides and we all get ****ed! That being said we should be able to see the destination! Why waste my time the passengers time and create an uncomfortable situation. It happened to me once I had an 8:00 a.m. meeting and was going to do one more ride and sure as shit I arrive at the pick-up and she has a suitcase and she's not going to Midway near where I work rather O'Hare totally the opposite direction in rush hour traffic! I apologize and explain I have a meeting with a vice president and I can't take her and the situation could've been avoided if I was able to see the destination!


----------



## SuckA

It's actually fine to call riders and find out where their end destination will be, then cancel or accept based on what rider says, this is completely normal.
Lyft and Uber don't pay for travel time to the rider, THIS NEEDS TO CHANGE! Their should be a flat fee for travel to Pax, $3-$5 something like that would coax me to accept all hails because now Lyft/Uber is covering my gas to the rider. I would have a 100% acceptance rating all the time, until Lyft/Uber wake up and get with it, I will call all my hails >7 mins away.


----------



## Rat

Old Rocker said:


> I don't write them...
> 
> "
> Sec. 46-119. - Duty to transport within the corporate limits.
> 
> It shall be unlawful for a licensee to refuse to transport a person to a requested destination located within the corporate limits of the city."
> 
> "
> Sec. 46-2. - Refusal to convey.
> 
> It shall be unlawful for any permittee, registrant, or licensee to refuse to transport a passenger on the basis of a passenger's race, color, ethnicity, religion, sex, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity, pregnancy or disability"


Sec. 46-119 makes Housron liable for the death, injury, or damage done by any passenger. First cabbie or Uber driver gets killed the city will pay out millions of dollars. The law also absolves drivers of trespassing on private property and makes the city liable when he does so. A man carrying a Machete in one hand and severed skull in the other can force you to drive down a dark alley and you're not allowed to refuse. Houston has idiots writing their ordinances.


----------



## Rat

75drive said:


> I agree to a point like when you have somewhere to be and simply can't do it but all the time is &%[email protected]!*ing ridiculous! That's why Lyft removed the destination because drivers were canceling short rides and we all get &%[email protected]!*ed! That being said we should be able to see the destination! Why waste my time the passengers time and create an uncomfortable situation. It happened to me once I had an 8:00 a.m. meeting and was going to do one more ride and sure as shit I arrive at the pick-up and she has a suitcase and she's not going to Midway near where I work rather O'Hare totally the opposite direction in rush hour traffic! I apologize and explain I have a meeting with a vice president and I can't take her and the situation could've been avoided if I was able to see the destination!


The situation wouldn't have happened if you hadn't logged in when you were unable to work.


----------



## wibek77

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Late night riders have been telling me the driver has been accepting the ping, calling them, asking where they are going and then cancelling the ride if they don't like it. There are at most 1 or 2 other drivers in the area when I am rolling so I think it's the same one. F him, if I can roll the dice so can he. Last night's event turned out to be a good fare, and it left me in a place where I got a $90 fare next. This is a slow period in the area, school is out and summer travel hasn't started yet and last night I went 2 hours without a fare, I'm either taking what I can get or staying home. Can't believe somebody can not be deactivated for too much of that.
> 
> Of course, I did my part to F him by telling the passenger to lie to the driver next time, look at the map and tell him you are going back to where he is, or I gave him a list of other places to tell the driver he is going to ensure he will come out. "Hey, my friend called and told me he wasn't going to be there, so I decided to go home instead."


R u driver or pax? If u r driver then u should be kidding me. I have dropped pax to Salem NH for $34 and had to come back with 44 dead miles and total trips cost me 2 hours. Other trip was to Newbury port for $42 for 45 miles and 90 minutes for goal trips. So don't u think as a private contractor, uber drive have right to know where they r dropping pax. Actually it should be uber driver to pick the job they want it or not as a private contractor. So it would be better if they put the destination back in app as before so driver don't have to call to riders


----------



## Dguy

A few thoughts:

1. As an independant business owner and a partner with Uber, it is your sole decision if you want to go the "x" time amount to pick up and ride and even Uber has said in emails about such issues, reach out to the pax and work out a solution. Some drivers work out a tip, so drivers see the ride is of a profitable distance to make the deadhead worth the spend, and then there are drivers that find driving 15 miles for a minimum fare doesnt make business sense to their model... Not your model... Their model. So they cancel. So what? That is why we are called independant contractors. I do what i feel is in the best interest of my business. Uber has controls in place that will monitor and control those that abuse the system.. By abuse I mean refuse anything more than 5 minutes from them. Uber will place you on hold for "x" minutes figuring... Hey.. You really don't want to Uber at the moment. That independant drover can keep being in forced time outs or figure a way to be profitable and make some of those trips. 

2. To say "the whole idea is not knowing where you go and the chance element" of driving... Dude... Glad you are not running my businesses. I know every dollar in, every dollar out... My risk points, what makes a profitable customer and what makes an unprofitable customer.. And as an independant contractor with a relationship with my "partner" Uber.. As long as I am ethical and legal... I run my business within the guidelines given to me. 

3. I drive in CT.. I hope you turn me in!!! I drive NW CT and most pings average between 8-12 minutes away. If I am driving in the direction of the ping I may accept a 15+ ping. I always call the pax to let them know I am enroute and anything to prepare me for my trip (how many people, destination, what side of rode for pickup, etc etc). If at that time I hear something that I am not able to do (no car seat for kids, going to far away for my time limits or to short of a ride for the amount of effort needed to pick them up) i will politely ask them to cancel or if after the 5 minutes I will cancel under "other" and it wont charge the rider. 

4. If i pull up and find out i was lied to, i don't even start the ride. I never start the ride until everyone is in the car and the doors are closed. If it pops up to a destination that is short.. I will drive then 1 star them and ask Uber to remove them from ever being able to ping me again. If it is a long trip, i explain why i only have "x" minutes to drive before an appointment and I don't have 90 minutes for a trip. To prevent this issue I usually stop driving 60 minutes before I need to be some place. Luckily I never had an issue yet. 

5. This "i'm telling" mentailty only shows me you are in the wrong line of work man. If you have the time to worry about how I manage my Uner business versus how you manage yours... You have too much time on your hands. As long as I am not breaking any laws... Mind your business.


----------



## EpicBeard

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Late night riders have been telling me the driver has been accepting the ping, calling them, asking where they are going and then cancelling the ride if they don't like it. There are at most 1 or 2 other drivers in the area when I am rolling so I think it's the same one. F him, if I can roll the dice so can he. Last night's event turned out to be a good fare, and it left me in a place where I got a $90 fare next. This is a slow period in the area, school is out and summer travel hasn't started yet and last night I went 2 hours without a fare, I'm either taking what I can get or staying home. Can't believe somebody can not be deactivated for too much of that.
> 
> Of course, I did my part to F him by telling the passenger to lie to the driver next time, look at the map and tell him you are going back to where he is, or I gave him a list of other places to tell the driver he is going to ensure he will come out. "Hey, my friend called and told me he wasn't going to be there, so I decided to go home instead."


Mmmm! Uber Kool-Aid!


----------



## jdl79

I_Like_Spam said:


> Why would you screw around with your brother driver? All he was trying to do is to not take a fare that is a losing proposition.


 Exactly! each driver is his own business we don't share profits .. and believe me the rider wants the best ride at the cheapest rate... that's a hater move


----------



## jdl79

Dguy said:


> A few thoughts:
> 
> 1. As an independant business owner and a partner with Uber, it is your sole decision if you want to go the "x" time amount to pick up and ride and even Uber has said in emails about such issues, reach out to the pax and work out a solution. Some drivers work out a tip, so drivers see the ride is of a profitable distance to make the deadhead worth the spend, and then there are drivers that find driving 15 miles for a minimum fare doesnt make business sense to their model... Not your model... Their model. So they cancel. So what? That is why we are called independant contractors. I do what i feel is in the best interest of my business. Uber has controls in place that will monitor and control those that abuse the system.. By abuse I mean refuse anything more than 5 minutes from them. Uber will place you on hold for "x" minutes figuring... Hey.. You really don't want to Uber at the moment. That independant drover can keep being in forced time outs or figure a way to be profitable and make some of those trips.
> 
> 2. To say "the whole idea is not knowing where you go and the chance element" of driving... Dude... Glad you are not running my businesses. I know every dollar in, every dollar out... My risk points, what makes a profitable customer and what makes an unprofitable customer.. And as an independant contractor with a relationship with my "partner" Uber.. As long as I am ethical and legal... I run my business within the guidelines given to me.
> 
> 3. I drive in CT.. I hope you turn me in!!! I drive NW CT and most pings average between 8-12 minutes away. If I am driving in the direction of the ping I may accept a 15+ ping. I always call the pax to let them know I am enroute and anything to prepare me for my trip (how many people, destination, what side of rode for pickup, etc etc). If at that time I hear something that I am not able to do (no car seat for kids, going to far away for my time limits or to short of a ride for the amount of effort needed to pick them up) i will politely ask them to cancel or if after the 5 minutes I will cancel under "other" and it wont charge the rider.
> 
> 4. If i pull up and find out i was lied to, i don't even start the ride. I never start the ride until everyone is in the car and the doors are closed. If it pops up to a destination that is short.. I will drive then 1 star them and ask Uber to remove them from ever being able to ping me again. If it is a long trip, i explain why i only have "x" minutes to drive before an appointment and I don't have 90 minutes for a trip. To prevent this issue I usually stop driving 60 minutes before I need to be some place. Luckily I never had an issue yet.
> 
> 5. This "i'm telling" mentailty only shows me you are in the wrong line of work man. If you have the time to worry about how I manage my Uner business versus how you manage yours... You have too much time on your hands. As long as I am not breaking any laws... Mind your business.


Well said...


----------



## ATL2SD

xlr8ed said:


> I phone ahead to 100% of UBERX pickups and request the PAX destination. If the PAX questions my call, I politely explain that UBER fails to disclose this info to the Drivers. I've only had one lady get verbally nasty with me, and I retorted with "This is a rideSHARE application. I am SHARING MY RIDE - not UBER's". If you would like a TAXI you can call one.
> 
> Problem solved.
> 
> FWIW, 90% of the PAX I call don't mind. 8% dont answer the phone after 3 tries and I'm waiting, they get the Cancel-Rider No-Show all day long.



Noted...


----------



## 75drive

Rat said:


> The situation wouldn't have happened if you hadn't logged in when you were unable to work.


No it wouldn't have but I had plenty of time to do a ride in the city and had I been able to see the destination I could have called and explained that I am unable to go to the airport. Then she could've requested another car right away with no delay being there's no shortage of Drivers in Chicago. For the record it was once in 1600 rides. I'm pretty sure my boss wouldn't appreciate me being late because I was driving someone to the airport for Uber. I make a little more at my job than Uber. I'm guessing you've never cancelled a ride!


----------



## dirtylee

OscarLevant, black car is a whole different ball game. The $15/$25 minimums make a lot of trips worth your time. 
Uber X has a minimum of $5, which uber takes half of it in booking & fee. $2.48 to the driver.


----------



## Rat

Yes, I've cancelled rides, but I never called them before hand. I don't run the app if I have something else to do. I cancel Winn-Dixie runs if I'm more than 8 minutes away. They'll get another Uber closer by the time I get there anyway. I've cancelled stacked calls when they are too far away. I've received XL runs 30 minutes away like that.


----------



## Rat

$4.00 mi


dirtylee said:


> OscarLevant, black car is a whole different ball game. The $15/$25 minimums make a lot of trips worth your time.
> Uber X has a minimum of $5, which uber takes half of it in booking & fee. $2.48 to the driver.


$4.00 minimum here. $2.25 to the driver.


----------



## UberTrip

Rat said:


> That's exactly what he did, quit and then got a new job hauling someone else. Only a fool does business he knows will be unprofitable. If you actually read the contract, you would know you are free to accept or reject any fare you like. I drove 10 minutes on a trip 20 minutes away and the passenger cancelled without being charged a fee, he didn't honor any "contract", did he? When Uber disregards the queue at airports, aren't they ignoring the contract?


I don't understand the justification in reaping the benefits of surge which can be grossly overprices all while people sit here and are ok with not accepting cheaper fares. I took a guy 7 miles last night for 48 bucks and he tipped me 20 cash.... The fact is, all business have loss in certain transactions. That is business.


----------



## painfreepc

kes1981 said:


> It's fine for a driver to do that. Driver 6 miles to pick up someone going 1 mile???? No thanks. If you want those rides, they are all yours. TBH, you are kind of stupid if you are willing to lose money while driving. This is Uber's fault, not yours. You shouldn't have to pay to drive.


Hear you Uber/Lyft guys complain about the stuff that we dealt with as taxi drivers for years but all you guys thought We taxi drivers were assholes,

Before you go talking crap about fare was higher for you taxi drivers,

When I started driving Yellow Cab in Pomona California in 2001, the daily rate for a 12 hour shift with $100 plus $0.10 per mile puls gas, I drove 6 days a week you add that up,

At least two or three days every week where i barely broke even, occasionally I will have a day with a total loss,

Now go cry me a river about not wanting to do short fares for no profit..

As Rat said, every single job (ride) cannot be profitable that's part of doing business..


----------



## Modern-Day-Slavery

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Late night riders have been telling me the driver has been accepting the ping, calling them, asking where they are going and then cancelling the ride if they don't like it. There are at most 1 or 2 other drivers in the area when I am rolling so I think it's the same one. F him, if I can roll the dice so can he. Last night's event turned out to be a good fare, and it left me in a place where I got a $90 fare next. This is a slow period in the area, school is out and summer travel hasn't started yet and last night I went 2 hours without a fare, I'm either taking what I can get or staying home. Can't believe somebody can not be deactivated for too much of that.
> 
> Of course, I did my part to F him by telling the passenger to lie to the driver next time, look at the map and tell him you are going back to where he is, or I gave him a list of other places to tell the driver he is going to ensure he will come out. "Hey, my friend called and told me he wasn't going to be there, so I decided to go home instead."


I do this all the time. You're running a charity if you don't filter your jobs.


----------



## Rat

UberTrip said:


> I don't understand the justification in reaping the benefits of surge which can be grossly overprices all while people sit here and are ok with not accepting cheaper fares. I took a guy 7 miles last night for 48 bucks and he tipped me 20 cash.... The fact is, all business have loss in certain transactions. That is business.


We don't get calls during surge much here. The Pax wait till surge is over, then call. When the majority of your calls are break even, accepting loss runs means you are paying to drive self-entitled drunks around. A little math tells me you ran that guy at 9x surge. That never happens in Tallahassee. You're not from around here, are you?


----------



## MattyMikey

painfreepc said:


> Hear you Uber/Lyft guys complain about the stuff that we dealt with as taxi drivers for years but all you guys thought We taxi drivers were assholes,
> 
> Before you go talking crap about fare was higher for you taxi drivers,
> 
> When I started driving Yellow Cab in Pomona California in 2001, the daily rate for a 12 hour shift with $100 plus $0.10 per mile puls gas, I drove 6 days a week you add that up,
> 
> At least two or three days every week where i barely broke even, occasionally I will have a day with a total loss,
> 
> Now go cry me a river about not wanting to do short fares for no profit..
> 
> As Rat said, every single job (ride) cannot be profitable that's part of doing business..


Yes, every ride I do will be profitable or I won't do it. Don't penalize the rest of us that aren't idiots and willing to take loser unprofitable rides. The smart business owners are in it to make money and we will leave our scraps to you willing to mix it in to your losses.


----------



## Choochie

Rat said:


> You ignore that it took 10 minutes to get there, 5 minutes for the Pax to get in the car. So that's $4.00/hr, assuming only waiting 5 minutes between calls(unlikely) and totally ignoring that it costs money to drive the car. Uber never had a "take me home" feature, claiming it was"abused" is an outright lie.


They actually tested that somewhere out west - if I'm not mistaken CityGirl mentioned it last year. Must not have thrived.


----------



## Modern-Day-Slavery

When yiu push prices this low this is what you get. Corners will be cut, cars will be dirtier, brake pads will not be changed often as they should. Pay us fairly and service will go up and drivers will be more patient. No, we are not your servant on demand. You get what you pay for.


----------



## Agent99

Every driver needs to decide for himself/herself where to draw the line. For example, I personally must still feel it's somewhat unprofessional -- for me -- to call a rider in advance to find out the destination. I confess I am somewhat hesitant to make that call. I don't make the call often. However, I am even more hesitant to be used for doing a trip I don't want to do. It would be be even more unprofessional to give off a resentful, unfriendly attitude to the passenger because I really didn't want to do the ride but did it anyway. So, calling the rider in advance is the better choice. Cancelling the ride in advance is less hassle for rider and driver than cancelling upon arrival. And yes, declining the ride request in the first place, when possible, is superior to cancelling it afterwards.


----------



## Yuri Lygotme

UBER DRIVERS ARE *INDEPENDANT* CONTRACTORS.

As such it is perfectly permissible for that driver to cancel the ride if he does not like the destination, the pick up place, or the passenger attitude, or any reason.

If drivers like him do get deactivated for cancelling rides, then good, this is more evidence the class action lawyers need to make a compelling case that Uber is misclassifying its drivers.

Reading this thread, it is appalling how many people here have no clues about their rights as INDEPENDANT contractors and willfully act like employees without any of the benefits.


----------



## MattyMikey

^ Amen


----------



## painfreepc

Yuri Lygotme said:


> UBER DRIVERS ARE *INDEPENDANT* CONTRACTORS.
> 
> As such it is perfectly permissible for that driver to cancel the ride if he does not like the destination, the pick up place, or the passenger attitude, or any reason.
> 
> If drivers like him do get deactivated for cancelling rides, then good, this is more evidence the class action lawyers need to make a compelling case that Uber is misclassifying its drivers.
> 
> Reading this thread, it is appalling how many people here have no clues about their rights as INDEPENDANT contractors and willfully act like employees without any of the benefits.


taxi drivers are independent contractors also, and the motto of taxi companies for any company I work for is always been a "A call accepted is a call served" you don't like it don't drive uber or lyft - can't wait to the bunch of LAX drivers come on here crying because they got deactivated..


----------



## james2ko

Partner agreement section 2.4:

"_You retain the sole right to determine when, where, and for how long you will utilize the Driver App or the Uber Services. *You retain the option, via the Driver App, to attempt to accept or to decline or ignore a User's request for Transportation Services via the Uber Services, or to cancel an accepted request for Transportation Services via the Driver App*, subject to Company's then-current cancellation policies._"​
As IC's, we have the right to cancel an accepted request. In the state of NJ, the last sentence re-classifies the IC as an employee . If they deactivate anyone in NJ for cancelling too many accepted requests, they will have to add NJ to the list of states suing them for classification violation. It's no coincidence that all I have received are several "you bad boy" emails for excessive cancellations.


----------



## Yuri Lygotme

painfreepc said:


> taxi drivers are independent contractors also, and the motto of taxi companies for any company I work for is always been a "A call accepted is a call served" you don't like it don't drive uber or lyft - can't wait to the bunch of LAX drivers come on here crying because they got deactivated..


I never said Taxi companies are not abusing the independent contractor status as well. Mine has a dress code for example, a clear violation of the status of independent contractor. They could encourage a certain way to dress for example, by saying "you could have better tips if *you choose* to dress to impress", and that would be fine and legal. But refusing to lease you a cab because you are not wearing a collared shirt, that's wrong.

But in the case of Uber, because of the scale of the fraud, it is worthwhile to remind people here what being an independent contractor means, because the ignorance on this topic is rampant. Too often I have seen in these forums new drivers asking "do I risk a deactivation if Uber finds out I'm driving for Lyft?"

Uber provides you with leads, and you are free to do whatever please you with those leads.

Anyway, shit will hit the fan soon for Uber with pending class action lawsuits in several states about the misclassification of their drivers. It is also not inconceivable that the mighty IRS could also sue, since we're talking here about a fraud on a massive scale.


----------



## IUberGR

Exa


Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Because he is screwing around with me, and he is not my brother. There is an element of luck when picking up fares. Last night I got two good fares in a row, very lucky, and I did not have to call. Other times I'm not so lucky, them's the breaks. In slow times a driver who is cherry-picking only the most profitable fares is trying to cheat the luck element by doing something we are not supposed to do, and leaving the less profitable fares for the other drivers. I call that dirty pool.
> 
> When there are only a couple of drivers on these things become more personal. I intentionally space myself out from the other driver, when he is in one good waiting spot I take the other if he was there first because I think it is better for the drivers to have easier nights and the riders get better service than to try and squeeze out a couple more dollars per hour at the expense of another driver. But I am very good at cheating if I want to, and if he wants to send me only the less desirable fares I will take more than that.
> 
> Also this is bad for business in general. More riders is always better, and if people find out there are no drivers available when they need them or even worse drivers who refuse to pick them up they will stop trusting Uber to get them home and do something else. Then our reputation will be as bad as the taxis.


Exactly. Driving Uber feels a lot like going to the casino. You do the best you can to tilt the odds in your favor, except you either make a little money, or make little more than a little. If someone else is screwing you over, it's fair to screw him back.


----------



## painfreepc

Yuri Lygotme said:


> I never said Taxi companies are not abusing the independent contractor status as well. Mine has a dress code for example, a clear violation of the status of independent contractor. They could encourage a certain way to dress for example, by saying "you could have better tips if *you choose* to dress to impress", and that would be fine and legal. But refusing to lease you a cab because you are not wearing a collared shirt, that's wrong.
> 
> But in the case of Uber, because of the scale of the fraud, it is worthwhile to remind people here what being an independent contractor means, because the ignorance on this topic is rampant. Too often I have seen in these forums new drivers asking "do I risk a deactivation if Uber finds out I'm driving for Lyft?"
> 
> Uber provides you with leads, and you are free to do whatever please you with those leads.
> 
> Anyway, shit will hit the fan soon for Uber with pending class action lawsuits in several states about the misclassification of their drivers. It is also not inconceivable that the mighty IRS could also sue, since we're talking here about a fraud on a massive scale.


Oh my God a shirt with a collar, wouldn't want to look professional or anything..


----------



## Greguzzi

IUberGR said:


> Exa
> 
> Exactly. Driving Uber feels a lot like going to the casino. You do the best you can to tilt the odds in your favor, except you either make a little money, or make little more than a little. If someone else is screwing you over, it's fair to screw him back.


LOL. If gambling is your business, you have already lost driving for Uber. Uber holds all the cards. You hold none. Grab your balls, give 'em a squeeze 'til you wince, and then re-take control of your business. Or don't. Your passivity will never affect me.


----------



## Karl Marx

I_Like_Spam said:


> All of that would make a difference if you had any capital invested in Uber. But you really don't, if Uber were to go belly up in an area, another rideshare concern with a better program which allows transparency for the partners to see the trip before they commit to it may come down. And since you'll have the same car, I'm sure they'll sign you up.
> 
> Right now, it doesn't cost Uber 5 cents to dispatch a trip they know will cost the partner money to take. So why shouldn't they? They are still making their money.
> 
> Partners acting proactively might get Uber to refine its technology on this.


The entire system is rotten and it encourages bad rider behaviour. Picking up 3 Pax and driving two blocks is asinine. They're bloody lazy and the Uber fare to low. Fares should start at 5 net as a starter and get rid of these lazy riders.


----------



## IUberGR

Greguzzi said:


> LOL. If gambling is your business, you have already lost driving for Uber. Uber holds all the cards. You hold none. Grab your balls, give 'em a squeeze 'til you wince, and then re-take control of your business. Or don't. Your passivity will never affect me.


Whatever gets you off man. Most times it's a flexible, decent paying second job. Occasionally (4 times in six months for me) you can make a bunch of money in a weekend. One thing I'll never understand about the haters here, if it bothers you so much, why don't you just quit?


----------



## NoVaDJ61

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Late night riders have been telling me the driver has been accepting the ping, calling them, asking where they are going and then cancelling the ride if they don't like it. There are at most 1 or 2 other drivers in the area when I am rolling so I think it's the same one. F him, if I can roll the dice so can he. Last night's event turned out to be a good fare, and it left me in a place where I got a $90 fare next. This is a slow period in the area, school is out and summer travel hasn't started yet and last night I went 2 hours without a fare, I'm either taking what I can get or staying home. Can't believe somebody can not be deactivated for too much of that.
> 
> Of course, I did my part to F him by telling the passenger to lie to the driver next time, look at the map and tell him you are going back to where he is, or I gave him a list of other places to tell the driver he is going to ensure he will come out. "Hey, my friend called and told me he wasn't going to be there, so I decided to go home instead."


GOOD FOR YOU, MAN!!!! Thanks for this post. I get at least two people every shift I do that tell me they have been waiting because every driver they get calls them and then cancels. I think that is shear and utter BS. We don't get to hand pick pax and it does nothing but make those of us with integrity look bad. I have said before and I will say again, drivers who do not want to work for Uber should find another source of income. Uber states clearly that we are not to call pax. Yet, I have actually seen it done and know some drivers that do it. We get enough of a bad rap as it is with crazies running around shooting and killing people. We don't need this as well. I will also use your suggestion of telling them to lie next time and/or report the driver concerned. I agree that those drivers should be deactivated for doing this.....


----------



## Yuri Lygotme

NoVaDJ61 said:


> Uber states clearly that we are not to call pax. Yet, I have actually seen it done and know some drivers that do it. I will also use your suggestion of telling them to lie next time and/or report the driver concerned. I agree that those drivers should be deactivated for doing this.....


And I add you to the long list of people who cannot understand the difference between an employee and an independent contractor.



NoVaDJ61 said:


> I agree that those drivers should be deactivated for doing this.....


and incidentally you are also added to my list of d0uche bags.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

NoVaDJ61 said:


> We don't get to hand pick pax and it does nothing but make those of us with integrity look bad. I have said before and I will say again, drivers who do not want to work for Uber should find another source of income. Uber states clearly that we are not to call pax. Yet, I have actually seen it done and know some drivers that do it. ..


Uber are the ones who give you the passengers phone # in the first place. If it was "against the rules", why would they do that?

Of course you always have a choice as to who you let ride in your private property. No one is working for Uber, they are all self employed and Uber is just the vendor of technology.


----------



## I have nuts

I thought uber drivers were "independant contractors"? So they should be able to pick and chose who they want to pick up and what destinations they want to take.


----------



## socal_uberx

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Late night riders have been telling me the driver has been accepting the ping, calling them, asking where they are going and then cancelling the ride if they don't like it. There are at most 1 or 2 other drivers in the area when I am rolling so I think it's the same one. F him, if I can roll the dice so can he. Last night's event turned out to be a good fare, and it left me in a place where I got a $90 fare next. This is a slow period in the area, school is out and summer travel hasn't started yet and last night I went 2 hours without a fare, I'm either taking what I can get or staying home. Can't believe somebody can not be deactivated for too much of that.
> 
> Of course, I did my part to F him by telling the passenger to lie to the driver next time, look at the map and tell him you are going back to where he is, or I gave him a list of other places to tell the driver he is going to ensure he will come out. "Hey, my friend called and told me he wasn't going to be there, so I decided to go home instead."


dayum, son! i do this stuff all the time when it's late A/F (since i'm ONLY making the last trip if it's taking me near or in the same direction as my house). but my signature move is to either call them 5 minutes later after they tell me where they're going & tell them i got pulled over by the cops. nobody questions anything when you say that. or i just skip the fare request & "let it ride" until the pax cancels =)


----------



## Squirming Like A Toad

Dguy said:


> A few thoughts:
> 
> 1. As an independant business owner and a partner with Uber, it is your sole decision if you want to go the "x" time amount to pick up and ride and even Uber has said in emails about such issues, reach out to the pax and work out a solution. Some drivers work out a tip, so drivers see the ride is of a profitable distance to make the deadhead worth the spend, and then there are drivers that find driving 15 miles for a minimum fare doesnt make business sense to their model... Not your model... Their model. So they cancel. So what? That is why we are called independant contractors. I do what i feel is in the best interest of my business. Uber has controls in place that will monitor and control those that abuse the system.. By abuse I mean refuse anything more than 5 minutes from them. Uber will place you on hold for "x" minutes figuring... Hey.. You really don't want to Uber at the moment. That independant drover can keep being in forced time outs or figure a way to be profitable and make some of those trips.
> 
> 2. To say "the whole idea is not knowing where you go and the chance element" of driving... Dude... Glad you are not running my businesses. I know every dollar in, every dollar out... My risk points, what makes a profitable customer and what makes an unprofitable customer.. And as an independant contractor with a relationship with my "partner" Uber.. As long as I am ethical and legal... I run my business within the guidelines given to me.
> 
> 3. I drive in CT.. I hope you turn me in!!! I drive NW CT and most pings average between 8-12 minutes away. If I am driving in the direction of the ping I may accept a 15+ ping. I always call the pax to let them know I am enroute and anything to prepare me for my trip (how many people, destination, what side of rode for pickup, etc etc). If at that time I hear something that I am not able to do (no car seat for kids, going to far away for my time limits or to short of a ride for the amount of effort needed to pick them up) i will politely ask them to cancel or if after the 5 minutes I will cancel under "other" and it wont charge the rider.
> 
> 4. If i pull up and find out i was lied to, i don't even start the ride. I never start the ride until everyone is in the car and the doors are closed. If it pops up to a destination that is short.. I will drive then 1 star them and ask Uber to remove them from ever being able to ping me again. If it is a long trip, i explain why i only have "x" minutes to drive before an appointment and I don't have 90 minutes for a trip. To prevent this issue I usually stop driving 60 minutes before I need to be some place. Luckily I never had an issue yet.
> 
> 5. This "i'm telling" mentailty only shows me you are in the wrong line of work man. If you have the time to worry about how I manage my Uner business versus how you manage yours... You have too much time on your hands. As long as I am not breaking any laws... Mind your business.


You appear to be misunderstanding the meaning of being an independent contractor. A contract is a two-way arrangement. If Uber's rule is we don't call the passengers and screen the rides that way, we don't do that, and if you do it you are not holding up your end of the contract. The fact that you can get away with it doesn't change that, and as mentioned before it won't be long before Uber takes away our ability to contact passengers before we are at the ping. They can do that any time they want to. Then what?

I also drive in NW CT and do not agree with your assessment of the average distance of pings, but that could be just due to differences in how and when we operate. Generally it's not a problem, and when business is unusually busy or slow my idea of a desirable ping changes accordingly, as well as the location of the ping. Not all suburban destinations are equal, as I'm sure you know.

But if you are 1-starring pax just because their destination is close, sorry but you're being an ass. 1 star means "Horrible" and there is nothing horrible about them, any more than your being 10-15 minutes away when they pinged you makes you horrible and deserving of 1 star. (You may be horrible for other reasons, but it has nothing to do with your location.) You are misrepresenting the passenger and giving them a false impression of what 1 star and 5 star passenger behavior is.

I have no intention of telling on you, because I wouldn't know who to tell. But next time you drive 10 minutes and discover you've been lied to by a passenger, please, curse and use some entertaining language, I'll enjoy hearing the story when I pick them up.


----------



## Agent99

Calling passengers more than occasionally when warranted may be (or seem) inconsistent with Uber's best practices or recommendations but it's not a violation of the contract between Uber and drivers. It's not "against the rules".


----------



## Greguzzi

IUberGR said:


> Whatever gets you off man. Most times it's a flexible, decent paying second job. Occasionally (4 times in six months for me) you can make a bunch of money in a weekend. One thing I'll never understand about the haters here, if it bothers you so much, why don't you just quit?





IUberGR said:


> Whatever gets you off man. Most times it's a flexible, decent paying second job. Occasionally (4 times in six months for me) you can make a bunch of money in a weekend. One thing I'll never understand about the haters here, if it bothers you so much, why don't you just quit?


I'm no more a hater than I am an Ubertool. As an independent contractor, I work Uber's system to my benefit. Why that would bother any other driver is beyond my ability to understand. Keep being stupid and passive if that serves your psychological needs. I would rather make money than lose it. YMMV and all that rot. My payout last week was $1200. What was yours?


----------



## jdl79

I'm having a good laugh tonight reading this stuff... Uber could give zero about the driver making a profit and thats more than they actually do give. Stop telling and hating on other drivers . We're not in the union there no benefits there's no profit sharing 401 k .
If Tom bil and hank don't wanna take a ride that's not profitable or out the way good for them don't hate. If you wanna run your car burn gas to make 7.00 more power to you .... we're not coworkers there isn't a Manger on duty for you to complain to so stop trying to snitch on another driver ... mind you bizzness ..... do you..... get money


----------



## NoVaDJ61

I_Like_Spam said:


> Uber are the ones who give you the passengers phone # in the first place. If it was "against the rules", why would they do that?
> 
> Of course you always have a choice as to who you let ride in your private property. No one is working for Uber, they are all self employed and Uber is just the vendor of technology.


It is not the pax number. It is a number used to connect the pax to the driver so that neither has to reveal their personal number. I agree you have a choice of who you allow to ride in your personal property and you make that choice every time you accept a fare. Once accepted, you should honor it, period. I am sorry you disagree but if people agree on everything, somebody is lying. Maybe you should read the Uber policies and see what they say then argue with them and not me.....


----------



## ColdRider

ChortlingCrison said:


> So if uber decides to leave Chicago, what are you going to do? You might have to walk a few blocks. Or take the L train or worse yet an actual cab!!!
> 
> PS. Don't stand to close to the curb on a rainy day.


Let uber leave. All that's left are foreigners that can barely speak English or disgruntled drivers that whine about their pay thinking they're worth so much more.

Lol at you if you think those are my only choices. I live in Chicago, not Iowa City.

No wonder you're approaching 450 posts per month.


----------



## NoVaDJ61

Yuri Lygotme said:


> And I add you to the long list of people who cannot understand the difference between an employee and an independent contractor.
> 
> and incidentally you are also added to my list of d0uche bags.


Pardon me while I slit my wrists because you don't like me. I forgot that was a requirement for success....LMMFAO. Also add me to the long list of people who really don't care what you think of them.


----------



## ColdRider

UberxGTA said:


> Report him for WHAT???It's called rideshare. You are joining my ride. If you are not going in the same direction as the driver, he's not obligated to pick you up and Uber agrees with that so you would be wasting your time. Request another driver.


Which is it? Are you guys rideshare drivers or independent business owners (lol)?

Seems like some of you pick the definition that benefits you in specific situations.


----------



## Rico Ramz

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Late night riders have been telling me the driver has been accepting the ping, calling them, asking where they are going and then cancelling the ride if they don't like it. There are at most 1 or 2 other drivers in the area when I am rolling so I think it's the same one. F him, if I can roll the dice so can he. Last night's event turned out to be a good fare, and it left me in a place where I got a $90 fare next. This is a slow period in the area, school is out and summer travel hasn't started yet and last night I went 2 hours without a fare, I'm either taking what I can get or staying home. Can't believe somebody can not be deactivated for too much of that.
> 
> Of course, I did my part to F him by telling the passenger to lie to the driver next time, look at the map and tell him you are going back to where he is, or I gave him a list of other places to tell the driver he is going to ensure he will come out. "Hey, my friend called and told me he wasn't going to be there, so I decided to go home instead."


So what if drivers cancel? as a contractor you have the right to ignore or cancel any trip, if you deem unprofitable! One time I drove to a town about 4 miles from mine plus 2 more miles to the pickup address, when I got there, the person wanted to go about 5 blocks to the corner store. I was so pissed off, I drove a total of 12 miles, going back to my home and all for about $3.25 take home, before deducting gas and maintenance! Is like I drove over 12 miles for dimes and nickels. That is a slap on the face and a kick on the bolds, you know what I mean. It looks like Uber technology is definitely on the fast track to a long list of lawsuits and ultimately bankruptcy, because of their slave driving business model and data driven managing. What looks like good enough on computers and charts, may not apply to drivers with independent minds and feelings, something that machines and Uber Tech. do not have! 
On another note, what the thousands of riders that cancel trips when drivers are on the way, about 2 or 3 miles to the pickup location and suddenly, without explanations, riders cancel??? What about that smarty pants? Those are millions of dollars in loses for drivers every year, for gas and time wasted. Chew on that! Amen reverend.


----------



## Yuri Lygotme

NoVaDJ61 said:


> I agree you have a choice of who you allow to ride in your personal property and you make that choice every time you accept a fare. Once accepted, you should honor it, period.


Wrong, you make that choice once you let the PAX get into your car. And you can even change your choice during the trip: you don't like the pax behavior? Cancel and ask pax to get out of your car.



NoVaDJ61 said:


> Maybe you should read the Uber policies and see what they say then argue with them and not me.....


Please quote us that famous uber policy.


----------



## Yuri Lygotme

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> But if you are 1-starring pax just because their destination is close, sorry but you're being an ass.


No, he said he one star the passenger who LIED about the destination in order to bait him. And I would have done the same.


----------



## Oscar Levant

james2ko said:


> In today's driver and passenger saturated uber environment, don't you think--I believe someone alluded to this earlier in the thread--one driver's garbage ride can be another driver's treasure? So cherry picking rides may not currently be as bad for the driver and passenger as once thought. This is why I believe an in app, standing request page would be a great option for drivers and passengers.


It's a general common principle on which to base a comany policy. What you are suggestion might happen, occasionally, but it's not something that you can base a company policy on.


----------



## Squirming Like A Toad

NoVaDJ61 said:


> It is not the pax number. It is a number used to connect the pax to the driver so that neither has to reveal their personal number. I agree you have a choice of who you allow to ride in your personal property and you make that choice every time you accept a fare. Once accepted, you should honor it, period. I am sorry you disagree but if people agree on everything, somebody is lying. Maybe you should read the Uber policies and see what they say then argue with them and not me.....


It's a simple matter to just treat the rider the way you want to be treated when you're the rider. Haven't we all ridden Uber? When I press the button to summon a ride I have committed to pay the driver, and when he accepts the ping I take it as him committing to give me the ride. If he is in a bad position to take the fare I understand, and will wait for another driver but for him to accept it and then call me to see if he really wants it, or if I will agree to pay him more money is a waste of my time and inconsiderate (even though when I ride I tip anyway). Typical Third World behavior and I would never do it.


----------



## Ubernic

Don't turn on the app if you aren't ready to drive anything up to max trip mileage, it's bad customer service to do otherwise. Some of you might not care about that but I do.


----------



## MidnightDriver

I'm not sure I understand how such a tactic can be any use as a long term strategy given that the system itself is based on randomness. The only element of the system a driver can control is the place and time that he drives, and the former only initially since each successive ride generates a whole new set of probabilities with each new destination. Even if you screen for the ride that you want, it may take you to an area where you are less busy than you would have been otherwise, had you taken the shorter call that you screened out earlier. Those shorter rides, in a lot of cases, can lead you right into the longer rides. It all balances out in the end if you accept all, or most, of your calls. I just don't see the wisdom, or professionalism for that matter, in accepting a call and then canceling.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Ubernic said:


> Don't turn on the app if you aren't ready to drive anything up to max trip mileage, it's bad customer service to do otherwise. Some of you might not care about that but I do.


Max trip mileage here could be 80 miles then another 80 miles to get to where you need to be, depending on starting spot, destination and driver's home or location they need to be at work or wherever. If it ended up in rush hour that could be 4 hours.

So I need to quit working 4 hours before I need to be home, according to you. That's just ridiculous.


----------



## james2ko

MidnightDriver said:


> I'm not sure I understand how such a tactic can be any use as a long term strategy given that the system itself is based on randomness. The only element of the system a driver can control is the place and time that he drives, and the former only initially since each successive ride generates a whole new set of probabilities with each new destination. Even if you screen for the ride that you want, it may take you to an area where you are less busy than you would have been otherwise, had you taken the shorter call that you screened out earlier. Those shorter rides, in a lot of cases, can lead you right into the longer rides. It all balances out in the end if you accept all, or most, of your calls.* I just don't see the wisdom, or professionalism for that matter, in accepting a call and then canceling*.


Give it some time. You will.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

NoVaDJ61 said:


> It is not the pax number. It is a number used to connect the pax to the driver so that neither has to reveal their personal number. I agree you have a choice of who you allow to ride in your personal property and you make that choice every time you accept a fare. Once accepted, you should honor it, period. I am sorry you disagree but if people agree on everything, somebody is lying. Maybe you should read the Uber policies and see what they say then argue with them and not me.....


"Uber policies" aren't sacred scripture, they are more like guidelines. If Uber didn't expect drivers to phone the passengers, they wouldn't have provided a means for contact.

In general, of course people should honor their word. But if there isn't enough information available, and accepting provisionally and calling the passenger is the only way to get that info as to the trip, its hardly a foul play to do so.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> When I press the button to summon a ride I have committed to pay the driver, and when he accepts the ping I take it as him committing to give me the ride. If he is in a bad position to take the fare I understand, and will wait for another driver but for him to accept it and then call me to see if he really wants it, or if I will agree to pay him more money is a waste of my time and inconsiderate (even though when I ride I tip anyway). Typical Third World behavior and I would never do it.


Commitments can change, that's why the ability to cancel is there for both parties. Prospective passengers know that, and so do the drivers.

"typical 3rd world behavior" is sort of offensive, btw, as it implies that there is something morally deficient in the actions or thoughts of 3rd world peoples.


----------



## MidnightDriver

james2ko said:


> Give it some time. You will.


Well, you may be right. I've been driving the north shore, part time, for a little over six months and necessity may compel me to drive in or around Boston full time. I have to go where the money is, or at least the potential for it. Which brings me to my point. How is canceling calls a good strategy for paying your rent. Explain that to me....


----------



## UberxGTA

ColdRider said:


> Which is it? Are you guys rideshare drivers or independent business owners (lol)?
> 
> Seems like some of you pick the definition that benefits you in specific situations.


Both obviously


----------



## james2ko

MidnightDriver said:


> Well, you may be right. I've been driving the north shore, part time, for a little over six months and necessity may compel me to drive in or around Boston full time. I have to go where the money is, or at least the potential for it. Which brings me to my point. How is canceling calls a good strategy for paying your rent. Explain that to me....


In my area, Northern NJ, cancelling is the most effective way to meet certain hourly and weekly incentives. One ride to the "wrong" place during the guarantee hours and you can kiss your hourly incentive good buy. Going to the "wrong" place can also increase the amount of "total" hours spent driving to meet your weekly incentive. Outside of incentives, working the surge is the only way to make any "real" money. Cancelling also ensures at the end of the day I get a paid ride in the direction of my residence.

Edit: If more drivers were to cancel after acceptance, enough riders would complain and eventually force uber to disclose destinations. The problem is we have too many drivers that have bought into uber's false "losing out on money if you cancel" ideology, that they blindly take every 87 cents per mile ride no questions asked. After all, if you cancel, that is lost money right? Not in NJ. A ride to the wrong place here can actually lose you money.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

james2ko said:


> Edit: If more drivers were to cancel after acceptance, enough riders would complain and eventually force uber to disclose destinations. The problem is we have too many drivers that have bought into uber's false "losing out on money if you cancel" ideology, that they blindly take every 87 cents per mile ride no questions asked. After all, if you cancel, that is lost money right? Not in NJ. A ride to the wrong place here can actually lose you money.


The other technological innovation that could be used if Uber doesn't want to disclose destination is to use dynamic pricing for outlying areas that drivers have to travel 5 or more minutes to.

There really isn't anything new under the sun here. When I was driving Yellow Cab, trips outside the east end/downtown areas were ones that people didn't take unless they were right there, or if the trips were going to the Airport or Butler or someplace. Of course, the taxi industry didn't have the ability to change prices for a trip to encourage drivers to take the trip.


----------



## james2ko

I_Like_Spam said:


> The other technological innovation that could be used if Uber doesn't want to disclose destination is to use dynamic pricing for outlying areas that drivers have to travel 5 or more minutes to.
> 
> There really isn't anything new under the sun here. When I was driving Yellow Cab, trips outside the east end/downtown areas were ones that people didn't take unless they were right there, or if the trips were going to the Airport or Butler or someplace. Of course, the taxi industry didn't have the ability to change prices for a trip to encourage drivers to take the trip.


Dynamic pricing sounds like a great idea. I would also like to see a real time, dynamic, in-app standing request page where a rider inputs their pu, dest, time of pu, and other info ahead of time and drivers within a given vicinity get to tap and accept. Every single one of the the 50+ pax I pitched this to would absolutely love this feature.


----------



## BallerX

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Because he is screwing around with me, and he is not my brother. There is an element of luck when picking up fares. Last night I got two good fares in a row, very lucky, and I did not have to call. Other times I'm not so lucky, them's the breaks. In slow times a driver who is cherry-picking only the most profitable fares is trying to cheat the luck element by doing something we are not supposed to do, and leaving the less profitable fares for the other drivers. I call that dirty pool.
> 
> When there are only a couple of drivers on these things become more personal. I intentionally space myself out from the other driver, when he is in one good waiting spot I take the other if he was there first because I think it is better for the drivers to have easier nights and the riders get better service than to try and squeeze out a couple more dollars per hour at the expense of another driver. But I am very good at cheating if I want to, and if he wants to send me only the less desirable fares I will take more than that.
> 
> Also this is bad for business in general. More riders is always better, and if people find out there are no drivers available when they need them or even worse drivers who refuse to pick them up they will stop trusting Uber to get them home and do something else. Then our reputation will be as bad as the taxis.


No offense, because I'm sure you feel you're doing "the right thing," but misguided drivers like you are why ALL drivers (including you) dont make more money by forcing Uber to raise rates, which they would do if ALL drivers made smart business decisions like calling to confirm a trip will be profitable for them before taking them.

Businesspeople dont operate on "luck" my friend. And since you're willing to take whatever fares come to you other drivers who operate differently are not impacting you any more than Uber's rules of operating do, so if you're not angry at and "reporting" Uber then logically you shouldn't do so to other drivers either.


----------



## ctuberdude

painfreepc said:


> taxi drivers are independent contractors also, and the motto of taxi companies for any company I work for is always been a "A call accepted is a call served" you don't like it don't drive uber or lyft - can't wait to the bunch of LAX drivers come on here crying because they got deactivated..


Taxi Drivers may be ICs... however, Taxi Companies are regulated, official business that has agreed to operate within the set local, city, state and federal regulation ruling rules of operation.... as it is widely known, Uber/Lyft have thumbed their noses at such regulations when possible. So the Taxi Driver may be an IC, but they must operate within the Taxi Company's regulated rules or else the taxi company will be fined...and I am sure the taxi company has some contract language for this in their IC Agreement with the driver.


----------



## MidnightDriver

james2ko said:


> In my area, Northern NJ, cancelling is the most effective way to meet certain hourly and weekly incentives. One ride to the "wrong" place during the guarantee hours and you can kiss your hourly incentive good buy. Going to the "wrong" place can also increase the amount of "total" hours spent driving to meet your weekly incentive. Outside of incentives, working the surge is the only way to make any "real" money. Cancelling also ensures at the end of the day I get a paid ride in the direction of my residence.


I don't know enough about incentives antd guarantees to comment, but what you're describing here is different than what other people in this thread are describing, and I still don't see how cancelling calls, without a good reason, is a good strategy to make money.



> If more drivers were to cancel after acceptance, enough riders would complain and eventually force uber to disclose destinations.


I doubt UBER would do that. It would only make the situation worse from their perspective. What it probably would do is make the industry, which is a service industry, one step closer to regulation, and that's bad for everyone. Whenever Politicians get their greedy little fingers into something, they make it less efficient, less productive and more expensive. This strategy, generally speaking, only helps these politicians make their decision toward that goal, not to mention the unions that will eventually show up to take advantage of the situation and make it even less efficient, less productive and take even more of your money.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

MidnightDriver said:


> I doubt UBER would do that. It would only make the situation worse from their perspective. What it probably would do is make the industry, which is a service industry, one step closer to regulation, and that's bad for everyone. .


Its unrealistic for riders calling from outlying areas to expect people to drive all the way out there to pick them up for short trips, especially in the long run.

Drivers just aren't going to do it, they might be somewhat now, Uber is new and new drivers are coming aboard in record numbers. But people wise up.

Do you think dynamic pricing might be an idea, if the destination is kept secret? Of course that would be a discouragement for outlying passengers to call on uber for long trips


----------



## james2ko

MidnightDriver said:


> I don't know enough about incentives antd guarantees to comment, but what you're describing here is different than what other people in this thread are describing, and* I still don't see how cancelling calls, without a good reason, is a good strategy to make money*.


You answered your own inquiry. One of the the reasons our perspectives are different is you don't know enough about incentives and guarantees. You also don't know my area.



> I doubt UBER would do that. It would only make the situation worse from their perspective. What it probably would do is make the industry, which is a service industry, one step closer to regulation, and that's bad for everyone. Whenever Politicians get their greedy little fingers into something, they make it less efficient, less productive and more expensive. This strategy, generally speaking, only helps these politicians make their decision toward that goal, not to mention the unions that will eventually show up to take advantage of the situation and make it even less efficient, less productive and take even more of your money.


The main difference shaping our perspectives seems to be the area we drive. At the end of the day we are in this for the money, at least I am. As long as we are satisfied with the amount of money we are making, nothing else should matter, right?


----------



## Realityshark

Uber likes to tell drivers they are independent contractors. Hey uber, guess what? Independent contractors can call their clients to find out if they want the job or not. Independent contractors are free to not accept non profitable business ventures. 

They can't have it both ways. 

Just because some drivers choose to be a doormat, doesn't mean that all drivers need to follow suit.


----------



## MidnightDriver

. 


I_Like_Spam said:


> Its unrealistic for riders calling from outlying areas to expect people to drive all the way out there to pick them up for short trips, especially in the long run.


.

It's not unrealistic at all. UBER provides a service and people are utilizing that service. If a customer calls for a ride and there are drivers in the area who won't respond, then that's an issue between the customer and UBER Technoloigies, not between the customer and the driver, and as such, this strategy will only hasten regulation.


----------



## negeorgia

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Late night riders have been telling me the driver has been accepting the ping, calling them, asking where they are going and then cancelling the ride if they don't like it. There are at most 1 or 2 other drivers in the area when I am rolling so I think it's the same one. F him, if I can roll the dice so can he. Last night's event turned out to be a good fare, and it left me in a place where I got a $90 fare next. This is a slow period in the area, school is out and summer travel hasn't started yet and last night I went 2 hours without a fare, I'm either taking what I can get or staying home. Can't believe somebody can not be deactivated for too much of that.
> 
> Of course, I did my part to F him by telling the passenger to lie to the driver next time, look at the map and tell him you are going back to where he is, or I gave him a list of other places to tell the driver he is going to ensure he will come out. "Hey, my friend called and told me he wasn't going to be there, so I decided to go home instead."


Why in this horrible lie to each other world would you suggest the rider's lie about their destination to the next driver? Accepting a request does not guarantee a completed trip. It is part of the Uber process. Each driver is independent to run their business into deactivation anyway they want to. Clarifying to the riders why certain drivers don't want to drive for charity is one thing, suggesting they can only get what they want with deception is disgusting and very Uber-like.


----------



## james2ko

MidnightDriver said:


> .It's not unrealistic at all. UBER provides a service and people are utilizing that service. If a customer calls for a ride and there are drivers in the area who won't respond, then that's an issue between the customer and UBER Technoloigies, not between the customer and the driver, and as such, *this strategy will only hasten regulation.*


Or force uber to simply provide a destination. A much less riskier solution than facing possible regulation and unions.


----------



## NJShawn

james2ko said:


> Or force uber to simply provide a destination. A much less riskier solution than facing possible regulation and unions.


If dont want to provide a destination how about a range? You pick up is 5 minutes away and they are going 10 miles/20 miles etc etc


----------



## MidnightDriver

james2ko said:


> The main difference shaping our perspectives seems to be the area we drive. At the end of the day we are in this for the money, at least I am. As long as we are satisfied with the amount of money we are making, nothing else should matter, right?


I agree with you to a point.

Yes, I am in it for the money, obviously, but I also try to approach it responsibly, ethically and professionally. To a large part, we as drivers are the bearers of those principles. If we take those lightly, we are the ones who will lose in the end. UBER Technologies will adjust to the regulations, the politicians will make their money and the drivers will get screwed.

I prefer not to be a part of that if I can help it.


----------



## james2ko

MidnightDriver said:


> I agree with you to a point.
> 
> Yes, I am in it for the money, obviously, but I also try to approach it responsibly, ethically and professionally. To a large part, we as drivers are the bearers of those principles. If we take those lightly, we are the ones who will lose in the end. UBER Technologies will adjust to the regulations, the politicians will make their money and the *drivers will get screwed.*
> 
> I prefer not to be a part of that if I can help it.


Drivers are and will eventually get permanently screwed regardless. Uber's ultimate goal is driverless cars. The drivers today are simply an expendable means to an end.


----------



## MidnightDriver

james2ko said:


> Or force uber to simply provide a destination. A much less riskier solution than facing possible regulation and unions.


UBER, as a business, is oriented toward the customer, not the driver. That's why they would rather piss off their drivers and allow the customer to cancel without compensation, than have a policy that holds the customers accountable. They don't care because such a cancellation doesn't cost UBER anything. That's one of the two major gripes I have with UBER. That they allow this to happen to their drivers without compensation and they don't adjust their rates proportionally to the cost of fuel. But that said, I doubt UBER is going to provide destinations just because the drivers want it. There is no shortage of people out there who want to become UBER drivers. They think it's an easy gig and the money will just roll in. I had a young kid as a passenger the other day and he told me he was ready to quit his $60,000 a year job and drive for UBER. He then asked me how quickly he could expect to start making six figures if he put x amount of time in per week, and there are a lot of people out there like him. UBER could virtually operate on a turnover of drivers like this for many years to come.


----------



## MidnightDriver

james2ko said:


> . Uber's ultimate goal is driverless cars.


Why would they even consider doing such a thing. Why add the cost of maintenance and manufacturing to a business model when you don't have to. It doesn't make sense. I've heard this talked about before, but quite frankly, don't see the wisdom in this argument either.


----------



## NJShawn

james2ko said:


> Drivers are and will eventually get permanently screwed regardless. Uber's ultimate goal is driverless cars. The drivers today are simply an expendable means to an end.


Do you really believe that? You do know Uber makes money if drivers make money right? Also, if the service becomes a problem with drivers that will impact the passengers eventually. The bottom line Uber is still better than the competition which is taxis. In secondary markets taxis are just awful anbd expensive.


----------



## NJShawn

MidnightDriver said:


> Why would they even consider doing such a thing. Why add the cost of maintenance and manufacturing to a business model when you don't have to. It doesn't make sense. I've heard this talked about before, but quite frankly, don't see the wisdom in this argument either.


Driverless cars are years away from actually working and many more years away from regulations that will allow them to operate. In other words think about the Jetsons.


----------



## bigdaddy

What a bizarre, angry thread. Everyone is so certain their way is the only "right" way. How about this...you do you, and if someone else does it differently, big deal. They're not stupid or ignorant or being taken advantage of. They just place value on different aspects of the gig than you do.

Personally, I fall on the "accept the ride" side of things. Long term, I believe that it tends to even out financially, and also helps promote goodwill for the brand (which, despite what some seem to think, results in more and better business for all). These things are important to me. But as a frequent passenger, I will also say that any time a driver calls me and asks my destination, it's an instant hang up and cancel. Just as a driver may not want a particular passenger (and has that choice), as a passenger, I want a driver who shares my priorities and I will cancel one who shows me they don't. On the flip side, if I get a driver who has accepted and comes from more than 10 minutes away without screening me, I show my appreciation and compensate them accordingly with a larger-than-normal tip.

Everyone has their strategies. Do what works for you and let others do what works for them.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

MidnightDriver said:


> .
> .
> 
> It's not unrealistic at all. UBER provides a service and people are utilizing that service..


User's service is to the drivers, in technology and collections. And the drivers are trying to devise ways to use the technology they are buying to make money.

I'm sure there will be government regulation regardless, government regulators of formerly regulated industries like cabs- that Uber is destroying- will be out of work and will need to keep busy.


----------



## Yuri Lygotme

james2ko said:


> Drivers are and will eventually get permanently screwed regardless. Uber's ultimate goal is driverless cars. The drivers today are simply an expendable means to an end.


Except Uber will be bankrupt by too many class action lawsuits years before autonomous cars are a reality.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

james2ko said:


> Drivers are and will eventually get permanently screwed regardless. Uber's ultimate goal is driverless cars. The drivers today are simply an expendable means to an end.


Driverless cars need to be stored, maintained and repaired, and are a major capital investment. Uber can make more money with the current scheme.


----------



## MidnightDriver

I_Like_Spam said:


> User's service is to the drivers, in technology and collections. And the drivers are trying to devise ways to use the technology they are buying to make money.


.
Drivers don't solicit customers and quite frankly, can't, because of the randomness and anonymity of the system. UBER technologies solicit the customer, which makes them a customer oriented service/business. That they provide the driver with the technology as a means to that end doesn't change this fact.


----------



## james2ko

Yuri Lygotme said:


> Except Uber will be bankrupt by too many class action lawsuits years before autonomous cars are a reality.


Possibly. It's a race uber will fight tooth and nail to win.


----------



## Yuri Lygotme

I_Like_Spam said:


> Driverless cars need to be stored, maintained and repaired, and are a major capital investment. Uber can make more money with the current scheme.


And I'd add other practical considerations to your list that make it a pipe dream:

Can the autonomous car autonomously get rid of the drunk pax who felt asleep?
Can the autonomous car autonomously clean its interior if a pax throw up?
Can the autonomous car autonomously prevent disgruntled ex Uber drivers to turn it into an autonomous Porta-Potty?


----------



## james2ko

I_Like_Spam said:


> Driverless cars need to be stored, maintained and repaired, and are a major capital investment. Uber can make more money with the current scheme.


But they will make even more with driverless cars: http://www.govtech.com/fs/perspecti...ing-Cars-Bigger-Than-Its-Taxi-Disruption.html

"Uber's drivers take home 75 percent of Uber's revenues. But with driverless vehicles, Uber would be able to keep its rates down and increase its revenues. A study by Columbia University calculates that with a fleet of just 9,000 autonomous cars, Uber could replace every taxicab in New York City - with a passenger wait time of 36 seconds and a cost of $.50 per mile".​


----------



## I_Like_Spam

Yuri Lygotme said:


> And I'd add other practical considerations to your list that make it a pipe dream:
> 
> Can the autonomous car autonomously get rid of the drunk pax who felt asleep?
> Can the autonomous car autonomously clean its interior if a pax throw up?
> Can the autonomous car autonomously prevent disgruntled ex Uber drivers to turn it into an autonomous Porta-Potty?


Self cleaning interiors wouldn't seem to be that difficult of a technological problem.

The self cleaning public restroom is already a reality.


----------



## james2ko

NJShawn said:


> Do you really believe that? You do know Uber makes money if drivers make money right? Also, if the service becomes a problem with drivers that will impact the passengers eventually.* The bottom line Uber is still better than the competition which is taxis*. In secondary markets taxis are just awful anbd expensive.


Because they severely underpay its drivers. Making uber a much cheaper alternative for pax.


----------



## james2ko

MidnightDriver said:


> Why would they even consider doing such a thing. Why add the cost of maintenance and manufacturing to a business model when you don't have to. It doesn't make sense. I've heard this talked about before, but quite frankly, don't see the wisdom in this argument either.


You may not see the wisdom and sense of driverless cars, but Travis and some experts do. see article here.


----------



## hulksmash

The root of all driver and pax complaints IMO are the piss poor rates Uber sets. From their perspective, lower rates equals more rides, which mean more booking fees. Their goal is to get more booking fees, any additional fees are secondary. Rates were set dirt cheap not to cater to pax, but to line Ubers pockets

Dirt rates encourage the type of behavior we've all complained about here. If Uber would set rates to ensure a vast majority of rides made a profit, or broke even as an exception (not a rule) then more drivers would happily take most calls. Of course long pickup/short rides would still be less profitable then long runs, but they would still be profitable, unlike now. 

Long rides also get denied because of deadhead miles back, since it's rare that they go to a driver who lives close to the destination by pure luck. A proper pay structure would make these profitable as well, even with deadhead. 

Uber could even make it work by setting rates only slightly higher than they are now, by adding a base fare of $2, increasing minimum driver payouts to $5 after all fees are collected, and reducing the cancellation period to 2-3 min. These would all compensate drivers for long pickups. You would see way more accepted and completed requests, and more happy pax as well as well. 

Most drivers would do longer pickups even with current structure if Uber didnt cultivate a culture of entitlement. If they would encourage tipping, or encourage pax to be considerate to drivers (toes on the curb, order when ready, find an easy pick up location in crowded areas, etc), we'd also do more rides. Bottom line, is Uber is responsible for this Us vs them mentality.


----------



## Squirming Like A Toad

james2ko said:


> Because they severely underpay its drivers. Making uber a much cheaper alternative for pax.


In that case they are also underpaying themselves, and the Ivy League business guys they hire to determine their rates for a market don't know what they're doing.

Uber rates are *exactly* what they need to be to maximize profit in each market. Any cheaper and they would be leaving money on the table. Any more expensive and they would be losing enough business to alternatives to make it not worth it. You say Uber is greedy; if they were greedy and they thought they could charge the passenger more don't you think they would do it? Being we are paid as a percentage of the rate, the most profitable rate for Uber is also the most profitable rate for us. No way around that. The surges balance supply with demand and if it didn't work, they wouldn't do it.

Our only possible quarrel with the company is what our percentage is. I agree, 25% to the company is a little steep. It would be nice if we could get a little more for our commission. An insurance discount would be nice; they already know all about our driving habits and an insurance company with that data should be eager to give us a big discount on our personal as well as Uber cars. Guarantee every one of us is a better than average driver. At the same time, the commission will shake out some of the inefficient operators leaving more business for the efficient ones who didn't run out and buy a new car or anything crazy like that.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Being we are paid as a percentage of the rate, the most profitable rate for Uber is also the most profitable rate for us. No way around that.


Just not true.

Uber doesn't incur any expenses in gasoline or wear and tear to generate the revenue. The partners do. The profit equation is totally different.

If Uber could triple its revenue coming in by halving its rates, it would certainly make the enterprise more profitable for them-- but not for the partner. (the only reason why they might not is it might make it more difficult to recruit/retain partners


----------



## james2ko

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> In that case they are also underpaying themselves, and the Ivy League business guys they hire to determine their rates for a market don't know what they're doing.
> 
> Uber rates are *exactly* what they need to be to maximize profit in each market. Any cheaper and they would be leaving money on the table*. Any more expensive and they would be losing enough business to alternatives to make it not worth it*. You say Uber is greedy; if they were greedy and they thought they could charge the passenger more don't you think they would do it? Being we are paid as a percentage of the rate, the most profitable rate for Uber is also the most profitable rate for us. No way around that. The surges balance supply with demand and if it didn't work, they wouldn't do it.
> 
> Our only possible quarrel with the company is what our percentage is. I agree, 25% to the company is a little steep. It would be nice if we could get a little more for our commission. An insurance discount would be nice; they already know all about our driving habits and an insurance company with that data should be eager to give us a big discount on our personal as well as Uber cars. Guarantee every one of us is a better than average driver. At the same time, the commission will shake out some of the inefficient operators leaving more business for the efficient ones who didn't run out and buy a new car or anything crazy like that.


How do you figure they would be losing business to alternatives at 87 cents per mile? The cheapest taxi ride around here is 1.50 per mile. Even if Uber raises the rate to 1.10 they will still be cheaper than a taxi and passengers will still prefer the tipless much more pleasant uber experience over taxis. This rate chasm is ironclad proof of the expendable nature of the driver in uber's equation.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> An insurance discount would be nice; they already know all about our driving habits and an insurance company with that data should be eager to give us a big discount on our personal as well as Uber cars. Guarantee every one of us is a better than average driver. At the same time, the commission will shake out some of the inefficient operators leaving more business for the efficient ones who didn't run out and buy a new car or anything crazy like that.


Insurance concerns know that commercial operators generate more claims than those who use their cars for personal use---if for no other reason than the highly increased mileage put on the cars


----------



## hulksmash

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> In that case they are also underpaying themselves, and the Ivy League business guys they hire to determine their rates for a market don't know what they're doing.
> 
> Uber rates are *exactly* what they need to be to maximize profit in each market. Any cheaper and they would be leaving money on the table. Any more expensive and they would be losing enough business to alternatives to make it not worth it. You say Uber is greedy; if they were greedy and they thought they could charge the passenger more don't you think they would do it? Being we are paid as a percentage of the rate, the most profitable rate for Uber is also the most profitable rate for us. No way around that. The surges balance supply with demand and if it didn't work, they wouldn't do it.
> 
> Our only possible quarrel with the company is what our percentage is. I agree, 25% to the company is a little steep. It would be nice if we could get a little more for our commission. An insurance discount would be nice; they already know all about our driving habits and an insurance company with that data should be eager to give us a big discount on our personal as well as Uber cars. Guarantee every one of us is a better than average driver. At the same time, the commission will shake out some of the inefficient operators leaving more business for the efficient ones who didn't run out and buy a new car or anything crazy like that.


They can underpay the drivers while still overpaying themselves, it's called the booking fee. In my market, it accounts for half the minimum fare pax pay, which cost them nothing to get, whereas we have to deduct expenses from our share. They're motto "lower fares =more money" is absolutely true....for Uber, since they generate more rides, thus, booking fees.

Higher fares equal higher Uber cut, but fewer rides overall. They still get $20 for every $100 in fares you collect, but they prefer you get them across as many rides as possible to make them more booking fees, and the way to do that is to make you work harder and increase mileage to make the same money.


----------



## phillipzx3

I_Like_Spam said:


> Why would you screw around with your brother driver? All he was trying to do is to not take a fare that is a losing proposition.


You mean like cab drivers have been doing since the beginning, and Uber drivers and Uber use as an excuse to diss taxi's?

The hypocrisy of Uber (and the drivers) is enough to make one laugh.


----------



## Greguzzi

ColdRider said:


> Which is it? Are you guys rideshare drivers or independent business owners (lol)?
> 
> Seems like some of you pick the definition that benefits you in specific situations.


We are independent contractors in the business of ride-sharing. We do not owe your cheap ass a ride in our car. If we so choose, we will call you to find out your destination. If the offered compensation makes the ride profitable, we will choose to give you a ride. If not, we will cancel, and wish you good luck, with hope that maybe the circumstances of the ride you want will better suit the next driver it is offered to. This is not quantum mechanics or rocket surgery.


----------



## Yuri Lygotme

I_Like_Spam said:


> Self cleaning interiors wouldn't seem to be that difficult of a technological problem.
> 
> The self cleaning public restroom is already a reality.


 You are trolling right?


----------



## Tx rides

I_Like_Spam said:


> Self cleaning interiors wouldn't seem to be that difficult of a technological problem.
> 
> The self cleaning public restroom is already a reality.


I don't think I'd use that as an example! lol!!!

But in theory yes self cleaning interiors are a possibility. BUT - when does it self clean? After every ride? That won't work. What does it do with the trash? Or the passed out drunk?


----------



## Greguzzi

MidnightDriver said:


> I agree with you to a point.
> 
> Yes, I am in it for the money, obviously, but I also try to approach it *responsibly, ethically and professionally*. [snip]


If Uber behaved thusly, I would be right there with you. As we all know, Uber behaves in a manner diametrically opposed to "responsibly, ethically and professionally."


----------



## Yuri Lygotme

Tx rides said:


> But in theory yes self cleaning interiors are a possibility.


Nope. Not at all. Not even remotely a possibility. Think about it just for five seconds. Where would the water come from?

Unlike ovens, autonomous cars won't clean themselves, they will be filthy and disgusting. They will be used by hookers, people will eat and leave trash behind, etc...

They will have their niche market in the worst neighborhoods where taxi drivers don't want to go to anyway.

people will gladly prefer to pay more for a human driven clean taxi.


----------



## Yuri Lygotme

ColdRider said:


> Ah so rideshare is a business, I didn't know that.
> 
> I never said you owe my cheap ass a ride, likewise we don't owe your simple ass a tip.
> 
> I mean, that's if you even accept our ride request.


Ladies and gentlemen, I present you your typical self entitled millennial...


----------



## Greguzzi

ColdRider said:


> Ah so rideshare is a business, I didn't know that.
> 
> I never said you owe my cheap ass a ride, likewise we don't owe your simple ass a tip.
> 
> I mean, that's if you even accept our ride request.


You act like you are owed a ride and whine that a driver would have the temerity to enquire about your destination, so pardon me if I infer entitlement from your passive-aggressive quips.

I accepted a take-home (pre-tax and pre-expense) of $1200 in ride requests last week, with probably $150 in tips. I don't expect tips (though I can usually tell who will and who definitely won't tip. I also don't take unprofitable rides or suffer for business. Neither of those things is an accident.


----------



## Tx rides

Yuri Lygotme said:


> Nope. Not at all. Not even remotely a possibility. Think about it just for five seconds. Where would the water come from?
> 
> Unlike ovens, autonomous cars won't clean themselves, they will be filthy and disgusting. They will be used by hookers, people will eat and leave trash behind, etc...
> 
> They will have their niche market in the worst neighborhoods where taxi drivers don't want to go to anyway.
> 
> people will gladly prefer to pay more for a human driven clean taxi.


It is "technically" possible. That is my point - TECHNICALLY possible. Charging stations could hold water. BUT that would require a cleaning after every trip, or ridiculous sensors to determine if cleaning was required. The trash would have to be swept and removed, compacted, stored, whatever. Technically possible? Absolutely. Economically or logistically feasible? No.


----------



## Greguzzi

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> In that case they are also underpaying themselves, and the Ivy League business guys they hire to determine their rates for a market don't know what they're doing.
> 
> Uber rates are *exactly* what they need to be to maximize profit in each market. Any cheaper and they would be leaving money on the table. Any more expensive and they would be losing enough business to alternatives to make it not worth it. You say Uber is greedy; if they were greedy and they thought they could charge the passenger more don't you think they would do it? Being we are paid as a percentage of the rate, the most profitable rate for Uber is also the most profitable rate for us. No way around that. The surges balance supply with demand and if it didn't work, they wouldn't do it.
> 
> Our only possible quarrel with the company is what our percentage is. I agree, 25% to the company is a little steep. It would be nice if we could get a little more for our commission. An insurance discount would be nice; they already know all about our driving habits and an insurance company with that data should be eager to give us a big discount on our personal as well as Uber cars. Guarantee every one of us is a better than average driver. At the same time, the commission will shake out some of the inefficient operators leaving more business for the efficient ones who didn't run out and buy a new car or anything crazy like that.


No. Uber tries different rates and ratios of per-mile and per-minute and incentives in its many markets to gather data on what the "optimum" is, for any of several goals Uber might have in mind for that market-among them profit, increased market share, etc.

It's an ongoing process, and eventually the rates in each market will be adjusted to accomplish whatever are Uber's specific goals in that market at that time. In many cases, the goals will not be maximizing profits for themselves, and never will they be maximizing profits for the drivers.


----------



## Realityshark

MidnightDriver said:


> and the drivers will get screwed.


Too late!
The drivers are already getting screwed.


----------



## Squirming Like A Toad

Tx rides said:


> It is "technically" possible. That is my point - TECHNICALLY possible. Charging stations could hold water. BUT that would require a cleaning after every trip, or ridiculous sensors to determine if cleaning was required. The trash would have to be swept and removed, compacted, stored, whatever. Technically possible? Absolutely. Economically or logistically feasible? No.


If there were self-driving cars, there would be service stations where the car is refueled, then inspected and cleaned by a human if necessary. It would create a new type of job, a mix between a gas station attendant and a car detailer.

Not that I think there will be self-driving cars. It's not like an airport monorail, too many unpredictables can turn up on a road and it takes a human with human interests to make sense of them.


----------



## Squirming Like A Toad

Greguzzi said:


> No. Uber tries different rates and ratios of per-mile and per-minute and incentives in its many markets to gather data on what the "optimum" is, for any of several goals Uber might have in mind for that market-among them profit, increased market share, etc.
> 
> It's an ongoing process, and eventually the rates in each market will be adjusted to accomplish whatever are Uber's specific goals in that market at that time. In many cases, the goals will not be maximizing profits for themselves, and never will they be maximizing profits for the drivers.


I can assure you the goal will always be maximizing profits for themselves! They would be unlike any other business in the world if that were not so. Markets are not easily predictable and there will always be trial and error, and time needed to adjust.

Where is anybody paying booking fees separate from the fare? In my market the minimum fare is $4 for the passenger and $3 for the driver. Looks like 75% to me. If they raised it to $6 for the passenger it would be $4.50 for the driver. More fares at a lower rate costs us more, but it also costs Uber more because a lot of that 25% is going to James River per ride. Then there are the tips, which we keep all of and are going to increase with the number of fares more than the length of the fares, and something else that they overestimate which I'm not going to mention because I don't want to tip them off. I do think in my market they could charge a little more, because they don't realize how bad the mass transit and taxis are here and how much even the lower class people can afford to pay, but they will figure it out eventually.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

NJShawn said:


> Do you really believe that? You do know Uber makes money if drivers make money right?


Uber can make money regardless of whether drivers do.


NJShawn said:


> The bottom line Uber is still better than the competition which is taxis. In secondary markets taxis are just awful anbd expensive.


That's a selling point for riders, not drivers. It's why they should be paying a lot more than they are. So long as I'm good enough to not get deactivated it doesn't actually benefit me to be "better" than cabs, or other uber drivers.

Actually, the better my customer service, the less money I make.


----------



## hulksmash

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> I can assure you the goal will always be maximizing profits for themselves! They would be unlike any other business in the world if that were not so. Markets are not easily predictable and there will always be trial and error, and time needed to adjust.
> 
> Where is anybody paying booking fees separate from the fare? In my market the minimum fare is $4 for the passenger and $3 for the driver. Looks like 75% to me. If they raised it to $6 for the passenger it would be $4.50 for the driver. More fares at a lower rate costs us more, but it also costs Uber more because a lot of that 25% is going to James River per ride. Then there are the tips, which we keep all of and are going to increase with the number of fares more than the length of the fares, and something else that they overestimate which I'm not going to mention because I don't want to tip them off. I do think in my market they could charge a little more, because they don't realize how bad the mass transit and taxis are here and how much even the lower class people can afford to pay, but they will figure it out eventually.


The trip history on the driver app shows the total time & distance fare with the 20-25% fee. In the past it also showed the booking fee as income and a deduction. In my city, the minimum fare to the rider is $5.45, which includes a $2.45 booking fee, which means the time and distance is only $3.00. The trip history will only show $3.00 less the fee. You can see this information on the pax app.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

I_Like_Spam said:


> Self cleaning interiors wouldn't seem to be that difficult of a technological problem.
> 
> The self cleaning public restroom is already a reality.


All that toilet paper around the toilet and the trash overflowing by the sink doesn't look that clean to me.

And did you hear what he said? "Smells like sh** in here."

I'm sure pax want to ride in a car that's been hastily rinsed out after someone craps, pees, vomits, ejaculates and bleeds in it.


----------



## Tx rides

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> If there were self-driving cars, there would be service stations where the car is refueled, then inspected and cleaned by a human if necessary. It would create a new type of job, a mix between a gas station attendant and a car detailer.
> 
> Not that I think there will be self-driving cars. It's not like an airport monorail, too many unpredictables can turn up on a road and it takes a human with human interests to make sense of them.


Exactly! A scheduled maintenance will cost $$, and won't remove the need for immediate attention.


----------



## Tx rides

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Uber can make money regardless of whether drivers do.
> 
> That's a selling point for riders, not drivers. It's why they should be paying a lot more than they are. So long as I'm good enough to not get deactivated it doesn't actually benefit me to be "better" than cabs, or other uber drivers.
> 
> Actually, the better my customer service, the less money I make.


And without drivers, you just have a GPS app.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

phillipzx3 said:


> You mean like cab drivers have been doing since the beginning, and Uber drivers and Uber use as an excuse to diss taxi's?
> 
> The hypocrisy of Uber (and the drivers) is enough to make one laugh.


Honestly, I have NEVER dissed taxis. When I did use taxis I rarely had a problem. I did live in an apartment complex once where it was difficult to find my apartment building, but by asking the dispatcher to tell the driver to honk "shave and a haircut: two bits" upon arrival, that was worked out. Occasionally the dispatcher would let me know they'd call for the driver also. (Pre cell phones obviously).

(I was not toes on the curb because taxis were not always there in 5 minutes, so yes, waiting time was more--but when the horn sounded I was ready to walk out the door.)

But the drivers were not rude. The cabs very often smelled smoky, but I accepted that as something that was no different from my best friend's car in which she smoked. I never rode in a cab that was smelly. Some drivers were not that "fresh" but neither am I after hours in a car, unless I blast the a/c and never get out to stretch my legs (Houston).

It was expensive for me as I was making $4.25 / hour at the time, but it was a necessary expense when my car was in the shop and I had to get to work.

I didn't use it to hop from bar to bar, but then I couldn't AFFORD to hop from bar to bar. If I could have afforded that, I imagine I could have afforded to use a cab to do it too.

This was the mid-late 80s. Unless cabs changed a lot recently or are very different in other cities, I think a lot of the complaining about them is just by spoiled brats.


----------



## SCdave

Oscar Levant said:


> I know this makes me sound like an Uber shill, and I'm not, not at all. But, on destination foreknowledge I take the company view.
> I do this because I've been in the taxi business off and on since the late 70s, and I now that if drivers are given destination knowledge they will be cherry picking
> and cherry picking is not fair to other drivers, who will then have fewer cherries for themselves because you are taking more than your fair share of them. Everyone loves longer fares, and no one likes to lose money on runs. but, runs that are not profitable are really part of the cost of doing business. States and cities who license drivers expect drivers in the transport business to take all ride requests ( not talking about pre-arranged livery, just on - demand transportation, like taxis and rideshares ), and do the less profitable ones as well out of civic duty with the knowledge that, over the long run, you'll get enough long trips to make it worth your while. You have bad days, and good days, but it averages out at the end of the month. In the Taxi business, drivers who strategized their shifts on quantity of runs, usually made more money than whose who strictly positioned their vehicles for a higher average of long runs ( such as working the outer burbs, instead of the city hub ).
> 
> Also, cherry picking results in worse service if you are calling riders and cancelling after finding out the destination as this will diminish the concept of "customer goodwill" When that happens, long enough, over time, the rider customer base shrinks and so does your job. For lawd sakes, if you are offered a trip that is 20 minutes away, don't accept it, let another driver who might be clearing soon closer to the fair take the run, and this is as it should be. If you work hub areas, you won't get that many of them. In my experience, paid miles is better in hub areas, downtown areas, etc. Sure, there are busy times when the do happen more often than other times. If I feel i am rejecting too many trips, and it does happen, I will email the office and explain what was going on, and why I did it it, so there will be a real time record of it, in case they do a review of my situation. It goes to "being conscientious", showing concern for the job, and being professional, caring about the job.
> 
> Yeah, I recognize some of you think Uber is screwing you ( and I agree on the rates being too low, which is why I quit UberX ) but still, my view is that if you decide to do a job, do it well, and doing it well is doing everything one can to build up customer goodwill. If you can't do that, then you should quit.


Goodwill is meaningless for the individual TNC driver...unless the Driver has an equity interest in the TNC, right? So with Uber/Lyft, Drivers gain basically nothing from Goodwill (Corp. & investors do though), while with Juno (hopefully), Driver's will place value on Goodwill because they have an equity interest in Juno (Again, hopefully).

Do all TNC drivers want long trips? I would say no. Some do, some don't. Some want to stay around their home for 1-2 hours of short rides. Some want to go from the suburbs to city center...or vice versa. Some work a full 8 hour day. Some work a 4 hour shift. Some have contract work and want to turn the TNC Driver App on after the work is finished. Some only want to drive summers, or winter breaks, or weekends, or weekdays , or once a week or 7 days a week. It is an OnDemand model.

TNC business/drivers are similar but a completely different model from traditional taxi service. Now lets talk about Destination Filters.

The basic concept of a Destination Filter has nothing to do with Cherry Picking. It has everything to do with maximizing on one hand, Driver Net Profits "defined" by the individual Driver. It also has everything to do with maximizing efficiencies of the transporation system and for society, reducing vehicle pollution (yes, Destination Filter would improve overall efficiencies if this is also defined with lets reduce pollutants).

Back to Cherry Picking. Personally, I do not call or text Rider to ask for their destination and I have only turned down 2 long trips once I accepted and showed up at pick up (out of 4500+ trips). But I have no problem...zero...none...with a TNC driver who wants to call/text and ask for the destination. It's not the TNC driver's fault, it is that of the TNC and a weaka$$ legislative body.

A Destination Filter for TNCs should be a hard regulation with serious penalties (like, oh, lets say the TNC can no longer do business). Why?
- Bad for the environment. What one car could do, can actually take up to three separate cars/trips without a destination filter.
- Removes a absolutely critical variable for each individual TNC driver to maximize both their net profit and personal life.
- If Drivers are Independent Contractors knowing the Destination is not a convenience, but necessity.
_* Or just have TNCs pay all expenses for the vehicle and all state/federal employee related obligations._
- TNCs are build around "Turn it off and Turn it on anytime your want" model. If I want to "turn it off" in 30 minutes but I "have to" take someone where the time to get back "home/to work" would be 45-90 minutes, then obviously, this is not true.

Drivers are not the problem, Uber (no Destination Filter) and Lyft (with a useless Destination Filter) are the problem. Also, gutless state legislators that will not enforce a Destination Filter as a requirement as part of the "must have" or not be in the TNC business game are the problem.

Lastly, if Uber and Lyft were paying ALL expenses for each and every TNC vehicle, and paying the driver as an employee by each and every hour spent in the vehicle, do you thing they would have a Destination Filter or not? Or do you think they would pay for a Los Angeles Driver to take a Rider to San Diego and then return empty? Or instead, make a Rider wait 5-15 minutes longer to match that Rider going to San Diego with a Driver who lives in and could end their shift in San Diego?

Sorry, guys/gals...I've never considered this subject before.


----------



## SuckA

More and more I'm having to do this, mainly because the time to pick up riders has been more than 10 mins. Any pick up beyond 7 mins is a call to find out their ending destination, until Uber/Lyft add a flat rate pick up fee, I will continue to call pax before starting my car.
Gas isn't cheap anymore, especially on Mercedes-Benz you have to use 93 Octane, because Mercedes only use 11:1 compression pistons in their engines, and this will never change.


----------



## Bill Collector

Once I asked where the final destination was since the pickup was 15 minutes far. I got the following reply back: "Is this fair share or fair split?"

Guess what I ended up doing! Not going to lose money anymore. Let newbies learn how to remain profitable in this game.


----------



## UberLaLa

I rarely call passenger to determine their destination. But, I also rarely take any pings over 7 minutes.

Ironically, many of those complaining that it isn't 'fair' for drivers to call-ahead and 'cherry-pick' are some of the same drivers that drive into other driver's markets and 'cherry-pick.' This is IC Rideshare....there are no rules about what passengers we can or can not take.

I leave you with a little story-

_A boy and a girl were playing together. The boy had a collection of marbles. The girl had some sweets with her. The boy told the girl that he will give her all his marbles in exchange for her sweets. The girl agreed. The boy kept the biggest and the most beautiful marble aside and gave the rest to the girl. The girl gave him all her sweets as she had promised. That night, the girl slept peacefully. But the boy couldn't sleep as he kept wondering if the girl had hidden some sweets from him the way he had hidden his best marble. _


----------



## ColdRider

Yuri Lygotme said:


> Ladies and gentlemen, I present you your typical self entitled millennial...


Self entitled? Ok.

Maybe the self entitled one is the career car driver thinking he is owed so much more to drive a car. I'm just guessing though.


----------



## NJShawn

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Uber can make money regardless of whether drivers do.
> 
> That's a selling point for riders, not drivers. It's why they should be paying a lot more than they are. So long as I'm good enough to not get deactivated it doesn't actually benefit me to be "better" than cabs, or other uber drivers.
> 
> Actually, the better my customer service, the less money I make.


So if more people want to use Uber that doesnt benefit you? I would say that it does


----------



## I_Like_Spam

NJShawn said:


> So if more people want to use Uber that doesnt benefit you? I would say that it does


How would it? If Uber disappeared this evening, never to return, people would still need rides, and the drivers and their cars would still be around to give it to them.

A short term logistics problem, but when it comes right down to it, it would probably mean more money, or at least the same, without Uber taking a big taste of each fare.


----------



## Old Rocker

I take every ping. I made $21.50 an hour last week (disclaimer - I had some large Select fares and my overall average is below $21.50). Works for me. Working in the suburbs usually means longer paying rides, but more deadheading. Working in the city usually results in closer pings, but more minimum fares.

If someone has a different method that includes cherry picking, if it works for them, I'm cool with it.


----------



## SuckA

Well after gas they take home $650....


----------



## Greguzzi

Old Rocker said:


> I take every ping. I made $21.50 an hour last week (disclaimer - I had some large Select fares and my overall average is below $21.50). Works for me. Working in the suburbs usually means longer paying rides, but more deadheading. Working in the city usually results in closer pings, but more minimum fares.
> 
> If someone has a different method that includes cherry picking, if it works for them, I'm cool with it.


How many dollars take-home per D2D mile driven?

If you aren't bringing in $1.25-$2 per mile driven, you likely aren't profiting much.


----------



## tohunt4me

ColdRider said:


> Rider should have reported him


I had a friend in Texas who's son waited over 1/2 hour for an Uber driver that never showed up or called,or texted.
Don't accept the ride if you don't want it !


----------



## tohunt4me

Mountainsoloist said:


> People who lie to me don't ride with me.
> 
> If I am calling them for a destination it is because their pickup location is already putting the ride's profitability into question. At that point I will do the trip if the destination is worthwhile. Many pings over a few minutes away are a bust. If they add a destination to the initial ping I won't need to do this anymore.


If you accept a fare ,then turn it down,it is a lie.


----------



## tohunt4me

Greguzzi said:


> How many dollars take-home per D2D mile driven?
> 
> If you aren't bringing in $1.25-$2 per mile driven, you likely aren't profiting much.


They MUST raise fare to a sustainable level !

Uber is ruining this business.


----------



## Squirming Like A Toad

hulksmash said:


> The trip history on the driver app shows the total time & distance fare with the 20-25% fee. In the past it also showed the booking fee as income and a deduction. In my city, the minimum fare to the rider is $5.45, which includes a $2.45 booking fee, which means the time and distance is only $3.00. The trip history will only show $3.00 less the fee. You can see this information on the pax app.


Then it's done differently out there. The different markets have very different schedules. I know in NJ the rate per mile is less but the minimum fare is a lot higher. I'm prepared to let the MBA's determine which is the best way to get money out of the passengers.

Being gas is my biggest expense I don't really mind short rides. If someone want to pay me $3 to take them a half mile, that's $6 per mile, can't complain. The deadhead is a different story, but if someone is willing to wait 15 minutes for me it's unlikely to be a minimum fare, a suburban ride never is and that provides some protection against long deadheads to short fares.

Just the other night I had one like that, long pickup, pin was in the wrong place, drunk pax, 5 minute ride. Real loser, right? Well it was without the $10 tip. Never can tell. Luck seems to break in my favor when I work hard.


----------



## tohunt4me

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Then it's done differently out there. The different markets have very different schedules. I know in NJ the rate per mile is less but the minimum fare is a lot higher. I'm prepared to let the MBA's determine which is the best way to get money out of the passengers.
> 
> Being gas is my biggest expense I don't really mind short rides. If someone want to pay me $3 to take them a half mile, that's $6 per mile, can't complain. The deadhead is a different story, but if someone is willing to wait 15 minutes for me it's unlikely to be a minimum fare, a suburban ride never is and that provides some protection against long deadheads to short fares.
> 
> Just the other night I had one like that, long pickup, pin was in the wrong place, drunk pax, 5 minute ride. Real loser, right? Well it was without the $10 tip. Never can tell. Luck seems to break in my favor when I work hard.


When your car falls apart,a car will be your biggest expense.

No social security or retirement with Uber !


----------



## Squirming Like A Toad

tohunt4me said:


> When your car falls apart,a car will be your biggest expense.
> 
> No social security or retirement with Uber !


Ha, my van fell apart 20,000 miles ago! There's enough Bondo in the thing to build a fiberglass sailboat.

If it ever needs mechanical repair I'll ask Jesus to help me. No not that Jesus, _Chucho_ Jesus with the engine hoist in his driveway who will swap out a transmission for $300 and a case of Coors.


----------



## tohunt4me

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Ha, my van fell apart 20,000 miles ago! There's enough Bondo in the thing to build a fiberglass sailboat.
> 
> If it ever needs mechanical repair I'll ask Jesus to help me. No not that Jesus, _Chucho_ Jesus with the engine hoist in his driveway who will swap out a transmission for $300 and a case of Coors.


That man deserves 2 cases !


----------



## I_Like_Spam

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Ha, my van fell apart 20,000 miles ago! There's enough Bondo in the thing to build a fiberglass sailboat..


When I owned a rust bucket 1965 Belair, I found Tiger Hair to be a better solution for body work, just saying.


----------



## Uber00

Thanks to Uber I have "walked away" (quit) and have a hit..

WALK AWAY by Billy King www.soundcloud.com/billykingmusic/walk-away


----------



## Centraljersieguy

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Because he is screwing around with me, and he is not my brother. There is an element of luck when picking up fares. Last night I got two good fares in a row, very lucky, and I did not have to call. Other times I'm not so lucky, them's the breaks. In slow times a driver who is cherry-picking only the most profitable fares is trying to cheat the luck element by doing something we are not supposed to do, and leaving the less profitable fares for the other drivers. I call that dirty pool.
> 
> When there are only a couple of drivers on these things become more personal. I intentionally space myself out from the other driver, when he is in one good waiting spot I take the other if he was there first because I think it is better for the drivers to have easier nights and the riders get better service than to try and squeeze out a couple more dollars per hour at the expense of another driver. But I am very good at cheating if I want to, and if he wants to send me only the less desirable fares I will take more than that.
> 
> Also this is bad for business in general. More riders is always better, and if people find out there are no drivers available when they need them or even worse drivers who refuse to pick them up they will stop trusting Uber to get them home and do something else. Then our reputation will be as bad as the taxis.


And this is why I do not drive more then 10 minutes to a pax....


----------



## BLACK CAR SERVICE

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Because he is screwing around with me, and he is not my brother. There is an element of luck when picking up fares. Last night I got two good fares in a row, very lucky, and I did not have to call. Other times I'm not so lucky, them's the breaks. In slow times a driver who is cherry-picking only the most profitable fares is trying to cheat the luck element by doing something we are not supposed to do, and leaving the less profitable fares for the other drivers. I call that dirty pool.
> 
> When there are only a couple of drivers on these things become more personal. I intentionally space myself out from the other driver, when he is in one good waiting spot I take the other if he was there first because I think it is better for the drivers to have easier nights and the riders get better service than to try and squeeze out a couple more dollars per hour at the expense of another driver. But I am very good at cheating if I want to, and if he wants to send me only the less desirable fares I will take more than that.
> 
> Also this is bad for business in general. More riders is always better, and if people find out there are no drivers available when they need them or even worse drivers who refuse to pick them up they will stop trusting Uber to get them home and do something else. Then our reputation will be as bad as the taxis.


I bet you were that tattletale kid in school that nobody liked and never got invited to birthday parties..


----------



## Novus Caesar

tohunt4me said:


> When your car falls apart,a car will be your biggest expense.
> 
> No social security or retirement with Uber !


If you are paying your TAXES you are getting social security. You are self-employed. My guess, however, is that most are not paying the correct taxes if any, working with Uber.


----------



## negeorgia

Here's an idea. Pretend there are no other drivers. When riders complain about other drivers, pretend they are talking about their experience from a city 5 states away.


----------



## MidnightDriver

Greguzzi said:


> If Uber behaved thusly, I would be right there with you. As we all know, Uber behaves in a manner diametrically opposed to "responsibly, ethically and professionally."


I hear ya'. I've only been driving for a little over six months and I learned quickly that UBER doesn't take very good care of their drivers. But that said, driving for UBER has afforded me the opportunity to make money where otherwise, I wouldn't have been able to. For that I am grateful and it would be nice to be able to pass this opportunity down to other people, intact, rather than burn it down out of spite. The only way I can accomplish that is to act accordingly. But that's me....


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

NJShawn said:


> So if more people want to use Uber that doesnt benefit you? I would say that it does


I prefer to have one person who wants to use Uber and will pay $2.50 a mile rather than 3 who are only willing to pay $0.87.

More riders does not mean more money. I can only drive so many trips and miles in an hour.

I tried just taking whatever Uber sent me. I got 4 trips one hour. That's a lot here at least. My take home that hour BEFORE EXPENSES was $11 and change.

I then decided to wait for a surge. 20 minutes later took a surge trip and got $16 and change in 15 minutes. Then picked up another and within THAT hour was at $30. Even without that second trip I was better off than that first hour.

To use a phrase from politics: "It's the rates, stupid."


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Old Rocker said:


> I take every ping. I made $21.50 an hour last week (disclaimer - I had some large Select fares and my overall average is below $21.50). Works for me. Working in the suburbs usually means longer paying rides, but more deadheading. Working in the city usually results in closer pings, but more minimum fares.
> 
> If someone has a different method that includes cherry picking, if it works for them, I'm cool with it.


Take out the select fares and do the math figuring them as uberx and what did you make?

Most drivers are NOT select.

Unless it's possible to make money doing only uberx and no surge, the rates are TOO LOW.


----------



## Funggu uber riders

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Late night riders have been telling me the driver has been accepting the ping, calling them, asking where they are going and then cancelling the ride if they don't like it. There are at most 1 or 2 other drivers in the area when I am rolling so I think it's the same one. F him, if I can roll the dice so can he. Last night's event turned out to be a good fare, and it left me in a place where I got a $90 fare next. This is a slow period in the area, school is out and summer travel hasn't started yet and last night I went 2 hours without a fare, I'm either taking what I can get or staying home. Can't believe somebody can not be deactivated for too much of that.
> 
> Of course, I did my part to F him by telling the passenger to lie to the driver next time, look at the map and tell him you are going back to where he is, or I gave him a list of other places to tell the driver he is going to ensure he will come out. "Hey, my friend called and told me he wasn't going to be there, so I decided to go home instead."


Well I haven't done that but these riders will do anything to not pay and they ding your rating, what goes around Gomes around


----------



## Jonathan B

I had two deadhead trips on Sunday, I live in Fayetteville GA, The first trip took me from Fayetteville to Griffin which is Middle of nowhere GA (18 Miles), My second deadhead was on my way back home and right when I was about to turn the app off I was heading south through Riverdale and I got a Ping at a local church. The Woman wanted to go to Alpharetta GA (38 Miles in the opposite direction at ) 

At first I hesitated, but I realized I had a Job to do. If you are in Driver mode and it's your job to get a passenger from point A to B. Suck it Up or go offline!!!


----------



## negeorgia

Jonathan B said:


> I had two deadhead trips on Sunday, I live in Fayetteville GA, The first trip took me from Fayetteville to Griffin which is Middle of nowhere GA (18 Miles), My second deadhead was on my way back home and right when I was about to turn the app off I was heading south through Riverdale and I got a Ping at a local church. The Woman wanted to go to Alpharetta GA (38 Miles in the opposite direction at )
> 
> At first I hesitated, but I realized I had a Job to do. If you are in Driver mode and it's your job to get a passenger from point A to B. Suck it Up or go offline!!!


I can see your point. Going online is basically saying I agree to give rides at the current pay scale (fare rate for your market and platform). I also have never denied a request based upon destination.


----------



## MattyMikey

negeorgia said:


> I can see your point. Going online is basically saying I agree to give rides at the current pay scale (fare rate for your market and platform). I also have never denied a request based upon destination.


Then what you're saying is you're an idiot?


----------



## negeorgia

MattyMikey said:


> Then what you're saying is you're an idiot?


No doubt about it. High money days need high mileage days to lower the tax liability. I win on both days. Your results may vary.


----------



## Yuri Lygotme

ColdRider said:


> Self entitled? Ok.
> 
> Maybe the self entitled one is the career car driver thinking he is owed so much more to drive a car. I'm just guessing though.


Well can you quote me on that? Good luck mr self entitled millennial.

I have no idea what you mean that I am somehow owed so much more to drive car. The taxi rates? Sorry, they are set by the city council, not me.


----------



## Yuri Lygotme

Coffeekeepsmedriving said:


> Also Uber should show the destination like lyft does.


Are you sure Lyft still does? I've read in another forum Lyft stopped showing destination recently.


----------



## Agent99

Lyft stopped showing destination in advance two? months ago in my market (Seattle).


----------



## Yuri Lygotme

Agent99 said:


> Lyft stopped showing destination in advance two? months ago in my market (Seattle).


Wow, how can Lyft be that dumb.


----------



## MidnightDriver

Yuri Lygotme said:


> Wow, how can Lyft be that dumb.


Because you're assessing it through the eyes of a driver rather than a business owner. Providing a destination means that the driver decides where to go rather than the customer. Since this decision, by the driver, is based upon maximizing profit rather than providing customer service, it would naturally conflict with a business that provides such a service. My guess is that LYFT has just figured out what UBER already knows.

Part of the charm of using a service such as UBER is that at any given time, there is a driver no more than five or six minutes away, generally speaking. If you have a customer who calls for a ride and there are drivers in the area who refuse it because they are screening for destination, then that's a problem.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

MidnightDriver said:


> Because you're assessing it through the eyes of a driver rather than a business owner. Providing a destination means that the driver decides where to go rather than the customer. Since this decision, by the driver, is based upon maximizing profit rather than providing customer service, it would naturally conflict with a business that provides such a service..


Actually, not providing the destination, does maximize profit- but for Uber, not for the partner. The more trips that are covered, the more they make as the marginal costs of getting one more trip covered is very small, they don't have costs like gasoline that they need to be concerned about.


----------



## Yuri Lygotme

MidnightDriver said:


> Because you're assessing it through the eyes of a driver rather than a business owner. Providing a destination means that the driver decides where to go rather than the customer. Since this decision, by the driver, is based upon maximizing profit rather than providing customer service, it would naturally conflict with a business that provides such a service. My guess is that LYFT has just figured out what UBER already knows.
> 
> Part of the charm of using a service such as UBER is that at any given time, there is a driver no more than five or six minutes away, generally speaking. If you have a customer who calls for a ride and there are drivers in the area who refuse it because they are screening for destination, then that's a problem.


No I am assessing it through the eyes of an independent contractor.

As an independent contractors, the drivers have:

The right to demand to know where the fare will take them
The freedom to refuse and cancel without prejudice

That's the deal!

To provide the level of service you describe, uber and Lyft must make their drivers employees, there is no other way around it.

With employees drivers, uber and Lyft then can legally control and give orders: you must take this rider, you must drive him there, etc.


----------



## MidnightDriver

Yuri Lygotme said:


> To provide the level of service you describe, uber and Lyft must make their drivers employees, there is no other way around it.


UBER need only to raise their acceptance rate and filter out the problem through deactivation. The only reason they don't do it now is because a lot of these drivers who practice it are making them a lot of money. Once they flood the market with drivers who can absorb that benefit, and sustain it consistently, then the hammer will fall. Make no mistake about that.

You're thinking short term

They're thinking long term

That's the _real_ problem with the way people are assessing the arguments around here....


----------



## I_Like_Spam

MidnightDriver said:


> UBER need only to raise their acceptance rate and filter out the problem through deactivation. The only reason they don't do it now is because a lot of these drivers who practice it are making them a lot of money. Once they flood the market with drivers who can absorb that benefit, and sustain it consistently, then the hammer will fall. Make no mistake about that.
> 
> You're thinking short term
> 
> They're thinking long term
> 
> That's the _real_ problem with the way people are assessing the arguments around here....


I agree that the Sharing Economy is in a state of flux, and will certainly change. Sure, Uber can recruit a lot more drivers, but how many will stay if they aren't making any money? Dumping drivers who can deliver the corporation a lot of money doesn't seem very wise even if there are a lot more drivers.


----------



## MidnightDriver

t


Yuri Lygotme said:


> No I am assessing it through the eyes of an independent contractor.
> 
> As an independent contractor, the driver has:
> 
> The right to demand to know where the fare will take them
> The freedom to refuse and cancel without prejudice
> .


You have no rights. UBER can deactivate you at any time, for any reason. That you have the freedom to do anything is due solely to the fact that UBER has given you permission to do so. If they wanted to raise their acceptance rate to 100, with or without destinations, they could do that.


----------



## maui

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> You earn $2 for a 10 minute ride? I think I see the problem. Still that would be $12 an hour, lots of people work harder for less.
> 
> Eventually Uber is just going to change the tech so you can't contact the rider until you are at the ping. Then what are you going to do, scream and stamp your feet? I heard there was a "Take Me Home" feature once that allowed you to get back to your regular area with a fare, and that would be very valuable to all of us, but it was abused and now it is no more. Don't be so greedy, take your fares and your luck will even out.


You need to learn to do math. On the surface, your equation may appear right... but like life, there are things like friction, gravity, etc.

The first of these are dead miles. I may get 10% of my rides which are virtually on top of each other (i.e. the drop off and next pick up are right on top of each other) Even then, I may have to circle back around because the next pick up is BEHIND me by a block and I have traffic behind me.

Now I am making more than $2 for 10 minutes, but on average, I am only able to complete 2.91 trips / hour over the last 3 weeks I have driven, so in reality, if a person can make $2 / 10 minutes, in the Uber World, that translates to under $6/hour in real world with dead miles to pick up, dead time waiting for Pax to get in vehicle, and time waiting for next ping.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

MidnightDriver said:


> t
> 
> You have no rights. UBER can deactivate you at any time, for any reason. That you have the freedom to do anything is due solely to the fact that UBER has given you permission to do so. If they wanted to raise their acceptance rate to 100, with or without destinations, they could do that.


Of course, they can. But any driver can quit at any time, as well, and since there aren't any insurmountable obstacles from other tech firms to set up their own platforms, that's the reasons why they are unlikely to do that.


----------



## Snowtop

Like all businesses my goal is to make a profit....not to make money. Every business that I have ever heard of that had to shut down probably took in money but not enough money to be profitable. GM was still selling cars and creating cash flow but still went into bankruptcy. 

This is how Uber sucks in the unsuspecting. I would guess that less than 10% of the X drivers understand exactly what it costs to operate there vehicle. The biggest one that they don't get is depreciation. Take my car....it is a 2014 with 40,000 miles. It would have about 15,000 if I didn't driver Uber. How much does that effect resale? Per NADA my vehicle has lost over 3K in value due to the Uber miles. Of course you then have to add in all of the maintenance that is required more often or earlier when you put those miles on your car. I will spend another $1000 in tires in the coming months that may have waited years.

I am not out here to benefit anyone by myself and I know of few successful business that operate differently.

If I perceive a ride is not profitable I have a fiduciary responsible to myself and my family to refuse that ride.


----------



## UberPissed

I've been doing this for over a year now. I see both sides of the coin here, but under the circumstances, I think it is warranted. It is a ride "sharing" app after all, isn't it? 

This is the same reason I cancel on pax if i see that they are going to ORD at 8am. It's at least 1.5 hours round trip and my net payout on an ORD run is $14 before costs.


----------



## Mayday

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Late night riders have been telling me the driver has been accepting the ping, calling them, asking where they are going and then cancelling the ride if they don't like it. There are at most 1 or 2 other drivers in the area when I am rolling so I think it's the same one. him, if I can roll the dice so can he. Last night's event turned out to be a good fare, and it left me in a place where I got a $90 fare next. This is a slow period in the area, school is out and summer travel hasn't started yet and last night I went 2 hours without a fare, I'm either taking what I can get or staying home. Can't believe somebody can not be deactivated for too much of that.
> 
> Of course, I did my part to him by telling the passenger to lie to the driver next time, look at the map and tell him you are going back to where he is, or I gave him a list of other places to tell the driver he is going to ensure he will come out. "Hey, my friend called and told me he wasn't going to be there, so I decided to go home instead."


You the other driver by telling your riders to lie? You're just as bad as him. We have enough trouble already with prank calls to the middle of nowhere for riders that cancel at the 5 minute mark. Don't give them more ideas on how to beat the system. Just tell them how to report the incident and let it go. If the guy is a real jackass, then his ratings will reflect the service he's providing and the system will take care of him.


----------



## Rico Ramz

negeorgia said:


> I can see your point. Going online is basically saying I agree to give rides at the current pay scale (fare rate for your market and platform). I also have never denied a request based upon destination.


You two don't sound like drivers! Uber tech does whatever they want that best fits their business model, why should drivers just do as the masters want? Drivers will do and should do, as they please, what is best for a drivers best interest! Why should drivers listen to all of you Uber sheeps? If you want to take all calls and do them all, do it! If you like getting screwed in the butt hole, go ahead! In the mean time smart drivers will pick the trips they want to do, or not and make more money and spend less money on gas! It's free enterprise, until a Nazi puts a gun to my head and makes me do all trips, I will keep NOT taking any unprofitable trips! Amen Reverend.


----------



## Mayday

Yuri Lygotme said:


> No I am assessing it through the eyes of an independent contractor.
> 
> As an independent contractor, the driver has:
> 
> The right to demand to know where the fare will take them
> The freedom to refuse and cancel without prejudice
> 
> That's the deal!
> 
> To provide the level of service you describe, uber and Lyft must make their drivers employees, there is no other way around it.
> 
> With employees drivers, uber and Lyft then can legally control and give orders: you must take this rider, you must drive him there, etc.


That's what we all need, barracks lawyer advice from a FORMER driver!


----------



## iamkitkatbar

Because your FORCED to drive right?


----------



## Rico Ramz

"smart drivers"


----------



## Squirming Like A Toad

MidnightDriver said:


> UBER need only to raise their acceptance rate and filter out the problem through deactivation. The only reason they don't do it now is because a lot of these drivers who practice it are making them a lot of money. Once they flood the market with drivers who can absorb that benefit, and sustain it consistently, then the hammer will fall. Make no mistake about that.
> 
> You're thinking short term
> 
> They're thinking long term
> 
> That's the _real_ problem with the way people are assessing the arguments around here....


Yes that's true. There are 3 behaviors working interactively: driver behavior, rider behavior, Uber behavior. Being Uber controls the platform they control all the rules. That's their advantage. The advantage for riders and drivers is once Uber sets rules, we can change the way we work faster than they can realize what is going on and change them again.

Here's a dirty trick for you a few might appreciate- want to make a quick buck with minimal work? Roll up on a ping until the app says you've arrived, then hide from the passenger for 5 minutes then cancel and take off. Easy money, in your best interest, right? Well, sure, until Uber figures out drivers are doing this _and then every one of us loses the cxl fees!_ You make a little bit of money for a while and then the entire community of drivers is screwed. Same thing happened with the vomit, drivers using fake vomit and fake pics to collect the cleaning fee and now we all have to jump through hoops to get the fee, if we get it at all.

Drivers screening destinations is going to end up the same way. If they figure they are losing money or reputation, they will change it, just like that.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

When Uber came to Pittsburgh, they openly operated in violation of Pennsylvania's livery regulations and licensing requirements. They recruited folks, advertised the whole time, as scofflaws to impose themselves into the transportation biz, maneuvering to rally local progressive politicians to convince them to regularize their business model.

Considering those are the facts, I can't see where anyone would have any problem using the same kinds of tactics against Uber to try and make sure they got theirs as well.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Drivers screening destinations is going to end up the same way. If they figure they are losing money or reputation, they will change it, just like that.


Its a constantly moving game, I'll give you that. I'm sure that folks will figure out someway else to make $$ on the Uber platform if they change that.


----------



## vaybar

Not a problem for me. Sounds like the driver that cancels has some business sense. I am a late night driver and you can be sure I won't be driving long distance to drop a rider a mile up the road. As an independent, I make the decision whether and when I am going to pick up.


----------



## negeorgia

Rico Ramz said:


> You two don't sound like drivers! Uber tech does whatever they want that best fits their business model, why should drivers just do as the masters want? Drivers will do and should do, as they please, what is best for a drivers best interest! Why should drivers listen to all of you Uber sheeps? If you want to take all calls and do them all, do it! If you like getting screwed in the butt hole, go ahead! In the mean time smart drivers will pick the trips they want to do, or not and make more money and spend less money on gas! It's free enterprise, until a Nazi puts a gun to my head and makes me do all trips, I will keep NOT taking any unprofitable trips! Amen Reverend.


Ohh, I spend plenty of hours offline waiting for surge and I let non surge over 10 minutes away pass through lots of times and I cancel stacked pings that have no or smaller surge when the original ride gets finished and I set a 5 minute timer to get cancel fees for no shows. It is just my market is 65-70% minimum trips, canceling based on destination is something I have not done yet and have no need for. I use big mileage days to make big money days have a smaller tax liability. It works for me and your results may vary. I bought a car to get to 100,000 business miles as fast as I want to and Uber lets me do just that. If you have no income, you have no taxes; Uber is a great way to have no income. Gas expense has not been an issue for me the last 7 years; I have bigger fish to fry. I buy prepaid gas cards online, loaded $300 for $277. (Part of that, the rich get richer nonsense). I would always recommend running a business and personal finances with an emergency fund instead of credit score brainwashed mentality. Again, your results may vary.


----------



## negeorgia

I have 5100 life time trips in 22 months of part time driving. I paid cash for my business vehicle and had the money back in the bank from my 15 highest week earnings after the first 10 months of driving. I fully understand a very small percentage of Uber drivers can have the savings rate that I have, but if I can break away from the habits that had me trapped in paycheck to paycheck lifestyle for 22 years, anyone can. All it takes is new information to change perspective. Your results may vary.


----------



## Novus Caesar

If uber wants to guarantee me pay, which they have in the past, by requiring me to accept all rides or a specific percent of them, and to remain active for so long, then I am fine with that. However, they have not given me any guarantees in a while. So if I get a ping that is 20 minutes away, which I have, and on average I know it will be a $3 minimum ride in that area, I will cancel it. That would be a 20 minute ride there, 20 back to the better more active area. 40 minutes for $3. No thanks.


----------



## Yuri Lygotme

1


Mayday said:


> That's what we all need, barracks lawyer advice from a FORMER driver!


you too, you need to get the basics about what's the difference between an employee and an IC.


----------



## Greguzzi

MidnightDriver said:


> Because you're assessing it through the eyes of a driver rather than a business owner. Providing a destination means that the driver decides where to go rather than the customer. Since this decision, by the driver, is based upon maximizing profit rather than providing customer service, it would naturally conflict with a business that provides such a service. My guess is that LYFT has just figured out what UBER already knows.
> 
> Part of the charm of using a service such as UBER is that at any given time, there is a driver no more than five or six minutes away, generally speaking. If you have a customer who calls for a ride and there are drivers in the area who refuse it because they are screening for destination, then that's a problem.


I see no problem with filtering for destination. And I _am_ a business owner.

If you tried to hire a contractor to remodel your house, and you said to him, "I can't tell how much this job will pay or how long it will take-or how far away it may take you-but I will be extra nice and give you 15 seconds to decide whether you want the job or not!" what do you think he'd say to you?


----------



## Dback2004

Greguzzi said:


> If you tried to hire a contractor to remodel your house, and you said to him, "I can't tell how much this job will pay or how long it will take-or how far away it may take you-but I will be extra nice and give you 15 seconds to decide whether you want the job or not!" what do you think he'd say to you?


Amusing hypothetical, but not exactly comparing apples to apples.


----------



## Squirming Like A Toad

negeorgia said:


> I have 5100 life time trips in 22 months of part time driving. I paid cash for my business vehicle and had the money back in the bank from my 15 highest week earnings after the first 10 months of driving. I fully understand a very small percentage of Uber drivers can have the savings rate that I have, but if I can break away from the habits that had me trapped in paycheck to paycheck lifestyle for 22 years, anyone can. All it takes is new information to change perspective. Your results may vary.


I suspect some of the drivers here have gotten in over their heads with purchasing a vehicle and related expenses, and take it out on Uber and the passengers that they're unable to make a profit. I knew exactly what the job was worth before I started it and planned accordingly- just bought a second car for the same low price I would have spent on a second car anyway, and picked one that was suitable for Ubering. This is not a career, it's just like a paper route, only you don't have to get up before dawn.

The tax incentive does have value for someone with a good main income. You can only do that for a few years in a row, but in a few years I'll surely be doing something else as a sideline. I've had so many, and every one taught me something valuable for the next one.


----------



## stonepeakz

ColdRider said:


> Rider should have reported him


Get a call that's 14 minutes away to find out its a 3 dollar fare is as well not fair and it's starting to be a problem so I get it, aUber needs to address this dont you think?


----------



## I_Like_Spam

stonepeakz said:


> Get a call that's 14 minutes away to find out its a 3 dollar fare is as well not fair and it's starting to be a problem so I get it, aUber needs to address this dont you think?


That was a problem in the taxicab racket too. Of course, the radio dispatcher told the drivers that the trip in Castle Shannon or Indiana Township was a "short" trip, or conversely announced that it was going to the Airport or back into Oakland, so that the driver could make a reasonable decision as to whether it was worth it or not. If a driver happened to be in the area, he might pick up a short trip out in burbs.

Uber on the other hand, looks to trick the drivers into taking these trips, mainly because they make just as much $$ on it.

Of course, unlike YC, Uber isn't regulated as to fares and doesn't need to go to the PUC for rate adjustments. They could easily put outlying areas under permanent "surge" pricing to make it worthwhile for the drivers to go pick them up.


----------



## MidnightDriver

I_Like_Spam said:


> Of course, they can. But any driver can quit at any time, as well, and since there aren't any insurmountable obstacles from other tech firms to set up their own platforms, that's the reasons why they are unlikely to do that.


You might have a point if the competition were well established and had the name recognition that UBER does. But that's just not the case at present, even with LYFT. UBER pretty much controls the market forces in this industry. That may change in the future, but right now, UBER can pretty much do what they want.


----------



## Squirming Like A Toad

I_Like_Spam said:


> ...Of course, unlike YC, Uber isn't regulated as to fares and doesn't need to go to the PUC for rate adjustments. They could easily put outlying areas under permanent "surge" pricing to make it worthwhile for the drivers to go pick them up.


I agree, and that is the purpose of a surge, to get drivers into places where they wouldn't otherwise be to meet demand. If they did that, there would be drivers who specialize in remote areas, probably those with really low fuel costs and who don't appreciate the urban crowd, and there would be better service for those passengers.


----------



## Russ Reed

Mountainsoloist said:


> I have no problem with drivers doing that. Since it doesn't show the destination on the app you have to ask the potential passenger directly to know where they are going. Also, if the passenger lied to me I would cancel.


I 100% agree, gas is going up, min wage is hiking and SO IS EVERY sector of the industry. With that said: lets say its a 3.4 surge and you get a rider going 2 blocks as opposed to that same 3.4 surge and that PAX going to downtown which is 10 to 15 miles.

I know we can't be choosy, BUT we can be smart!!


----------



## FrankMartin

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Late night riders have been telling me the driver has been accepting the ping, calling them, asking where they are going and then cancelling the ride if they don't like it. There are at most 1 or 2 other drivers in the area when I am rolling so I think it's the same one. F him, if I can roll the dice so can he. Last night's event turned out to be a good fare, and it left me in a place where I got a $90 fare next. This is a slow period in the area, school is out and summer travel hasn't started yet and last night I went 2 hours without a fare, I'm either taking what I can get or staying home. Can't believe somebody can not be deactivated for too much of that.
> 
> Of course, I did my part to F him by telling the passenger to lie to the driver next time, look at the map and tell him you are going back to where he is, or I gave him a list of other places to tell the driver he is going to ensure he will come out. "Hey, my friend called and told me he wasn't going to be there, so I decided to go home instead."


As a driver that has done some accept/call/cancel or ACC let me do some splaining. In my NYC area there are two adjacent service areas where the fare structure is significantly discounted wrt to NY: CT and NJ. Nonsurge Jersey fares are .48 that of NY. Nonsurge CT fares are .6 that of NY. In Jersey I need to get something like a 2x surge to be on par w. NY and in CT I need 1.6x. Greenwich CT, hedge fund capital of the world, pays less for rides than adjacent, economically challenged, Port Chester NY.

So if we drop off deep in CT or NJ then we need to get-back. That is the situation I was doing ACC for. Calling clients to see if they were buying me closer to my home territory. This a crude form of direction filtering, a feature that uber has in beta in SF. Rather than release directional filtering to NYC, Uber has chosen to respond with a stick: they now track our driver-cancel/accepts rate and threaten deactivation if that rate is over 25%. So now, NJ and CT, if Im not feeling the surge then Im putting you in the rearview mirror.


----------



## Karl Marx

painfreepc said:


> Hear you Uber/Lyft guys complain about the stuff that we dealt with as taxi drivers for years but all you guys thought We taxi drivers were assholes,
> 
> Before you go talking crap about fare was higher for you taxi drivers,
> 
> When I started driving Yellow Cab in Pomona California in 2001, the daily rate for a 12 hour shift with $100 plus $0.10 per mile puls gas, I drove 6 days a week you add that up,
> 
> At least two or three days every week where i barely broke even, occasionally I will have a day with a total loss,
> 
> Now go cry me a river about not wanting to do short fares for no profit..
> 
> As Rat said, every single job (ride) cannot be profitable that's part of doing business..


The machine always has to be fed.


----------



## Rico Ramz

I have made about


MidnightDriver said:


> UBER need only to raise their acceptance rate and filter out the problem through deactivation. The only reason they don't do it now is because a lot of these drivers who practice it are making them a lot of money. Once they flood the market with drivers who can absorb that benefit, and sustain it consistently, then the hammer will fall. Make no mistake about that.
> 
> You're thinking short term
> 
> They're thinking long term
> 
> That's the _real_ problem with the way people are assessing the arguments around here....


With a few tweks here and there, the Uber app and the Uber tech co. Could be awesome for all parties involved, but Uber technology is so stupid greedy to admit it!
In the mean time hustle and stick it to the man! my fellow drivers!


----------



## Rico Ramz




----------



## kes1981

painfreepc said:


> Hear you Uber/Lyft guys complain about the stuff that we dealt with as taxi drivers for years but all you guys thought We taxi drivers were assholes,
> 
> Before you go talking crap about fare was higher for you taxi drivers,
> 
> When I started driving Yellow Cab in Pomona California in 2001, the daily rate for a 12 hour shift with $100 plus $0.10 per mile puls gas, I drove 6 days a week you add that up,
> 
> At least two or three days every week where i barely broke even, occasionally I will have a day with a total loss,
> 
> Now go cry me a river about not wanting to do short fares for no profit..
> 
> As Rat said, every single job (ride) cannot be profitable that's part of doing business..


How about this.... You take all the rides that aren't profitable and I'll take all the ones that are. I don't drive if I can't make a huge profit, you can have the scraps. If that doesn't work for you then it's time for you to adapt or move on.

If you give every ride you accept you are just plain stupid and I feel sorry for you. Somebody has to give unprofitable rides so I'm glad you guys are around. Thanks for helping me make money I guess.


----------



## Greguzzi

Dback2004 said:


> Amusing hypothetical, but not exactly comparing apples to apples.


Not identical, but not that different, either. This is what Uber asks us to do with every ping. They can't tell us how long the job will take or what it will pay or how far away it will take us, but they are really nice and give us 15 whole seconds to think it over. Travis loves us!


----------



## Roslyn

I_Like_Spam said:


> Here's what I can't wrap my brain around.
> 
> Drivers complain about being pinged from 47 minutes away for a trip of 0.2 miles, because they aren't going to make $$ on it, particularly when Mr. 2/10ths of a mile wipes out the supply of mints and bottled water.
> 
> Yet, when a driver acts proactively to find out the length of the trip before driving the far distance for the loser trip, some drivers want to snitch on the crafty driver.


If you are being pinged from 45min away, doesn't that show there are to few drivers in that area? If I put a little more time into the area the people may call Uber more?


----------



## dirtylee

I_Like_Spam said:


> How would it? If Uber disappeared this evening, never to return, people would still need rides, and the drivers and their cars would still be around to give it to them.
> 
> A short term logistics problem, but when it comes right down to it, it would probably mean more money, or at least the same, without Uber taking a big taste of each fare.


Check out Austin after uber left. Sure it's shaky but true drivers are making more now. No more bullshit rates.


----------



## Rico Ramz

We need an app in California that is driver owned and operated that will compete with cab drivers in a fair way and all the earnings would be kept by drivers and just a small amount, like 3 % for operations n stuff. We can call it bubba!  ;p is doable! Who is with me?


----------



## Chardra

I am a new Uber driver & I am frankly appalled @ some of my fellow drivers' lack of ethics on this matter, poor customer service skills, and blind greed. Remember why we got in this business. To work for ourselves, make money, and provide better service than cab drivers. When you call an Uber client who is depending upon you for a ride & you refuse them if it's where you don't want to go? Shame on you! You are no better than the unprincipled cab drivers who do this. You are paid to drive so effing drive! You will make money if you stop turning down fares.... it's that simple.


----------



## MidnightDriver

Rico Ramz said:


> I have made about
> 
> With a few tweks here and there, the Uber app and the Uber tech co. Could be awesome for all parties involved, but Uber technology is so stupid greedy to admit it!
> In the mean time hustle and stick it to the man! my fellow drivers!


Yes, but Rico, you do realize that the more money you make, the more money UBER makes. How exactly is that sticking it to the man.

Look, I have my complaints about the way UBER treats their drivers, but this strategy of filtering destinations by cancelling calls after you accept them is only going to hurt the drivers in the end. Any driver who doesn't see that is blinded by their own greed.


----------



## Rico Ramz

Greedy is Uber by cutting rates and taking 5% more from drivers, to make drivers work more hours, to make up for the scores of disappointed drivers that quit every week! Uber technologies, or you, have no moral fabric! and are the least qualified to call drivers greedy, Uber and your brainwashed self are sociopaths that don't give a care in the world about drivers feelings and concerns. That's why the sociopath leaders of Uber tech. are getting pounded left and right, by lawsuits. Not even the billions of dollars they have stollen from drivers and passengers are going to be enough to protect them selves from justice.


----------



## MidnightDriver

Greguzzi said:


> Not identical, but not that different, either.


Actually, it is quite different.

You, as a driver, do not solicit the customer, UBER does. You, as a driver, do not insure the customer, UBER does. You, as a driver, do not enter into a contract with the customer, UBER does. You, as a driver, do not collect the funds from the customer, UBER does. In fact, you don't even know the customer's real name, let alone their phone number. Relative to you, the driver, the passenger that is in your car is a _* customer*_ only in a manner of speaking.

It couldn't be more different...


----------



## Rico Ramz

MidnightDriver said:


> Yes, but Rico, you do realize that the more money you make, the more money UBER makes. How exactly is that sticking it to the man.
> 
> Look, I have my complaints about the way UBER treats their drivers, but this strategy of filtering destinations by cancelling calls after you accept them is only going to hurt the drivers in the end. Any driver who doesn't see that is blinded by their own greed.


Greedy is Uber by cutting rates and taking 5% more from drivers, to make drivers work more hours, to make up for the scores of disappointed drivers that quit every week! Uber technologies, or you, have no moral fabric! and are the least qualified to call drivers greedy, Uber and your brainwashed self are sociopaths that don't give a care in the world about drivers feelings and concerns. That's why the sociopath leaders of Uber tech. are getting pounded left and right, by lawsuits. Not even the billions of dollars they have stollen from drivers and passengers are going to be enough to protect them selves from justice.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

MidnightDriver said:


> Yes, but Rico, you do realize that the more money you make, the more money UBER makes. How exactly is that sticking it to the man.
> 
> Look, I have my complaints about the way UBER treats their drivers, but this strategy of filtering destinations by cancelling calls after you accept them is only going to hurt the drivers in the end. Any driver who doesn't see that is blinded by their own greed.


Not true, if a driver accepts a money-losing or break-even ride, Uber still makes money as they aren't sharing in any of the costs in time as well as gasoline, wear and tear, etc.

I don't see how being selective about what trips to accept will "hurt drivers in the end", or avoiding money losing scenarios is somehow "greedy".

Unfortunately, Uber's computer program doesn't provide enough information to the partner to allow an intelligent decision as to whether to accept a particular job. Calling the people is the only way to get that information.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

MidnightDriver said:


> What you, and people like you, don't understand is that you are using UBER's technology. Without that , you have no business, IC or otherwise, and UBER can use that technology any way they see fit, regardless of whatever rights you think you may have.


You are right, that Uber's technology is there for the drivers to use. This is what the drivers are paying a large booking fee and commish for.

But that doesn't mean that Uber is irreplaceable at all. The people still need rides, Uber has a technology to help get riders and drivers together but its hardly the only way out there. Long before Uber existed, before the internet existed, people who need rides and those providing them got together.

Being "deactivated" by Uber no more puts a hired driver out of business than does getting deactivated by Match.com make someone a dateless wonder.


----------



## MidnightDriver

I_Like_Spam said:


> Calling the people is the only way to get that information.


If UBER wanted you to have that information, they would give it to you, but they don't, and since they don't, then any driver who calls the customer to acquire this information is creating an unfair tactical advantage over the other drivers in the area who play by the rules and submit to the random process which favors no particular driver. This strategy, in the vast majority of cases, is done solely to maximize profits rather than provide customer service. It's greedy, selfish, unethical and unprofessional....and I would hazard a guess that anyone who practices it, with the sole intention of maximizing profit, knows that.

As I said before, if you have a customer who calls for a ride and there are other drivers in the area who accept the call and then cancel because they are screening for destination, then that's a problem and UBER isn't going to fix it by providing destinations.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

MidnightDriver said:


> if you have a customer who calls for a ride and there are other drivers in the area who accept the call and then cancel because they are screening for destination, then that's a problem and UBER isn't going to fix it by providing destinations.


Actually, it would fix the problem directly, if Uber provided the destination and other information, as drivers would know right away if they are going to be willing to take the trip, passengers would know if they were going to get the ride and about how long.

The problem that Uber might have with this is that a certain number of trips deemed unprofitable might be left on the table and not accepted by any driver and they wouldn't be able to collect a commish on those trips.

The policy they set up hopes to bully people into agreeing to accept a losing money proposition so they can collect a commish. Due to Uber's success in recruiting hundreds of thousands of new drivers, it may be successful in the short term.


----------



## Snowtop

MidnightDriver said:


> If UBER wanted you to have that information, they would give it to you, but they don't, and since they don't, then any driver who calls the customer to acquire this information is creating an unfair tactical advantage over the other drivers in the area who play by the rules and submit to the random process which favors no particular driver. This strategy, in the vast majority of cases, is done solely to maximize profits rather than provide customer service. It's greedy, selfish, unethical and unprofessional....and I would hazard a guess that anyone who practices it, with the sole intention of maximizing profit, knows that.
> 
> As I said before, if you have a customer who calls for a ride and there are other drivers in the area who accept the call and then cancel because they are screening for destination, then that's a problem and UBER isn't going to fix it by providing destinations.


This is not a game I am playing out here. There is no such thing as an 'unfair tactical advantage'. 'Maximize profits' is not some sort of dirty trick nor is it 'greedy, selfish, unethical and unprofessional'. It is the sole reason I driver for Uber.

Please tell me about any successful business, including Uber, whose goal is not to maximize profits.


----------



## MidnightDriver

I_Like_Spam said:


> Being "deactivated" by Uber no more puts a hired driver out of business than does getting deactivated by Match.com make someone a dateless wonder.


I'm not sure how I can state the obvious with any more clarity. Without the app, you have no business. Period.

And while we're on the subject...tell me, exactly what kind of business do you have. You don't solicit the customer. You don't enter into a contract with the customer. You don't insure the customer and you don't collect funds from the customer. What kind of business operates like that.

Without the app, you have nothing...and with the app, you have considerably less than what some people here seem to think they have.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

MidnightDriver said:


> then any driver who calls the customer to acquire this information is creating an unfair tactical advantage over the other drivers in the area who play by the rules and submit to the random process which favors no particular driver..


It isn't a competition, so "tactical advantage" isn't a relevant consideration. Every driver has the same opportunity to speak to the potential customer, work out a deal if they can or not, and make their own determination.


----------



## MidnightDriver

I_Like_Spam said:


> Actually, it would fix the problem directly, if Uber provided the destination and other information, as drivers would know right away if they are going to be willing to take the trip, passengers would know if they were going to get the ride and about how long.


It would only fix the problem of the driver calling the customer. It wouldn't fix the problem of leaving a customer stranded. I thought that much was obvious.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

MidnightDriver said:


> It would only fix the problem of the driver calling the customer. It wouldn't fix the problem of leaving a customer stranded. I thought that much was obvious.


The customer's problem of being stranded or not, isn't the partner's problem, so I can't see where it should be given much consideration.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

MidnightDriver said:


> Without the app, you have nothing...and with the app, you have considerably less than what some people here seem to think they have.


Without the app, there are other ways to get riders and drivers together, people gave rides for hire for generations before the computer was invented, and will do so long after this medium is forgotten.


----------



## MidnightDriver

Snowtop said:


> This is not a game I am playing out here. There is no such thing as an 'unfair tactical advantage'. 'Maximize profits' is not some sort of dirty trick nor is it 'greedy, selfish, unethical and unprofessional'. It is the sole reason I driver for Uber.
> 
> Please tell me about any successful business, including Uber, whose goal is not to maximize profits.


You think you have a business, do you?

You don't solicit the customer; You don't enter into a contract with the customer; You don't insure the customer and you don't collect funds from the customer. Since we're playing the analogy game, tell me what business operates like that...


----------



## I_Like_Spam

MidnightDriver said:


> You think you have a business, do you?
> 
> You don't solicit the customer; You don't enter into a contract with the customer; You don't insure the customer and you don't collect funds from the customer. Since we're playing the analogy game, tell me what business operates like that...


 A lot of doctor's offices act exactly like that, where the patient's payments go to Aetna or another 3rd party.


----------



## MidnightDriver

I give up. Anyone else want to take over, be my guest....


----------



## painfreepc

MidnightDriver said:


> Actually, it is quite different.
> 
> You, as a driver, do not solicit the customer, UBER does. You, as a driver, do not insure the customer, UBER does. You, as a driver, do not enter into a contract with the customer, UBER does. You, as a driver, do not collect the funds from the customer, UBER does. In fact, you don't even know the customer's real name, let alone their phone number. Relative to you, the driver, the passenger that is in your car is a _* customer*_ only in a manner of speaking.
> 
> It couldn't be more different...


As I've said many times before, we are nothing more than bus drivers on a non fixed-route.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

MidnightDriver said:


> I give up. Anyone else want to take over, be my guest....


Can we agree on these?

1. The interests of Uber and its partners do not always coincide and are sometimes in opposition to each other.

2. There is really no way for Uber to actual control the actions of its partners, they all have phones and cars. The cab companies switched from commish-based pay to leases when they realized that supervising drivers was an act of futility. A remote computer program can't do what field supervisors were unable to do in the past, particularly when Uber doesn't even own the means of production


----------



## UberHammer

MidnightDriver said:


> You think you have a business, do you?
> 
> You don't solicit the customer; You don't enter into a contract with the customer; You don't insure the customer and you don't collect funds from the customer. Since we're playing the analogy game, tell me what business operates like that...


Maximizing profit is done by everyone, unless they are operating as a non-profit. Even employees do it when they ask for a raise or find ways to reduce their spending. It's a fundamental of a society based on capitalism. If you don't like it, move to a country that isn't founded on capitalism.


----------



## Snowtop

MidnightDriver said:


> You think you have a business, do you?
> 
> You don't solicit the customer; You don't enter into a contract with the customer; You don't insure the customer and you don't collect funds from the customer. Since we're playing the analogy game, tell me what business operates like that...


I know of many 'independent consultants' that work via contracts secured by 3rd parties. They do no insure themselves, collect from the customer, or enter into the contract with the customer. It is exactly as you describe.

The most basic responsibility of any business is controlling profit and loss. Why should I or any Uber driver operate differently.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

iamkitkatbar said:


> Because your FORCED to drive right?


I think his entire point was that he's NOT. And therefore WON'T unless there's profit in it.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Chardra said:


> I am a new Uber driver & I am frankly appalled @ some of my fellow drivers' lack of ethics on this matter, poor customer service skills, and blind greed. Remember why we got in this business. To work for ourselves, make money, and provide better service than cab drivers. When you call an Uber client who is depending upon you for a ride & you refuse them if it's where you don't want to go? Shame on you! You are no better than the unprincipled cab drivers who do this. You are paid to drive so effing drive! You will make money if you stop turning down fares.... it's that simple.


"new member"


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

I_Like_Spam said:


> The customer's problem of being stranded or not, isn't the partner's problem, so I can't see where it should be given much consideration.


To add--if I were a pax and 3 drivers in a row called, asked my destination, and then said they couldn't take me, or just cancelled, I would be offering the 4th an incentive to come get me.

If the pax can't figure that out then too bad.


----------



## Snowtop

Personally I think all this whining about things being unfair is a direct result of participation trophies and the lets not keep score mentality. 

Life is unfair and you don't get ahead by just showing up. Get over yourselves. I know your momma told you that you were perfect and wonderful...she was lying to you.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

Fuzzyelvis said:


> To add--if I were a pax and 3 drivers in a row called, asked my destination, and then said they couldn't take me, or just cancelled, I would be offering the 4th an incentive to come get me.
> 
> If the pax can't figure that out then too bad.


The calls wouldn't be necessary if Uber were just to make the information about the trip known up-front.

As another idea, allowing the passengers to "name their own price" on their ride requests, like other technology companies like Priceline or Ebay already allow sounds like a way to get these trips covered without punishing a Uber partner- even if the punishments are supposed to be issued randomly as Uber claims.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Snowtop said:


> Personally I think all this whining about things being unfair is a direct result of participation trophies and the lets not keep score mentality.
> 
> Life is unfair and you don't get ahead by just showing up. Get over yourselves. I know your momma told you that you were perfect and wonderful...she was lying to you.


I'm 51. Never got a participation trophy in my life. And I don't just "show up" which is what the folks who simply take EVERY trip ARE doing.


----------



## Novus Caesar

Fuzzyelvis said:


> I'm 51. Never got a participation trophy in my life. And I don't just "show up" which is what the folks who simply take EVERY trip ARE doing.


Even the military awards a participation trophy. The Army gives every single soldier the Army Service Ribbon just for joining and finished your training. Since 1991, every single soldier in the Armed Forces has been given the National Defense Service Medal on the day you enlist. You do not even have to finish basic . . . Sad state of affairs.


----------



## Snowtop

Fuzzyelvis said:


> I'm 51. Never got a participation trophy in my life. And I don't just "show up" which is what the folks who simply take EVERY trip ARE doing.


Congratulations. But you probably argued that your kids should get them.


----------



## negeorgia

I just figure I am ignorant of what my riders have to do for money, so naturally they are ignorant of what I have to do for money. Had a young lady that said 'you mean you don't get all of the fare?'. I said no, when a rider pays $5, Uber gets 36%, that's right, the thing that I do the most, Uber takes the highest cut.


----------



## Flarpy

Chardra said:


> Remember why we got in this business. To work for ourselves, make money, and provide better service than cab drivers.


Bahaha yeah that last one never crossed my mind. You're kidding right? People drive for Uber because they're broke and they don't want to get a real job. Not because they've always dreamt, from the time they were kids, to "provide better service than cab drivers." That's ridiculous.



MidnightDriver said:


> this strategy of filtering destinations by cancelling calls after you accept them is only going to hurt the drivers in the end. Any driver who doesn't see that is blinded by their own greed.


 Assuming a tiny fraction of a percent of people STOP using ridesharing altogether because drivers will occasionally call to ask them where they're going and perhaps cancel because of that... the upside of calling and asking them where they're going offsets the tiny number of those lost customers.



MidnightDriver said:


> If UBER wanted you to have that information, they would give it to you, but they don't, and since they don't, then any driver who calls the customer to acquire this information is creating an unfair tactical advantage


 Don't hate the player hate the game.



> This strategy, in the vast majority of cases, is done solely to maximize profits rather than provide customer service. It's greedy, selfish, unethical and unprofessional....and I would hazard a guess that anyone who practices it, with the sole intention of maximizing profit, knows that.


Boo hoo hoo. Life is so unfair! If Uber wants to stop the practice, they can show destinations beforehand or they can prevent contacting riders completely. But if they want to treat me as an "independent contractor," they sure can't prohibit me from talking to my own so-called "clients" if it's technologically feasible to do so.


----------



## Rico Ramz

Smart drivers will and should do what is best for their interest, whether it is to save money on gas, or not wanting to drive farther than an area, where they like to operate. It is a business decision and if Uber sheep and riders don't like it, there are other alternatives; bicycles the least expensive, city bus, lyft, zipcar, yellow cab, green cab, etc.
Stop being shuch a cry baby! It is a business not charity. If you b i t c h about Uber X or XL, which is the cheapest out there in the taxi/ride share business, then you are a broke ass loser that can't afford it and you need to take the bus or other mass transportation. Amen reverend.


----------



## Novus Caesar

Rico Ramz said:


> Smart drivers will and should do what is best for their interest, whether it is to save money on gas, or not wanting to drive farther than an area, where they like to operate. It is a business decision and if Uber sheep and riders don't like it, there are other alternatives; bicycles the least expensive, city bus, lyft, zipcar, yellow cab, green cab, etc.
> Stop being shuch a cry baby! It is a business not charity. If you b i t c h about Uber X or XL, which is the cheapest out there in the taxi/ride share business, then you are a broke ass loser that can't afford it and you need to take the bus or other mass transportation. Amen reverend.


I hadn't thought about it, but even the cities and counties are smart enough to know when providing a service is not worth it. Bus routes are placed where they are will be USED. If no one is taking a bus, except one person, the city will shut down that route. The same is true for us. That is why I do not ride in certain areas of my city, because there are either too little pings, or they are not worth it--on average. If I am 20 minutes away, and get a ping I know is most likely going to to be $3.00, I am not going to take it for 20 minutes there and then 20 minutes back. Again, if Uber wants to guarantee me pay for working a specific amount of hours and taking all my pings, then fine. Offer that deal to me. Otherwise, I will not take it.


----------



## Squirming Like A Toad

Novus Caesar said:


> I hadn't thought about it, but even the cities and counties are smart enough to know when providing a service is not worth it. Bus routes are placed where they are will be USED. If no one is taking a bus, except one person, the city will shut down that route. The same is true for us. That is why I do not ride in certain areas of my city, because there are either too little pings, or they are not worth it--on average. If I am 20 minutes away, and get a ping I know is most likely going to to be $3.00, I am not going to take it for 20 minutes there and then 20 minutes back. Again, if Uber wants to guarantee me pay for working a specific amount of hours and taking all my pings, then fine. Offer that deal to me. Otherwise, I will not take it.


That's true, and the analog is there are certain times and places we don't drive, and sometimes distant pings we don't take.

But if a bus driver on the route refused to stop at a stop because there was only one passenger there, or made him give a tip or something if he was riding with the senior discount instead of paying full fare, he would be fired. Every stop or every ride isn't going to be profitable.

The reason why I think it's poor service toward the rider is he's not trying to screw you. He lives where he lives and he works where he works, and just like with a taxi he can't predict if there's going to be a driver right down the street or 10 miles away when he needs it. It won't be profitable in the long term if we get a reputation as a service that can't be trusted and people make other arrangements. I'm not saying everyone should drive to a ping 10 miles away but the guys who are calling every rider to make sure it's a great fare, and would rather sit in their car and read a newspaper than drive if they're not going to make $20 off it are not doing the job they agreed to do.

It's unethical toward the other drivers because assuming you are the closest car and you screen the fare, another driver who isn't as close and doesn't have the same habits is going to get it and you've already made sure it's not a great fare. So he is going to have to deadhead even further to get it, and the only way for him to avoid that is to be as lazy as you, then he's not making anything at all. When I look at the rider app I understand why there are a lot of drivers not making a profit, all congregating downtown hoping for easy rides, and a half hour later the same ones are still sitting there. I hope they're working on their novels while they wait, or else they're not making any money.


----------



## CatchyMusicLover

I would gladly maintain a 100% acceptance rate if it meant getting a guaranteed amount no matter what. Lyft only requires a 90% for guaranteed hours...but you have to actually get a ride in an hour.

And you know, back to the issue of 'don't drive if you don't wanna work' -- I've asked this multiple times and never gotten a response from someone who posts that bullcrap. How long it is reasonable to be 'forced' to take rides? An hour? Two hours? According to some, if I'm on app I should be willing to give up four hours AT ANY TIME just because someone happens to want a two hour ride away from home. I know I'm not the only one who sees this as ridiculous.
I keep seeing it mentioned about how taxi drivers have to, laws, etc....but if a taxi driver has am 8 hour shift, and it's 7.5 hours in, do they really have to accept that two hour ride? How in the holy hells is that even legal? Or hell, many places have restrictions on how long you're even allowed to be driving in the first place.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> I'm not saying everyone should drive to a ping 10 miles away but the guys who are calling every rider to make sure it's a great fare, and would rather sit in their car and read a newspaper than drive if they're not going to make $20 off it are not doing the job they agreed to do..


Look at it a different way.

If someone lives out in the boonies, but they are going to the airport or some other choice location, its worthwhile for drivers to make the trip to go out and pick them up, even if they aren't close.

If no one calls them to find out the facts, they won't bother going out at all figuring that its a loser, the people will miss their flight.

Uber needs to get the information out to the people, if they want the service to be reliable in the long run.

Right now, hundreds of new uber drivers are being minted daily, most places its likely that some fool is willing to drive out to a distant location for a short trip. At the current time. This will change, people won't put up with this kind of thing indefinitely, and it will be sooner rather than later.


----------



## Novus Caesar

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> But if a bus driver on the route refused to stop at a stop because there was only one passenger there, or made him give a tip or something if he was riding with the senior discount instead of paying full fare, he would be fired. Every stop or every ride isn't going to be profitable.


Bus drivers are paid a salary or wage with benefits no matter how many people they pick up. As I said, do that for me, which Uber sometimes has done, and I will gladly drive wherever to pickup riders. Leave me on my own to make my own money and I will make sure I stay in the nice areas to make constant rides.


----------



## Laronda

Snitchs get stitches!


----------



## Snowtop

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> That's true, and the analog is there are certain times and places we don't drive, and sometimes distant pings we don't take.
> 
> But if a bus driver on the route refused to stop at a stop because there was only one passenger there, or made him give a tip or something if he was riding with the senior discount instead of paying full fare, he would be fired. Every stop or every ride isn't going to be profitable.
> 
> The reason why I think it's poor service toward the rider is he's not trying to screw you. He lives where he lives and he works where he works, and just like with a taxi he can't predict if there's going to be a driver right down the street or 10 miles away when he needs it. It won't be profitable in the long term if we get a reputation as a service that can't be trusted and people make other arrangements. I'm not saying everyone should drive to a ping 10 miles away but the guys who are calling every rider to make sure it's a great fare, and would rather sit in their car and read a newspaper than drive if they're not going to make $20 off it are not doing the job they agreed to do.
> 
> It's unethical toward the other drivers because assuming you are the closest car and you screen the fare, another driver who isn't as close and doesn't have the same habits is going to get it and you've already made sure it's not a great fare. So he is going to have to deadhead even further to get it, and the only way for him to avoid that is to be as lazy as you, then he's not making anything at all. When I look at the rider app I understand why there are a lot of drivers not making a profit, all congregating downtown hoping for easy rides, and a half hour later the same ones are still sitting there. I hope they're working on their novels while they wait, or else they're not making any money.


This is bordering on the absurd.

Bus drivers are paid a salary and do no lose money because the route they are assigned to is not profitable. They do no purchase gas, maintain the vehicle, buy insurance, or depreciate the vehicle.

He chose to live where he lives and work where he works. I chose not to subsidize his commute to work. That is the job of the Government, and with all the faults of the government, handing our subsidies is something they are really good at.

Now I am responsible for another driver through ignorance, laziness, or some misguided sense of loyality to Uber is going to get stuck with a bad fare. If he is concerned that he may have to deadhead to far....maybe he should call ahead to find out if it will be a money maker.


----------



## Rico Ramz

Rico Ramz said:


> Greedy is Uber by cutting rates and taking 5% more from drivers, to make drivers work more hours, to make up for the scores of disappointed drivers that quit every week! Uber technologies, or you, have no moral fabric! and are the least qualified to call drivers greedy, Uber and your brainwashed self are sociopaths that don't give a care in the world about drivers feelings and concerns. That's why the sociopath leaders of U





Squirming Like A Toad said:


> That's true, and the analog is there are certain times and places we don't drive, and sometimes distant pings we don't take.
> 
> But if a bus driver on the route refused to stop at a stop because there was only one passenger there, or made him give a tip or something if he was riding with the senior discount instead of paying full fare, he would be fired. Every stop or every ride isn't going to be profitable.
> 
> The reason why I think it's poor service toward the rider is he's not trying to screw you. He lives where he lives and he works where he works, and just like with a taxi he can't predict if there's going to be a driver right down the street or 10 miles away when he needs it. It won't be profitable in the long term if we get a reputation as a service that can't be trusted and people make other arrangements. I'm not saying everyone should drive to a ping 10 miles away but the guys who are calling every rider to make sure it's a great fare, and would rather sit in their car and read a newspaper than drive if they're not going to make $20 off it are not doing the job they agreed to do.
> 
> It's unethical toward the other drivers because assuming you are the closest car and you screen the fare, another driver who isn't as close and doesn't have the same habits is going to get it and you've already made sure it's not a great fare. So he is going to have to deadhead even further to get it, and the only way for him to avoid that is to be as lazy as you, then he's not making anything at all. When I look at the rider app I understand why there are a lot of drivers not making a profit, all congregating downtown hoping for easy rides, and a half hour later the same ones are still sitting there. I hope they're working on their novels while they wait, or else they're not making any money.


Here we go, it's a business not a political career! what do you know about ethics anyway? I bet you never took a class in school. How come any of you uber sheep never talk about all un-ethical and illegal business, that uber technologies does and the reason why they have been sued by so many?
You bore everyone with the same crap coming out of your mouths, time and again!


----------



## hulksmash

Providing a base fare of $1 to $2 for every ride should cover deadhead. At $.54 a mile, it should cover an average of 2-4 miles per pickup. Otherwise this is absorbed through time and distance fare. 

Me personally, I will take almost any ride within a reasonable distance if I am starting my shift, especially if it is slow. However, I will not pick up a non surge fare when sitting in the middle of a large surge zone. I also screen rides occasionally, but mostly when I am far from home and want to avoid being pulled farther. I will try my luck accepting a few pings hoping to get someone in my direction, but I will politely explain why I can't go in their direction. After all, we are ride share, and can refuse fares If I can't accomadate it


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Snowtop said:


> Congratulations. But you probably argued that your kids should get them.


I have no kids. So no.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

CatchyMusicLover said:


> I would gladly maintain a 100% acceptance rate if it meant getting a guaranteed amount no matter what. Lyft only requires a 90% for guaranteed hours...but you have to actually get a ride in an hour.
> 
> And you know, back to the issue of 'don't drive if you don't wanna work' -- I've asked this multiple times and never gotten a response from someone who posts that bullcrap. How long it is reasonable to be 'forced' to take rides? An hour? Two hours? According to some, if I'm on app I should be willing to give up four hours AT ANY TIME just because someone happens to want a two hour ride away from home. I know I'm not the only one who sees this as ridiculous.
> I keep seeing it mentioned about how taxi drivers have to, laws, etc....but if a taxi driver has am 8 hour shift, and it's 7.5 hours in, do they really have to accept that two hour ride? How in the holy hells is that even legal? Or hell, many places have restrictions on how long you're even allowed to be driving in the first place.


That's my excuse now for any long trip I don't want. "Sorry, but I can only drive another 20 minutes because it's illegal as per city ordinance for me to drive more than 12 hours."

They may not be happy, but they'll also be thinking maybe they don't want a driver that tired driving them. And if they ask why I'm not going home I'll tell them most trips are short (true) and that I need to work as much as I can since uber cut rates again.

Let them worry tired drivers are everywhere because of rate cuts and that this is also going to cause problems getting rides. I'm good with that.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

MidnightDriver said:


> Like I said to Rico, if you're tipping the system in your favor to maximize profit, then you're actually making more money for these billionaires that you have such contempt for. .


I don't have contempt for anyone, personally. But how do you figure this?

If a driver leaves a trip on the table, instead of taking it, Uber doesn't collect a commish on it (unless someone else were to take it, of course).

The Uber protocol of not revealing the destination of the trip is designed to trick drivers into taking distant pings without assessing whether or not its worth it or not.

Uber wants all of the trips serviced, regardless of whether that is in the best interest of the Partners.


----------



## UberRose

I didn't read 18 pages of this conversation but now if a rider calls me when I am 30 minutes away and he has to go only 5 minutes away, I rate him 1 star. PERIOD!!!!


----------



## Novus Caesar

UberRose said:


> I didn't read 18 pages of this conversation but now if a rider calls me when I am 30 minutes away and he has to go only 5 minutes away, I rate him 1 star. PERIOD!!!!


Won't impact him or her. I've never known a passenger booted from Uber for too low of ratings. You are still screwed for a one hour trip (30 there and 30 back) at $3.


----------



## Novus Caesar

Maybe if uber footed the bill of mileage from where you got pinged to the pickup location it would solve this. Or billed the customer. After all, you are supposedly the closest driver. Don't see that happening though.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

UberRose said:


> I didn't read 18 pages of this conversation but now if a rider calls me when I am 30 minutes away and he has to go only 5 minutes away, I rate him 1 star. PERIOD!!!!


Is that really fair, I mean, does the passenger know that you are coming from 30 minutes away? For all he knows, you are right around the block, or if more distant, driving his way anyhow with another passenger.


----------



## ChortlingCrison

I_Like_Spam said:


> Is that really fair, I mean, does the passenger know that you are coming from 30 minutes away? For all he knows, you are right around the block, or if more distant, driving his way anyhow with another passenger.


Fair or not, I'm not going to drive 30 minutes for a pickup and not know the destination.


----------



## UberRose

I_Like_Spam said:


> Is that really fair, I mean, does the passenger know that you are coming from 30 minutes away? For all he knows, you are right around the block, or if more distant, driving his way anyhow with another passenger.


I asked about this to one of the passengers who did it to me. I politely said " Was there anyone closer than me to pick you up?"....I asked them if they see how many minutes far away I am from them while selecting me...They said that they do and they chose a driver half an hour away because they had to take a shower and get ready to go. When I heard this explanation that was it for me!!!...That means they do know that I am far away and still they call me for a 5 minute ride?!!!...This is rideshare....not a taxi on order....They need to be courteous towards us drivers also and not request a driver 30 minutes away when they are clearly given an option of drivers to choose from on their uber app. If they didn't have a choice then I would say it is unfair. But they do have a choice of drivers on their list. So , it is fair.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

Novus Caesar said:


> Maybe if uber footed the bill of mileage from where you got pinged to the pickup location it would solve this. Or billed the customer. After all, you are supposedly the closest driver. Don't see that happening though.


Higher rates for outlying areas is another solution


----------



## hulksmash

UberRose said:


> I asked about this to one of the passengers who did it to me. I politely said " Was there anyone closer than me to pick you up?"....I asked them if they see how many minutes far away I am from them while selecting me...They said that they do and they chose a driver half an hour away because they had to take a shower and get ready to go. When I heard this explanation that was it for me!!!...That means they do know that I am far away and still they call me for a 5 minute ride?!!!...This is rideshare....not a taxi on order....They need to be courteous towards us drivers also and not request a driver 30 minutes away when they are clearly given an option of drivers to choose from on their uber app. If they didn't have a choice then I would say it is unfair. But they do have a choice of drivers on their list. So , it is fair.


If you're coming from that far you're not likely the closest. Either other drivers ignored pings or cancelled, or rider cancelled several others before you. Likely the latter since he wanted to have a car reserved as early as possible to avoid lack of available cars or surge once he was actually ready


----------



## hulksmash

I_Like_Spam said:


> Higher rates for outlying areas is another solution


This usually happens in the form of surge pricing when there aren't enough cars to meet demand. So dont be the only car in any large area. If you are, log off since it will likely surge, then log back on when it does


----------



## SCdave

NJShawn said:


> So if more people want to use Uber that doesnt benefit you? I would say that it does


Normally I would say yes. But in the Uber/Lyft Model of controlling Drivers like they are Employees but requiring Drivers to be compensated as Independent Contractors who must carry the capital/running costs (or pay a lease/rental fee) for their vehicles without any equity interest...NO more people using Uber is not a long-term benefit for drivers at this time.

Maybe a few years ago when rates were 100+% higher and the TNC service was still still not that well known , but not now.

If Uber ridership goes down, Lyft ridership will go up. If Uber/Lyft ridership both go down, then Juno or another App will fill the void. Unless Drivers are adequately compensated for their capital contribution and high running costs, again NO.

The only model I would say YES to would be the one Juno is floating to give Equity Interest in their company to Drivers. With Equity Interest or if I was a traditional Employee only one TNC then a big YES to more people benefiting me. In this case, I'm all customer service

And by NO, I obviously don't mean 100% no but that it just isn't that important anymore for drivers in the long term (only for very short times over a one day period re Surge, that's it). Now for Uber and Lyft though, Big Deal so they can keep getting more investment money.


----------



## Demon

I can't imagine what drivers are complaining about. You all know this is the system, complain about it, but keep driving anyway.


----------



## Greguzzi

Chardra said:


> I am a new Uber driver & I am frankly appalled @ some of my fellow drivers' lack of ethics on this matter, poor customer service skills, and blind greed. Remember why we got in this business. To work for ourselves, make money, and provide better service than cab drivers. When you call an Uber client who is depending upon you for a ride & you refuse them if it's where you don't want to go? Shame on you! You are no better than the unprincipled cab drivers who do this. You are paid to drive so effing drive! You will make money if you stop turning down fares.... it's that simple.


LOL. Check back in six months and you might have wised up in the meantime.



Squirming Like A Toad said:


> That's true, and the analog is there are certain times and places we don't drive, and sometimes distant pings we don't take.
> 
> But if a bus driver on the route refused to stop at a stop because there was only one passenger there, or made him give a tip or something if he was riding with the senior discount instead of paying full fare, he would be fired. Every stop or every ride isn't going to be profitable.
> 
> The reason why I think it's poor service toward the rider is he's not trying to screw you. He lives where he lives and he works where he works, and just like with a taxi he can't predict if there's going to be a driver right down the street or 10 miles away when he needs it. It won't be profitable in the long term if we get a reputation as a service that can't be trusted and people make other arrangements. I'm not saying everyone should drive to a ping 10 miles away but the guys who are calling every rider to make sure it's a great fare, and would rather sit in their car and read a newspaper than drive if they're not going to make $20 off it are not doing the job they agreed to do.
> 
> It's unethical toward the other drivers because assuming you are the closest car and you screen the fare, another driver who isn't as close and doesn't have the same habits is going to get it and you've already made sure it's not a great fare. So he is going to have to deadhead even further to get it, and the only way for him to avoid that is to be as lazy as you, then he's not making anything at all. When I look at the rider app I understand why there are a lot of drivers not making a profit, all congregating downtown hoping for easy rides, and a half hour later the same ones are still sitting there. I hope they're working on their novels while they wait, or else they're not making any money.


That is a totally ******ed analogy. The bus driver is paid a salary, no matter how many people he picks up, and he does not pay the expenses for the bus.

Also, this is not a zero-sum game. A trip that I would turn down every time (to a distant suburb way away from my kill zone, for example) might be the best possible trip for another driver who lives in that suburb and needs to catch a fare to take him home. Not all drivers have the same needs, in other words.

Uber fashes itself a technology company, rather than what it clearly is: a slightly more elegant but uninspired update of the dumb, old cab paradigm.

If Uber wants to prove it is a technology company, it will solve the problem of matching riders to drivers who want to go where the passenger wants to go. I could show them means of doing this, if they are too dull to imagine their own ways. This is not rocket surgery.


----------



## Rico Ramz

Demon said:


> I can't imagine what drivers are complaining about. You all know this is the system, complain about it, but keep driving anyway.


Drivers go and hustle the predatory system that Uber has set up. Go my fellow drivers! be smart and do whatever you have to do to be more profitable, stay strong, be an awesome driver, pursue what is best for your interest. Don't let Uber minion's brain wash you. Don't be complaisant with what little earnings you been making for the past 6 months. Hustle! Until Uber management changes the system for the mutual benefit of all partners, or hopefully until we all unite and create our own driver owned app and become independent from greedy money grubbers!
Go drivers!!!


----------



## Flarpy

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> The reason why I think it's poor service toward the rider is he's not trying to screw you.


I don't care if it's poor customer service or not.



> It's unethical toward the other drivers


Even if that's true, I just don't care.



MidnightDriver said:


> I'm 59 years old, a former Marine, and I'm not a damn Liberal. The problem with the culture today is that it doesn't understand what honor is, let alone morals or ethics...but what else would you expect from a Godless, Liberal society....


Pat Buchanan is that you???



MidnightDriver said:


> Like I said to Rico, if you're tipping the system in your favor to maximize profit, then you're actually making more money for these billionaires that you have such contempt for.


I fail to see the logic in this statement but even if true, I really don't care.



> You know little to nothing about honor, let alone morals or ethics.


Those who've served in the military are used to being abused and hung out to dry. Veterans get the shaft every day. Following their lead when it comes to "ethics" is sure to get oneself brutally buttraped.



> As I said before, you should thank your lucky stars you have what you have, because it isn't your moral fabric or your intelligence that has brought you to where you are...


Self-sacrifice is not my strong suit. I do find it interesting that you hold your own up as if it's some sort of virtue rather than what it really is: an inability to stand up for, and take pride in, your own interests.


----------



## MidnightDriver

I_Like_Spam said:


> I don't have contempt for anyone, personally. But how do you figure this?
> 
> If a driver leaves a trip on the table, instead of taking it, Uber doesn't collect a commish on it (unless someone else were to take it, of course).


I'm talking about the individual. I thought that much was clear.
If the individual is making more money, then obviously, so is UBER, from that individual.


----------



## MidnightDriver

I_Like_Spam said:


> Uber wants all of the trips serviced, regardless of whether that is in the best interest of the Partners.


Then don't accept the call.

I have no problem with a driver who passes on a call, but once you accept, then honor it. It's that simple


----------



## Flarpy

MidnightDriver said:


> once you accept, then honor it.


I'm gonna deny that request. In other words: No.

Something you can't say too often in the military, can you?


----------



## Michaelsrumberger

Honestly I only call customers and See where they are going because I refuse to go to New York , it's not worth my time and the money is shit


----------



## stuber

Greguzzi said:


> Hogwash.
> 
> A ride that is my nightmare would likely be the dream ride for another driver. If Uber wants to avoid further regulation, they need to figure out a better means of matching riders with drivers that want to go where the passenger wants to go. They claim to be a technology company. Let them prove that and earn their commission by solving this problem. Until they do that, we drivers are forced to do what we have to do to get the information to decide whether any given ride is one we want to take.


This sums it up. Excellent.

They're just a taxi company with a nifty dispatch. I cannot use their system because I don't get destinations prior to accepting a call. Fix this basic problem.


----------



## UberRose

hulksmash said:


> If you're coming from that far you're not likely the closest. Either other drivers ignored pings or cancelled, or rider cancelled several others before you. Likely the latter since he wanted to have a car reserved as early as possible to avoid lack of available cars or surge once he was actually ready


Uber is an instant on demand service. There should order it when they are ready. The fact that they see that I am 30 minutes away should make them think that "she is going to come all the way from do far just to pick me up so that I can go to the laundromat which is only 5 minutes way?!!!" They need to be courteous enough to think that way. If other drivers cancelled they need to pick one who is a few minutes away only. Picking someone who is 30 minutes away for a 5 minutes ride is plain out right cruel, selfish and not caring.....and that's why such passengers get a 1 star from me now.


----------



## Rico Ramz

MidnightDriver said:


> I'm talking about the individual. I thought that much was clear.
> If the individual is making more money, then obviously, so is UBER, from that individual.


Drivers don't care if the company benefits, as long as it works for drivers bottom line, then is all fair game! Smart drivers do what is best for them. If you are a driver, which I doubt, then take all the trips, take them all, is your choice, but no body is going to do as you say, because you are a no body. Amen Reverend.


----------



## stuber

Tim In Cleveland said:


> You couldn't be any more WRONG. The other driver is a independent contractor with the RIGHT to choose the jobs he wants. Uber knocks themselves out to try and deprive you of that right by hiding the destination, hiding the pax name, and frequently even hiding their rating. It's just plain stupid to drive 20 minutes to a pax (then 20 minutes back to your home or the busy area) to give someone a 10 minute ride to earn $2.00. You should be embarrassed that you are so wrong. If I call and they claim a long ride and then I get there and find out it's a short trip, I will IMMEDIATELY kick their nasty, lying ass out of my car and not their name/location so I never pick them up again.


Agreed. Blind dispatch is the fundamental problem with Uber, and the whole taxi industry in general. Drivers and passengers should be matched wherever possible according to their mutual interest in going to the destination. If no match is currently available, then, there's an opportunity for a negotiation. But the point is simple.
Display all pertinent information prior to the trip. Then both drivers and passengers can work out the prices.


----------



## Rico Ramz

Greguzzi said:


> If Uber wants to prove it is a technology company


Actually, Uber technologies is not a company, it's a startup.


----------



## Rico Ramz

Novus Caesar said:


> Won't impact him or her. I've never known a passenger booted from Uber for too low of ratings. You are still screwed for a one hour trip (30 there and 30 back) at $3.


It will impact the rider by drivers not wanting to pick the pax due to their low ratings. I am an awesome driver, so I have picked up riders with 3.0 ratings, but as soon as I see bad attitude, or cussing... I kick their stinking butts out of my efing car!!!  ;p


----------



## I_Like_Spam

MidnightDriver said:


> Then don't accept the call.
> 
> I have no problem with a driver who passes on a call, but once you accept, then honor it. It's that simple


 The driver is just getting the information about the trip by calling, so he knows whether or not he wants to actually accept it or not.

If the trip is a money loser, the call will reveal that.


----------



## Greguzzi

typically valued in negative dollars. Uber is -Rico Ramz said:


> Actually, Uber technologies is not a company, it's a startup.


Startups are typically in small or negative valuation stages. Uber is worth $60 billion. It is no longer a startup.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

Rico Ramz said:


> Actually, Uber technologies is not a company, it's a startup.


Its a privately held corporation, I don't think that it qualifies as a "startup" at this point in time, any more than Koch Industries does, which is also privately held.


----------



## Snowtop

A start up can be a company but not all companies are start ups.


----------



## Squirming Like A Toad

UberRose said:


> Uber is an instant on demand service. There should order it when they are ready. The fact that they see that I am 30 minutes away should make them think that "she is going to come all the way from do far just to pick me up so that I can go to the laundromat which is only 5 minutes way?!!!" They need to be courteous enough to think that way. If other drivers cancelled they need to pick one who is a few minutes away only. Picking someone who is 30 minutes away for a 5 minutes ride is plain out right cruel, selfish and not caring.....and that's why such passengers get a 1 star from me now.


But they didn't pick you. They got you. Do you think they wanted to wait 30 minutes? You don't always know who that person is either, I get old people, handicapped people, pregnant woman etc.


----------



## Snowtop

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> But they didn't pick you. They got you. Do you think they wanted to wait 30 minutes? You don't always know who that person is either, I get old people, handicapped people, pregnant woman etc.


Which of the above conditions does not allow for them to be ready to go before they even request a ride? No saying they need to be standing on the curb (that would be nice) but at least ready to head out the door when they see me coming. The app does inform them of my progress toward them.


----------



## Mayday

Yuri Lygotme said:


> 1
> 
> you too, you need to get the basics about what's the difference between an employee and an IC.


Not really. I've worked as an independent contractor for more than 10 years and done well for myself. Get your financial advice from a professional.


----------



## Yuri Lygotme

Mayday said:


> I've worked as a private contractor for the last 10 years. Get your financial advice from a professional.


Ok big shot, quote me on where I was wrong exactly? show me evidence from IRS or DOL websites that I was I incorrect on that topic.


----------



## rocksteady

It's not fare to passengers and so I understand why uber doesn't reveal the destination until the trip begins. Put yourself in the pax shoes. You rely on uber to take you to a destination but have trouble getting back because drivers don't want to do the trip to a low demand area or the cost in dead miles is prohibitive. The issue could be greatly reduced if fare prices were better or if fares prices were dynamic--accounting for the distance to the pickup and dead miles if the drop is in a low demand area. If the fare prices were 50 percent more, than those rides with higher costs would be tolerable as average earnings would be much better. With bargain basement fares, Uber has limited what drivers with half a brain are willing to do. Low fares are costly. They hurt drivers, passengers and Uber, ultimately. But try explaining that to a company that has proven time and again that it lacks basic business sense.


----------



## Squirming Like A Toad

Snowtop said:


> Which of the above conditions does not allow for them to be ready to go before they even request a ride? No saying they need to be standing on the curb (that would be nice) but at least ready to head out the door when they see me coming. The app does inform them of my progress toward them.


The way I drive to a ping, they are gambling with a cxl that way. $10 in my market.


----------



## Squirming Like A Toad

rocksteady said:


> It's not fare to passengers and so I understand why uber doesn't reveal the destination until the trip begins. Put yourself in the pax shoes. You rely on uber to take you to a destination but have trouble getting back because drivers don't want to do the trip to a low demand area or the cost in dead miles is prohibitive. The issue could be greatly reduced if fare prices were better or if fares prices were dynamic--accounting for the distance to the pickup and dead miles if the drop is in a low demand area. If the fare prices were 50 percent more, than those rides with higher costs would be tolerable as average earnings would be much better. With bargain basement fares, Uber has limited what drivers with half a brain are willing to do. Low fares are costly. They hurt drivers, passengers and Uber, ultimately. But try explaining that to a company that has proven time and again that it lacks basic business sense.


If there are no drivers in an area, there should be a surge there. That's what a surge is for. They base the surges too much on demand and not enough on supply, which isn't good because the two are always relative. Waiting 20 minutes for a ride isn't fun for the passenger either, and if they do it right they can use the surges to ensure no one is more than 10 minutes or so from a driver. Hopefully they'll figure it out.


----------



## Yuri Lygotme

Bottom line: uber cannot guarantee a certain level of service because they chose to use IC instead of employees. Can't have your cake and eat it too. If uber want to guarantee a certain acceptance rate, there is no other way around it: make drivers employees. But as IC, and sadly too many people here refuse to understand the difference - the drivers have NO OBLIGATION to accept a ride.


----------



## Yuri Lygotme

MidnightDriver said:


> Then don't accept the call.
> 
> I have no problem with a driver who passes on a call, but once you accept, then honor it. It's that simple


You would have a valid point... IF... if the driver was an employee.

But since uber drivers are IC, they are not under any obligation to honor the call.

It's that simple.


----------



## tohunt4me

Rat said:


> Sec. 46-119 makes Housron liable for the death, injury, or damage done by any passenger. First cabbie or Uber driver gets killed the city will pay out millions of dollars. The law also absolves drivers of trespassing on private property and makes the city liable when he does so. A man carrying a Machete in one hand and severed skull in the other can force you to drive down a dark alley and you're not allowed to refuse. Houston has idiots writing their ordinances.


The machette AND the head go in the trunk in plastic !

No exceptions !


----------



## Ray H

I_Like_Spam said:


> Why would you screw around with your brother driver? All he was trying to do is to not take a fare that is a losing proposition.


You are right .He shouldn't give riders advice


----------



## stuber

rocksteady said:


> It's not fare to passengers and so I understand why uber doesn't reveal the destination until the trip begins. Put yourself in the pax shoes. You rely on uber to take you to a destination but have trouble getting back because drivers don't want to do the trip to a low demand area or the cost in dead miles is prohibitive. The issue could be greatly reduced if fare prices were better or if fares prices were dynamic--accounting for the distance to the pickup and dead miles if the drop is in a low demand area. If the fare prices were 50 percent more, than those rides with higher costs would be tolerable as average earnings would be much better. With bargain basement fares, Uber has limited what drivers with half a brain are willing to do. Low fares are costly. They hurt drivers, passengers and Uber, ultimately. But try explaining that to a company that has proven time and again that it lacks basic business sense.


No, what's fair for all concerned, is to have a free and transparent marketplace.

Hiding destination just puts the driver in a disadvantaged position where he cannot bargain for a fair price on any particular request.

This practice also hurts the passenger because of the higher rates of refusals and cancellations.

The taxi mentality is built-in to Uber. The systems Uber has at their disposal should allow them to evolve way past that kind of antiquated approach.


----------



## Yuri Lygotme

Rico Ramz said:


> why call an "uber X" are people that cheap, that they value their own life so low, to call such a cheap ride service?


makes you wonder... 72 year old Uber driver ran red light, Uber rider dead.
http://www.wftv.com/news/local/73-y...ult-in-fatal-crash-involving-deputy/228152824


----------



## I_Like_Spam

stuber said:


> The taxi mentality is built-in to Uber. The systems Uber has at their disposal should allow them to evolve way past that kind of antiquated approach.


In the taxi business, at least in Pittsburgh in the 90's, they always let the drivers know about the destination, and if someone was a regular customer, on those trips outside greater downtown and the east end- where the vast majority of the business was.

Its fair to the driver, fair to the passenger.


----------



## Demon

Rico Ramz said:


> if people with disabilities need a ride, they need to call the proper uber service, such as uber assist, or if people with a medical emergency have to go to the hospital, they need to call an ambulance! why call an "uber X" are people that cheap, that they value their own life so low, to call such a cheap ride service?!
> Jesus eFing Christ!!! >(


UberX is the proper service for both.


----------



## 2MsBandT

Rico Ramz said:


> if people with disabilities need a ride, they need to call the proper uber service, such as uber assist, or if people with a medical emergency have to go to the hospital, they need to call an ambulance! why call an "uber X" are people that cheap, that they value their own life so low, to call such a cheap ride service?!
> Jesus eFing Christ!!! >(


People are that cheap. "I think I'm having a heart attack, let me call an Uber"!

Or the one where the couple called an Uber because the women was in labor, but the first driver refused the ride and was admonished by others as well as Uber.


----------



## Rico Ramz

Demon said:


> UberX is the proper service for both.


You are laughable!


----------



## Demon

2MsBandT said:


> People are that cheap. "I think I'm having a heart attack, let me call an Uber"!
> 
> Or the one where the couple called an Uber because the women was in labor, but the first driver refused the ride and was admonished by others as well as Uber.


In that situation what the driver did was clearly illegal, so yes, there were consequences.


----------



## Demon

Rico Ramz said:


> You are laughable!


I can live with that. I couldn't live with being a deplorable person who treated people with disabilities poorly.


----------



## R44KDEN

I call every rider and while I "accept" every ping, I dont drive to every pick up. I make all the drivers who work with us do exactly the same, with the only exception being pick ups from the Denver Airport.

Uber is less than 10% of our business. We are a small livery operator with 4 cars. As an IC, I wont be told by Uber who and who I shouldn't pick up. In the year since I have been ubering, I have had 1 rider in 1500+ trips complain to me over the phone that "I am not allowed to ask the destination". It was a short call from then on and I canceled the trip (even though it would have been a $180 trip to the airport). We wont pick up anyone with less than 4.7 (no exceptions). I didnt create the rating system, Uber did.

I live in a relatively small town and am the only black car. There are probably only 5-6 UberX cars here - and even less early mornings. I wont pick up from Supermarkets or Walmart and if the trip distance is more than 10 mins and the job isnt worth it, I always decline. UberBlack requests throw the net out to up to 30 mins (as opposed to around 10+ mins for X requests) - at least they do in Colorado.

Bottom line is this. My car, my rules. Utilization is everything in our game. Uber is nothing more than a prospecting tool for our private business.


----------



## Old Rocker

R44KDEN said:


> I call every rider and while I "accept" every ping, I dont drive to every pick up. I make all the drivers who work with us do exactly the same, with the only exception being pick ups from the Denver Airport.
> 
> Uber is less than 10% of our business. We are a small livery operator with 4 cars. As an IC, I wont be told by Uber who and who I shouldn't pick up. In the year since I have been ubering, I have had 1 rider in 1500+ trips complain to me over the phone that "I am not allowed to ask the destination". It was a short call from then on and I canceled the trip (even though it would have been a $180 trip to the airport). We wont pick up anyone with less than 4.7 (no exceptions). I didnt create the rating system, Uber did.
> 
> I live in a relatively small town and am the only black car. There are probably only 5-6 UberX cars here - and even less early mornings. I wont pick up from Supermarkets or Walmart and if the trip distance is more than 10 mins and the job isnt worth it, I always decline. UberBlack requests throw the net out to up to 30 mins (as opposed to around 10+ mins for X requests) - at least they do in Colorado.
> 
> Bottom line is this. My car, my rules. Utilization is everything in our game. Uber is nothing more than a prospecting tool for our private business.


Just to add, I've had UberX pings up to 18 minutes away.


----------



## 2MsBandT

Demon said:


> In that situation what the driver did was clearly illegal, so yes, there were consequences.


Huh! It is not illegal. The couple should have called for an ambulance, not try to save money by taking an Uber! What if something went wrong with the mother or the baby? An ambulance personnel is licensed to handle these situations, an Uber driver is not. Or what if the driver was speeding and caused an accident try to hurry to the hospital he would be held liable. An ambulance has the right of way to speed down the street stopping traffic.


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4

Personally,

At the rates that uber is paying/charging in Orlando,

Asking the passenger destinations will save you on spending half an hour total on $2.75 trips.


On the other hand this is total crap that the drivers are doing this, but for 52c a mile they are paying the driver, they should expect to get picked up by Carny folk in a ford pinto Hybrid. (Hybrid gasoline/external manual propulsion)


----------



## Demon

2MsBandT said:


> Huh! It is not illegal. The couple should have called for an ambulance, not try to save money by taking an Uber! What if something went wrong with the mother or the baby? An ambulance personnel is licensed to handle these situations, an Uber driver is not. Or what if the driver was speeding and caused an accident try to hurry to the hospital he would be held liable. An ambulance has the right of way to speed down the street stopping traffic.


It's very illegal to deny a woman a ride simply because she is pregnant. This isn't debatable. I invite you to do some research on this so you can be better informed.

There was no need for the couple to call an ambulance.


----------



## 2MsBandT

Demon said:


> It's very illegal to deny a woman a ride simply because she is pregnant. This isn't debatable. I invite you to do some research on this so you can be better informed.
> 
> There was no need for the couple to call an ambulance.


Huh? She was in *active *labor (like the baby could arrive at any moment). Instead of calling an ambulance to take them to the hospital, they called an Uber to save on ambulance fees.

If I was the Uber driver I would have called 911 myself and told them what the emergency was and waited for the ambulance to come.


----------



## Demon

2MsBandT said:


> Huh? She was in *active *labor (like the baby could arrive at any moment). Instead of calling an ambulance to take them to the hospital, they called an Uber to save on ambulance fees.
> 
> If I was the Uber driver I would have called 911 myself and told them what the emergency was and waited for the ambulance to come.


Yes she was in active labor but no the baby would not have arrived any minute, babies just don't magically pop out.

You would have been rightly fined for breaking the law.


----------



## UberRose

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> But they didn't pick you. They got you. Do you think they wanted to wait 30 minutes? You don't always know who that person is either, I get old people, handicapped people, pregnant woman etc.


This is where you are mistaken!!...They didn't get me!...The passenger said they got a list and they picked me from that list. There was this another guy I picked up....I had to drive 20 minutes to get him and he had to ride only 4 minutes. When I asked him too if there was another closer driver he said, "Oh I just picked whichever ride was cheapest and you were the cheapest on that list."....It was only a 4 minute ride and he even asked for a water bottle before I dropped him off!!! Sick idiot!!! The passengers don't just get me....They PICK me.....which is why I have started giving them 1 star. If I knew they were randomly getting me, I would continue to give them 5 stars.


----------



## Old Rocker

One of my nieces was born in a taxi in San Francisco.


----------



## 2MsBandT

Demon said:


> Yes she was in active labor but no the baby would not have arrived any minute, babies just don't magically pop out.
> 
> You would have been rightly fined for breaking the law.


You must not have had a baby? Most of my friends have had multiple children and they can come out quick. I have had several friends who did *not *make it to the hospital in time for the baby to come out.

And the initial driver was not fined for breaking the law for not transporting the couple to the hospital, so that defeats your argument. 

You can Google the story.


----------



## garyk

Flarpy said:


> Given that drivers are "independent contractors," they can accept what they want, cancel what they want, cancel for any reason (as long as it's not discriminatory), call riders, ask riders questions, ask for more money, ask for tips, and generally do ALL the things that independent contractors do.
> 
> Remember, Uber/Lyft are just your vendors. You hire them. They provide the network and take a cut of what you have charged your passenger (your client), kind of like Craigslist or eBay. They can't tell you how to run your business unless you're doing something illegal.


I hate to say it but this is where you're wrong. The contract part of contractor is what applies here. The contract you signed with Hoover said that you would not call the customer and ask them their destination the contract you sign also says that if you don't pick up It Up Rides they can either put you into a timeout or deactivate you. People always forget that although you are an independent contractor you are still under a contract that you agreed to and you must abide by the terms of that contract unless you want to renegotiate the terms of that contract which is not going to happen. I honestly think that drivers that call the customers to find out where they are going should be deactivated after two or three complaints because that is strictly against the contract that you signed. Everyone says this is a Gamble and you pay your money and take your chances


----------



## Flarpy

Demon said:


> It's very illegal to deny a woman a ride simply because she is pregnant. This isn't debatable. I invite you to do some research on this so you can be better informed.
> 
> There was no need for the couple to call an ambulance.


While you're correct that, in New York state, it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of pregnancy, a good attorney could argue that the driver wasn't discriminating on that basis, he believed that he would not be able to handle a birth situation (the woman was in active labor) and therefore declined the ride on that basis alone. It would be up to a court of law to decide the outcome of that.



garyk said:


> People always forget that although you are an independent contractor you are still under a contract that you agreed to and you must abide by the terms of that contract unless you want to renegotiate the terms of that contract which is not going to happen.


True only to a certain extent. If those contract terms essentially turn you into an employee, then those contract terms are unenforceable. Or, if they are enforceable, the court will turn you into a de facto employee and enforce labor provisions against the company.

At least in California. Otherwise all companies would write up contracts that made people de facto employees without giving them the benefits of employees. In short, it would be against public policy to enforce provisions of an independent contractor agreement which turn that independent contractor into a de facto employee without employee benefits.

Again, this is in California. Your state's laws may vary.


----------



## Old Rocker

garyk said:


> I hate to say it but this is where you're wrong. The contract part of contractor is what applies here. The contract you signed with Hoover said that you would not call the customer and ask them their destination the contract you sign also says that if you don't pick up It Up Rides they can either put you into a timeout or deactivate you. People always forget that although you are an independent contractor you are still under a contract that you agreed to and you must abide by the terms of that contract unless you want to renegotiate the terms of that contract which is not going to happen. I honestly think that drivers that call the customers to find out where they are going should be deactivated after two or three complaints because that is strictly against the contract that you signed. Everyone says this is a Gamble and you pay your money and take your chances


Thank you.

Many don't understand that independent contractor doesn't mean you have the independence to do the job however you want, it's that you are an independent individual who takes contracts for work. As an IC, you have to follow the instructions in your contract. If I hire an independent contractor to paint my house blue, and he says he doesn't like blue and paints it pink, then only paints half of it because he says he isn't being paid enough, then he's going to have to defend his actions in a civil court, maybe even a criminal court if fraud is suspected.


----------



## Snowtop

UberRose said:


> This is where you are mistaken!!...They didn't get me!...The passenger said they got a list and they picked me from that list. There was this another guy I picked up....I had to drive 20 minutes to get him and he had to ride only 4 minutes. When I asked him too if there was another closer driver he said, "Oh I just picked whichever ride was cheapest and you were the cheapest on that list."....It was only a 4 minute ride and he even asked for a water bottle before I dropped him off!!! Sick idiot!!! The passengers don't just get me....They PICK me.....which is why I have started giving them 1 star. If I knew they were randomly getting me, I would continue to give them 5 stars.


Rose you really need to get on the passenger app and maybe take a ride. You apparently have no idea how the system operates. Passengers do not get a list of available drivers. They are assigned the closest one.


----------



## Old Rocker

Flarpy said:


> While you're correct that, in New York state, it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of pregnancy, a good attorney could argue that the driver wasn't discriminating on that basis, he believed that he would not be able to handle a birth situation (the woman was in active labor) and therefore declined the ride on that basis alone. It would be up to a court of law to decide the outcome of that.
> 
> True only to a certain extent. If those contract terms essentially turn you into an employee, then those contract terms are unenforceable. Or, if they are enforceable, the court will turn you into a de facto employee and enforce labor provisions against the company.
> 
> At least in California. Otherwise all companies would write up contracts that made people de facto employees without giving them the benefits of employees. In short, it would be against public policy to enforce provisions of an independent contractor agreement which turn that independent contractor into a de facto employee without employee benefits.
> 
> Again, this is in California. Your state's laws may vary.


Besides all of that Cali stuff, we are still independent contractors. Even Cali and Mass didn't go so far as to declare Uber ICs as employees, and in the several other states, like Texas, where lawsuits have been filed claiming Uber drivers are employees, those lawsuits have failed.


----------



## Old Rocker

Snowtop said:


> Rose you really need to get on the passenger app and maybe take a ride. You apparently have no idea how the system operates. Passengers do not get a list of available drivers. They are assigned the closest one.


Thanks. I was going huhwut?


----------



## Flarpy

Old Rocker said:


> Many don't understand that independent contractor doesn't mean you have the independence to do the job however you want, it's that you are an independent individual who takes contracts for work. As an IC, you have to follow the instructions in your contract. If I hire an independent contractor to paint my house blue, and he says he doesn't like blue and paints it pink, then only paints half of it because he says he isn't being paid enough, then he's going to have to defend his actions in a civil court, maybe even a criminal court if fraud is suspected.


I'm guessing you're not an attorney because you have no idea what you're talking about. I am, so let me educate you:

At least in California, the (main) difference between employees and ICs is that ICs can't be told HOW to do the job.

(This is why I loathe debating non-lawyers about the law. It's such a waste of my time.)



Old Rocker said:


> Besides all of that Cali stuff, we are still independent contractors. Even Cali and Mass didn't go so far as to declare Uber ICs as employees


LOL that's because the CA case has apparently been settled before trial. Don't you read the news?


----------



## Old Rocker

Flarpy said:


> I'm guessing you're not an attorney because you have no idea what you're talking about. I am, so let me educate you:
> 
> At least in California, the (main) difference between employees and ICs is that ICs can't be told HOW to do the job.
> 
> (This is why I loathe debating non-lawyers about the law. It's such a waste of my time.)
> 
> LOL that's because the CA case has apparently been settled before trial. Don't you read the news?


There is a federal 10 point check list to discern the difference between employees and ICs. No case yet in the US asserting that Uber drivers are employees has prevailed. Therefore, in the view of the law, as for now, Uber drivers are IC's.

I ran a business which used ICs for ten years. When they were on the job, their supervisors told them what to do and, if necessary, how to do it.

And here, Mr. Lawyer, is how your state defines the employee vs. IC situation... Your (main) point seems to be peripherally mentioned around point number six.

And it's all moot until (if) your Cali courts rule otherwise. Not much sense in arguing it.

"
*Q.* *How do I know if I am an employee or an independent contractor?*

*A.*_ There is no set definition of the term "independent contractor" and as such, one must look to the interpretations of the courts and enforcement agencies to decide if in a particular situation a worker is an employee or independent contractor. In handling a matter where employment status is an issue, that is, employee or independent contractor, DLSE starts with the presumption that the worker is an employee. __Labor Code Section 3357__. This is a rebuttable presumption however, and the actual determination of whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor depends upon a number of factors, all of which must be considered, and none of which is controlling by itself. Consequently, it is necessary to closely examine the facts of each service relationship and then apply the law to those facts. For most matters before the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), depending on the remedial nature of the legislation at issue, this means applying the "multi-factor" or the "economic realities" test adopted by the California Supreme Court in the case of S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v Dept. of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341. In applying the economic realities test, the most significant factor to be considered is whether the person to whom service is rendered (the employer or principal) has control or the right to control the worker both as to the work done and the manner and means in which it is performed. Additional factors that may be considered depending on the issue involved are:_


_1. Whether the person performing services is engaged in an occupation or business distinct from that of the principal;_
_2. Whether or not the work is a part of the regular business of the principal or alleged employer;_
_3. Whether the principal or the worker supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place for the person doing the work;_
_4. The alleged employee's investment in the equipment or materials required by his or her task or his or her employment of helpers;_
_5. Whether the service rendered requires a special skill;_
_6. The kind of occupation, with reference to whether, in the locality, the work is usually done under the direction of the principal or by a specialist without supervision;_
_7. The alleged employee's opportunity for profit or loss depending on his or her managerial skill;_
_8. The length of time for which the services are to be performed;_
_9. The degree of permanence of the working relationship;_
_10. The method of payment, whether by time or by the job; and_
_11. Whether or not the parties believe they are creating an employer-employee relationship may have some bearing on the question, but is not determinative since this is a question of law based on objective tests._
_Even where there is an absence of control over work details, an employer-employee relationship will be found if (1) the principal retains pervasive control over the operation as a whole, (2) the worker's duties are an integral part of the operation, and (3) the nature of the work makes detailed control unnecessary. (Yellow Cab Cooperative v. Workers Compensation Appeals Board (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1288)_

_Other points to remember in determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor are that the existence of a written agreement purporting to establish an independent contractor relationship is not determinative (Borello, Id.at 349), and the fact that a worker is issued a 1099 form rather than a W-2 form is also not determinative with respect to independent contractor status. (Toyota Motor Sales v. Superior Court (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 864, 877)_
"


----------



## Flarpy

Way to use google! I'd put my money on a California court finding that Uber drivers are employees. All speculation, of course, until it happens. If it happens. Likely Uber will pay a settlement than take the chance.


----------



## Novus Caesar

Old Rocker said:


> Just to add, I've had UberX pings up to 18 minutes away.


In my city I have had it at 20 minutes. Go onto your Uber user app and move your location around on UberX. It will say no Uber available if you are too far out but I have experimented and had it go up to 40 minutes! Here is an example from right now on Uber of a 26 minute pickup time for UberX in my town! Possibly 52 minute ride or more for $3.


----------



## garyk

Flarpy said:


> I'm guessing you're not an attorney because you have no idea what you're talking about. I am, so let me educate you:
> 
> At least in California, the (main) difference between employees and ICs is that ICs can't be told HOW to do the job.
> 
> (This is why I loathe debating non-lawyers about the law. It's such a waste of my time.)
> 
> LOL that's because the CA case has apparently been settled before trial. Don't you read the news?


Uber does not tell you how to do your job. Your job is driving people around and providing reasonable customer service. Whatever can tell you is that you need to accept a certain percentage of rides and that you cannot contact the customer ahead of time and refused the ride based on the destination. If you've noticed not a single lawyer has challenged that particular part of the contract with uber because they know that that will stand up


----------



## Flarpy

garyk said:


> Uber does not tell you how to do your job. Your job is driving people around and providing reasonable customer service. Whatever can tell you is that you need to accept a certain percentage of rides and that you cannot contact the customer ahead of time and refused the ride based on the destination. If you've noticed not a single lawyer has challenged that particular part of the contract with uber because they know that that will stand up


Yeah well I'd suggest that telling an "independent contractor" what he or she can say over the phone to his own client has the effect of exercising enough control over the IC that it turns him/her into an employee. Would a court agree? That's speculation.

Of course a court would look at the totality of the circumstances. Again, here, I believe that a CA court would conclude that Uber controls ICs to an extent that it generates an employment arrangement. Again, speculation.


----------



## garyk

Flarpy said:


> Yeah well I'd suggest that telling an "independent contractor" what he or she can say over the phone to his own client has the effect of exercising enough control over the IC that it turns him/her into an employee. Would a court agree? That's speculation.
> 
> Of course a court would look at the totality of the circumstances. Again, here, I believe that a CA court would conclude that Uber controls ICs to an extent that it generates an employment arrangement. Again, speculation.


The reason the contract forbids you the call the customer to find out the destination is because if everyone did that than any ride under $5 would never get picked up. Even when I drove a taxi they didn't give us a destination we had to get it from the customer to keep us from refusing to take short rides or rides that went out into the middle of nowhere during bar Rush


----------



## Demon

2MsBandT said:


> You must not have had a baby? Most of my friends have had multiple children and they can come out quick. I have had several friends who did *not *make it to the hospital in time for the baby to come out.
> 
> And the initial driver was not fined for breaking the law for not transporting the couple to the hospital, so that defeats your argument.
> 
> You can Google the story.


I see nothing about the driver not being charged, if that's your claim please prove it. And that has nothing to do with my argument, denying someone service due to the fact that they are pregnant is illegal.

Your anecdotes have nothing to do with this particular story of a woman who did make it to the hospital on time.


----------



## Flarpy

garyk said:


> The reason the contract forbids you the call the customer to find out the destination is because if everyone did that than any ride under $5 would never get picked up. Even when I drove a taxi they didn't give us a destination we had to get it from the customer to keep us from refusing to take short rides or rides that went out into the middle of nowhere during bar Rush


Thanks, I think we all understand why Uber wants to forbid that


----------



## Flarpy

Demon said:


> I see nothing about the driver not being charged, if that's your claim please prove it.


Pretty hard to prove a negative. If you claim the driver WAS charged, please show some evidence.


----------



## hulksmash

garyk said:


> The reason the contract forbids you the call the customer to find out the destination is because if everyone did that than any ride under $5 would never get picked up. Even when I drove a taxi they didn't give us a destination we had to get it from the customer to keep us from refusing to take short rides or rides that went out into the middle of nowhere during bar Rush


 Problem is that these rides are only worth $5, with drivers only getting slightly half of it. Most decent people would give their buddies/relatives, etc at least $10 just in gas money for a similar trip , yet ICs in the business of transporting customers get $2.40


----------



## Novus Caesar

garyk said:


> Uber does not tell you how to do your job. Your job is driving people around and providing reasonable customer service. Whatever can tell you is that you need to accept a certain percentage of rides and that you cannot contact the customer ahead of time and refused the ride based on the destination. If you've noticed not a single lawyer has challenged that particular part of the contract with uber because they know that that will stand up


Where does Uber state what percent of rides you may refuse? I have seen that on promotions where they give you pay guarantees, but not in the agreement. Also, if I request a ride and demand to be driven 1000 miles, you are obliged to do so? I do not think so. Please show me where it states that in the agreement. From the agreement: "You retain the sole right to determine when, where, and for how long you will utilize the Driver App or the Uber Services." I am not using it 30 minutes away for a $3 ride.


----------



## Demon

Flarpy said:


> Pretty hard to prove a negative. If you claim the driver WAS charged, please show some evidence.


I haven't claimed the driver was charged.


----------



## Rico Ramz

Demon said:


> I can live with that. I couldn't live with being a deplorable person who treated people with disabilities poorly.


Cheapskates!


----------



## Demon

Rico Ramz said:


> Cheapskates!


I agree. People who would refuse service to the disabled are cheapskates. Good call.


----------



## Rico Ramz

Demon said:


> It's very illegal to deny a woman a ride simply because she is pregnant. This isn't debatable. I invite you to do some research on this so you can be better informed.
> 
> There was no need for the couple to call an ambulance.


The point here that riders that do that are cheapskates! Uber X drivers are not EMTs


----------



## Yuri Lygotme

garyk said:


> People always forget that although you are an independent contractor you are still under a contract that you agreed to and you must abide by the terms of that contract


And you never heard of contracts with illegal terms? What do you think those class action lawsuits are about?


----------



## stuber

garyk said:


> I hate to say it but this is where you're wrong. The contract part of contractor is what applies here. The contract you signed with Hoover said that you would not call the customer and ask them their destination the contract you sign also says that if you don't pick up It Up Rides they can either put you into a timeout or deactivate you. People always forget that although you are an independent contractor you are still under a contract that you agreed to and you must abide by the terms of that contract unless you want to renegotiate the terms of that contract which is not going to happen. I honestly think that drivers that call the customers to find out where they are going should be deactivated after two or three complaints because that is strictly against the contract that you signed. Everyone says this is a Gamble and you pay your money and take your chances


Wrong. Yes, you're quoting the terms of the agreement correctly, but the hiding of trip destination is idiotic. Besides violating the terms of my commercial livery insurance (I am required to have complete waybill on all trips.), the practice of forcing drivers into blind destination calls just undermines the whole system. How does it make sense that drivers are forced to take jobs they would otherwise reject if they were better informed? The dumb old taxis do this because they don't have enough cars for coverage. Uber, however has plenty of cars. They could easily match drivers and passengers based on mutual interests in going to the destination. If there's no available match, then simply raise the price until a nearby driver is willing to take the request. This is not that complicated. At least it shouldn't be if you're a $68B tech company.


----------



## stuber

Old Rocker said:


> Thank you.
> 
> Many don't understand that independent contractor doesn't mean you have the independence to do the job however you want, it's that you are an independent individual who takes contracts for work. As an IC, you have to follow the instructions in your contract. If I hire an independent contractor to paint my house blue, and he says he doesn't like blue and paints it pink, then only paints half of it because he says he isn't being paid enough, then he's going to have to defend his actions in a civil court, maybe even a criminal court if fraud is suspected.


Yes but, to further your analogy, Uber is asking you to agree to the price to paint the house, without allowing you to see and measure the house beforehand. I may call the house owner to get a description, then choose to decline. Or accept the job in exchange for greater compensation. The trouble is that this middleman called Uber is setting the price and terms. Why? Why are they even involved in these questions?


----------



## MidnightDriver

2MsBandT said:


> The couple should have called for an ambulance, not try to save money by taking an Uber!


Or maybe they figured there was a driver just a few minutes away and they could be at the hospital before the ambulance even arrived.

Of course, you have to have a reputation for answering calls, for something like that to work...


----------



## Squirming Like A Toad

Flarpy said:


> I'm guessing you're not an attorney because you have no idea what you're talking about. I am, so let me educate you:
> 
> At least in California, the (main) difference between employees and ICs is that ICs can't be told HOW to do the job.
> 
> (This is why I loathe debating non-lawyers about the law. It's such a waste of my time.)


Oh like hell they can't! If you're an independent contractor, there's a contract, and they can put anything they want in the contract. They can tell an IC things they couldn't tell an employee. I've done plenty of work on contract and if they tell me I have to work nude and I sign up for it, that's what I have to do.

Not that I would mind working nude. I'm nude right now.


----------



## Squirming Like A Toad

2MsBandT said:


> Huh! It is not illegal. The couple should have called for an ambulance, not try to save money by taking an Uber! What if something went wrong with the mother or the baby? An ambulance personnel is licensed to handle these situations, an Uber driver is not. Or what if the driver was speeding and caused an accident try to hurry to the hospital he would be held liable. An ambulance has the right of way to speed down the street stopping traffic.


If she didn't have an infant car seat, you can't take the ride anyway.

Then there's the matter of the cleaning fee. You think vomit is bad? Try cleaning placenta off your seats.


----------



## Rico Ramz

Old Rocker said:


> There is a federal 10 point check list to discern the difference between employees and ICs. No case yet in the US asserting that Uber drivers are employees has prevailed. Therefore, in the view of the law, as for now, Uber drivers are IC's.
> 
> I ran a business which used ICs for ten years. When they were on the job, their supervisors told them what to do and, if necessary, how to do it.
> 
> And here, Mr. Lawyer, is how your state defines the employee vs. IC situation... Your (main) point seems to be peripherally mentioned around point number six.
> 
> And it's all moot until (if) your Cali courts rule otherwise. Not much sense in arguing it.
> 
> "
> *Q.* *How do I know if I am an employee or an independent contractor?*
> 
> *A.*_ There is no set definition of the term "independent contractor" and as such, one must look to the interpretations of the courts and enforcement agencies to decide if in a particular situation a worker is an employee or independent contractor. In handling a matter where employment status is an issue, that is, employee or independent contractor, DLSE starts with the presumption that the worker is an employee. __Labor Code Section 3357__. This is a rebuttable presumption however, and the actual determination of whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor depends upon a number of factors, all of which must be considered, and none of which is controlling by itself. Consequently, it is necessary to closely examine the facts of each service relationship and then apply the law to those facts. For most matters before the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), depending on the remedial nature of the legislation at issue, this means applying the "multi-factor" or the "economic realities" test adopted by the California Supreme Court in the case of S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v Dept. of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341. In applying the economic realities test, the most significant factor to be considered is whether the person to whom service is rendered (the employer or principal) has control or the right to control the worker both as to the work done and the manner and means in which it is performed. Additional factors that may be considered depending on the issue involved are:_
> 
> 
> _1. Whether the person performing services is engaged in an occupation or business distinct from that of the principal;_
> _2. Whether or not the work is a part of the regular business of the principal or alleged employer;_
> _3. Whether the principal or the worker supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place for the person doing the work;_
> _4. The alleged employee's investment in the equipment or materials required by his or her task or his or her employment of helpers;_
> _5. Whether the service rendered requires a special skill;_
> _6. The kind of occupation, with reference to whether, in the locality, the work is usually done under the direction of the principal or by a specialist without supervision;_
> _7. The alleged employee's opportunity for profit or loss depending on his or her managerial skill;_
> _8. The length of time for which the services are to be performed;_
> _9. The degree of permanence of the working relationship;_
> _10. The method of payment, whether by time or by the job; and_
> _11. Whether or not the parties believe they are creating an employer-employee relationship may have some bearing on the question, but is not determinative since this is a question of law based on objective tests._
> _Even where there is an absence of control over work details, an employer-employee relationship will be found if (1) the principal retains pervasive control over the operation as a whole, (2) the worker's duties are an integral part of the operation, and (3) the nature of the work makes detailed control unnecessary. (Yellow Cab Cooperative v. Workers Compensation Appeals Board (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1288)_
> 
> _Other points to remember in determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor are that the existence of a written agreement purporting to establish an independent contractor relationship is not determinative (Borello, Id.at 349), and the fact that a worker is issued a 1099 form rather than a W-2 form is also not determinative with respect to independent contractor status. (Toyota Motor Sales v. Superior Court (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 864, 877)_
> "


And what do you think those contractors you hired, would do if you asked to do something outside the law or if you tried to tell them how much they should charge you, or that you were going to pay them less than what they asked, or just pay whatever you wanted without even consulting with them?
Killed it!  ;P


----------



## xlr8ed

Just had this ping come in - really? I'm 18 min away in Boston and I'm the closest driver? I called the pax 3x and texted 2x no reply. The get cancelled no show I get $5 . Easy peesy.


----------



## Rico Ramz

I killed it!


----------



## Agent99

MidnightDriver said:


> Actually, it is quite different.
> 
> You, as a driver, do not solicit the customer, UBER does. You, as a driver, do not insure the customer, UBER does. You, as a driver, do not enter into a contract with the customer, UBER does. You, as a driver, do not collect the funds from the customer, UBER does. In fact, you don't even know the customer's real name, let alone their phone number. Relative to you, the driver, the passenger that is in your car is a _* customer*_ only in a manner of speaking.
> 
> It couldn't be more different...


Uber says in their contract with drivers that a business relationship (temporary as it is) is established between driver and passenger. The passenger is not only Uber's customer and is not only doing business with Uber. He is the driver's customer too and doing business with the driver (whether he sees it that way or not). This is the contractual and moral basis for drivers contacting passengers to help determine if the trip is worth doing (if the temporary business relationship and responsibility of driving a particular passenger is worth having).


----------



## Baby Cakes

odd. Saying I don't want your money met with the reply of take the money or go to jail. Strange world.


Old Rocker said:


> In Houston, since we have to abide by the same rules as taxis, a driver accepting a fare, then canceling once they find out the destination is breaking the law.


----------



## Baby Cakes

Oscar Levant said:


> I know this makes me sound like an Uber shill, and I'm not, not at all. But, on destination foreknowledge I take the company view.
> I do this because I've been in the taxi business off and on since the late 70s, and I now that if drivers are given destination knowledge they will be cherry picking
> and cherry picking is not fair to other drivers, who will then have fewer cherries for themselves because you are taking more than your fair share of them. Everyone loves longer fares, and no one likes to lose money on runs. but, runs that are not profitable are really part of the cost of doing business. States and cities who license drivers expect drivers in the transport business to take all ride requests ( not talking about pre-arranged livery, just on - demand transportation, like taxis and rideshares ), and do the less profitable ones as well out of civic duty with the knowledge that, over the long run, you'll get enough long trips to make it worth your while. You have bad days, and good days, but it averages out at the end of the month. In the Taxi business, drivers who strategized their shifts on quantity of runs, usually made more money than whose who strictly positioned their vehicles for a higher average of long runs ( such as working the outer burbs, instead of the city hub ).
> 
> Also, cherry picking results in worse service if you are calling riders and cancelling after finding out the destination as this will diminish the concept of "customer goodwill" When that happens, long enough, over time, the rider customer base shrinks and so does your job. For lawd sakes, if you are offered a trip that is 20 minutes away, don't accept it, let another driver who might be clearing soon closer to the fair take the run, and this is as it should be. If you work hub areas, you won't get that many of them. In my experience, paid miles is better in hub areas, downtown areas, etc. Sure, there are busy times when the do happen more often than other times. If I feel i am rejecting too many trips, and it does happen, I will email the office and explain what was going on, and why I did it it, so there will be a real time record of it, in case they do a review of my situation. It goes to "being conscientious", showing concern for the job, and being professional, caring about the job.
> 
> Yeah, I recognize some of you think Uber is screwing you ( and I agree on the rates being too low, which is why I quit UberX ) but still, my view is that if you decide to do a job, do it well, and doing it well is doing everything one can to build up customer goodwill. If you can't do that, then you should quit.


$2.4 was the min payout for awhile its 2.8 now but I got used to putting up with them awhile ago. Only cases where I consider calling is when I know based on the climate that they might be going 30-40 miles toward effectively a dead zone for Uber. I hate having to turn anyone down and I do think the service should be as good as possible which benefits us drivers if Uber has a good name. That being said I circumvent the problem by not logging in and just driving away from the area (5/10 miles) that will get me those trips. Result being those riders do have to wait longer because I am not there to take them but they don't have to request twice after I turn them down. So I guess its a simple 'what they don't know can't hurt them'


----------



## Baby Cakes

UberTrip said:


> I don't understand the justification in reaping the benefits of surge which can be grossly overprices all while people sit here and are ok with not accepting cheaper fares. I took a guy 7 miles last night for 48 bucks and he tipped me 20 cash.... The fact is, all business have loss in certain transactions. That is business.


only reason drivers ever have to take a loss is lack of information. If a computer instantly computed the projected profit as to let you decline the trip we'd be better off. I don't buy that drivers are obligated to work for peanuts for maybe 2/8 hour shift because the other 6 will be average to good. Been doing uber/lyft 2 years and of course I still have those bad hours but if I can anticipate them I just log off and read or listen to music til it passes. Unless there a respectable guaranteed min pay for drivers who take all requests there is no reason to make between $3-6/hr for the slow stretches. Most recently for me was being at LAX day after the memorial day weekend. Took 30 min to get through the terminals. For two hours I was able to complete three trips for just under $10. It pains me to see people trying to justify that it should be required we drivers suffer through cases like that.


----------



## Daniel Harbin

I have taken rides that took 17 min to get to only because I wanted the bonus. Yea it sucks sometimes and if you call and explain where you are coming from they are usually receptive to a predetermined tip. I find early morning 4 to 8 and late night 12 to 4AM are the worst times for pitiful rides. Its 5 AM now and I am debating turning my monitor on. Sometimes its profitable and sometimes its not.

I aint in this for the big money but to do something other than sit at home. BTW my bonus last week was 150 bucks.


----------



## Snowtop

Rico Ramz said:


> I believe she is smarter than you, snowtop. Riders can see where drivers are -you click on uberX and it shows you all uberX cars on the little map. -you click on uberXL, it shows you where all uberXL cars are and so on. Being the cheapskate rider you are, even if an uberXL shows a couple blocks on the map, the rider is going to click on the uberX car that is 20+ blocks away across two major freeways, just to save a few bucks!


The point was the pax has no idea who she is. Only she is Uber X

I killed it.


----------



## Novus Caesar

Daniel Harbin said:


> I have taken rides that took 17 min to get to only because I wanted the bonus. Yea it sucks sometimes and if you call and explain where you are coming from they are usually receptive to a predetermined tip. I find early morning 4 to 8 and late night 12 to 4AM are the worst times for pitiful rides. Its 5 AM now and I am debating turning my monitor on. Sometimes its profitable and sometimes its not.
> 
> I aint in this for the big money but to do something other than sit at home. BTW my bonus last week was 150 bucks.


If there is a bonus, I have said go for it. They are paying you an incentive. But if they are not, and expect you to drive 30 minutes each way for $3, no thanks.


----------



## Rico Ramz

Snowtop said:


> Rose you really need to get on the passenger app and maybe take a ride. You apparently have no idea how the system operates. Passengers do not get a list of available drivers. They are assigned the closest one.


I believe she is smarter than you, snowtop. Riders can see where drivers are -you click on uberX and it shows you all uberX cars on the little map. -you click on uberXL, it shows you where all uberXL cars are and so on. Being the cheapskate rider you are, even if an uberXL shows a couple blocks on the map, the rider is going to click on the uberX car that is 20+ blocks away across two major freeways, just to save a few bucks!
Killed it!!! ;P


----------



## Snowtop

Rico Ramz said:


> I believe she is smarter than you, snowtop. Riders can see where drivers are -you click on uberX and it shows you all uberX cars on the little map. -you click on uberXL, it shows you where all uberXL cars are and so on. Being the cheapskate rider you are, even if an uberXL shows a couple blocks on the map, the rider is going to click on the uberX car that is 20+ blocks away across two major freeways, just to save a few bucks!
> Killed it!!! ;P


Saying the same thing twice doesn't make you any less wrong.


----------



## Rico Ramz

Boo hoo, don't cry little girl.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

It's called cherry picking. And it's actually a very effective strategy for greater profitability. I do it all the time. At these rates it doesn't make sense to accept every ping that comes in.


----------



## groovyguru

At some point in the past year or so these entitled snarky PAX's decided that drivers were obligated to do whatever it was that they ordered, regardless of the loss. When I was driving, back in 2014 to NYE 2015, the pings were so frequent that I never had to care about whether or not I should pick someone up. I was driving one or two blocks, scooping up, and doing it all over again. I would go 20 hours straight sometimes and would have to turn off my app just to get a break. PAX's didn't have to complain about the subject this thread is about. Drivers didn't have to do the math before starting a ride, either. It's smart to call ahead these days. That is how a driver can protect his or her margin and make it home with some money. PAX need to know they are being serviced in a different business model now.


----------



## Old Rocker

Rico Ramz said:


> And what do you think those contractors you hired, would do if you asked to do something outside the law or if you tried to tell them how much they should charge you, or that you were going to pay them less than what they asked, or just pay whatever you wanted without even consulting with them?
> Killed it!  ;P


Contract terms that violate the law are not enforceable, but they don't void the entire contract.


----------



## UberHammer

Hunt to Eat said:


> It's called cherry picking. And it's actually a very effective strategy for greater profitability. I do it all the time. At these rates it doesn't make sense to accept every ping that comes in.


I don't call it cherry picking... I call it lemon avoiding.


----------



## ikabod

Uber is a technology company. So there is no excuse to charge a "distance fee" that is given directly to the Driver. Any traveling to a ride over 5 miles, a fee of $10 is fair. Not including the actual ride distance.


----------



## Novus Caesar

ikabod said:


> Uber is a technology company. So there is no excuse to charge a "distance fee" that is given directly to the Driver. Any traveling to a ride over 5 miles, a fee of $10 is fair. Not including the actual ride distance.


As I said, just measuring earlier today, I was able to get pings from 26 minutes away on UberX. I have seen it up to 40! How do they expect me to travel for 26 minutes--really 52 minutes--back and forth for $3?


----------



## ikabod

I look at it this way. The length of time I'm out of a busy area to pick up a pax 10 or even 40 miles away, the chances in my area of that being a long trip is very slim. I have done the long distance pick ups, I have made the phone calls only to get rude people demanding they get a ride. They can see where the drive is coming from and they still do it. Make it worth it for the driver!


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

garyk said:


> I hate to say it but this is where you're wrong. The contract part of contractor is what applies here. The contract you signed with Hoover said that you would not call the customer and ask them their destination the contract you sign also says that if you don't pick up It Up Rides they can either put you into a timeout or deactivate you. People always forget that although you are an independent contractor you are still under a contract that you agreed to and you must abide by the terms of that contract unless you want to renegotiate the terms of that contract which is not going to happen. I honestly think that drivers that call the customers to find out where they are going should be deactivated after two or three complaints because that is strictly against the contract that you signed. Everyone says this is a Gamble and you pay your money and take your chances


Where does the contract state you cannot call the customer? Screenshot please.


----------



## Novus Caesar

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Where does the contract state you cannot call the customer? Screenshot please.


They get it from this. I disagree with their interpretation because we are using it for their ride experience. No to sell them a timeshare. Section 2.2: "You shall not contact any Users
or use any User's personal data for any reason other than for the purposes of fulfilling
Transportation Services."

It also says: ". You retain the option, via the Driver App, to attempt to
accept or to decline or ignore a User's request for Transportation
Services via the Uber Services,
or to cancel an accepted request for Transportation Services via the Driver App, subject to
Company's then current cancellation policies."


----------



## Rico Ramz

The truth is that smart drivers will do and should do what is best to increase their profits, by calling riders, save on gas, ignoring or cancelling unfrofitabe request, not accepting any pool request(which are a total ripoff to drivers) etc. Which by the way, I do not cancel or ignore the majority of request, I maybe cancel/ignore two or three per 8 hrs online periods. Which I believe most drivers do. I summon all drivers to do what is best for their interest and don't let your self be intimidated by Uber minions! Keep rocking and rolling, be safe and good luck out there! and I'm out!!!


----------



## UberHammer

Rico Ramz said:


> The truth is that smart drivers will do and should do what is best to increase their profits, by calling riders, save on gas, ignoring or cancelling unfrofitabe request, not accepting any pool request(which are a total ripoff to drivers) etc. Which by the way, I do not cancel or ignore the majority of request, I maybe cancel/ignore two or three per 8 hrs online periods. Which I believe most drivers do. I summon all drivers to do what is best for their interest and don't let your self be intimidated by Uber minions! Keep rocking and rolling, be safe and good luck out there! and I'm out!!!


This is 100% correct. The only reason Uber can continue sending uprofitable pings to drivers is because some drivers are dumb and do them if. If no drivers would do them, Uber would have to raise the rates to get drivers to do them.


----------



## Old Rocker

UberHammer said:


> This is 100% correct. The only reason Uber can continue sending uprofitable pings to drivers is because some drivers are dumb and do them if. If no drivers would do them, Uber would have to raise the rates to get drivers to do them.


Doesn't matter because pax are so spoiled now that even if you accept the 18 minute ping they cancel on you. Then you get a re-ping 30 seconds later.


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4

another cool thing passengers can do is cancel and reping for a closer car.


----------



## Rico Ramz

If you get timed out for ignoring pool request, take those few minutes to quickly drive to a surge area and score a surge trip!


----------



## Micmac

Hunt to Eat said:


> It's called cherry picking. And it's actually a very effective strategy for greater profitability. I do it all the time. At these rates it doesn't make sense to accept every ping that comes in.


It's called cherry & berry picking ! Cherry every day no Bueno Jose!


----------



## Demon

Rico Ramz said:


> The truth is that smart drivers will do and should do what is best to increase their profits, by calling riders, save on gas, ignoring or cancelling unfrofitabe request, not accepting any pool request(which are a total ripoff to drivers) etc. Which by the way, I do not cancel or ignore the majority of request, I maybe cancel/ignore two or three per 8 hrs online periods. Which I believe most drivers do. I summon all drivers to do what is best for their interest and don't let your self be intimidated by Uber minions! Keep rocking and rolling, be safe and good luck out there! and I'm out!!!





Rico Ramz said:


> The point here that riders that do that are cheapskates! Uber X drivers are not EMTs


No one is asking drivers to be EMT's they are only asked to be drivers. You can't logically make both of these posts, you have to pick one or the other.


----------



## Daniel Harbin

What is a pool request?


----------



## Rico Ramz

Demon said:


> No one is asking drivers to be EMT's they are only asked to be drivers. You can't logically make both of these posts, you have to pick one or the other.


I do what I want, is called freedom of speech! You are a nobody, to tell me what to do.


----------



## Rico Ramz

Daniel Harbin said:


> What is a pool request?


Uber pool, is just another way to ripoff drivers, by making you do several different trips into one and get paid less, about $1.60 per pool ticket, which can be up to 2 people. That is $1.60 before gas and maintenance, so do the math.


----------



## Old Rocker

Daniel Harbin said:


> What is a pool request?


Some markets have UberPool where you pick up 2 or 3 pax from different locations who are all going to the same general area.


----------



## Demon

Rico Ramz said:


> I do what I want, is called freedom of speech! You are a nobody, to tell me what to do.


No, that isn't what freedom of speech is. You want to do things that are illegal, that isn't freedom of speech. I'm not not telling you what to do, I'm just telling you that what you want to do is illegal.


----------



## Daniel Harbin

Sounds like a ripoff


----------



## Old Rocker

Rico Ramz said:


> I do what I want, is called freedom of speech! You are a nobody, to tell me what to do.


Freedom of speech has nothing to do with saying or doing what you want. It's a constitutional protection preventing the government from using their authority to silence the populace. It has no legal meaning outside of dealing with the Federal government.


----------



## Rico Ramz

Demon said:


> No, that isn't what freedom of speech is. You want to do things that are illegal, that isn't freedom of speech. I'm not not telling you what to do, I'm just telling you that what you want to do is illegal.


Leave me alone Nazi opressor!


----------



## Demon

Rico Ramz said:


> Leave me alone Nazi opressor!


No. I have freedom of speech.


----------



## Old Rocker

Rico Ramz said:


> Leave me alone Nazi opressor!


That's "Nazi oppressor."

Signed,

Grammar Nazi.


----------



## Rico Ramz

Daniel Harbin said:


> Sounds like a ripoff


Haven't you heard of the Uber drivers protest in San Francisco? and the hordes of drivers quitting uber in the west coast?


----------



## Rico Ramz

Old Rocker said:


> That's "Nazi oppressor."
> 
> Signed,
> 
> Grammar Nazi.


Thanks, so you know who you are!


----------



## Rico Ramz

Daniel Harbin said:


> Sounds like a ripoff


indeed Sir.


----------



## UberHammer

Demon said:


> No. I have freedom of speech.


This is a privately owned forum. The owner can set their own rules and aren't bound by the US Constitution. As long as they don't discriminate based on protected classes (religion, sex, etc...), the owner can silence your posting here for any reason. In other words there is no such thing as freedom of speech on private property.


----------



## Old Rocker

UberHammer said:


> This is a privately owned forum. The owner can set their own rules and aren't bound by the US Constitution. As long as they don't discriminate based on protected classes (religion, sex, etc...), the owner can silence your posting here for any reason. In other words there is no such thing as freedom of speech on private property.


(I think Demon was exercising his right to free sarcasm. Apologies for speaking for him.)


----------



## Rico Ramz

UberHammer said:


> This is a privately owned forum. The owner can set their own rules and aren't bound by the US Constitution. As long as they don't discriminate based on protected classes (religion, sex, etc...), the owner can silence your posting here for any reason. In other words there is no such thing as freedom of speech on private property.


Yes, even Nazi oppressors have freedom of speech.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Micmac said:


> It's called cherry & berry picking ! Cherry every day no Bueno Jose!


Not sure what that means, but I do enjoy Michigan cherries!


----------



## Hunt to Eat

So, why do so many people not understand the First Amendment?

One more time...

_Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
_​So, the operator of this site can edit whatever and whomever s/he pleases with ZERO infringement upon our First Amendment protections.


----------



## Rico Ramz

Hunt to Eat said:


> So, why do so many people not understand the First Amendment?
> 
> One more time...
> 
> _Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> _​So, the operator of this site can edit whatever and whomever s/he pleases with ZERO infringement upon our First Amendment protections.


and your point is?


----------



## UberJag

A different perspective...my daughter is 23 years old and works at a restaurant. Late at night when she got off work her Uber driver called her and asked her where she was going....she was going a few miles away. He hung up and called her back a minute later and said he got a flat tire and asked her to cancel the trip....just then she saw him driving by her. He left a 23 year old female on the street because he didn't want to pick her up because she was only going a few miles away! Have a heart people! You don't know everyone's situation! Something bad could have happened to a young woman standing on the street! Who knows after he picked her up he could have gotten pinged in a surge area for a long trip!


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Rico Ramz said:


> and your point is?


I think I was pretty clear.


----------



## Micmac

UberJag said:


> A different perspective...my daughter is 23 years old and works at a restaurant. Late at night when she got off work her Uber driver called her and asked her where she was going....she was going a few miles away. He hung up and called her back a minute later and said he got a flat tire and asked her to cancel the trip....just then she saw him driving by her. He left a 23 year old female on the street because he didn't want to pick her up because she was only going a few miles away! Have a heart people! You don't know everyone's situation! Something bad could have happened to a young woman standing on the street! Who knows after he picked her up he could have gotten pinged in a surge area for a long trip!


Tell your daughter to try Lyft! It s uber who created all this mess ! Drivers are going homeless with these rates!


----------



## Hunt to Eat

UberJag said:


> A different perspective...my daughter is 23 years old and works at a restaurant. Late at night when she got off work her Uber driver called her and asked her where she was going....she was going a few miles away. He hung up and called her back a minute later and said he got a flat tire and asked her to cancel the trip....just then she saw him driving by her. He left a 23 year old female on the street because he didn't want to pick her up because she was only going a few miles away! Have a heart people! You don't know everyone's situation! Something bad could have happened to a young woman standing on the street! Who knows after he picked her up he could have gotten pinged in a surge area for a long trip!


We apologize, but we can't run our cars for free. Before rates were cut so horribly, most of us took every ping. After rate cuts, drivers who don't cherry pick are fools giving away their time and miles. We apologize for your daughter's inconvenience. She may want to use traditional cabs in the future.


----------



## Rico Ramz

UberJag said:


> A different perspective...my daughter is 23 years old and works at a restaurant. Late at night when she got off work her Uber driver called her and asked her where she was going....she was going a few miles away. He hung up and called her back a minute later and said he got a flat tire and asked her to cancel the trip....just then she saw him driving by her. He left a 23 year old female on the street because he didn't want to pick her up because she was only going a few miles away! Have a heart people! You don't know everyone's situation! Something bad could have happened to a young woman standing on the street! Who knows after he picked her up he could have gotten pinged in a surge area for a long trip!


if the driver was an uberX and the only one around, she could have called an; uberXL, black car, SUV, lyft, yellow cab, green cab, a friend, a relative, etc.


----------



## UberJag

Micmac said:


> Tell your daughter to try Lyft! It s uber who created all this mess ! Drivers are going homeless with these rates!


She does mostly take Lyft after that!


----------



## UberJag

Rico Ramz said:


> if the driver was an uberX and the only one around, she could have called an; uberXL, black car, SUV, lyft, yellow cab, green cab, a friend, a relative, etc.


Yes, she did! She called me! My point is that when drivers refuse a trip they need to realize that a person could be in a bad situation. I'm a driver but I just wanted to offer a different perspective. We make choices but we don't always realize what those choices mean to other people...


----------



## Squirming Like A Toad

Rico Ramz said:


> If you get timed out for ignoring pool request, take those few minutes to quickly drive to a surge area and score a surge trip!


That's ridiculous. If it isn't worth it to drive to a surge when you're not in timeout, it isn't worth it to drive there when you are in timeout. No pings, no money.



Rico Ramz said:


> Haven't you heard of the Uber drivers protest in San Francisco? and the hordes of drivers quitting uber in the west coast?


Good. Build the wall and they can get rid of hordes more, and improve service.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

UberJag said:


> Yes, she did! She called me! My point is that when drivers refuse a trip they need to realize that a person could be in a bad situation. I'm a driver but I just wanted to offer a different perspective. We make choices but we don't always realize what those choices mean to other people...


You make an excellent point. However, let's place the blame in the proper quarter. After all, Travis created the rate mess, not us drivers. We're just trying to make a buck. We really can't be concerned about another's safety until we accept them into our auto. I know that sounds incredibly callous, but this is where rate cuts have placed us. We've had to get very, very pragmatic.


----------



## Rico Ramz

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> That's ridiculous. If it isn't worth it to drive to a surge when you're not in timeout, it isn't worth it to drive there when you are in timeout. No pings, no money.
> 
> Good. Build the wall and they can get rid of hordes more, and improve service.


OK, so we are going to start with racist remarks? Nazi


----------



## Squirming Like A Toad

Rico Ramz said:


> OK, so we are going to start with racist remarks? Nazi


Are you smoking crack? Who is talking about race?

And are you really unaware of why Uber does not want serious background checks or fingerprinting of drivers?


----------



## UberJag

Hunt to Eat said:


> You make an excellent point. However, let's place the blame in the proper quarter. After all, Travis created the rate mess, not us drivers. We're just trying to make a buck. We really can't be concerned about another's safety until we accept them into our auto. I know that sounds incredibly callous, but this is where rate cuts have placed us. We've had to get very, very pragmatic.


I get that! I'm not only a mom but a driver. My point is to just offer a different perspective. When you refuse a trip, it's someones daughter, son, mother, wife, etc. Not all pax are drunk idiots.


----------



## UberJag

Rico Ramz said:


> OK, so we are going to start with racist remarks? Nazi


Trump supporter obviously! ugh! Building walls is never good!


----------



## Hunt to Eat

UberJag said:


> I get that! I'm not only a mom but a driver. My point is to just offer a different perspective. When you refuse a trip, it's someones daughter, son, mother, wife, etc. Not all pax are drunk idiots.


We're aware of that. And we're sympathetic to that. But we can't make no-profit trips. It's just not prudent business. We wish it was different. We really do.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

UberJag said:


> A different perspective...my daughter is 23 years old and works at a restaurant. Late at night when she got off work her Uber driver called her and asked her where she was going....she was going a few miles away. He hung up and called her back a minute later and said he got a flat tire and asked her to cancel the trip....just then she saw him driving by her. He left a 23 year old female on the street because he didn't want to pick her up because she was only going a few miles away! Have a heart people! You don't know everyone's situation! Something bad could have happened to a young woman standing on the street! Who knows after he picked her up he could have gotten pinged in a surge area for a long trip!


"I'm only going a short distance but I will tip $5 up front."

Problem solved.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Fuzzyelvis said:


> "I'm only going a short distance but I will tip $5 up front."
> 
> Problem solved.


You just took the award for the best comment. You're right, that does solve the problem. We can now close this thread.
Thanks for the contributions and comment, everyone.


----------



## Rico Ramz

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Are you smoking crack? Who is talking about race?
> 
> And are you really unaware of why Uber does not want serious background checks or fingerprinting of drivers?


The same reason why the rest of the law abiding population in the whole USA don't want to fingerprinted and be treated like if they were all criminals and being like property of the government/ruling class. boooom! Nailed it!


----------



## Rico Ramz

People can't just say something does not work, if they have no proof it doesn't.
I did this today twice, because I kept getting a bunch of pool requests in a row, so when they kicked me out(twice after ignoring it) I drove on the freeway north to a surge area and got a surge trip after 3 mins after logging back in. What could have been a cheap and lengthy pool trip, turned into two trips $20+ each.
By the way I never specifically wanted to do uber pool and never signed up for it. I have let uber support about it many times and that I want to be removed from receiving pool request, but they refuse and just say "we have extended the opportunity to do uber pool to all uberX blah blah blah..." but if you ignore them pings or cancel them right away, they punish you by timing you out!


----------



## Rico Ramz

Hunt to Eat said:


> You just took the award for the best comment. You're right, that does solve the problem. We can now close this thread.
> Thanks for the contributions and comment, everyone.


We cannot stop this thread, it is an entity! it has become a monster and it has revealed many secrets, you can't get away from it!


----------



## San Diego Steve

UberJag said:


> A different perspective...my daughter is 23 years old and works at a restaurant. Late at night when she got off work her Uber driver called her and asked her where she was going....she was going a few miles away. He hung up and called her back a minute later and said he got a flat tire and asked her to cancel the trip....just then she saw him driving by her. He left a 23 year old female on the street because he didn't want to pick her up because she was only going a few miles away! Have a heart people! You don't know everyone's situation! Something bad could have happened to a young woman standing on the street! Who knows after he picked her up he could have gotten pinged in a surge area for a long trip!


Tell her to offer to tip the drivers on the phone and she will get picked up for her $5 ride.


----------



## R44KDEN

Fuzzyelvis said:


> "I'm only going a short distance but I will tip $5 up front."
> Problem solved.


I received a ping in Boulder the other day (late afternoon on the Sunday of Memorial Day weekend), tried calling but no answer. In a moment of weakness I said "what the hell, I will go and pick them up" knowing full well that it was probably a local trip. I arrive and there are a couple of guys standing out front and more people coming out the door. It had rained heavily earlier and there was a black lab playing in the front yard. There was a couple of 6 packs of beer on the ground and the guys both had beer bottles in their hand.

I wind down the window...
"How many are there of you?" I ask
"We wont bring the beer bottles in the car" the guy insists
"There's 4 of us plus the dog" he continues
"Sorry I don't do dogs" and wind up the window and drive off

Much abuse follows as I'm driving away. The point is this. If the guy had said "there's 4 of us and here's $5/$10 if you'll please take our dog and someone will make sure he sits in the very back and not jump all over the place" I would have easily complied. True, I dont like wet animals in my car (and one that had just been recently detailed) but the car I was in was one of our 7 seat SUVs and there's a heavy duty mat in the cargo section. I dont have a problem at all with alcohol in the car as we are livery plated and open alcohol is allowed. What I have a problem with is a lot of peoples sense of entitlement that we are simply their transport slaves. This is America. Money talks.


----------



## Demon

Rico Ramz said:


> Leave me alone Nazi opressor!


At least you admit to being a Nazi.


----------



## nononsense

UberJag said:


> I get that! I'm not only a mom but a driver. My point is to just offer a different perspective. When you refuse a trip, it's someones daughter, son, mother, wife, etc. Not all pax are drunk idiots.


I am sorry but we are not a public service to get someone's daughter , mom, son, wife home safely. We are all there at 2am to make a buck.
If we actually see a person in distress we will provide all aporopriate assistance like any normal person would do.
However when a person willingly puts herself at risk by being outside at 2 am it is not an emergency until something bad actually happens - then it is our duty to help.
Otherwise were do we stop? Are we supposed to give free rides to anyone just because we happened to be there at 2 am?


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Rico Ramz said:


> We cannot stop this thread, it is an entity! it has become a monster and it has revealed many secrets, you can't get away from it!


Kind of like the universe...forever expanding!


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Rico Ramz said:


> The same reason why the rest of the law abiding population in the whole USA don't want to fingerprinted and be treated like if they were all criminals and being like property of the government/ruling class. boooom! Nailed it!


What a great comment, seriously. My teenage sons accepted internships for the summer earlier this week. As they were filling out all the pre-employment forms they were a little uncomfortable with having to authorize a background check. As part of the process the boys had to get fingerprinted by the Department of Public Safety to make sure they have no ugliness in their past. All this was necessary because they're going to be working in public schools for the summer, but they still felt like they were being treated like criminals even though they are both exemplary young men. As a dad, all I could do was advise them to get used to it.


----------



## ChortlingCrison

Hunt to Eat said:


> Kind of like the universe...forever expanding!


 "The desert driver" also likes this.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

ChortlingCrison said:


> "The desert driver" also likes this.


We can't help but wonder how much better this world would be today had the DD coyote not been killed off. It's not like he ran out into traffic, after all.


----------



## UberHammer

Hunt to Eat said:


> We can't help but wonder how much better this world would be today had the DD coyote not been killed off. It's not like he ran out into traffic, after all.


We need a Desert Driver holiday to memorialize him. We'll call it "DD-Day" for short.


----------



## Squirming Like A Toad

Hunt to Eat said:


> What a great comment, seriously. My teenage sons accepted internships for the summer earlier this week. As they were filling out all the pre-employment forms they were a little uncomfortable with having to authorize a background check. As part of the process the boys had to get fingerprinted by the Department of Public Safety to make sure they have no ugliness in their past. All this was necessary because they're going to be working in public schools for the summer, but they still felt like they were being treated like criminals even though they are both exemplary young men. As a dad, all I could do was advise them to get used to it.


It is necessary. The hurt feelings caused by child abuse are much worse than the hurt feelings caused by fingerprinting. I've had to go through the same process for my firearms permits, and that's to exercise a Constitutional right.

If I ran a competitor to Uber instead of the silly anti-gun statements I would only sign drivers with carry permits. Actually carrying is optional. Background check- done! No more attacks on drivers and riders would prefer getting drivers who have lived a clean life.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

UberHammer said:


> We need a Desert Driver holiday to memorialize him. We'll call it "DD-Day" for short.


DD's epitaph likely reads "Always Be Compensated."


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> It is necessary. The hurt feelings caused by child abuse are much worse than the hurt feelings caused by fingerprinting. I've had to go through the same process for my firearms permits, and that's to exercise a Constitutional right.
> 
> If I ran a competitor to Uber instead of the silly anti-gun statements I would only sign drivers with carry permits. Actually carrying is optional. Background check- done! No more attacks on drivers and riders would prefer getting drivers who have lived a clean life.


But that approach to running a competitor to Uber would put you into all sorts of liability trouble that you'd really rather avoid. Although it would be an easy way to bypass the silly background check process that Uber currently engages in with questionable results.


----------



## Squirming Like A Toad

Hunt to Eat said:


> But that approach to running a competitor to Uber would put you into all sorts of liability trouble that you'd really rather avoid. Although it would be an easy way to bypass the silly background check process that Uber currently engages in with questionable results.


That's a myth, that allowing guns increases liability. No one has ever been sued because they didn't put up a "no guns" sign, what gets you sued is saying anything at all about them then when something happens someone blames it on your decision, whatever it was. If a driver gets hurt they could sue Uber over the no gun policy. Just requiring that drivers have the permit, then whatever they decide to carry as long as it is within the law is up to them prevents any liability, because they didn't tell anyone what to do or not do.

In Uber's case it's just a political statement, they rely on business from a lot of "progressive" areas and if they are seen as having the wrong position on gun rights (or the immigration status / work eligibility of drivers for that matter) they're going to get banned and harassed in a lot of cities.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> That's a myth, that allowing guns increases liability. No one has ever been sued because they didn't put up a "no guns" sign, what gets you sued is saying anything at all about them then when something happens someone blames it on your decision, whatever it was. If a driver gets hurt they could sue Uber over the no gun policy. Just requiring that drivers have the permit, then whatever they decide to carry as long as it is within the law is up to them prevents any liability, because they didn't tell anyone what to do or not do.
> 
> In Uber's case it's just a political statement, they rely on business from a lot of "progressive" areas and if they are seen as having the wrong position on gun rights (or the immigration status / work eligibility of drivers for that matter) they're going to get banned and harassed in a lot of cities.


No, no, no. All I mean is that you seem to be propagating the myth that people who carry firearms are safer that people who do not. That's all I was getting at.


----------



## Old Rocker

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> That's a myth, that allowing guns increases liability. No one has ever been sued because they didn't put up a "no guns" sign, what gets you sued is saying anything at all about them then when something happens someone blames it on your decision, whatever it was. If a driver gets hurt they could sue Uber over the no gun policy. Just requiring that drivers have the permit, then whatever they decide to carry as long as it is within the law is up to them prevents any liability, because they didn't tell anyone what to do or not do.
> 
> In Uber's case it's just a political statement, they rely on business from a lot of "progressive" areas and if they are seen as having the wrong position on gun rights (or the immigration status / work eligibility of drivers for that matter) they're going to get banned and harassed in a lot of cities.


Just thinking out loud that a driver trying to sue Uber because he was prohibited from carrying would have to prove that possessing a gun would have protected him from being harmed. That's a pretty tall mountain to climb. For the record I have an LTC.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Old Rocker said:


> Just thinking out loud that a driver trying to sue Uber because he was prohibited from carrying would have to prove that possessing a gun would have protected him from being harmed. That's a pretty tall mountain to climb. For the record I have an LTC.


I, too, own a couple firearms but I am also fully aware that carrying them in no way makes me safer on the street, or in my car for that matter.


----------



## Old Rocker

Hunt to Eat said:


> I, too, own a couple firearms but I am also fully aware that carrying them in no way makes me safer on the street, or in my car for that matter.


There was a recent incident here in Houston where an armed gunman walked up to a car at a fast food drive thru and tried to rob the driver. The driver was legally carrying and shot and killed the assailant. No charges were filed against the victim.


----------



## Demon

Rico Ramz said:


> The same reason why the rest of the law abiding population in the whole USA don't want to fingerprinted and be treated like if they were all criminals and being like property of the government/ruling class. boooom! Nailed it!


You just admitted to breaking the law and openly stated you will "do what you want".


----------



## Demon

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> That's a myth, that allowing guns increases liability. No one has ever been sued because they didn't put up a "no guns" sign, what gets you sued is saying anything at all about them then when something happens someone blames it on your decision, whatever it was. If a driver gets hurt they could sue Uber over the no gun policy. Just requiring that drivers have the permit, then whatever they decide to carry as long as it is within the law is up to them prevents any liability, because they didn't tell anyone what to do or not do.
> 
> In Uber's case it's just a political statement, they rely on business from a lot of "progressive" areas and if they are seen as having the wrong position on gun rights (or the immigration status / work eligibility of drivers for that matter) they're going to get banned and harassed in a lot of cities.


It's not a political statement, it's a liability issue.


----------



## Demon

nononsense said:


> I am sorry but we are not a public service to get someone's daughter , mom, son, wife home safely. We are all there at 2am to make a buck.
> If we actually see a person in distress we will provide all aporopriate assistance like any normal person would do.
> However when a person willingly puts herself at risk by being outside at 2 am it is not an emergency until something bad actually happens - then it is our duty to help.
> Otherwise were do we stop? Are we supposed to give free rides to anyone just because we happened to be there at 2 am?


No one was asking for a free ride, this was a paying customer.


----------



## Demon

Hunt to Eat said:


> You make an excellent point. However, let's place the blame in the proper quarter. After all, Travis created the rate mess, not us drivers. We're just trying to make a buck. We really can't be concerned about another's safety until we accept them into our auto. I know that sounds incredibly callous, but this is where rate cuts have placed us. We've had to get very, very pragmatic.


I disagree with you. The drivers are the cause of the rate mess. If no one drove for the current rates, the rates would go up.


----------



## San Diego Steve

R44KDEN said:


> I received a ping in Boulder the other day (late afternoon on the Sunday of Memorial Day weekend), tried calling but no answer. In a moment of weakness I said "what the hell, I will go and pick them up" knowing full well that it was probably a local trip. I arrive and there are a couple of guys standing out front and more people coming out the door. It had rained heavily earlier and there was a black lab playing in the front yard. There was a couple of 6 packs of beer on the ground and the guys both had beer bottles in their hand.
> 
> I wind down the window...
> "How many are there of you?" I ask
> "We wont bring the beer bottles in the car" the guy insists
> "There's 4 of us plus the dog" he continues
> "Sorry I don't do dogs" and wind up the window and drive off
> 
> Much abuse follows as I'm driving away. The point is this. If the guy had said "there's 4 of us and here's $5/$10 if you'll please take our dog and someone will make sure he sits in the very back and not jump all over the place" I would have easily complied. True, I dont like wet animals in my car (and one that had just been recently detailed) but the car I was in was one of our 7 seat SUVs and there's a heavy duty mat in the cargo section. I dont have a problem at all with alcohol in the car as we are livery plated and open alcohol is allowed. What I have a problem with is a lot of peoples sense of entitlement that we are simply their transport slaves. This is America. Money talks.


Smart call on your part, sounds like it would have been a disaster. That's why I call in advance, avoid idiots like this.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Old Rocker said:


> There was a recent incident here in Houston where an armed gunman walked up to a car at a fast food drive thru and tried to rob the driver. The driver was legally carrying and shot and killed the assailant. No charges were filed against the victim.


That's an excellent anecdote. However, for every one of those outcomes there are something like 20 that go the other way. And because I'm aware of the current statistics I know I am safer when I don't carry.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Demon said:


> I disagree with you. The drivers are the cause of the rate mess. If no one drove for the current rates, the rates would go up.


Ahh, but without a union, Uber knows that drivers are individually helpless, and so drivers continue to get bent over through no fault of their own..


----------



## Demon

Hunt to Eat said:


> Ahh, but without a union, Uber knows that drivers are individually helpless, and so drivers continue to get bent over through no fault of their own..


Again, I'm going to disagree with you. Any driver can stop driving at any time. If enough drivers choose to do this Uber will have to make some different decisions. People choose to drive for Uber, that's not a fault, it's a choice.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Demon said:


> Again, I'm going to disagree with you. Any driver can stop driving at any time. If enough drivers choose to do this Uber will have to make some different decisions. People choose to drive for Uber, that's not a fault, it's a choice.


I honor and respect your right to disagree, but I'm simply sharing the facts here.


----------



## Daniel Harbin

A CCL person is as safe as his or her own skill in situational awareness and ability to hit a target. Plus understanding when you point a gun at someone you will kill them whether or not you do kill them. I am safer with a gun. Done with rant, no more on subjec.


----------



## Demon

Hunt to Eat said:


> I honor and respect your right to disagree, but I'm simply sharing the facts here.


But you aren't sharing any facts. A fact would be that Uber drivers can stop driving anytime they want, they are under no obligation to drive at the current rates.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Demon said:


> But you aren't sharing any facts. A fact would be that Uber drivers can stop driving anytime they want, they are under no obligation to drive at the current rates.


I honor and respect your right to disagree.
Now, would you like me to explain how collective bargaining works and how that would benefit drivers?


----------



## Demon

Hunt to Eat said:


> I honor and respect your right to disagree.
> Now, would you like me to explain how collective bargaining works and how that would benefit drivers?


There's no need to, I understand how it works. It would benefit drivers, but part of bargaining is the use of a work stoppage, which drivers can do at any time.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Daniel Harbin said:


> A CCL person is as safe as his or her own skill in situational awareness and ability to hit a target. Plus understanding when you point a gun at someone you will kill them whether or not you do kill them. I am safer with a gun. Done with rant, no more on subjec.


If only, right? Here, let me help you out. Keep in mind I'm not arguing with you. I'm simply sharing the facts on the topic.

*Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.*

Fact-check: In 2014, according to FBI data, nearly eight times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
• In one survey, nearly 1 percent of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at these claims found that more than half involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
• A study in Philadelphia found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.

_Sources: PricewaterhouseCoopers, Small Arms Survey, Centers for Disease Control, GunPolicyOrg/University of Sydney_


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Demon said:


> There's no need to, I understand how it works. It would benefit drivers, but part of bargaining is the use of a work stoppage, which drivers can do at any time.


I see you're not a big picture person. I know plenty of people who have quit. Guess what...no change.

Is there anything else I can help you with today?


----------



## Hunt to Eat

ChortlingCrison said:


> meep meep


If I just had a reliable Acme product to catch that gd bird!!!


----------



## Demon

Hunt to Eat said:


> I see you're not a big picture person. I know plenty of people who have quit. Guess what...no change.
> 
> Is there anything else I can help you with today?


Yes, that's exactly my point. Until ENOUGH drivers stop driving (I never said quit) there won't be a change. Drivers won't have a strong bargaining position unless there is ENOUGH of them. But if people keep driving at the current rate there will never be any change, if anything the prices will get lower.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Demon said:


> Yes, that's exactly my point. Until ENOUGH drivers stop driving (I never said quit) there won't be a change. Drivers won't have a strong bargaining position unless there is ENOUGH of them. But if people keep driving at the current rate there will never be any change, if anything the prices will get lower.


But without a means of organizing, drivers have no chance of ever getting anything done here, due in large part to foreigners and others so {expletive} desperate to make any wage (even $3 per hour) that they're too frightened to take even the smallest of steps to help themselves out. And this is where Uber preys.
I think that should clear this up. Anything else?


----------



## Demon

ChortlingCrison said:


> Well eventually their vehicles will eventually fail them. Hopefully more cities will follow Austin's lead of regulating uber/lyft. They wouldn't be able to get nearly as many drivers out there so quickly.


All cities should have basic regulations in place to protect Uber, the drivers and the riders.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

ChortlingCrison said:


> Well eventually their vehicles will eventually fail them. Hopefully more cities will follow Austin's lead of regulating uber/lyft. They wouldn't be able to get nearly as many drivers out there so quickly.


Why do bison always seem to have a big picture view and a pragmatic comment?


----------



## Demon

Hunt to Eat said:


> But without a means of organizing, drivers have no chance of ever getting anything done here, due in large part to foreigners and others so {expletive} desperate to make any wage (even $3 per hour) that they're too frightened to take even the smallest of steps to help themselves out. And this is where Uber preys.
> I think that should clear this up. Anything else?


I agree with you that Uber preys on people, but how many rides does it take before someone realizes they will always lose money while driving for Uber? If they continue to drive when they know they're losing money no matter what that's on the driver.


----------



## Daniel Harbin

As long as right to work is in place and unions are not mandatory a union will not work. Unions rely on strong-arm tactics and intimidation to get their way. Then they charge exorbitant fees to members for stuff the people can get on their own. In short this is why unions are dying in the private sector.


----------



## Demon

Daniel Harbin said:


> As long as right to work is in place and unions are not mandatory a union will not work. Unions rely on strong-arm tactics and intimidation to get their way. Then they charge exorbitant fees to members for stuff the people can get on their own. In short this is why unions are dying in the private sector.


That simply isn't true.


----------



## UberHammer

Demon said:


> I disagree with you. The drivers are the cause of the rate mess. If no one drove for the current rates, the rates would go up.


I agree... but people in desperate circumstances result in that premise not being pragmatic.

Even the most healthy economy has a percentage of the populace that is desperate. Laws exist to keep companies from exploiting that section of the populace. Travis Kalanick has found a way around those laws in order to reap the benefit of exploiting them. If Uber had to ensure that drivers make at least minimum wage and contribute to social safety nets like unemployment insurance and social security, Uber could never set the rates as low as they do.


----------



## Demon

UberHammer said:


> I agree... but people in desperate circumstances result in that premise not being pragmatic.
> 
> Even the most healthy economy has a percentage of the populace that is desperate. Laws exist to keep companies from exploiting that section of the populace. Travis Kalanick has found a way around those laws in order to reap the benefit of exploiting them. If Uber had to ensure that drivers make at least minimum wage and contribute to social safety nets like unemployment insurance and social security, Uber could never set the rates as low as they do.


I agree with you. Eventually Uber will lose a suit and be forced to classify drivers as employees.


----------



## UberRose

Snowtop said:


> Rose you really need to get on the passenger app and maybe take a ride. You apparently have no idea how the system operates. Passengers do not get a list of available drivers. They are assigned the closest one.


But the passenger said that they got a list to choose from. If they are assigned me without choice then I will gladly stop giving them the 1 star and will give them 5 stars. And yes, you are right. ...I have never taken an uber ride. I started driving for uber some 6 weeks ago. But the passengers said that they get a list to choose from.


----------



## UberHammer

Demon said:


> I agree with you that Uber preys on people, but how many rides does it take before someone realizes they will always lose money while driving for Uber? If they continue to drive when they know they're losing money no matter what that's on the driver.


Gas fill ups are too small of a cash flow hit to indicate the driver how expensive their costs of Ubering are. It takes a far more expensive service cost or repair, or a driver who realizes how much the increase mileage has killed their car's resale value, before they start to understand it. Until then, Uber cash flow is appealing. Unfortunately cash flow is NOT profit. A lot of the cash flow is just liquidating the asset value of the car, much like selling the car bit by bit to a pawn shop over time. It's only profit if it's sold for more than what it was bought for.

That being said, there's only a few cities, like Detroit perhaps, where driving for Uber is unprofitable. Most cities are profitable, but even $1 an hour is considered profitable. My city is $1.10/mile and outside of the bar crowd on Friday and Saturday, that rate produces at or just above minimum wage for a full time driver. If you need more than that per hour, you are limited to a few hours a week that can produce that. Even Travis has changed his tune. He used to say Uber is creating jobs. Now he tells the media that Uber is a great option for people to do who have lost a job and are looking for a new one. It's really a bottom of the barrell source of income. Those trumpeting Uber as being more than that are looking more and more silly day by day.


----------



## Old Rocker

Hunt to Eat said:


> That's an excellent anecdote. However, for every one of those outcomes there are something like 20 that go the other way. And because I'm aware of the current statistics I know I am safer when I don't carry.


I think your point is valid. I'd say many people, even those who have an LCT, aren't expert enough to defend themselves with a handgun in a close quarters situation like in a vehicle. Plus, unless you are sitting on your handgun, a pax always has an opportunity to get to the weapon before you do in a surprise attack.

For the record, I don't carry when I Uber.

A tactical pen is a decent choice. You carry it in your shirt pocket and if a pax attacks you, they probably won't be expecting a pen being forcefully inserted into their soft tissue.

We have to have TNC licenses. I have mine on a lanyard, but I never, never wear the lanyard around my neck while driving.


----------



## Daniel Harbin

Demon I love your rebuttal, reminds me of my kids when they disagree with me ... no argument just a nuhu. Unions are shrinking and have been for years. And the thing I like about the rideshare is I make my own hours and I am in control. Its a choice I make to drive or not, to accept the poor compensation or not. If all states when RTW then unions would almost die off. The only union doing well is the public sector.


----------



## Old Rocker

UberHammer said:


> Gas fill ups are too small of a cash flow hit to indicate the driver how expensive their costs of Ubering are. It takes a far more expensive service cost or repair, or a driver who realizes how much the increase mileage has killed their car's resale value, before they start to understand it. Until then, Uber cash flow is appealing. Unfortunately cash flow is NOT profit. A lot of the cash flow is just liquidating the asset value of the car, much like selling the car bit by bit to a pawn shop over time. It's only profit if it's sold for more than what it was bought for.
> 
> That being said, there's only a few cities, like Detroit perhaps, where driving for Uber is unprofitable. Most cities are profitable, but even $1 an hour is considered profitable. My city is $1.10/mile and outside of the bar crowd on Friday and Saturday, that rate produces at or just above minimum wage for a full time driver. If you need more than that per hour, you are limited to a few hours a week that can produce that. Even Travis has changed his tune. He used to say Uber is creating jobs. Now he tells the media that Uber is a great option for people to do who have lost a job and are looking for a new one. It's really a bottom of the barrell source of income. Those trumpeting Uber as being more than that are looking more and more silly day by day.


I have a business degree and whatever it is Uber is doing boggles my mind. The only thing I can come up with that remotely makes sense is that Uber is aware of the threat of competition so they want to establish themselves as the market leader before competitors can come to market. The problem is they've so completely alienated their drivers that practically everyone would jump ship to a new competitor paying better rates. The only reason Uber requires so much money (IMHO) is for expansion. A different company, not so keen on conquering the world, could pay drivers more and take a smaller commission and still thrive. No company remains the market leader forever; Sony and Apple for example.


----------



## Daniel Harbin

I carry all times and have knives also. I am always safer when in control of my surroundings.


----------



## Daniel Harbin

Old Rocker you forgot IBM which dominated the market until the mid 80's when they lost their patent. But thats when the free market interviened and the computer was changed forever. From 2K plus in 1980 to about 100 bucks and going down.


----------



## UberHammer

Old Rocker said:


> No company remains the market leader forever; Sony and Apple for example.


Novell used to have 70%+ of their market. Blackberry used to have 70%+ of their market.

Someday I hope to say the same about Uber.

#### UBER!!!!


----------



## Old Rocker

Daniel Harbin said:


> As long as right to work is in place and unions are not mandatory a union will not work. Unions rely on strong-arm tactics and intimidation to get their way. Then they charge exorbitant fees to members for stuff the people can get on their own. In short this is why unions are dying in the private sector.


I read an article just yesterday that listed each state and how much union membership has declined in each state. In the past ten years, no state has had an increase in union membership. The exception is for public workers. Some states have had increases in union members in the public sector.

My wife works for the federal government and is a union member. Their fees are low and they offer great add-on benefits.


----------



## UberAnt39

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Late night riders have been telling me the driver has been accepting the ping, calling them, asking where they are going and then cancelling the ride if they don't like it. There are at most 1 or 2 other drivers in the area when I am rolling so I think it's the same one. F him, if I can roll the dice so can he. Last night's event turned out to be a good fare, and it left me in a place where I got a $90 fare next. This is a slow period in the area, school is out and summer travel hasn't started yet and last night I went 2 hours without a fare, I'm either taking what I can get or staying home. Can't believe somebody can not be deactivated for too much of that.
> 
> Of course, I did my part to F him by telling the passenger to lie to the driver next time, look at the map and tell him you are going back to where he is, or I gave him a list of other places to tell the driver he is going to ensure he will come out. "Hey, my friend called and told me he wasn't going to be there, so I decided to go home instead."


If you're on Guaranteed Minimum time and running low, as Uber see they're going have to make up the difference you'll be amazed how many long trips out of the required 67% pickup area you suddenly get. The more difference they have to make up, the "closest"er driver you'll become.


----------



## dirtylee

UberJag said:


> blah blah blah


23 is old enough to serve in war. Tell your daughter {most likely a waitress} to tip drivers. Made $200 that night & can't even throw the driver a couple bucks?


----------



## Old Rocker

Daniel Harbin said:


> I carry all times and have knives also. I am always safer when in control of my surroundings.


I may or may not carry a KA-BAR and /or a S&W tactical knife with belt cutter and glass breaker in my car.


----------



## JSM0713

Since UBER is a technology company after all, how hard would it be for a driver to establish the areas they are driving by preregistering those locations to UBER in advance. Ride requests to areas not within the preferred area would go to another driver how was willing to go to those locations. It's not that hard to do. The idea of keeping destinations secret from the driver until the ride starts is outright wrong and should stop ASAP. A driver working around Aventura in NE Miami should know in advance that his ride request will take him more than 20 miles in the opposite direction.


----------



## Old Rocker

I'd like to see a national organization for 'ride share' drivers so WE can work with local and state governments and give them our side of the issues when Uber or whoever rolls into town and tries to force city councils to bend to their will. And I don't mean like the U/L drivers in Chicago who went to the city council meeting to plead on Uber's side (no disrespect to those who did).

I don't think, at this time, a 'ride share' union would work. Unions aren't in vogue right now and riders won't back strikers just because we say we don't get paid enough. Many in the public will simply say we should get a different job.


----------



## Rico Ramz

Old Rocker said:


> Just thinking out loud that a driver trying to sue Uber because he was prohibited from carrying would have to prove that possessing a gun would have protected him from being harmed. That's a pretty tall mountain to climb. For the record I have an LTC.


Oh yea, LTC -low testosterone count!  ;p


----------



## Rico Ramz

Hunt to Eat said:


> I honor and respect your right to disagree.
> Now, would you like me to explain how collective bargaining works and how that would benefit drivers?


Don't try to reason with Demon, he is an Uber shill! Ignore him and he'll disappear.


----------



## up the river

Old Rocker said:


> I may or may not carry a KA-BAR and /or a S&W tactical knife with belt cutter and glass breaker in my car.


I prefer a l.a.w.s. rocket but I still haven't thought of a good explanation for the large exit hole for my insurance agent..Look BOOBIES..


----------



## Rico Ramz

up the river said:


> I prefer a l.a.w.s. rocket but I still haven't thought of a good explanation for the large exit hole for my insurance agent..Look BOOBIES..


This is efing hilarious, made my day! Lol


----------



## Daniel Harbin

Ignoring a growth is a sure way to let cancer spread and kill ya.


----------



## XUberMike

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Late night riders have been telling me the driver has been accepting the ping, calling them, asking where they are going and then cancelling the ride if they don't like it. There are at most 1 or 2 other drivers in the area when I am rolling so I think it's the same one. F him, if I can roll the dice so can he. Last night's event turned out to be a good fare, and it left me in a place where I got a $90 fare next. This is a slow period in the area, school is out and summer travel hasn't started yet and last night I went 2 hours without a fare, I'm either taking what I can get or staying home. Can't believe somebody can not be deactivated for too much of that.
> 
> Of course, I did my part to F him by telling the passenger to lie to the driver next time, look at the map and tell him you are going back to where he is, or I gave him a list of other places to tell the driver he is going to ensure he will come out. "Hey, my friend called and told me he wasn't going to be there, so I decided to go home instead."


I'm trying to figure out why you care so much (that you told him to lie.) Other drivers cancelling means more rides for you, after all we are INDEPENDENT Contractors and should be able to conduct our business how we see fit. If Uber decides to cancel these drivers out that's their prerogative but it's certainly not yours to instruct someone to lie to us.

Too many justify bad behavior by promoting/additional bad behavior. After all is their really something wrong with a driver perhaps wanting to head in the direction of home late at night? But now they won't be able to as you instruct PAX to lie.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Daniel Harbin said:


> Demon I love your rebuttal, reminds me of my kids when they disagree with me ... no argument just a nuhu. Unions are shrinking and have been for years. And the thing I like about the rideshare is I make my own hours and I am in control. Its a choice I make to drive or not, to accept the poor compensation or not. If all states when RTW then unions would almost die off. The only union doing well is the public sector.


Next time you use your employer's health insurance, thank a union member.
Next time you take a paid vacation, thank a union member.

Remember, the unions built the middle class in this country. Unions are now shrinking, as is the middle class. Weird coincidence, huh?


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Demon said:


> I agree with you that Uber preys on people, but how many rides does it take before someone realizes they will always lose money while driving for Uber? If they continue to drive when they know they're losing money no matter what that's on the driver.


The larger problem, of course, is that the vast majority of drivers are simply not sophisticated enough to understand that what feels like profit is nothing more than early cash-out of the equity in their cars. Funny how that's never discussed in any of the Uber training, isn't it?


----------



## XUberMike

Dang just had my 3rd rider cancellation of the day and about 10th. of the week (1 for week for me and that was a one show.)

Regardless I'll get a I've been canceling too many requests text & email from Uber as well as a timeout for my riders poor behavior.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

ChortlingCrison said:


> It's done out of love. BTw Im not a bison. I am the meandering crison, on the horizon.
> 
> The crison is chortling.


As I teen I used to camp in the badlands of western North Dakota, so I'm no stranger to bison...or crison...or buffalo...or...


----------



## Hunt to Eat

XUberMike said:


> Dang just had my 3rd rider cancellation of the day and about 10th. of the week (1 for week for me and that was a one show.)
> 
> Regardless I'll get a I've been canceling too many requests text & email from Uber as well as a timeout for my riders poor behavior.


Is that a bad thing?


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Daniel Harbin said:


> As long as right to work is in place and unions are not mandatory a union will not work. Unions rely on strong-arm tactics and intimidation to get their way. Then they charge exorbitant fees to members for stuff the people can get on their own. In short this is why unions are dying in the private sector.


But sadly, with the death of the unions comes the demise of the middle class. Remember, the unions built the middle class in this country.


----------



## XUberMike

Hunt to Eat said:


> Is that a bad thing?


Naaa... maybe the OP told the riders to do this as well.

Cancellations are a 2 way street as some are aware of.


----------



## XUberMike

Hunt to Eat said:


> As I teen I used to camp in the badlands of western North Dakota, so I'm no stranger to bison...or crison...or buffalo...or...


Did you have to hunt to eat  ?


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Daniel Harbin said:


> I carry all times and have knives also. I am always safer when in control of my surroundings.


You're not actually safer, statistically speaking. What you're experiencing is what is known as a false sense of security.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

XUberMike said:


> Did you have to hunt to eat  ?


Yeah....I hunted down a Super Valu store, then ate very well.

Your comment put a big smile on this coyote's droopy face.


----------



## Old Rocker

Hunt to Eat said:


> Next time you use your employer's health insurance, thank a union member.
> Next time you take a paid vacation, thank a union member.
> 
> Remember, the unions built the middle class in this country. Unions are now shrinking, as is the middle class. Weird coincidence, huh?


I'd argue that the middle class is shrinking because companies sent jobs overseas because labor is much cheaper there. Thanks unions.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Old Rocker said:


> I'd argue that the middle class is shrinking because companies sent jobs overseas because labor is much cheaper there. Thanks unions.


One could take that perspective.


----------



## Demon

Daniel Harbin said:


> Demon I love your rebuttal, reminds me of my kids when they disagree with me ... no argument just a nuhu. Unions are shrinking and have been for years. And the thing I like about the rideshare is I make my own hours and I am in control. Its a choice I make to drive or not, to accept the poor compensation or not. If all states when RTW then unions would almost die off. The only union doing well is the public sector.


I thought it best to keep in line with your baloney claim that didn't offer anything to back up your argument.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

Hunt to Eat said:


> Remember, the unions built the middle class in this country. Unions are now shrinking, as is the middle class. Weird coincidence, huh?


That's not exactly true, the Middle Class in the country really originated in the 1920's, because of the automotive and electronic revolutions. The number of cars and radios, really skyrocketed, and it allowed millions to move to the suburbs and adapt the Middle Class lifestyle. The 1920's were prosperous, but they were also a nadir of the organized labor movement.


----------



## Rico Ramz

Old Rocker said:


> A tactical pen is a decent choice. You carry it in your shirt pocket and if a pax attacks you, they probably won't be expecting a pen being forcefully inserted into their soft tissue.


Or shoved right in the middle of their forehead, ninja style! ;P


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4

Rico Ramz said:


> Or shoved right in the middle of their forehead, ninja style! ;P


Bout 5 years back someone tried to rob me with a knife and I stabbed him in the face with a drafting pencil. (One of the pentec ones with a heavy metal tip.)

http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/331781...7290-0%26rvr_id%3D1040623482897&ul_noapp=true

I punched a hole in his cheek, ducked up 3 teeth and caused a grand total of $2000 in medical expenses. The vast majority was dental work.

I had a grand total of $75 in cash on me at the time.


----------



## Old Rocker

Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> Bout 5 years back someone tried to rob me with a knife and I stabbed him in the face with a drafting pencil. (One of the pentec ones with a heavy metal tip.)
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/331781838071?lpid=82&chn=ps&ul_ref=http%3A%2F%2Frover.ebay.com%2Frover%2F1%2F711-117182-37290-0%2F2%3Fmtid%3D1588%26kwid%3D1%26crlp%3D106257316689_324272%26itemid%3D331781838071%26targetid%3D185522240169%26rpc%3D0.17%26rpc_upld_id%3D71347%26device%3Dm%26mpre%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.ebay.com%252Fulk%252Fitm%252Flike%252F331781838071%253Flpid%253D82%2526chn%253Dps%26adtype%3Dpla%26googleloc%3D9052488%26poi%3D%26campaignid%3D601965268%26adgroupid%3D31024922649%26rlsatarget%3Dpla-185522240169%26gclid%3DCJCR5va6j80CFdgHgQodk6sPbQ%26srcrot%3D711-117182-37290-0%26rvr_id%3D1040623482897&ul_noapp=true
> 
> I punched a hole in his cheek, ducked up 3 teeth and caused a grand total of $2000 in medical expenses. The vast majority was dental work.
> 
> I had a grand total of $75 in cash on me at the time.


Did he try to sue you?


----------



## Hunt to Eat

I_Like_Spam said:


> That's not exactly true, the Middle Class in the country really originated in the 1920's, because of the automotive and electronic revolutions. The number of cars and radios, really skyrocketed, and it allowed millions to move to the suburbs and adapt the Middle Class lifestyle. The 1920's were prosperous, but they were also a nadir of the organized labor movement.


While you comment is mostly true, your perspective is far too narrow.


----------



## Rico Ramz

Hunt to Eat said:


> But without a means of organizing, drivers have no chance of ever getting anything done here, due in large part to foreigners and others so {expletive} desperate to make any wage (even $3 per hour) that they're too frightened to take even the smallest of steps to help themselves out. And this is where Uber preys.
> I think that should clear this up. Anything else?


True, true, there are a lot of drivers on Uber and lyft that are newer immigrants, here on assilum or work visas, that pretty much try to get their hand on any job they can get, due to their low skills or lack of them. Easy target for a predatory company like Uber.


----------



## Rico Ramz

Old Rocker said:


> Did he try to sue you?


The rider tried to rob him with a knife! I believe that is assault with a deadly weapon. How can a criminal like that turn around an sue you?


----------



## I_Like_Spam

Rico Ramz said:


> The rider tried to rob him with a knife! I believe that is assault with a deadly weapon. How can a criminal like that turn around an sue you?


People can be sued for anything, and guys sitting in the can really don't have anything better to do than to file lawsuits.

Almost 30 years here in Pittsburgh, a young man attacked and killed his date at a local college, cutting her up with a knife. He went to trial, was found guilty and sent to the penitentiary for life.

The following year, he sued her parents, alleging if they had raised her right, she would have never gone out with him, and he wouldn't be in so much trouble today.

Needless to say, the suit was thrown out, but your cons are hell for legal action.


----------



## Rico Ramz

XUberMike said:


> Dang just had my 3rd rider cancellation of the day and about 10th. of the week (1 for week for me and that was a one show.)
> 
> Regardless I'll get a I've been canceling too many requests text & email from Uber as well as a timeout for my riders poor behavior.


One of the recent lawsuits that Uber lost, the result was that Uber Can not deactivate you for low acceptance rate, so they can threaten you all they want! but all they can do is time you out. (At least in California. I don't know about the rest of the US) The majority of drivers don't know this and fold to pressure from Uber. Find out if this restriction on Uber practices applies on your state and rally your fellow drivers.


----------



## Daniel Harbin

aTE, union lies. Ford had most of that and it was before unions. Its the laws of supply and demand. Unions are not good and the only way they operate is through their government lackeys. Most people don't want unions hence the decline of unions. In RTW states unions Are almost nonexistent and have no teeth. And in those states the economy is much better.


----------



## Daniel Harbin

HTE yes I am safer. The problem is your premise and analogy. I have been taking CPR classes for 45 years and until last year never had the occasion to use it. Doesn't mean I wasn't skilled in it or it was not useful, it means I had the capability to perform CPR and potentially save someone's life. In the same vein, I CC and am ready for that moment in time it will mean safety for me and others. Hence the studies are bogus.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Daniel Harbin said:


> HTE yes I am safer. The problem is your premise and analogy. I have been taking CPR classes for 45 years and until last year never had the occasion to use it. Doesn't mean I wasn't skilled in it or it was not useful, it means I had the capability to perform CPR and potentially save someone's life. In the same vein, I CC and am ready for that moment in time it will mean safety for me and others. Hence the studies are bogus.


You're simply buying into the myth of greater safety when you carry. And that's OK. Many do. This isn't a debate point. It's a fact. You have a far greater chance of getting hurt or dirt napped when you carry. Stats bear that out. It's no big deal, really, it's just what happens and the data back it up.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Daniel Harbin said:


> aTE, union lies. Ford had most of that and it was before unions. Its the laws of supply and demand. Unions are not good and the only way they operate is through their government lackeys. Most people don't want unions hence the decline of unions. In RTW states unions Are almost nonexistent and have no teeth. And in those states the economy is much better.


If only, right?


----------



## Daniel Harbin

No myth I have lots of evidence that guns have saved lives. Lies, damn lies and statistics.


----------



## Agent99

Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> Bout 5 years back someone tried to rob me with a knife and I stabbed him in the face with a drafting pencil. (One of the pentec ones with a heavy metal tip.)
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/331781838071?lpid=82&chn=ps&ul_ref=http%3A%2F%2Frover.ebay.com%2Frover%2F1%2F711-117182-37290-0%2F2%3Fmtid%3D1588%26kwid%3D1%26crlp%3D106257316689_324272%26itemid%3D331781838071%26targetid%3D185522240169%26rpc%3D0.17%26rpc_upld_id%3D71347%26device%3Dm%26mpre%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.ebay.com%252Fulk%252Fitm%252Flike%252F331781838071%253Flpid%253D82%2526chn%253Dps%26adtype%3Dpla%26googleloc%3D9052488%26poi%3D%26campaignid%3D601965268%26adgroupid%3D31024922649%26rlsatarget%3Dpla-185522240169%26gclid%3DCJCR5va6j80CFdgHgQodk6sPbQ%26srcrot%3D711-117182-37290-0%26rvr_id%3D1040623482897&ul_noapp=true
> 
> I punched a hole in his cheek, ducked up 3 teeth and caused a grand total of $2000 in medical expenses. The vast majority was dental work.
> 
> I had a grand total of $75 in cash on me at the time.


How do you know how much it cost the other guy? They sent you a copy of the bill?


----------



## Snowtop

Rico Ramz said:


> The rider tried to rob him with a knife! I believe that is assault with a deadly weapon. How can a criminal like that turn around an sue you?


So naive.


----------



## Agent99

Rico Ramz said:


> The rider tried to rob him with a knife! I believe that is assault with a deadly weapon. How can a criminal like that turn around an sue you?


"Because they can."


----------



## stuber

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Oh like hell they can't! If you're an independent contractor, there's a contract, and they can put anything they want in the contract. They can tell an IC things they couldn't tell an employee. I've done plenty of work on contract and if they tell me I have to work nude and I sign up for it, that's what I have to do.
> 
> Not that I would mind working nude. I'm nude right now.


Disagree, but that's funny. Not all contracts are ruled to be enforceable. Non-compete contracts are often considered weak and thrown out if challenged. Uber's agreement seems a bit far reaching.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

*Myth #1:* They're coming for your guns.

*Fact-check:* With as many as 310 million privately owned guns in America, it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 70 to 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1. On the other hand if you think your personal firearms are going to help you in a fight against the US military, you will want to check the specs on the Bradley M2.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

*Myth #2:* Guns don't kill people-people kill people.

*Fact-check:* People with access to more guns tend to kill more people-with guns. States with higher gun ownership rates have higher gun murder rates-as much as 114 percent higher than states with lower gun ownership rates.
• A recent study looking at 30 years of homicide data found that for every one percent increase in a state's gun ownership rate, there is a nearly one percent increase in its firearm homicide rate.
• Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as safe-storage requirements or assault-weapons bans.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

*Myth #3:* An armed society is a polite society.

*Fact-check:* Various studies suggest that being armed increases your chances of getting into a confrontation.
• Nine percent of Americans report signs of "impulsive angry behavior" (such as breaking things and getting into fights)-and say they own a gun.
• Drivers who carry guns are 44 percent more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77 percent more likely to follow them aggressively.
• Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.
• In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10 percent increase in homicides.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

*Myth #4:* More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.

*Fact-check:* Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 33 years: 0
• Chances that a shooting in a hospital emergency department involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5


----------



## Hunt to Eat

*Myth #5:* Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.

*Fact-check:* Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
• 43 percent of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

*Myth #6:* Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.

*Fact-check:* In 2014, according to FBI data, nearly eight times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
• In one survey, nearly 1 percent of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at these claims found that more than half involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
• A study in Philadelphia found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

*Myth #7:* Guns make women safer.

*Fact-check:* In 2013, more than 5 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
• A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 5 times if he has access to a gun.
• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

*Myth #8:* "Vicious, violent video games" deserve more blame than guns.

*Fact-check:* So said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre after the Newtown massacre. So what's up with Japan?
Japan spends 25% more on video games per capita than the US does. However, Japan averages six gun homicides per year compared to 11,000 per year in the US.
Sources: PricewaterhouseCoopers, Small Arms Survey, Centers for Disease Control, GunPolicyOrg/University of Sydney


----------



## Hunt to Eat

*Myth #9:* More and more Americans are becoming gun owners.

*Fact-check:* More guns are being sold, but they're owned by a shrinking portion of the population.
• About half of Americans said they had a gun in their homes in 1973. Today, about 37 percent say they do. Overall, about a third of Americans own a gun.
• Around 75 percent of gun owners are men. On average they own 7.9 guns each. Fewer than 25% are college educated.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

*Myth #10:* We don't need more gun laws-we just need to enforce the ones we have.

*Fact-check:* Weak laws and loopholes backed by the gun lobby have made it easier for people to get guns illegally. And existing gun laws aren't preventing guns from getting into the wrong hands: More than 75 percent of the weapons used in mass shootings between 1982 and 2012 were obtained legally.
• As much as 40 percent of all gun sales involve private sellers and don't require background checks. In a survey, 40 percent of prison inmates who used guns in their crimes said they'd gotten them this way. More than 80 percent of gun owners support closing this loophole.
• An investigation found that 62 percent of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn't pass a background check.
• When researchers posed as illegal "straw" buyers, 20 percent of licensed California gun dealers agreed to sell handguns to them.
• The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives did not have a permanent director for seven years, due to an NRA-backed requirement that the Senate approve nominees.


----------



## Novus Caesar

Let me guess, Hunt to Eat , you do not own a firearm? That is fine. I am sure you are a strong proponent of Biden's Gun Free Zones which are as effective as Drug Free Zones. Heck, why not Murder and Rape Free Zones while we are at it?


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Novus Caesar said:


> Let me guess, Hunt to Eat , you do not own a firearm? That is fine. I am sure you are a strong proponent of Biden's Gun Free Zones which are as effective as Drug Free Zones. Heck, why not Murder and Rape Free Zones while we are at it?


I own a single firearm, but I know enough not to carry it it public. I purchased a Glock 26 in the late 90's not long after that model was introduced. It's not a great firearm, but it's no plinker, either.
Why do you ask?


----------



## Rico Ramz

Focus, focus! Going off topic.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Rico Ramz said:


> Focus, focus! Going off topic.


Sorry. That was just a little tutelage for our less informed brethren. I'm back now.


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4

Agent99 said:


> How do you know how much it cost the other guy? They sent you a copy of the bill?


Umm he "tried" to file a lawsuit. So yes in fact I did see a bill for his medical expenses and he did try to sue. The court threw it out, and the appeal.

Florida self defense law combined with the fact there's a security tape of the incident made that a rather frivolous lawsuit. The police also arrested him at the ER because they correctly assumed that he would probobly seek medical treatment given how much blood loss there was.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Hunt to Eat said:


> I own a single firearm, but I know enough not to carry it it public.
> Why do you ask?





Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> Umm he "tried" to file a lawsuit. So yes in fact I did see a bill for his medical expenses and he did try to sue. The court threw it out, and the appeal.
> 
> Florida self defense law combined with the fact there's a security tape of the incident made that a rather frivolous lawsuit. The police also arrested him at the ER because they correctly assumed that he would probobly seek medical treatment given how much blood loss there was.


Was the pen damaged? If so, were you able to recover that loss from the defendant through restitution?


----------



## Uberduberdoo

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> In slow times a driver who is cherry-picking only the most profitable fares is trying to cheat the luck element


Cheating luck is a concept we have to give some thought. In any case, if it isn't luck, it's difinitive, and that's what smart drivers want. "Where is the destination?, is it profitable? Is he or she or he-she drunk, will they puke? etc."
If a driver calls the pax to find out factors to determine the acceptance of that ride or not has no affect on you. In fact within your apparent thought process you may benifit from the drivers difinitive actions with the luck that he cheated.
Perhaps, if uber gave the drivers a choice; choose to drive with *all* factors based on luck, or drive with all factors defined. Which camp could we find you? From what I have read, it looks like the not so smart camp. The whole idea here is to make money on every drive. So Drive smart, don't be a sucker stuck in the not so smart camp.


----------



## Rico Ramz

Demon said:


> That simply isn't true.


read the first few lines, it clearly states to "call riders" for all of you that say drivers are illegally calling riders.


----------



## Uberduberdoo

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Still that would be $12 an hour, lots of people work harder for less.


Did you forget the drivers provide a multi thousand dollar vehicle and all the expenses associated? Is it really $12 per hour?


----------



## MattyMikey

Rico Ramz said:


> read the first few lines, it clearly states to "call riders" for all of you that say drivers are illegally calling riders.


Off topic. But that's interesting they allow pickups at departures but against airport policy to pickup at arrivals. I wish Seattle was like that.


----------



## Rico Ramz

MattyMikey said:


> Off topic. But that's interesting they allow pickups at departures but against airport policy to pickup at arrivals. I wish Seattle was like that.


The topic is /riders complaining of drivers calling...... and some of the commentators say that calling a rider is illegal!


----------



## MattyMikey

Rico Ramz said:


> The topic is /riders complaining of drivers calling...... and some of the commentators say that calling a rider is illegal!


I know what the topic is, hence why I called it out as off topic. I was calling out an unusual observation with your post.

However, I am sure you are going to now hear people say that it is only okay to call them from airport runs when requested by the airport policy.

Based off another thread on here though where it shows the partner agreement where it says you won't call a passenger for any none transportation related issues - well confirming destination is transportation related, therefore not prohibited. If you call the passenger to attempt to sell them Avon, yes, that would be against the contract.

So based off contract even if there isn't anything saying specifically to call, there is nothing saying we can't if it relates to the ride in any capacity.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Daniel Harbin said:


> HTE yes I am safer. The problem is your premise and analogy. I have been taking CPR classes for 45 years and until last year never had the occasion to use it. Doesn't mean I wasn't skilled in it or it was not useful, it means I had the capability to perform CPR and potentially save someone's life. In the same vein, I CC and am ready for that moment in time it will mean safety for me and others. Hence the studies are bogus.


Dan, I don't have a premise and I didn't make any analogies. I was merely sharing the facts about a few false perceptions many have about owning and carrying firearms in this country, that's all. I own a Glock 26, but I'm wise enough not to carry it, especially when driving.


----------



## Rico Ramz

MattyMikey said:


> I know what the topic is, hence why I called it out as off topic. I was calling out an unusual observation with your post.
> 
> However, I am sure you are going to now hear people say that it is only okay to call them from airport runs when requested by the airport policy.
> 
> Based off another thread on here though where it shows the partner agreement where it says you won't call a passenger for any none transportation related issues - well confirming destination is transportation related, therefore not prohibited. If you call the passenger to attempt to sell them Avon, yes, that would be against the contract.
> 
> So based off contract even if there isn't anything saying specifically to call, there is nothing saying we can't if it relates to the ride in any capacity.


The agreement means to not call riders like example; personal call, socialize, ask for date, or something totally unrelated to driving a person from A to B.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Rico Ramz said:


> The agreement means to not call riders like example; personal call, socialize, ask for date, or something totally unrelated to driving a person from A to B.


My policy is to NEVER call a pax for anything. The only communication I initiate is a boiler plate text message that I send when I accept the ping. The message introduces myself in a warm, friendly manner. The message also asks for the final destination. After the pax responds, I decide if I want to make the trip or not. If it isn't a profitable run, I'll drive the opposite direction a few blocks. When the pax realizes I'm not coming, they cancel. That way I don't get dinged for canceling the trip and the pax can't rate me. Yes, this is cherry-picking, but more importantly it's profit maximization.


----------



## MattyMikey

Rico Ramz said:


> The agreement means to not call riders like example; personal call, socialize, ask for date, or something totally unrelated to driving a person from A to B.


Exactly what I said. Are you not reading my responses?


----------



## ChortlingCrison

Hunt to Eat said:


> My policy is to NEVER call a pax for anything. The only communication I initiate is a boiler plate text message that I send when I accept the ping. The message introduces myself in a warm, friendly manner. The message also asks for the final destination. After the pax responds, I decide if I want to make the trip or not. If it isn't a profitable run, I'll drive the opposite direction a few blocks. When the pax realizes I'm not coming, they cancel. That way I don't get dinged for canceling the trip and the pax can't rate me. Yes, this is cherry-picking, but more importantly it's profit maximization.


Not even on rehash Thursday?


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Hunt to Eat said:


> If only, right? Here, let me help you out. Keep in mind I'm not arguing with you. I'm simply sharing the facts on the topic.
> 
> *Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.*
> 
> Fact-check: In 2014, according to FBI data, nearly eight times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
> • In one survey, nearly 1 percent of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at these claims found that more than half involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
> • A study in Philadelphia found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.
> 
> _Sources: PricewaterhouseCoopers, Small Arms Survey, Centers for Disease Control, GunPolicyOrg/University of Sydney_


That's because people fight back when they should just leave their gun where it is and hand over their wallet.

We had a recent very horrible incident here in Houston where an 11 year old was walking home and a man ran up to him and stabbed him to death then ran off.

There were witnesses. Presumably none of them had a gun because if there was EVER a time to use it that was it. The kid was stabbed multiple times. Who knows which wound killed him? Maybe if the attacker had been shot during the attack the child would have survived.

But the man would not have escaped at least.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

UberRose said:


> But the passenger said that they got a list to choose from. If they are assigned me without choice then I will gladly stop giving them the 1 star and will give them 5 stars. And yes, you are right. ...I have never taken an uber ride. I started driving for uber some 6 weeks ago. But the passengers said that they get a list to choose from.


Take a freakin' ride. This is just BS.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Hunt to Eat said:


> *Myth #1:* They're coming for your guns.
> 
> *Fact-check:* With as many as 310 million privately owned guns in America, it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 70 to 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1. On the other hand if you think your personal firearms are going to help you in a fight against the US military, you will want to check the specs on the Bradley M2.


I'm English. Yes, if there were less guns out there in the first place it would be better. But the cat is out of the bag. I really don't see a way to fix it now because at this point the criminals do already have guns and would t give them up. Plus the border is not exactly secure so it's easy to bring more in.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Hunt to Eat said:


> *Myth #2:* Guns don't kill people-people kill people.
> 
> *Fact-check:* People with access to more guns tend to kill more people-with guns. States with higher gun ownership rates have higher gun murder rates-as much as 114 percent higher than states with lower gun ownership rates.
> • A recent study looking at 30 years of homicide data found that for every one percent increase in a state's gun ownership rate, there is a nearly one percent increase in its firearm homicide rate.
> • Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as safe-storage requirements or assault-weapons bans.


Because it's easier to kill someone with a gun. And if you have to go unlock the gun you have time to cool down.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Hunt to Eat said:


> *Myth #3:* An armed society is a polite society.
> 
> *Fact-check:* Various studies suggest that being armed increases your chances of getting into a confrontation.
> • Nine percent of Americans report signs of "impulsive angry behavior" (such as breaking things and getting into fights)-and say they own a gun.
> • Drivers who carry guns are 44 percent more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77 percent more likely to follow them aggressively.
> • Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.
> • In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10 percent increase in homicides.


I would say this is because people who want the guns in the first place are often those who shouldn't.

The attitude that I can shoot someone the finger because if he does something back I have a gun is probably the reason for that.

That people who go out and buy guns (often MANY guns) are likely to be more aggressive in general.

The person who is driving home from his store each night with cash deposits, and who buys a gun ONLY because of that is not going to get in road rage incidents the same way someone who owns 23 guns and always carries is.

You are correct he is probably more likely to get shot if he tries to use it than if he just hands over the cash though.

If you are in a situation where you think you will be killed no matter what then it could save your life having a gun. That just doesn't happen much though. Of course if it does...


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Hunt to Eat said:


> *Myth #7:* Guns make women safer.
> 
> *Fact-check:* In 2013, more than 5 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
> • A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 5 times if he has access to a gun.
> • One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.


Well men kill women more and as I said before it's simply easier yo use a gun.


----------



## MattyMikey

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Well men kill women more and as I said before it's simply easier yo use a gun.


If you're going to continue to hijack the thread do all your relies in a message or two but not spamming it with a whole bunch of individual messages. Use the quote feature and respond to all of them at once so hopefully it gets back on topic. Please and thanks.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Hunt to Eat said:


> *Myth #6:* Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.
> 
> *Fact-check:* In 2014, according to FBI data, nearly eight times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
> • In one survey, nearly 1 percent of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at these claims found that more than half involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
> • A study in Philadelphia found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.


As I said, if you ONLY use it when you know or are reasonably sure you are going to be killed or badly injured otherwise then that shouldn't apply. If you pull out a gun to fight back over your phone then you're escalating the situation.

I worked in a convenience store. I was always being told to carry a gun. But most times you can't reach for it. Also, when you get robbed you are so pissed that if you do get the opportunity it to shoot as the robber leaves you are likely shooting them in the back.

FYI you can tell the professional, experienced robbers. They know this and back out the door.


----------



## Squirming Like A Toad

Hunt to Eat said:


> I, too, own a couple firearms but I am also fully aware that carrying them in no way makes me safer on the street, or in my car for that matter.


That's you. If having an option to use or not use a gun makes you safer than not having the option, you probably shouldn't carry one. I usually carry one and it makes me safer. I got my permit to carry one from the state police and they say it makes me safer. You'd think the cops would know what they're talking about where firearms are concerned. Every cop I know approves of armed citizens.


----------



## kes1981

UberJag said:


> A different perspective...my daughter is 23 years old and works at a restaurant. Late at night when she got off work her Uber driver called her and asked her where she was going....she was going a few miles away. He hung up and called her back a minute later and said he got a flat tire and asked her to cancel the trip....just then she saw him driving by her. He left a 23 year old female on the street because he didn't want to pick her up because she was only going a few miles away! Have a heart people! You don't know everyone's situation! Something bad could have happened to a young woman standing on the street! Who knows after he picked her up he could have gotten pinged in a surge area for a long trip!


Tell her to buy a car or call a cab. Why should the burden fall on the Uber driver? It's not their responsibility to look after your daughter. That's your job, not our fault if you don't do it. Step up your game so she doesn't have to rely on an Uber driver. MIC DROP


----------



## Steve Joseph

james2ko said:


> I proposed a solution to match drivers with passengers on this thread:
> 
> https://uberpeople.net/threads/stan...pp-for-riders-and-drivers.79813/#post-1106376
> 
> I also made the suggestion on uber's Facebook page. I got a canned "thank you" reply.


May I politely inquire as to why you're giving UBER ideas on how to improve or streamline their business model instead of aligning yourself with the right people and creating your own rideshare service? Are you saying you would have been happy or just content knowing your idea was responsible for millions of dollars in profits for the simple reward of being able to know where your next passenger is going?


----------



## Rico Ramz

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> That's you. If having an option to use or not use a gun makes you safer than not having the option, you probably shouldn't carry one. I usually carry one and it makes me safer. I got my permit to carry one from the state police and they say it makes me safer. You'd think the cops would know what they're talking about where firearms are concerned. Every cop I know approves of armed citizens.


Can you two knock it off with the gun totting, angry hill billy stuff? People are going to think Uber drivers are a bunch of gun totting Goops!


----------



## UberRose

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Take a freakin' ride. This is just BS.


Ok...I will take one and find out...lol...Thanks. I stopped giving them 1 star for this reason.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> That's you. If having an option to use or not use a gun makes you safer than not having the option, you probably shouldn't carry one. I usually carry one and it makes me safer. I got my permit to carry one from the state police and they say it makes me safer. You'd think the cops would know what they're talking about where firearms are concerned. Every cop I know approves of armed citizens.


I understand that you *feel* safer, but the stats bear out a far different story. Perception and reality don't always agree, of course. But if you *feel* safer when you carry, then by all means do so. It doesn't really matter that you're *not* safer. Perception is reality.


----------



## garyk

If a gun makes you feel ten feet tall then you should probably not be carrying a gun


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Well men kill women more and as I said before it's simply easier yo use a gun.


I like the Fuzzyelvis approach. I never have a problem understanding exactly the point being made or challenged.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Fuzzyelvis said:


> That's because people fight back when they should just leave their gun where it is and hand over their wallet.
> 
> We had a recent very horrible incident here in Houston where an 11 year old was walking home and a man ran up to him and stabbed him to death then ran off.
> 
> There were witnesses. Presumably none of them had a gun because if there was EVER a time to use it that was it. The kid was stabbed multiple times. Who knows which wound killed him? Maybe if the attacker had been shot during the attack the child would have survived.
> 
> But the man would not have escaped at least.


Maybe...maybe...maybe. Stats are not built from maybe's. Your anecdote is valuable and interesting, but it's an isolated incident.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Rico Ramz said:


> Can you two knock it off with the gun totting, angry hill billy stuff? People are going to think Uber drivers are a bunch of gun totting Goops!


I'm just a pragmatist sharing the facts. But now that the facts are known, I'll back off. But I reserve the right to correct anyone who speaks incorrect "facts."


----------



## Rico Ramz

MattyMikey said:


> I know what the topic is, hence why I called it out as off topic. I was calling out an unusual observation with your post.
> 
> However, I am sure you are going to now hear people say that it is only okay to call them from airport runs when requested by the airport policy.
> 
> Based off another thread on here though where it shows the partner agreement where it says you won't call a passenger for any none transportation related issues - well confirming destination is transportation related, therefore not prohibited. If you call the passenger to attempt to sell them Avon, yes, that would be against the contract.
> 
> So based off contract even if there isn't anything saying specifically to call, there is nothing saying we can't if it relates to the ride in any capacity.


cool, cool, understood


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Hunt to Eat said:


> Maybe...maybe...maybe. Stats are not built from maybe's. Your anecdote is valuable and interesting, but it's an isolated incident.


My point was that there are times bystanders with guns could be helpful. Obviously it's all conjecture. But as you are well aware, statistics don't speak to the individual situation. I think that in most cases carrying a gun makes people more unsafe because one, a person who wants to carry one is more likely to be someone who is willing to use it when it's not a life or limb situation, and two, because when they are in a situation where they could benefit from using it, they are not really prepared to.

Recently we has a guy go on a shooting rampage in W Houston. There was someone there who had a gun and pulled it out. This was after several people had already been shot. However the good Samaritan (or whatever you'd call him) got shot himself. My thinking (obviously conjecture) is that he tried to talk to the shooter instead of simply shooting him (which would have been perfectly justified and would have stopped others from being shot) or froze and couldn't shoot when he needed to. Luckily he wasn't killed. The police did end up killing the shooter.

But there have been instances where a bystander has stopped a shooter.

My point is, just because carrying a gun is more dangerous for many, does not mean that applies to all. The problem mostly, as I see it, is that the vast majority of folks carrying are either those who are carrying BECAUSE they have no problem using a gun (threatening or shooting) or they are simply not trained well enough to use it effectively or find themselves when it comes down to it, not able to shoot when they actually should.

I don't know how to fix this though. More training? Psychological testing? Good luck getting anything more than what we have in place. We can't even do something about gun shows here.


----------



## UofMDriver

Driver should know what he is getting. He is a contractor not a employee. As a contractor , you should know what your bidding for.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Fuzzyelvis said:


> My point was that there are times bystanders with guns could be helpful. Obviously it's all conjecture. But as you are well aware, statistics don't speak to the individual situation. I think that in most cases carrying a gun makes people more unsafe because one, a person who wants to carry one is more likely to be someone who is willing to use it when it's not a life or limb situation, and two, because when they are in a situation where they could benefit from using it, they are not really prepared to.
> 
> Recently we has a guy go on a shooting rampage in W Houston. There was someone there who had a gun and pulled it out. This was after several people had already been shot. However the good Samaritan (or whatever you'd call him) got shot himself. My thinking (obviously conjecture) is that he tried to talk to the shooter instead of simply shooting him (which would have been perfectly justified and would have stopped others from being shot) or froze and couldn't shoot when he needed to. Luckily he wasn't killed. The police did end up killing the shooter.
> 
> But there have been instances where a bystander has stopped a shooter.
> 
> My point is, just because carrying a gun is more dangerous for many, does not mean that applies to all. The problem mostly, as I see it, is that the vast majority of folks carrying are either those who are carrying BECAUSE they have no problem using a gun (threatening or shooting) or they are simply not trained well enough to use it effectively or find themselves when it comes down to it, not able to shoot when they actually should.
> 
> I don't know how to fix this though. More training? Psychological testing? Good luck getting anything more than what we have in place.  We can't even do something about gun shows here.


Good points all. As a dyed-in-the-wool pragmatist, I'm going with statistics. That's the prudent thing to do, from a logical, objective POV. That's why my Glock 26 doesn't travel with me. There is a five times greater chance_ I _will die of acute lead poisoning rather than the other guy.

You earlier commented that you're English. Whereabouts? I attended Keble College in Oxford.


----------



## ChortlingCrison

I love the way subjects seem to run amok on these forums. I haven't read every post on here, but some where some how, the discussion changed from pax complaining about drivers, to a firearms discussion. And where folks attented college. It's like riding a rollercoaster. A lot of twists and turns along the way.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Hunt to Eat said:


> Good points all. As a dyed-in-the-wool pragmatist, I'm going with statistics. That's the prudent thing to do, from a logical, objective POV. That's why my Glock 26 doesn't travel with me. There is a five times greater chance_ I _will die of acute lead poisoning rather than the other guy.
> 
> You earlier commented that you're English. Whereabouts? I attended Keble College in Oxford.


 From Bolton. When? I had a couple of friends who went to Oxford I THINK (It was that or Cambridge, I'd have to ask them). They would have been there around '83-86. Only females. I went to Bolton School, which has a girls and boys division, and moved over to the states before there were any classes with the boys, so I don't actually know any of the old boys, although I'm sure a few went there.

As far as statistics, I always think of what the average of my and Bill Gates' net worth is and that reminds me that statistics are very often completely irrelevant when it comes to a particular situation. I prefer to ask why the statistics say what they say and then plan accordingly. I do believe that if we took away all the guns overnight in this country the murder and mayhem would be cut down considerably, so you'll get no argument with me there. Unfortunately I can't see a way to accomplish that.

I do carry mace, but since I have asthma, am not likely to ever use it IN the car (I have the gel). And I have no problem using my car as a weapon if need be. Folks forget it's often the best one you have in this job.


----------



## james2ko

Steve Joseph said:


> May I politely inquire as to why you're giving UBER ideas on how to improve or streamline their business model instead of aligning yourself with the right people and creating your own rideshare service? Are you saying you would have been happy or just content knowing your idea was responsible for millions of dollars in profits for the simple reward of being able to know where your next passenger is going?


Uber was a temp pit stop for me while on strike.

Not interested in starting my own ride share company. Happy with my current financial status. Im not concerned how much uber or anyone who incorporates this idea profits (if they profit at all) . My desire is that uber or someone else incorporates it and hopefully improves both rider and passenger experience.


----------



## SuckA

I won't accept riders hails beyond 7 mins away. Rates are just too low to risk a loss now a days. Last weekend I ran both apps and acceptted every hail Pool, Line whatever. I lost a ton of money that weekend and learned a valuable lesson from it-

The riders are not your friends.....

The riders using these services are too cheap, and can't afford a car, 

They hate you right off the bat because you have(car) what they can't afford....

They're always gaming the app, including YOU the driver.....

Accept only profitable hails, even if you have to call each rider before starting your car..... that is unless you like to lose money.....


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Novus Caesar said:


> They get it from this. I disagree with their interpretation because we are using it for their ride experience. No to sell them a timeshare. Section 2.2: "You shall not contact any Users
> or use any User's personal data for any reason other than for the purposes of fulfilling
> Transportation Services."
> 
> It also says: ". You retain the option, via the Driver App, to attempt to
> accept or to decline or ignore a User's request for Transportation
> Services via the Uber Services,
> or to cancel an accepted request for Transportation Services via the Driver App, subject to
> Company's then current cancellation policies."


 It is definitely about fulfilling transportation services. I'm deciding WHETHER to and I'm saving them time if it's not worth it to me to take them by letting them know quickly so they can get a driver who is less aware of the science of mathematics.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

SuckA said:


> I won't accept riders hails beyond 7 mins away. Rates are just too low to risk a loss now a days. Last weekend I ran both apps and acceptted every hail Pool, Line whatever. I lost a ton of money that weekend and learned a valuable lesson from it-
> 
> The riders are not your friends.....
> 
> The riders using these services are too cheap, and can't afford a car,
> 
> They hate you right off the bat because you have(car) what they can't afford....
> 
> They're always gaming the app, including YOU the driver.....
> 
> Accept only profitable hails, even if you have to call each rider before starting your car..... that is unless you like to lose money.....


 The pax who don't own cars that I pick up are generally pretty decent pax. It's the ones who own a car but are using you because they want to get wasted, or it's cheaper to get an uber than park who are the ******s.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Fuzzyelvis said:


> From Bolton. When? I had a couple of friends who went to Oxford I THINK (It was that or Cambridge, I'd have to ask them). They would have been there around '83-86. Only females. I went to Bolton School, which has a girls and boys division, and moved over to the states before there were any classes with the boys, so I don't actually know any of the old boys, although I'm sure a few went there.
> 
> As far as statistics, I always think of what the average of my and Bill Gates' net worth is and that reminds me that statistics are very often completely irrelevant when it comes to a particular situation. I prefer to ask why the statistics say what they say and then plan accordingly. I do believe that if we took away all the guns overnight in this country the murder and mayhem would be cut down considerably, so you'll get no argument with me there. Unfortunately I can't see a way to accomplish that.
> 
> I do carry mace, but since I have asthma, am not likely to ever use it IN the car (I have the gel). And I have no problem using my car as a weapon if need be. Folks forget it's often the best one you have in this job.


Good comment about the mean (average) net worth of you and Gates. That is a valid stat but *ONLY *is you also account for standard deviation. Once you understand standard deviation, then it's easy to grasp why a much larger sample size is needed.

I was at Keble College in 1986.


----------



## Squirming Like A Toad

Fuzzyelvis said:


> The pax who don't own cars that I pick up are generally pretty decent pax. It's the ones who own a car but are using you because they want to get wasted, or it's cheaper to get an uber than park who are the ******s.


The passengers I get who don't have cars are always quiet and respectful. Lots of stiffs coming home from work. I understand that a minimum wage guy can't afford to tip me, that's OK, they're usually easy rides with no waiting.

The wealthy suburban drinkers tend to be louder and arrogant, and the ride not as easy due to location but they are longer and thus a little more profitable so that's OK too. I'm surprised they don't tip though. Rich people used to tip big to show off that they are rich and the money means nothing to them. I suspect a lot of them aren't really rich, just inherited expensive houses and are no better off than me in any other way. You can usually tell the difference.


----------



## MattyMikey

ChortlingCrison said:


> I love the way subjects seem to run amok on these forums. I haven't read every post on here, but some where some how, the discussion changed from pax complaining about drivers, to a firearms discussion. And where folks attented college. It's like riding a rollercoaster. A lot of twists and turns along the way.


Especially when users can't use the "Quote" feature and have to essentially spam the entire thread with off topic discussions makes it worse.


----------



## Daniel Harbin

ChortlingCrison said:


> I love the way subjects seem to run amok on these forums. I haven't read every post on here, but some where some how, the discussion changed from pax complaining about drivers, to a firearms discussion. And where folks attented college. It's like riding a rollercoaster. A lot of twists and turns along the way.


Welcome to the wild world of blog discussion. Gotta be limber to follow along.


----------



## Daniel Harbin

he 


Squirming Like A Toad said:


> The passengers I get who don't have cars are always quiet and respectful. Lots of stiffs coming home from work. I understand that a minimum wage guy can't afford to tip me, that's OK, they're usually easy rides with no waiting.
> 
> The wealthy suburban drinkers tend to be louder and arrogant, and the ride not as easy due to location but they are longer and thus a little more profitable so that's OK too. I'm surprised they don't tip though. Rich people used to tip big to show off that they are rich and the money means nothing to them. I suspect a lot of them aren't really rich, just inherited expensive houses and are no better off than me in any other way. You can usually tell the difference.


Actually, in Vegas the ones outside the strip, suburbs still in Vegas, are the best and tip well. And the area is generally better tippers and more fun to drive. Usually short trips but occasionally an airport run or the other side of Vegas, 20+ miles.


----------



## Rico Ramz

Daniel Harbin said:


> he
> 
> Actually, in Vegas the ones outside the strip, suburbs still in Vegas, are the best and tip well. And the area is generally better tippers and more fun to drive. Usually short trips but occasionally an airport run or the other side of Vegas, 20+ miles.


a couple weeks ago I got $40 tip. Wine tasters.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Hunt to Eat said:


> Good comment about the mean (average) net worth of you and Gates. That is a valid stat but *ONLY *is you also account for standard deviation. Once you understand standard deviation, then it's easy to grasp why a much larger sample size is needed.
> 
> I was at Keble College in 1986.


I understand standard deviation. I work in research so we deal with statistics a lot. But many researchers try 20 different ways to look at data until they find the one method and statistic that shows statistical significance.

Of course that's the one piece of data that gets reported to laypeople and when the same experiment is repeated and it turns out to not mean anything that never gets reported.

You learn a lot dealing with statistics and people desperate for grant funding.

I also know that if I should ever become a citizen and serve on a jury I will NEVER convict someone on DNA evidence alone. I know too much about contamination and mixups after genotyping tens of thousands of mice.

But that's why "A little knowledge (learning) is a dangerous thing" right?


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Fuzzyelvis said:


> I understand standard deviation. I work in research so we deal with statistics a lot. But many researchers try 20 different ways to look at data until they find the one method and statistic that shows statistical significance.
> 
> Of course that's the one piece of data that gets reported to laypeople and when the same experiment is repeated and it turns out to not mean anything that never gets reported.
> 
> You learn a lot dealing with statistics and people desperate for grant funding.
> 
> I also know that if I should ever become a citizen and serve on a jury I will NEVER convict someone on DNA evidence alone. I know too much about contamination and mixups after genotyping tens of thousands of mice.
> 
> But that's why "A little knowledge (learning) is a dangerous thing" right?


Exactly. Well stated.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

ChortlingCrison said:


> I love the way subjects seem to run amok on these forums. I haven't read every post on here, but some where some how, the discussion changed from pax complaining about drivers, to a firearms discussion. And where folks attented college. It's like riding a rollercoaster. A lot of twists and turns along the way.


Hey, what's everyone's favorite ice cream flavor? And what toppings do you prefer?


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Anyone planning to place an earlier order for the Acura NSX? That's a sweet little ride. Good to see America produce a supercar.


----------



## MattyMikey




----------



## Hunt to Eat

MattyMikey said:


> View attachment 43684


Yeah, what is with these folks hijacking threads? Desert Driver would never put up with that schist.


----------



## UberHammer

What's your opinion on wheat pennies as an investment?


----------



## Demon

Rico Ramz said:


> read the first few lines, it clearly states to "call riders" for all of you that say drivers are illegally calling riders.


No one has claimed it's illegal to call a rider.


----------



## MattyMikey

Demon said:


> No one has claimed it's illegal to call a rider.


Actually before his post it was said numerous times that the partner agreement said you couldn't call riders. However it was highly misinterpreted. And even if it were against the agreement (which its not when read correctly) it certainly wouldn't be illegal.


----------



## Uber2.0

Mountainsoloist said:


> I have no problem with drivers doing that. Since it doesn't show the destination on the app you have to ask the potential passenger directly to know where they are going. Also, if the passenger lied to me I would cancel.


I agree. As uber has continued to give drivers the middle finger, drivers need to play the system if they want to have a good ROI. I do not accept pool rides unless it's a 2.0 surge or greater. I also do not drive more than 5 minutes away to pick up a passenger. Gotta do what we need to to make it work


----------



## Old Rocker

In Houston, if you call a rider and cancel the trip based on their protected class or destination, it's illegal.

Once, when I was working away from home, our house was broken into, my wife viciously assaulted and nearly raped, and while she laid bleeding, and begging for her life, our house was ransacked and valuables stolen.

If I had been home with my firearm, things would have turned out differently. Anti-gun stats bounce off of me like bullets off of Superman.

Being statistically four times safer by not having a gun in my house means beans if someone in my house dies a death that could have been prevented by being a well-trained gun owner. I go to the range every other week and also do dry fire practice with flash cards (you pick a card at random and perform the exercise on the card).


----------



## MattyMikey

Though your story is heartfelt and I personally agree with your views maybe this discussion should be continued in a more appropriate forum out of courtesy for the original poster.

https://uberpeople.net/threads/show-your-guns.29548/

I am sure you can discuss your guns or lack of guns there.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Old Rocker said:


> In Houston, if you call a rider and cancel the trip based on their protected class or destination, it's illegal.
> 
> Once, when I was working away from home, our house was broken into, my wife viciously assaulted and nearly raped, and while she laid bleeding, and begging for her life, our house was ransacked and valuables stolen.
> 
> If I had been home with my firearm, things would have turned out differently. Anti-gun stats bounce off of me like bullets off of Superman.
> 
> Being statistically four times safer by not having a gun in my house means beans if someone in my house dies a death that could have been prevented by being a well-trained gun owner. I go to the range every other week and also do dry fire practice with flash cards (you pick a card at random and perform the exercise on the card).


If I call and ask the destination and after I get off the phone realise I am about to run out of gas and must cancel, that's fine. Or my stomach suddenly gets upset and I need to find a bathroom. Or I get pulled over. Or a dozen other scenarios. I'm not canceling because of the destination. (That's my story and I'm sticking to it).

If you show up, ask destination, and THEN cancel you are MUCH more likely to have an issue with the city. If it's a long trip and I don't want it at that point my only excuse will be that I'm too tired to safely drive that far and/or that it will put me over 12 hours driving. That is a perfectly valid reason to not take a long trip.

If I'm asked why I'm calling and asking destination, well it's my "are they too drunk to know where they're going" test. This is actually partially true. Iostly work late and I'm not wasting time looking for drunk pax who don't know where they are and can't or won't tell me where they're going. Canceling because they can't answer questions, answers to which I need to have to complete the trip, is perfectly valid. I don't like being outside bars in midtown at 2am trying to get a destination out of drunks in my car, all while dodging drunk pedestrians, only to get a crappy rating because it turns out I'm going the wrong way.

Even during the day it's good to know the destination ahead of time so you don't have to deal with it while picking up pax at the curb. I consider that a safety issue.

If you tell the pax the trip is not worth your time then they have a valid complaint as far as the city is concerned. So use a valid one or don't give one at all.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

MattyMikey said:


> Though your story is heartfelt and I personally agree with your views maybe this discussion should be continued in a more appropriate forum out of courtesy for the original poster.
> 
> https://uberpeople.net/threads/show-your-guns.29548/
> 
> I am sure you can discuss your guns or lack of guns there.


What are you, the hall monitor?


----------



## MattyMikey

Fuzzyelvis said:


> What are you, the hall monitor?


No I'm not a rude **** like some of you people. I mean you go completely overboard. We don't want to see your spam. Some of us get alerted when new messages post and we don't want to see your 20 messages you decide to go on when you're bored because you either:

1) Don't know how to properly use "Quote"

2) Want to get your message count up

3) Just want to piss people off

I assume it was #2 or #3 since you were told how to use #1 and kept spamming anyway.

Get the hint, nobody likes your spam messages hence why nobody is liking them (after the first couple).

Have a little courtesy and follow proper forum manners.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

UberHammer said:


> What's your opinion on wheat pennies as an investment?


They taste great and are less filling.


----------



## OneDay

What the person that made this post needs to understand, is that if he also did this, there would be a SURGE and this problem would be solved.

SUUUUURGE if people cancel and don't want to take rides. Use your brain.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

MattyMikey said:


> No I'm not a rude &%[email protected]!* like some of you people. I mean you go completely overboard. We don't want to see your spam. Some of us get alerted when new messages post and we don't want to see your 20 messages you decide to go on when you're bored because you either:
> 
> 1) Don't know how to properly use "Quote"
> 
> 2) Want to get your message count up
> 
> 3) Just want to piss people off
> 
> I assume it was #2 or #3 since you were told how to use #1 and kept spamming anyway.
> 
> Get the hint, nobody likes your spam messages hence why nobody is liking them (after the first couple).
> 
> Have a little courtesy and follow proper forum manners.


PRO TIP: Turn off E-mail notifications.

This is the part where you thank the malnourished desert canine.


----------



## MattyMikey

Hunt to Eat said:


> PRO TIP: Turn off E-mail notifications.
> 
> This is the part where you thank the malnourished desert canine.


Lol some notifications I like. I only get them on ones I post in, not every single thread. I didn't expect so much off topic discussions most people reign it in when it is mentioned. At least people with any online etiquette.


----------



## Rico Ramz

Fuzzyelvis said:


> If I call and ask the destination and after I get off the phone realise I am about to run out of gas and must cancel, that's fine. Or my stomach suddenly gets upset and I need to find a bathroom. Or I get pulled over. Or a dozen other scenarios. I'm not canceling because of the destination. (That's my story and I'm sticking to it).
> 
> If you show up, ask destination, and THEN cancel you are MUCH more likely to have an issue with the city. If it's a long trip and I don't want it at that point my only excuse will be that I'm too tired to safely drive that far and/or that it will put me over 12 hours driving. That is a perfectly valid reason to not take a long trip.
> 
> If I'm asked why I'm calling and asking destination, well it's my "are they too drunk to know where they're going" test. This is actually partially true. Iostly work late and I'm not wasting time looking for drunk pax who don't know where they are and can't or won't tell me where they're going. Canceling because they can't answer questions, answers to which I need to have to complete the trip, is perfectly valid. I don't like being outside bars in midtown at 2am trying to get a destination out of drunks in my car, all while dodging drunk pedestrians, only to get a crappy rating because it turns out I'm going the wrong way.
> 
> Even during the day it's good to know the destination ahead of time so you don't have to deal with it while picking up pax at the curb. I consider that a safety issue.
> 
> If you tell the pax the trip is not worth your time then they have a valid complaint as far as the city is concerned. So use a valid one or don't give one at all.


if you can see, that the ping is more than 15 minutes away, just ignore the request, problem solved! or if your reaction to pings is to immediately click accept and then realize is too far, then cancel right away.


----------



## MattyMikey

Rico Ramz said:


> if you can see, that the ping is more than 15 minutes away, just ignore the request, problem solved! or if your reaction to pings is to immediately click accept and then realize is too far, then cancel right away.


I think it is not that simple for some people though. Due to acceptance rate requirements of meeting bonus or guarantees etc. I don't ever go for those so the only time I accept a ping and get the rider to cancel is if in airport queue and get a ping off airport property. If I waited in lot for airport run I'm not going to lose my spot in queue for refusing a one mile trip. I don't ask their destination I just send them a text saying to cancel though.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

ChortlingCrison said:


> Pistachio with those little sprinkles.


 Coffee. That way I can tell myself it will wake me up and I'll be productive. With a cup of coffee, of course.

And I like Magic Shell. Even though I know it's just lard with chocolate flavoring. I think it's a holdover from when I worked at Dairy Queen and got addicted to dipped cones.

The idiots at Mcdonalds don't know how to make a dipped cone to save their lives though. Very annoying. For those who don't know, you're supposed to leave the border of the cone where the little holes are open. That way the drips go into them and not on you.

I'm sure there's a tutorial on youtube. Too lazy to look it up right now though.


----------



## ChortlingCrison

MattyMikey said:


> View attachment 43684


Is there a ransom demand to get back the thread?


----------



## Snowtop

Apparently this thread has played itself our.

Move along people...nothing to see here.


----------



## MattyMikey

ChortlingCrison said:


> Is there a ransom demand to get back the thread?


I will give you 5 Stars haha


----------



## Old Rocker

MattyMikey said:


> Though your story is heartfelt and I personally agree with your views maybe this discussion should be continued in a more appropriate forum out of courtesy for the original poster.
> 
> https://uberpeople.net/threads/show-your-guns.29548/
> 
> I am sure you can discuss your guns or lack of guns there.


Is this not the 'stories' forum.

I don't see a moderator tag on your profile pic.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Coffee. That way I can tell myself it will wake me up and I'll be productive. With a cup of coffee, of course.
> 
> And I like Magic Shell. Even though I know it's just lard with chocolate flavoring. I think it's a holdover from when I worked at Dairy Queen and got addicted to dipped cones.
> 
> The idiots at Mcdonalds don't know how to make a dipped cone to save their lives though. Very annoying. For those who don't know, you're supposed to leave the border of the cone where the little holes are open. That way the drips go into them and not on you.
> 
> I'm sure there's a tutorial on youtube. Too lazy to look it up right now though.


I had no idea that those cones had an integrated drain system. Thanks for knowledge.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

MattyMikey said:


> Lol some notifications I like. I only get them on ones I post in, not every single thread. I didn't expect so much off topic discussions most people reign it in when it is mentioned. At least people with any online etiquette.


Netiquette, as we used to call it when I was teaching.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Hunt to Eat said:


> I had no idea that those cones had an integrated drain system. Thanks for knowledge.


For anyone who is cofused about the "holes" I'm speaking of, here's a pic.

I used to be very good at this. DQ actually makes you practise the little whirl at the top and everything. But not covering up the drip holes is the key to not having customers covered in drips.


----------



## Rico Ramz

Fuzzyelvis said:


> For anyone who is cofused about the "holes" I'm speaking of, here's a pic.
> 
> I used to be very good at this. DQ actually makes you practise the little whirl at the top and everything. But not covering up the drip holes is the key to not having customers covered in drips.
> View attachment 43844


You do a better job making cones, go back to Dairy Queen! ;P


----------



## MattyMikey

Old Rocker said:


> Is this not the 'stories' forum.
> 
> I don't see a moderator tag on your profile pic.


If there was this would have been stopped long ago. I would do the job to keep spamming from occurring as per the TOS.

And I don't need to be a moderator to call something out that SHOULD be clear and obvious.

But too many people on this site have to cause problems rather than working with one another on solutions. Sad that almost every thread has to have negatives in it.


----------



## driveLA

uber is fraud

do what you want before the whole thing implodes

anybody treating this like a regular job with rules and morality just lol


----------



## agtg

xlr8ed said:


> I phone ahead to 100% of UBERX pickups and request the PAX destination. If the PAX questions my call, I politely explain that UBER fails to disclose this info to the Drivers. I've only had one lady get verbally nasty with me, and I retorted with "This is a rideSHARE application. I am SHARING MY RIDE - not UBER's". If you would like a TAXI you can call one.
> 
> Problem solved.
> 
> FWIW, 90% of the PAX I call don't mind. 8% dont answer the phone after 3 tries and I'm waiting, they get the Cancel-Rider No-Show all day long.


Do you cancel before you bother going to their location? YOU can cancel them as a no-show if they aren't willing to pick up the phone?


----------



## Rico Ramz

agtg said:


> Do you cancel before you bother going to their location? YOU can cancel them as a no-show if they aren't willing to pick up the phone?


Do what you have to, to make the best of it, without breaking laws or ripping off riders. If you get a time out after ignoring or canceling request, quickly drive to the nearest surge area and score a surge trip


----------



## UberLou

I tell all my riders if a driver calls or texts for their destination they should hang up and/or, cancel the ride themselves and immediately report them to Uber. This is a ridiculous practice and I will get as many drivers deactivated for this as possible.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

UberLou said:


> I tell all my riders if a driver calls or texts for their destination they should hang up and/or, cancel the ride themselves and immediately report them to Uber. This is a ridiculous practice and I will get as many drivers deactivated for this as possible.


If you were to be successful in your crusade, that would just make it harder for passengers in outlying areas to get a ride when they are going to the airport or other choice destinations.

People will figure the trip is most likely a loser and won't accept it at all.

Its only a "ridiculous" practice for drivers who don't care about whether they lose money or not.


----------



## R44KDEN

UberLou said:


> I tell all my riders if a driver calls or texts for their destination they should hang up and/or, cancel the ride themselves and immediately report them to Uber. This is a ridiculous practice and I will get as many drivers deactivated for this as possible.


I've been calling for nearly a year now. One complaint. But good luck with your crusade and getting Uber to deactivate drivers who do this. As an independent contractor, I know what I can do and after 1500+ rides, I know what Uber can do (or rather, can get away with)


----------



## Rico Ramz

R44KDEN said:


> I've been calling for nearly a year now. One complaint. But good luck with your crusade and getting Uber to deactivate drivers who do this. As an independent contractor, I know what I can do and after 1500+ rides, I know what Uber can do (or rather, can get away with)


I have 5k+ trips


----------



## Rico Ramz

All at Uber technologies can lick my boots!


----------



## WeirdBob

Rico Ramz said:


> I have 5k+ trips


Congratulations?
Our sympathy?
Wow, you are an Uber Stud?

?


----------



## Ubersucksgas

Rico Ramz said:


> I have 5k+ trips


Travis must love you after so much money that you made for him. 
I feel sorry for you.
I am filtering requests more and more, because of so many unprofitable trips.
Today I drove 12 minutes to pick up a guy, and he was going 2 miles away. I made 3 bucks for being 30minutes online.
I went home after that ride, ain't worth driving just to pay for gas.

Also, I was in area where I always get super short trips when it surging so last time I was there I actually called pax and ask where is she going and it was short trip, I told her to cancel and SOMEHOW UBER REP is calling me to tell me that I cannot do that ans such such.
I just told him that I am independent contractor and I can reject any pax or ride I want, and that there is nobody to call me when I need help and few more thing and I hang up. I was not even timed out or anything.


----------



## Mayday

Yuri Lygotme said:


> Ok big shot, quote me on where I was wrong exactly? show me evidence from IRS or DOL websites that I was I incorrect on that topic.


Sorry this took so long to respond, I've been busy. With regard to Independent Contractors, you are dealing with 2 different federal agencies and hundreds of state/local agencies. How smart you are is directly related to where you happen to be standing at the moment. As with my previous prime contractor, Uber is skirting the laws with very vague interpretations of DOL and IRS rulings. Bottom line: I wouldn't take medical advice from a clerk at Walmart and I certainly wouldn't take legal/financial advice from an Uber driver who won't abide by the contract he signed.


----------



## Rico Ramz

Mayday said:


> Sued? Successfully? Please post a link to the story that shows the award.


I was told by a rider that claimed to work for Uber, that the company lost 1 billion in legal defence, court fees, money they have to pay back to drivers and fines. The guy was afraid Uber was going to disappear.


----------



## Rico Ramz

They lost one billion of our drivers money!


----------



## Greguzzi

garyk said:


> The reason the contract forbids you the call the customer to find out the destination is because if everyone did that than any ride under $5 would never get picked up. Even when I drove a taxi they didn't give us a destination we had to get it from the customer to keep us from refusing to take short rides or rides that went out into the middle of nowhere during bar Rush


Can you quote for me in the Uber agreement the section that prohibits me from calling Uber's customer?


----------



## Greguzzi

Old Rocker said:


> I may or may not carry a KA-BAR and /or a S&W tactical knife with belt cutter and glass breaker in my car.


Anyone who thinks they are safer being unarmed is just too stupid for words. The bullshit statistics "proving" that they are safer are all generated by groups with an anti-gun agenda.


----------



## Greguzzi

Hunt to Eat said:


> Next time you use your employer's health insurance, thank a union member.
> Next time you take a paid vacation, thank a union member.
> 
> Remember, the unions built the middle class in this country. Unions are now shrinking, as is the middle class. Weird coincidence, huh?





Hunt to Eat said:


> You're not actually safer, statistically speaking. What you're experiencing is what is known as a false sense of security.


Bolshevik. You are safer. Those who say you aren't suffer from a false sense of smugness.


----------



## Greguzzi

Hunt to Eat said:


> You're simply buying into the myth of greater safety when you carry. And that's OK. Many do. This isn't a debate point. It's a fact. You have a far greater chance of getting hurt or dirt napped when you carry. Stats bear that out. It's no big deal, really, it's just what happens and the data back it up.


It's not a fact. You just choose to believe false statistics. We carriers will not be joining you in believing your false statistics.


----------



## Greguzzi

Hunt to Eat said:


> *Myth #6:* Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.
> 
> *Fact-check:* In 2014, according to FBI data, nearly eight times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
> • In one survey, nearly 1 percent of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at these claims found that more than half involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
> • A study in Philadelphia found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.


LOL. Lies. Damn lies. Statistics. Not the evasive manner in which they make their points: "FBI data" about a meaningless point in the discussion; "In one survey" (but what about the other surveys?); "A study in Philadelphis" (but what about all the other surveys in other cities?).

Note that no data was presented to support the conclusion. This is just an example of weasel stats.


----------



## Old Rocker

Greguzzi said:


> LOL. Lies. Damn lies. Statistics. Not the evasive manner in which they make their points: "FBI data" about a meaningless point in the discussion; "In one survey" (but what about the other surveys?); "A study in Philadelphis" (but what about all the other surveys in other cities?).
> 
> Note that no data was presented to support the conclusion. This is just an example of weasel stats.


I wonder if carrying a gun in Philly is even legal. If not, the gun carriers were most likely criminals and therefore around other criminals which in itself is cause enough to be at higher risk of gun assaults and gun deaths.


----------



## Mayday

If they lose $1B to make $40B, it's called a business expense.


----------



## agtg

Ubersucksgas said:


> Travis must love you after so much money that you made for him.
> I feel sorry for you.
> I am filtering requests more and more, because of so many unprofitable trips.
> Today I drove 12 minutes to pick up a guy, and he was going 2 miles away. I made 3 bucks for being 30minutes online.
> I went home after that ride, ain't worth driving just to pay for gas.


This seems to be about 40% of my fares. This turns the proposition into unprofitable, and considering the risk involved related to accidents, combative drunks, whatever, not worth it at all.

The game really is about avoidance and cherry picking. It's too bad, because the model could be fixed in a second by shifting 10% of Uber/Lyft's profits back to the driver and then affording the drivers a measure of protection from scheming, scamming riders. Then the plain old cheap, short rides wouldn't hurt so bad.


----------



## Ubersucksgas

agtg said:


> This seems to be about 40% of my fares. This turns the proposition into unprofitable, and considering the risk involved related to accidents, combative drunks, whatever, not worth it at all.
> 
> The game really is about avoidance and cherry picking. It's too bad, because the model could be fixed in a second by shifting 10% of Uber/Lyft's profits back to the driver and then affording the drivers a measure of protection from scheming, scamming riders. Then the plain old cheap, short rides wouldn't hurt so bad.


You are right, they are taking too much, also, if they would just increase prices by 10c and put another 5-10% to drivers, and have base fare of $3(which would basically cover our trip to pick up pax. IT would not change rates by much for ax, but would make our driving somehow profitable and there would be no need for surges a lot, hourly guarantee etc.
I think that they know what is going on but they have to fight to be cheaper than lyft. If they would just agree to be similarly priced and work together for their drivers. Lyft is dead in OC because they are more expensive and having prime-time a lot.


----------



## Rico Ramz

Mayday said:


> If they lose $1B to make $40B, it's called a business expense.


The same can be said about drivers, "if it takes cancelling one or two minimum trips, to make one that is going to yield six times the minimum fare, then is just good business sense"


----------



## Sydney Uber

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Late night riders have been telling me the driver has been accepting the ping, calling them, asking where they are going and then cancelling the ride if they don't like it. There are at most 1 or 2 other drivers in the area when I am rolling so I think it's the same one. F him, if I can roll the dice so can he. Last night's event turned out to be a good fare, and it left me in a place where I got a $90 fare next. This is a slow period in the area, school is out and summer travel hasn't started yet and last night I went 2 hours without a fare, I'm either taking what I can get or staying home. Can't believe somebody can not be deactivated for too much of that.
> 
> Of course, I did my part to F him by telling the passenger to lie to the driver next time, look at the map and tell him you are going back to where he is, or I gave him a list of other places to tell the driver he is going to ensure he will come out. "Hey, my friend called and told me he wasn't going to be there, so I decided to go home instead."


Go easy on that driver. Probably only sticking to the true meaning of Rideshare. Do you know what that is?

"Rideshare" is when the driver had a pre-determined destination and route he/she was taking. Driver would offer seats on board and charge out on a per-seat basis. In some instances it would develop into a carpool situation. But to make Rideshare work, the destination must be known and the driver at all times controlled the progress, route & timing of trip.

Don't fool yourself- UberX is just a clever Taxi dispatch system which restricts its drivers to the one pipeline of work. X drivers DO generally provide a better (but smaller) car, cleaner car, better ride "experience" than Cabs. But rates being set at a lower rate, with only the App for work (no rank or hail jobs) , gives rise to inefficient operations and higher costs. This manifests in high driver turnover when the maths finally becomes clear.


----------



## Ms.Doe

Hunt to Eat said:


> My policy is to NEVER call a pax for anything. The only communication I initiate is a boiler plate text message that I send when I accept the ping. The message introduces myself in a warm, friendly manner. The message also asks for the final destination. After the pax responds, I decide if I want to make the trip or not. If it isn't a profitable run, I'll drive the opposite direction a few blocks. When the pax realizes I'm not coming, they cancel. That way I don't get dinged for canceling the trip and the pax can't rate me. Yes, this is cherry-picking, but more importantly it's profit maximization.


Exactly!


----------



## Ms.Doe

Rico Ramz said:


> Can you two knock it off with the gun totting, angry hill billy stuff? People are going to think Uber drivers are a bunch of gun totting Goops!


Lol! Perhaps that's not a bad thing! Maybe they'll tip more


----------



## Sydney Uber

Greguzzi said:


> LOL. Lies. Damn lies. Statistics. Not the evasive manner in which they make their points: "FBI data" about a meaningless point in the discussion; "In one survey" (but what about the other surveys?); "A study in Philadelphis" (but what about all the other surveys in other cities?).
> 
> Note that no data was presented to support the conclusion. This is just an example of weasel stats.


Up to 1996 Australia had a number of gun massacres. Then the big one at Port Arthur (35 people) who unfortunately was surpassed by Orlando now.

When you have a chance please watch this Aussie comedy skit which clearly outlines the Anerican gun control argument and facts. Enjoy!


----------



## Squirming Like A Toad

Sydney Uber said:


> Up to 1996 Australia had a number of gun massacres. Then the big one at Port Arthur (35 people) who unfortunately was surpassed by Orlando now.
> 
> When you have a chance please watch this Aussie comedy skit which clearly outlines the Anerican gun control argument and facts. Enjoy!


Mexico has very strict gun laws, similar to those in the UK. Good thing they do, it might be a dangerous place otherwise! 

Have you considered that the suitability of a population being armed depends on the character of that population?


----------



## Rico Ramz

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Mexico has very strict gun laws, similar to those in the UK. Good thing they do, it might be a dangerous place otherwise!
> 
> Have you considered that the suitability of a population being armed depends on the character of that population?





Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Mexico has very strict gun laws, similar to those in the UK. Good thing they do, it might be a dangerous place otherwise!
> 
> Have you considered that the suitability of a population being armed depends on the character of that population?


The number one enemy of Americans are other Americans, more US citizens get killed by other citizens in one years, than Americans killed in all current american involved wars. The current violence in Mexico is due to the insatiable thirst, in north America (US) for drugs. The majority of guns for cartels are sold at USA. The USA is one of the most violent countries in the world.


----------



## Squirming Like A Toad

Rico Ramz said:


> The number one enemy of Americans are other Americans, more US citizens get killed by other citizens in one years, than Americans killed in all current american involved wars. The current violence in Mexico is due to the insatiable thirst, in north America (US) for drugs. The majority of guns for cartels are sold at USA. The USA is one of the most violent countries in the world.


False. The USA is less violent than Canada, UK, most of Europe. We have more shooting, but less violence, you go to jail and get sued for even minor violence here. You also get shot dead if you show a knife or a broken bottle to the wrong person.


----------



## Rico Ramz

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> False. The USA is less violent than Canada, UK, most of Europe. We have more shooting, but less violence, you go to jail and get sued for even minor violence here. You also get shot dead if you show a knife or a broken bottle to the wrong person.


You absolutely contradict your argument! Lol
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604
This are a couple paragraphs from the article:
*All shootings: *Some 13,286 people were killed in the US by firearms in 2015, according to the Gun Violence Archive, and 26,819 people were injured [those figures exclude suicide]. Those figures are likely to rise by several hundred, once incidents in the final week of the year are counted.

Source: Gun Violence Archive

*How the US compares: *The number of gun murders per capita in the US in 2012 - the most recent year for comparable statistics - was nearly 30 times that in the UK, at 2.9 per 100,000 compared with just 0.1.

Of all the murders in the US in 2012, 60% were by firearm compared with 31% in Canada, 18.2% in Australia, and just 10% in the UK.

Source: UNODC.


----------



## Rico Ramz

If you people want to talk about guns, go to another forum for gun enthusiasts. Read the topic of this forum.


----------



## Old Rocker

A little dated...

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/214775/UK-shamed-as-the-violent-crimes-capital-of-Europe


----------



## Karl Marx

Chardra said:


> I am a new Uber driver & I am frankly appalled @ some of my fellow drivers' lack of ethics on this matter, poor customer service skills, and blind greed. Remember why we got in this business. To work for ourselves, make money, and provide better service than cab drivers. When you call an Uber client who is depending upon you for a ride & you refuse them if it's where you don't want to go? Shame on you! You are no better than the unprincipled cab drivers who do this. You are paid to drive so effing drive! You will make money if you stop turning down fares.... it's that simple.


The reason drivers do these things is because they're not adequately compensated. Once you get 2,000 rides under your belt than you can come back and start complaining.


----------



## CityGirl

Choochie said:


> They actually tested that somewhere out west - if I'm not mistaken CityGirl mentioned it last year. Must not have thrived.


They still have not implemented it. I saw a news report it was coming soon.


----------



## Sydney Uber

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> False. The USA is less violent than Canada, UK, most of Europe. We have more shooting, but less violence, you go to jail and get sued for even minor violence here. You also get shot dead if you show a knife or a broken bottle to the wrong person.


Oh dear!


----------



## agtg

Rico Ramz said:


> The number one enemy of Americans are other Americans, more US citizens get killed by other citizens in one years, than Americans killed in all current american involved wars. The current violence in Mexico is due to the insatiable thirst, in north America (US) for drugs. The majority of guns for cartels are sold at USA. The USA is one of the most violent countries in the world.


So everything is America's fault? This kind of crap is garbage propaganda for globalist agendas. Mexico is responsible for drug cartels, not America. The civil authorities in Mexico are corrupt, and do not protect the general public whatsoever. Do some research. Some communities down there have had to create private, personal citizen posse's to deal with the cartel's terrorizing their communities.

The truth is, America is remarkably peacable considering it has 300,000,000 (that's 300 million) people who are very well-armed. Logic would dictate that it is, in fact, remarkably peaceable because most communities are well-armed.

For example, I've lived in 3 major metropolitan areas in my lifetime. Two of them were plagued with carjacking problems. Why? Because in those communities restrictive gun laws and gray rules about self-defense give the violent criminals the upper hand.

Charlotte is very safe for drivers, and you rarely hear about carjackings. Why? Because in North Carolina if a creep tries to breach your car door to carjack you, you have the right to shoot them. Kinda dissuades violent criminals from terrorizing people at the stop-light when they face the possibility of a muzzle of a pistol back in their own face and a self-defense law with teeth.

Far and away, the most violent communities in the United States are the ones that have had to deal with oppressive, fascist gun laws that disarm the general public and embolden the criminal element. Gangsters will always get guns and bullets, lawful citizens are subject to laws that position them for abuse by said gangsters.


----------



## Rico Ramz

agtg said:


> So everything is America's fault? This kind of crap is garbage propaganda for globalist agendas. Mexico is responsible for drug cartels, not America. The civil authorities in Mexico are corrupt, and do not protect the general public whatsoever. Do some research. Some communities down there have had to create private, personal citizen posse's to deal with the cartel's terrorizing their communities.
> 
> The truth is, America is remarkably peacable considering it has 300 million people who are very well-armed. Logic would dictate that it is, in fact, remarkably peaceable because most communities are well-armed.
> 
> For example, I've lived in 3 major metropolitan areas in my lifetime. Two of them were plagued with carjacking problems. Why? Because in those communities restrictive gun laws and gray rules about self-defense give the violent criminals the upper hand.
> 
> Charlotte is very safe for drivers, and you rarely hear about carjackings. Why? Because in North Carolina if a creep tries to breach your car door to carjack you, you have the right to shoot them. Kinda dissuades violent criminals from terrorizing people at the stop-light when they face the possibility of a muzzle of a pistol back in their own face and a self-defense law with teeth.
> 
> Far and away, the most violent communities in the United States are the ones that have had to deal with oppressive, fascist gun laws that disarm the general public and embolden the criminal element. Gangsters will always get guns and bullets, lawful citizens are subject to laws that position them for abuse by said gangsters.


Read this link, gun totting cry baby!http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604
This are a couple of paragraphs from the article:
*All shootings: *Some 13,286 people were killed in the US by firearms in 2015, according to the Gun Violence Archive, and 26,819 people were injured [those figures exclude suicide]. Those figures are likely to rise by several hundred, once incidents in the final week of the year are counted.

Source: Gun Violence Archive

*How the US compares: *The number of gun murders per capita in the US in 2012 - the most recent year for comparable statistics - was nearly 30 times that in the UK, at 2.9 per 100,000 compared with just 0.1.

Of all the murders in the US in 2012, 60% were by firearm compared with 31% in Canada, 18.2% in Australia, and just 10% in the UK.

Source: UNODC.


----------



## agtg

Sydney Uber said:


> Up to 1996 Australia had a number of gun massacres. Then the big one at Port Arthur (35 people) who unfortunately was surpassed by Orlando now.
> 
> When you have a chance please watch this Aussie comedy skit which clearly outlines the Anerican gun control argument and facts. Enjoy!


This isn't comedy, it's called propaganda. And the globalists are the ones having the belly-laugh because they've disarmed your nation.



Rico Ramz said:


> Read this link, gun totting cry baby!http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604
> This are a couple of paragraphs from the article:
> *All shootings: *Some 13,286 people were killed in the US by firearms in 2015, according to the Gun Violence Archive, and 26,819 people were injured [those figures exclude suicide]. Those figures are likely to rise by several hundred, once incidents in the final week of the year are counted.
> 
> Source: Gun Violence Archive
> 
> *How the US compares: *The number of gun murders per capita in the US in 2012 - the most recent year for comparable statistics - was nearly 30 times that in the UK, at 2.9 per 100,000 compared with just 0.1.
> 
> Of all the murders in the US in 2012, 60% were by firearm compared with 31% in Canada, 18.2% in Australia, and just 10% in the UK.
> 
> Source: UNODC.


Seriously? The BBC is globalist propaganda! 

Look at the stats they list there. What percentage of 300,000,000 (that's 300 million people living in the USA) is 13,286? Then consider there are enough firearms in the nation to arm every single person.

Far and away, America is one of the safest countries to live in because of firearm ownership. Here, check out these stats:

"A recent study published in the _Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy_ concluded that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime in countries internationally (more guns = less crime)."

http://americangunfacts.com/


----------



## agtg

Also worth noting: Every major genocide committed the last 100 years was preceded by gun confiscation. But what's 72 ,000,000 (that's 72 million) deaths compared to 13,000 deaths?

See, people are going to murder other people because there are evil people. You can't stop evil people, but you can dissuade them with the proposition of deadly force in return. It's sad, but true. I'd love to leave at peace with everyone. Right now, it's just not possible.

So... Disarming a nation sets it up for despots to murder the masses. Arming the citizens well will always have a measure of deaths yearly, but in comparison it's a no-brainer.


----------



## agtg

Here, in the last 100 years approximately 197,000,000 (that's 197 million) human beings have been killed over political genocide. Overwhelmingly, the nations that suffered such atrocities were manipulated into giving up firearm ownership:


----------



## Rico Ramz

agtg said:


> Here, in the last 100 years approximately 197,000,000 (that's 197 million) human beings have been killed over political genocide. Overwhelmingly, the nations that suffered such atrocities were manipulated into giving up firearm ownership:


Well you Americans killed over 20,000,000 native Americans, so you are the biggest murderers in history!


----------



## agtg

Rico Ramz said:


> Well you Americans killed over 20,000,000 native Americans, so you are the biggest murderers in history!


You only prove yourself to be a self-righteous hypocrite when you point the finger at any nation and declare them murderous. The sad truth is, humans are wicked and murderous people. History has proven no people-group is immune from this fact.

Watch the video, notice how this garbage has happened all over the world with all people-groups. Was yours represented there? Do you presume you're history is clean? It is not, you are as wicked as any American. Own it and perhaps people will take your arguments seriously. Defy it and expose yourself to be biased.


----------



## Rico Ramz

agtg said:


> You only prove yourself to be a self-righteous hypocrite when you point the finger at any nation and declare them murderous. The sad truth is, humans are wicked and murderous people. History has proven no people-group is immune from this fact.
> 
> Watch the video, notice how this garbage has happened all over the world with all people-groups. Was yours represented there? Do you presume you're history is clean? It is not, you are as wicked as any American. Own it and perhaps people will take your arguments seriously. Defy it and expose yourself to be biased.


murderers! Let's get back to Uber issues, I will not respond to gun garbage.


----------



## Sydney Uber

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Mexico has very strict gun laws, similar to those in the UK. Good thing they do, it might be a dangerous place otherwise!
> 
> Have you considered that the suitability of a population being armed depends on the character of that population?


That is a very sad observation of American society


----------



## Sydney Uber

Rico Ramz said:


> You absolutely contradict your argument! Lol
> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604
> This are a couple paragraphs from the article:
> *All shootings: *Some 13,286 people were killed in the US by firearms in 2015, according to the Gun Violence Archive, and 26,819 people were injured [those figures exclude suicide]. Those figures are likely to rise by several hundred, once incidents in the final week of the year are counted.
> 
> Source: Gun Violence Archive
> 
> *How the US compares: *The number of gun murders per capita in the US in 2012 - the most recent year for comparable statistics - was nearly 30 times that in the UK, at 2.9 per 100,000 compared with just 0.1.
> 
> Of all the murders in the US in 2012, 60% were by firearm compared with 31% in Canada, 18.2% in Australia, and just 10% in the UK.
> 
> Source: UNODC.


Gun advocates are in utter denial of the truth.

They should all be lined up against a wall and....and.....and spoken to VERY harshly!


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Rico Ramz said:


> The same can be said about drivers, "if it takes cancelling one or two minimum trips, to make one that is going to yield six times the minimum fare, then is just good business sense"


Do you know what's wrong with your logic here?
Absolutely nothing, that's what!


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Sydney Uber said:


> Gun advocates are in utter denial of the truth.
> 
> They should all be lined up against a wall and....and.....and spoken to VERY harshly!


Fewer and fewer gun owners are college educated.


----------



## Greguzzi

Hunt to Eat said:


> No need to apologize. Just sharing the facts. I should have posted a disclaimer first that would have fairly warned you that you likely won't appreciate the facts being discussed.


Your facts are FUBAR and not facts at all.

Saying you are more likely to get killed by gun if you are around guns is like saying you are more likely to die in a car crash if you are around cars. It's just the lowest form of fake association.


----------



## Greguzzi

Hunt to Eat said:


> Fewer and fewer gun owners are college educated.


LOL. More and more morons are college educated. See how that works?


----------



## Greguzzi

Sydney Uber said:


> Up to 1996 Australia had a number of gun massacres. Then the big one at Port Arthur (35 people) who unfortunately was surpassed by Orlando now.
> 
> When you have a chance please watch this Aussie comedy skit which clearly outlines the Anerican gun control argument and facts. Enjoy!


LOL. 'Cause America is just like Australia, right?


----------



## Greguzzi

Old Rocker said:


> I wonder if carrying a gun in Philly is even legal. If not, the gun carriers were most likely criminals and therefore around other criminals which in itself is cause enough to be at higher risk of gun assaults and gun deaths.


Yep. The fallacy inherent in as statement like "one study."

His stats are FUBAR, agenda-driven drivel. I reject them utterly, as all sensible people do.


----------



## agtg

Sydney Uber said:


> Gun advocates are in utter denial of the truth.
> 
> They should all be lined up against a wall and....and.....and spoken to VERY harshly!


Fascists speak from the heart, and should be disturbed at what comes forth.


----------



## Greguzzi

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Mexico has very strict gun laws, similar to those in the UK. Good thing they do, it might be a dangerous place otherwise!
> 
> Have you considered that the suitability of a population being armed depends on the character of that population?


Oh, no. It's racist to suggest that all societies are not equally functional. What works in the Boganville Republic of Austria (sic) must therefore work everywhere! Shimp on the barbie and Foster's for all! Meh.


----------



## Greguzzi

Rico Ramz said:


> You absolutely contradict your argument! Lol
> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604
> This are a couple paragraphs from the article:
> *All shootings: *Some 13,286 people were killed in the US by firearms in 2015, according to the Gun Violence Archive, and 26,819 people were injured [those figures exclude suicide]. Those figures are likely to rise by several hundred, once incidents in the final week of the year are counted.
> 
> Source: Gun Violence Archive
> 
> *How the US compares: *The number of gun murders per capita in the US in 2012 - the most recent year for comparable statistics - was nearly 30 times that in the UK, at 2.9 per 100,000 compared with just 0.1.
> 
> Of all the murders in the US in 2012, 60% were by firearm compared with 31% in Canada, 18.2% in Australia, and just 10% in the UK.
> 
> Source: UNODC.


Normalize the statistics for certain, uh, ethnic groups, and you will start to get an idea of what the real problem is. Statistics are racist, though. LOL


----------



## agtg

Hunt to Eat said:


> Fewer and fewer gun owners are college educated.


Yes, but your reasoning is off. They're not gun owners because they've submitted themselves to 16+ years of communist brainwashing and indoctrination between public education and these so-called institutions of "higher" learning.

I have an advanced degree, but I refuse to cast aside sound reasoning for the sake of political correctness. You shouldn't, either.


----------



## Greguzzi

Rico Ramz said:


> The number one enemy of Americans are other Americans, more US citizens get killed by other citizens in one years, than Americans killed in all current american involved wars. The current violence in Mexico is due to the insatiable thirst, in north America (US) for drugs. The majority of guns for cartels are sold at USA. The USA is one of the most violent countries in the world.


What a bunch of bolshevik, based on agenda-driven statistics.


----------



## Greguzzi

agtg said:


> Fascists speak from the heart, and should be disturbed at what comes forth.





agtg said:


> Fascists speak from the heart, and should be disturbed at what comes forth.


Fascism is a leftist ideology, after all.


----------



## agtg

The gun ban in Australia has not slowed the increase of gun crime. Statistics bear this out across the world. Criminals will always have access to guns and ammo because "criminals" don't abide by laws:

http://freebeacon.com/issues/australia-sees-spike-in-gun-crime-despite-outright-ban/


----------



## JimS

We have a guy at our airport that has started calling the pax to determine where they are headed then cancelling on them - passing them off to the next driver in the FIFO queue. Jerk.


----------



## MattyMikey

Sydney Uber said:


> Gun advocates are in utter denial of the truth.
> 
> They should all be lined up against a wall and....and.....and spoken to VERY harshly!


What a stupid statement.


JimS said:


> We have a guy at our airport that has started calling the pax to determine where they are headed then cancelling on them - passing them off to the next driver in the FIFO queue. Jerk.


When he cancels it though, isn't it supposed to remove him from the FIFO queue?


----------



## Greguzzi

agtg said:


> Yes, but your reasoning is off. They're not gun owners because they've submitted themselves to 16+ years of communist brainwashing and indoctrination between public education and these so-called institutions of "higher" learning.
> 
> I have an advanced degree, but I refuse to cast aside sound reasoning for the sake of political correctness. You shouldn't, either.


Bravo! We haven't had a president since Truman who was not a graduate of some silly diploma mill. All of them but two have been demonstrably destructive to America or mouth-breathing morons.

College grad, here. And characterizing America's education system and colleges as America-hating Marxist propaganda camps understates the reality of the situation.


----------



## Greguzzi

MattyMikey said:


> What a stupid statement.
> 
> When he cancels it though, isn't it supposed to remove him from the FIFO queue?


Indeed, on the first statement.

On the second, IME, you will get kicked out of the FIFO at Seatac only if it's the second cancel, which kicks you offline for 2 minutes, after which you start all over in the queue.

I had been sitting in the queue for over an hour (I know, idiot move, but I only got in the queue because it said "8-28 minute wait." That was a lie and after 10 minutes kept getting longer), and the ping was from a nearby hotel back to Seatac. There was no way I was putting up with that. Got a second ping, for the same thing. That got me kicked off-line and out of queue.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

UberLou said:


> I tell all my riders if a driver calls or texts for their destination they should hang up and/or, cancel the ride themselves and immediately report them to Uber. This is a ridiculous practice and I will get as many drivers deactivated for this as possible.


I have an email from uber saying I can politely call and ask for destination. So good luck with that.


----------



## Trebor

Fuzzyelvis said:


> I have an email from uber saying I can politely call and ask for destination. So good luck with that.


All uber reps are not made the same.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

agtg said:


> Yes, but your reasoning is off. They're not gun owners because they've submitted themselves to 16+ years of communist brainwashing and indoctrination between public education and these so-called institutions of "higher" learning.
> 
> I have an advanced degree, but I refuse to cast aside sound reasoning for the sake of political correctness. You shouldn't, either.


Oh, no need to explain yourself. I was merely sharing the facts.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Greguzzi said:


> LOL. More and more morons are college educated. See how that works?


Oh, no need to apologize. I was merely sharing the facts. Remember, facts require no apologies.


----------



## Greguzzi

Hunt to Eat said:


> Oh, no need to apologize. I was merely sharing the facts. Remember, facts require no apologies.


I accept your surrender for having no facts.


----------



## Sydney Uber

Greguzzi said:


> LOL. 'Cause America is just like Australia, right?


Yep, you and I have both got 2 arms, 2 legs, same skeleton etc. But the maths falls apart when we start counting murderous arseholes - I dunno how it happens, but there's more of them in USA than the number of people !


----------



## Greguzzi

Sydney Uber said:


> Yep, you and I have both got 2 arms, 2 legs, same skeleton etc. But the maths falls apart when we start counting murderous arseholes - I dunno how it happens, but there's more of them in USA than the number of people !


Murderous arseholes are murderous arseholes. That is precisely the point.

They will kill, even if they have to use a blunt object such as a hammer. Did you know that more Americans are murdered every year with blunt objects such as hammers than with rifles? Did you know that most Americans murdered with guns are in big cities where it's almost impossible to buy a gun?

We don't have a gun problem. We have a murderous asshole problem.

This latest murderous asshole was a looney, gay, muslim supremacist who was also a Democrat-so the truly biased and shitty US press is blaming all this on the NRA and Republicans. LOL. And they want to ban guns. Why not ban looney gay muslim-supremacist Democrats?


----------



## ChortlingCrison

Sydney Uber said:


> Yep, you and I have both got 2 arms, 2 legs, same skeleton etc. But the maths falls apart when we start counting murderous arseholes - I dunno how it happens, but there's more of them in USA than the number of people !


 I agree we have alot more criminals and richardheads in us, but I'd still be afraid to walk thru the outbacks because of the eastern browns snakes, crocs, and many more poisonous creates. I admire your bravery over there.


----------



## Sydney Uber

Greguzzi said:


> Murderous arseholes are murderous arseholes. That is precisely the point.
> 
> They will kill, even if they have to use a blunt object such as a hammer. Did you know that more Americans are murdered every year with blunt objects such as hammers than with rifles? Did you know that most Americans murdered with guns are in big cities where it's almost impossible to buy a gun?
> 
> We don't have a gun problem. We have a murderous asshole problem.
> 
> This latest murderous asshole was a looney, gay, muslim supremacist who was also a Democrat-so the truly biased and shitty US press is blaming all this on the NRA and Republicans. LOL. And they want to ban guns. Why not ban looney gay muslim supremacist Democrats?


I agree, where's Tom Cruise and his Minority Report squad when you need them!

Keep looking past the fact that there is no need for "Assult Rifle & Automatic Weapon" private ownership. Who are they planning to "Assult"?.

I'm fully in favour of better home security & protection rifles that do not Assult other people.


----------



## Old Rocker

Sydney Uber said:


> Yep, you and I have both got 2 arms, 2 legs, same skeleton etc. But the maths falls apart when we start counting murderous arseholes - I dunno how it happens, but there's more of them in USA than the number of people !


Ivan Milat?


----------



## Greguzzi

Sydney Uber said:


> I agree, where's Tom Cruise and his Minority Report squad when you need them!
> 
> Keep looking past the fact that there is no need for "Assult Rifle & Automatic Weapon" private ownership. Who are they planning to "Assult"?.
> 
> I'm fully in favour of better home security & protection rifles that do not Assult other people.


You austrians aren't lucky enough to have a Bill of RIGHTS that includes a 2nd Amendment to protect your rights to keep and bear arms.

Note that it is not the Bill of NEEDS. No. If our founders had thought it to be NEEDS, they would have phrased it thusly. Instead, they described these things as the Bill of RIGHTS. Everything in that bill describes what the GOVERNMENT may not prevent an American citizen from using or owning or doing. These are what smart people know as "negative rights." They constraint the government, not the people. This is in recognition of the principle that rights come from our creator (whoever or whatever that might be), rather than being granted by the elites in the government.

The 2nd Amendment says the government may not infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. Its preparatory clause mentions that it is in the interest of the state to allow this so that we may form a "well regulated militia." Note that at the time this was written, the term "regulated" was commonly used to mean "in good order or functional"-not that the militia was subject to governmental control.

The 2nd Amendment says not a single word restricing the right to "hunting guns" or "protection guns." Its preparatory clause suggests that what was meant is that the right to keep and bear arms was in fact limited to those arms that would be useful to someone in a militia-meaning that the only arms specifically protected are AR-15s and such that would be useful to a soldier.

If anyone doubts this, look at what was argued by the government and what was decided by the Supreme Court in the Miller decision. The Miller decision was about a sawed-off shotgun, and the government argued (erroneously) that a sawed-off shotgun was that the 2nd Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia (sawed-off shotguns had long been used by the US military). The court ruled that sawed-off shotguns were not protected by the 2nd. So much for our jug-eared president's assertion that the 2nd doesn't protect "weapons of war." Truth is, the 2nd protects ONLY weapons of war.


----------



## Rico Ramz

Can everyone just ignore this gun totting Goops! They're just filibustering our strategies on how to maximize our drivers earnings.


----------



## Greguzzi

Rico Ramz said:


> Can everyone just ignore this gun totting Goops! They're just filibustering our strategies on how to maximize our drivers earnings.


Freedom of speech bothers fascists, authoritarians, and the thought police. Everybody else is pretty OK with it. How 'bout you?

And totting doesn't mean what you think it means, amigo.


----------



## Rico Ramz

We need to work on a tactical advantage, over Uber sneaked and wiked tactics. by operating our tactical vehicles in a way that we make more money by saving on gas and doing oil and filter changes double the miles of what your cars user manual say, you will also save on gas by parking and checking women's cleavages, because it can cause an accident if you do it while driving. Go drivers!!!


----------



## Old Rocker

Greguzzi said:


> You austrians aren't lucky enough to have a Bill of RIGHTS that includes a 2nd Amendment to protect your rights to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Note that it is not the Bill of NEEDS. No. If our founders had thought it to be NEEDS, they would have phrased it thusly. Instead, they described these things as the Bill of RIGHTS. Everything in that bill describes what the GOVERNMENT may not prevent an American citizen from using or owning or doing. These are what smart people know as "negative rights." They constraint the government, not the people. This is in recognition of the principle that rights come from our creator (whoever or whatever that might be), rather than being granted by the elites in the government.
> 
> The 2nd Amendment says the government may not infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. Its preparatory clause mentions that it is in the interest of the state to allow this so that we may form a "well regulated militia." Note that at the time this was written, the term "regulated" was commonly used to mean "in good order or functional"-not that the militia was subject to governmental control.
> 
> The 2nd Amendment says not a single word restricing the right to "hunting guns" or "protection guns." Its preparatory clause suggests that what was meant is that the right to keep and bear arms was in fact limited to those arms that would be useful to someone in a militia-meaning that the only arms specifically protected are AR-15s and such that would be useful to a soldier.
> 
> If anyone doubts this, look at what was argued by the government and what was decided by the Supreme Court in the Miller decision. The Miller decision was about a sawed-off shotgun, and the government argued (erroneously) that a sawed-off shotgun was that the 2nd Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia (sawed-off shotguns had long been used by the US military). The court ruled that sawed-off shotguns were not protected by the 2nd. So much for our jug-eared president's assertion that the 2nd doesn't protect "weapons of war." Truth is, the 2nd protects ONLY weapons of war.


We have the tyrannical rule of the British Empire to thank for the need of the right to bear arms.


----------



## Sydney Uber

ChortlingCrison said:


> I agree we have alot more criminals and richardheads in us, but I'd still be afraid to walk thru the outbacks because of the eastern browns snakes, crocs, and many more poisonous creates. I admire your bravery over there.


Overstated media hype! Wikipedia quotes government statistics that between 1975 - 1988 53 people were killed by snakes.

Now give those slippery little suckers an Assult Rifle each and I'm sure they can lift their game!

Here's a Video of how quickly an Ape can work out an AK47. Enjoy!!


----------



## Sydney Uber

Greguzzi said:


> You austrians aren't lucky enough to have a Bill of RIGHTS that includes a 2nd Amendment to protect your rights to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Note that it is not the Bill of NEEDS. No. If our founders had thought it to be NEEDS, they would have phrased it thusly. Instead, they described these things as the Bill of RIGHTS. Everything in that bill describes what the GOVERNMENT may not prevent an American citizen from using or owning or doing. These are what smart people know as "negative rights." They constraint the government, not the people. This is in recognition of the principle that rights come from our creator (whoever or whatever that might be), rather than being granted by the elites in the government.
> 
> The 2nd Amendment says the government may not infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. Its preparatory clause mentions that it is in the interest of the state to allow this so that we may form a "well regulated militia." Note that at the time this was written, the term "regulated" was commonly used to mean "in good order or functional"-not that the militia was subject to governmental control.
> 
> The 2nd Amendment says not a single word restricing the right to "hunting guns" or "protection guns." Its preparatory clause suggests that what was meant is that the right to keep and bear arms was in fact limited to those arms that would be useful to someone in a militia-meaning that the only arms specifically protected are AR-15s and such that would be useful to a soldier.
> 
> If anyone doubts this, look at what was argued by the government and what was decided by the Supreme Court in the Miller decision. The Miller decision was about a sawed-off shotgun, and the government argued (erroneously) that a sawed-off shotgun was that the 2nd Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia (sawed-off shotguns had long been used by the US military). The court ruled that sawed-off shotguns were not protected by the 2nd. So much for our jug-eared president's assertion that the 2nd doesn't protect "weapons of war." Truth is, the 2nd protects ONLY weapons of war.


So, CHANGE your Constitution to evolve with the times. You've done it before.


----------



## Old Rocker

We need our guns for when the Commies invade!


----------



## Greguzzi

Old Rocker said:


> We have the tyrannical rule of the British Empire to thank for the need of the right to bear arms.


Not really.

The 2A merely recognizes that the _a priori_ human right is to defend oneself and one's family. From there, to defend one's tribe and one's extended tribe (the state or the country).

The fake "liberals" and authoritarian socialists who somehow imagine themselves as liberals will, of course, dispute this . . .

Those fools think that the _a priori_ human right is to defend the state that is oppressing you.


----------



## Greguzzi

Sydney Uber said:


> So, CHANGE your Constitution to evolve with the times. You've done it before.


Yeah. We changed it to outlaw alcohol. Then, after resuming sanity, we changed it back. You propose we do that for guns? It's just as looney.

You ****ing austrians are so arrogant that you think all the whirled must change to be like you are. How do you assholes justify that level of condescension, given what a backwater country you are?

Show me the success of your ideas. Give it 200 years. Then, I will listen to your ilk.


----------



## Sydney Uber

Greguzzi said:


> Yeah. We changed it to outlaw alcohol. Then, after resuming sanity, we changed it back. You propose we do that for guns? It's just as looney.
> 
> You &%[email protected]!*ing austrians are so arrogant that you think all the whirled must change to be like you are. How do you assholes justify that level of condescension, given what a backwater country you are?
> 
> Show me the success of your ideas. Give it 200 years. Then, I will listen to your ilk.


Ok Ok, so I've let your ignorance go "through to the keeper" till now. Do you know where Austrians live? Ain't nowhere near Australia.


----------



## ChortlingCrison

Sydney Uber said:


> Ok Ok, so I've let your ignorance go "through to the keeper" till now. Do you know where Austrians live? Ain't nowhere near Australia.


I thought Austria and Australia were right next to each other, and that god decided to move them way apart because they along too well.


----------



## Greguzzi

Sydney Uber said:


> Ok Ok, so I've let your ignorance go "through to the keeper" till now. Do you know where Austrians live? Ain't nowhere near Australia.


As dumb as the average American is, the average austrian is even dumber.

Can I have a Foster's, mate?


----------



## Greguzzi

ChortlingCrison said:


> I thought Austria and Australia were right next to each other, and that god decided to move them way apart because they along too well.


Precisely right. And it irritates the **** out of them that anyone would confuse the two backwater countries. Austrians, at least, showed some minor initiative and adapted the 1911 Colt design into the Glock.

What, besides Foster's, has Australia ever offered the whirled? AC/DC? Shrimp on the barbie? Bogan chic?


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> False. The USA is less violent than Canada, UK, most of Europe. We have more shooting, but less violence, you go to jail and get sued for even minor violence here. You also get shot dead if you show a knife or a broken bottle to the wrong person.


Have you LIVED anywhere else? You are so ridiculously wrong it's not even funny.

So America is less violent because (by your argument, and I would argue with it, but forget that for a moment) we SHOOT people rather than get in a fight?


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Karl Marx said:


> The reason drivers do these things is because they're not adequately compensated. Once you get 2,000 rides under your belt than you can come back and start complaining.


It shouldn't take anywhere near 2000 to figure this out. Took me less than 100 and the rates were higher then.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Greguzzi said:


> I accept your surrender for having no facts.


If only, right? But, hey, let me know when I can help you again. As everyone here knows, I drive Uber as a means of community service. I guess we could say the same for my participation here. I really don't mind helping out.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Greguzzi said:


> Murderous arseholes are murderous arseholes. That is precisely the point.
> 
> They will kill, even if they have to use a blunt object such as a hammer. Did you know that more Americans are murdered every year with blunt objects such as hammers than with rifles? Did you know that most Americans murdered with guns are in big cities where it's almost impossible to buy a gun?
> 
> We don't have a gun problem. We have a murderous asshole problem.
> 
> This latest murderous asshole was a looney, gay, muslim supremacist who was also a Democrat-so the truly biased and shitty US press is blaming all this on the NRA and Republicans. LOL. And they want to ban guns. Why not ban looney gay muslim-supremacist Democrats?


I dont know where you're getting your statistics. While it's true more violent crimes are committed without guns, the majority of MURDERS are committed WITH guns.

It's just so much easier to kill with a gun.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Greguzzi said:


> You austrians aren't lucky enough to have a Bill of RIGHTS that includes a 2nd Amendment to protect your rights to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Note that it is not the Bill of NEEDS. No. If our founders had thought it to be NEEDS, they would have phrased it thusly. Instead, they described these things as the Bill of RIGHTS. Everything in that bill describes what the GOVERNMENT may not prevent an American citizen from using or owning or doing. These are what smart people know as "negative rights." They constraint the government, not the people. This is in recognition of the principle that rights come from our creator (whoever or whatever that might be), rather than being granted by the elites in the government.
> 
> The 2nd Amendment says the government may not infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. Its preparatory clause mentions that it is in the interest of the state to allow this so that we may form a "well regulated militia." Note that at the time this was written, the term "regulated" was commonly used to mean "in good order or functional"-not that the militia was subject to governmental control.
> 
> The 2nd Amendment says not a single word restricing the right to "hunting guns" or "protection guns." Its preparatory clause suggests that what was meant is that the right to keep and bear arms was in fact limited to those arms that would be useful to someone in a militia-meaning that the only arms specifically protected are AR-15s and such that would be useful to a soldier.
> 
> If anyone doubts this, look at what was argued by the government and what was decided by the Supreme Court in the Miller decision. The Miller decision was about a sawed-off shotgun, and the government argued (erroneously) that a sawed-off shotgun was that the 2nd Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia (sawed-off shotguns had long been used by the US military). The court ruled that sawed-off shotguns were not protected by the 2nd. So much for our jug-eared president's assertion that the 2nd doesn't protect "weapons of war." Truth is, the 2nd protects ONLY weapons of war.


What is considered "arms"?

Muskets? Or a nuclear bomb?

Or something inbetween? Hand grenade? Semi automatics?

Sadly, you can't take something written that long ago and blindly apply it to what's going on today.

If you think you can then I want to know where I can buy those grenades I've been wanting. (I can't afford to go nuclear).


----------



## Greguzzi

Hunt to Eat said:


> If only, right? But, hey, let me know when I can help you again. As everyone here knows, I drive Uber as a means of community service. I guess we could say the same for my participation here. I really don't mind helping out.


You are helping no one with your lies. Carry on with the condescension, though!


----------



## Greguzzi

Fuzzyelvis said:


> What is considered "arms"?
> 
> Muskets? Or a nuclear bomb?
> 
> Or something inbetween? Hand grenade? Semi automatics?
> 
> Sadly, you can't take something written that long ago and blindly apply it to what's going on today.
> 
> If you think you can then I want to know where I can buy those grenades I've been wanting. (I can't afford to go nuclear).


Really? How can you make a document written with quill pen "written that long ago" apply to the internet and modern communications? If it's not written with a quill pen, is it protected speech? Could our Founding Fathers have envisioned television? Worldwide cable TV? the Internet? How is that different than weapons?

The short answer to your rhetorical question is that each citizen is entitled to arm him or herself with the arms of a modern soldier, the same as a modern journalist is allowed to arm him or herself with the modern equivalent of a quill pen, including TV and the innerneck. Semi-automatics? Yes, we already can, until people like you act to take them away. In the spirit of the 2A, that means full-auto machine guns like our soldiers have, plus grenades, etc. Anything used by a modern soldier. Further, in the 1770s, it meant cannon, which were the most destructive weapons available then. The Founding Fathers allowed private citizens to own cannon. We should, too.

How have Americans fallen so far that we now want to cede to the goobermint the freedoms that cost so many their lives two centuries ago?

And when did so many Americans come to trust the _government_, over their fellow citizens? That's just un-American.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Sydney Uber said:


> Gun advocates are in utter denial of the truth.
> 
> They should all be lined up against a wall and....and.....and spoken to VERY harshly!


But to be fair, the NRA has been manipulating this group since they were just young-uns. Plus, their daddies learned 'em real good, too.


----------



## Greguzzi

Hunt to Eat said:


> But to be fair, the NRA has been manipulating this group since they were just young-uns. Plus, their daddies learned 'em real good, too.


I grew up around guns and hunting. I would often go hunting before high school, and would drive to school afterward, leaving my gun in my car. Hell, it was a legitimate excuse at my high school to be excused from school to go hunting. My Mom would write a note to the principal, and that was all that was necessary. I still hunt, and I hunt with a gun even the Founding Fathers would recognize: a flintlock muzzle-loader that brings home the meat nearly every year.

I owe no apology to any of you louts for my upbringing, my heritage as a hunter, and my current hunting. There is no shame in hunting or in owning guns, despite what our idiot of a president might say or our ridiculously biased POS press might suggest. They can both blow me.

From my heritage of hunting, I learned that guns are not new.

What is new is that people are more murderous. That is not the fault of the guns. It is the fault of the murderous people and of the morons that raised those murderous ****s. Most of those morons are liberals in America's big cities. These people are morally and spiritually broken. Human life matters not at all to them. They would sooner kill you than have a civil conversation with you. I feel horrible for these people. I do. But their murderous ways are no reason to take away my civil rights.

Taking away my civil right to defend myself in some failed attempt to prevent those murderous ****s from murdering me makes no more sense than taking away ropes from black people to prevent lynchings. I am not the problem, any more than the black people being lynched are the problem. Go after the problem. Realize that the US "War on Poverty" has been precisely as effective and for the same reasons as the US's "War on Drugs."

I'm sorry if that truth triggers you such that you have to seek a safe space. I really am sorry for that.

But mostly, I am sad for my country that my countrymen heave become such a bunch of fascistic *******..


----------



## Sydney Uber

Greguzzi said:


> I grew up around guns and hunting. I would often go hunting before high school, and would drive to school afterward, leaving my gun in my car. Hell, it was a legitimate excuse at my high school to be excused from school to go hunting. My Mom would write a note to the principal, and that was all that was necessary. I still hunt, and I hunt with a gun even the Founding Fathers would recognize: a flintlock muzzle-loader that brings home the meat nearly every year.
> 
> I owe no apology to any of you louts for my upbringing, my heritage as a hunter, and my current hunting. There is no shame in hunting or in owning guns, despite what our idiot of a president might say or our ridiculously biased POS press might suggest. They can both blow me.
> 
> From my heritage of hunting, I learned that guns are not new.
> 
> What is new is that people are more murderous. That is not the fault of the guns. It is the fault of the murderous people and of the morons that raised those murderous &%[email protected]!*s. Most of those morons are liberals in America's big cities. These people are morally and spiritually broken. Human life matters not at all to them. They would sooner kill you than have a civil conversation with you. I feel horrible for these people. I do. But their murderous ways are no reason to take away my civil rights.
> 
> Taking away my civil right to defend myself in some failed attempt to prevent those murderous &%[email protected]!*s from murdering me makes no more sense than taking away ropes from black people to prevent lynchings. I am not the problem, any more than the black people being lynched are the problem. Go after the problem. Realize that the US "War on Poverty" has been precisely as effective and for the same reasons as the US's "War on Drugs."
> 
> I'm sorry if that truth triggers you such that you have to seek a safe space. I really am sorry for that.
> 
> But mostly, I am sad for my country that my countrymen heave become such a bunch of fascistic *******..


So you drive around everywhere at 150mph? Ever killed anyone?


----------



## Rico Ramz

This gun totting Goops are just a bunch of thugs just trying to intimidate drivers, if not threatening. Ignore them they're a bunch of clowns!


----------



## UberLou

Fuzzyelvis said:


> I have an email from uber saying I can politely call and ask for destination. So good luck with that.


I'm sure you're not canceling once you ask the destination. That's the difference.


----------



## Mstiff

kes1981 said:


> It's fine for a driver to do that. Driver 6 miles to pick up someone going 1 mile???? No thanks. If you want those rides, they are all yours. TBH, you are kind of stupid if you are willing to lose money while driving. This is Uber's fault, not yours. You shouldn't have to pay to drive.


Agree 100%


----------



## Gefeltafish

How do you tell how many drivers are in your area?


----------



## LadyDi

Gefeltafish said:


> How do you tell how many drivers are in your area?


I have a second device open to attempt to see other Uber drivers around me. I hear this is not always good as they are fake cars on the map.

Back to the OP's topic.

1) ride #1 - 2 people, one male other female tell me that they had a driver telephone to ask their destination. I just reply that possibly this person wanted to drive in or not drive in a particular location.

2) ride #2 - 1 male trying to get from his job to the hospital as his pregnant GF was in an accident. Driver said it was ok for him to go back in and get off the clock. Rider came out, driver had left. I was his next driver. He was unnerved about how he had been getting calls to find out his drop off location in the past too.


----------



## Squirming Like A Toad

LadyDi said:


> ...1) ride #1 - 2 people, one male other female tell me that they had a driver telephone to ask their destination. I just reply that possibly this person wanted to drive in or not drive in a particular location..,


I am not so charitable when discussing the behavior of the other driver!

"_The beginning of wisdom is calling things by their correct names_."- Confucius.


----------



## LadyDi

I make up an answer to keep the conversation going about Uber and it's love/hate relationship


----------



## RideshareGuru

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> That's an expensive decision after you have already driven to meet the passenger.
> 
> If a destination was too far out of my area I would offer to take him across the state line and relay him to another driver, especially if the full trip would be dangerous due to lack of sleep. But no way am I driving and then refusing a fare. Calling passengers wasn't part of the deal and they're under no obligation to talk to us on the phone. Just either take the ping or leave it for someone else.


As an independent contractor, you are supposed to have the right to make business decisions that are in your best interests. Destination is a huge determinator of cost to the driver. Some rides are worth driving to get, others (most) aren't. If your way is to roll the dice on every trip, then so be it, but don't slight someone else for using a different strategy. I used to take every call, but then I learned that that is a fool's errand, especially after i graduated to driving an actual cab. You can be happy with your $90. My day isn't good until I hit $300. And at the end of the day, my goal is to have more dollars than miles, you don't get that done driving for less than $1/mile, especially if you don't screen your calls.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

UberLou said:


> I'm sure you're not canceling once you ask the destination. That's the difference.


If I'm not ever canceling then calling to ask woukd be pointless. Yes, I cancel.

Actually the entire conversation with uber was about not knowing the destination and being unable to take a trip once I knew it.

An airport trip here could have me not able to get home for over 2 hours.

I first complained that the waybill was not showing the destination. Was told it was a glitch and they were working on it (lie). And to reinstsll the app. Lol. Then eventually that it didn't always show...anyway after much back and forth when I explained it was ridiculous to have to log out over 2 hours ahead in order to not turn down a trip on arrival at the pax, they told me I could call. And that I could cancel if I could not make the trip.

If I do pick the pax up I apologize for calling and tell them I've been getting a lot of drunk pax with the pin misplaced and that I like to see if they are sober enough to know where they are and where they are going. I give them a horror story about the pin being put at the destination instead of their location and they usually accept that and commiserate. It is actually a very good reason to call at night anyway.


----------



## Hunt to Eat

Gefeltafish said:


> How do you tell how many drivers are in your area?


What I do is yell to every motorist I see on the road, "Are you driving for UBER?!?!" Then I keep a tablet with tick marks in my lap.


----------



## yeahTHATuberGVL

I_Like_Spam said:


> Its unrealistic for riders calling from outlying areas to expect people to drive all the way out there to pick them up for short trips, especially in the long run.


The solution would be to adjust Surge pricing, so if an area is attracting drivers, then an outlying ping costs more to pick up, because there aren't drivers in the vicinity. If there's demand in an area, being in that area shouldn't warrant as great a surge, because drivers who pay attention to their city know when and where to be, mostly.

The request queue could also alleviate some of the headaches. I pick up a lot of people who are closing bars and restaurants, and need p/u several nights a week. I drive a specific timeframe, and it'd be nice to have set rides, and then just fill the time between with random short trips.

A few tweaks to the system to make drivers feel better about running their cars into the ground would ease a lot of tension between drivers and Travis...


----------



## UberMensch3000

uber fool said:


> The difference between taxi and uber short fares are simple
> Taxi short fare meter $7.25 usaully they give $10 do that 30 times a day $300 earned
> Uber short fare $3 no tip do that 30times a day earn $30


I realize I'm WAY late to this party, but 3 x 30 is 90 not 30. And no. I just couldn't let it go

"I would dime them out in a second" making you a right proper ****


----------



## Cableguynoe

UberMensch3000 said:


> I realize I'm WAY late to this party, but 3 x 30 is 90 not 30. And no. I just couldn't let it go


Good catch


----------

