Slashdot Mirror
Google's Waze Jumps Into the Ride-Sharing Business
An anonymous reader writes: Waze, the online mapping company owned by Google, is testing a ride-sharing service in Israel called RideWith. The service will allow commuters to pay drivers for rides to and from work. This is a hard limit — drivers can give no more than two rides per day. If the restriction remains after the initial test, it could be a simple way to avoid pseudo-professional drivers, and all the taxi-related legal problems that go with them (see: Uber). "RideWith calculates a cost based on the anticipated fuel consumption and 'depreciation' based on mileage, and the driver is free to accept or decline the ride accordingly." One can't help but speculate about future involvement with Google's autonomous car project.
Time for Uber business sharks to step aside. But thanks, Uber, for all the unethical business practices that created the legal precedent for this business model. Fortunately, Uber will be remembered as the evil company that did not care about driver income or passenger safety. Uber managed to destroy its brand before their business segment even took off.
By the way, you can't make a living wage driving full-time for Uber either
Hey guess what THAT DOESN'T MATTER.
The last Uber driver I had, was also a comedian/writer (Los Angeles). He didn't need a living wage, he wanted a part time job with a ton of flexibility to supplement income.
There are a LOT of people like this (including, perhaps you've heard of them, TEENAGERS). The next time someone says "that doesn't make a living wage" the correct response is to punch them in the mouth.
P.S. on a side note those claiming things like Uber cannot make a living wage are generally ALSO simply too lazy to work the amount required to live on what is offered. I have also met Uber drivers who DO live on uber income only, so your statement that Uber drivers do not make a living wage is false by example.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Will they go after the car pools next?
No because those are free. It's the presence of money in any form or amount that triggers the primal instinct by the state (and taxi unions) to control or kill.
What would be nice is a kind of Tinder for car sharing, where you could put in a starting point, and ending point - people could read your profile and see a rough distance from their own starting and ending points, and swipe right if you seemed like someone they would want to ride with...
There would be no money in that (for the drivers anyway) so the taxis/state would lay off.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It says to or from work is one ride. It does not state that you can pick up only one person on that trip. This is exactly carpooling.
By the way, you can't make a living wage driving full-time for Uber either
Hey guess what THAT DOESN'T MATTER.
The last Uber driver I had, was also a comedian/writer (Los Angeles). He didn't need a living wage, he wanted a part time job with a ton of flexibility to supplement income.
There are a LOT of people like this (including, perhaps you've heard of them, TEENAGERS).
Considering the safety record of teenagers, they are absolutely the last ones that should be driving a gypsy cab like Uber.
And as for the part time job thing, well, there are plenty of people that sell a little pot on the side or do some escort work on weekends, but those are still illegal, just as operating as an unlicensed taxi is.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
I don't think you just quite go the idea. It looks like this is supposed to be a ride sharing service, not a "ride sharing service". Ride sharing service, as in "I want to go from A to B, so find me an additional passenger to go from A to B, to save some cost". Properly used, this reduces or removes your cost of driving to work. It isn't supposed to allow you to make a limit.
And properly done, I think it should be totally legal for example in the UK and in Germany. Actually, In Germany that kind of thing has been done for more than 20 years, mostly for long distance drives.
And neither do I. Even after reading you comment.
Taxis pay a lot of money for their monopolies. City regulators make a lot of money selling taxi licenses (directly and indirectly). Neither will welcome a new competitor who doesn't grease the right palms.
Do you really need a map to guess what happens next?
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
This is the idea I came up with a few weeks ago on another Uber thread that would fix everything: registered destinations. A driver registers a destination for their trip, and only then are they shown potential "customers/fares/ridesharers/etc"-who have also registered a destination-along their route within a slight variance depending on trip length (driving across a city it might be a block or 2, across state several miles). They can only pick up a new passenger once they have reached their original destination and registered a new one or, if they had a passenger get off during their previous trip, a new passenger registers with an applicable destination.
This kind of system would ensure that you are in fact ridesharing, ie. picking up passengers who are going to the same general area you are or a place you will pass along the way as opposed to working as an unlicensed taxi. Throw in a "fare" based on mileage/depreciation/a little extra for your time as opposed to Uber's surge pricing and you get rid of the issue of people taking this on as a job because it suddenly is not worth the effort. You still get compensated enough to offset the gas and depreciation of your car that you would be doing anyway, and at the end of the week you might have enough money to go out for a good dinner or maybe even enough for a trip for 2 to the movies.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Because, if we talk about why a woman has three kids of unknown paternity at all, it reflects badly on her life choices and since that is her choice, we as a society must accept it. Anything else is "hate".
As in, this fictitious woman, I must hate her for even mentioning she might exist somewhere, as you have already implied in your post ... " my convenient self-serving narrative is not instantly and universally accepted as true and relevant"
The fact is, there is such a person, somewhere out there. The fact that you can't figure out hyperbole mixed in with my point, is proof that you are incapable of having a rational discussion. Your response is one of pure emotion. (I rest my case)
And there is probably more than one, since similar people are trotted out by the "Living Wage" proponents all the time. So, if it isn't true, then the "living wage" people are lying about it being "normal" and we don't need a "living wage" to help support this non-real person.
The lie is either we accept anecdotal evidence or we don't. Pick one. If it is acceptable for proponent of the cause you support ("living wage") then it is equally acceptable to use that as a case against it.
Please don't try to convince me that the proponents don't use such people in their propaganda.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes....
FYI, I realize that I violated my own rules on talking to supporters of "Living Wage" because they are simpletons. In simple terms, for my point to be valid, there must exist more than zero people that fit this description, and for your point to be valid there has to be none. Having watched any number of day time talk shows "Who's your baby's daddy?" I am confident that there exists at least one that resembles ...
https://www.google.com/search?...
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.