Uber Plans To Start Monitoring Their Drivers' Behavior (sfgate.com)

An anonymous Slashdot reader writes: Uber "has developed a new technology that it plans on using to track driver behavior, specifically if drivers are traveling too fast or braking too harshly..." according to the San Francisco Chronicle, which writes that "Information about how a driver is performing will be shared with Uber, but will also be shared with the driver, along with safety tips on how they can improve their performance." Uber will roll this out as an update to their app, using existing smartphone functionality, and "in some cities Uber will also monitor whether or not Uber drivers are picking up their phones (either to text or even just to look at maps) during a ride using the phone's gyroscope."
Ride-sharing companies seem to be growing more and more powerful. One Florida county actually received a grant to offer free Uber rides to low-income workers, and to allow the county transit authority to arrange rides for those residents without a smartphone. Uber recently even became the "official designated driving app" for Mother's Against Drunk Driving, and published a graph suggesting Uber pickups correlate to a drop in drunk-driving arrests. And in other news, Uber rides have apparently even been used by a group of human traffickers to smuggle migrants from Central America into the United States.

Comments

Ban Uber

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't need more Kalamazoo-like incidents. Normal taxis are safer because of the fingerprint background checks.

Re:Ban Uber

[Anonymous Coward]

You talkin' to me?

Re:Ban Uber

[TapeCutter]

After killing the taxi industry and ruining the lives of thousands of owners who invested in government backed medallions the rent seekers at Uber will have to reinvent the same rules that the taxi industry has implemented in the past, and for the same reasons. The politicians and regulators who have allowed them to openly flaunt the law should be hung from the nearest lamp post.

Re:Ban Uber

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, rent seekers.

Uber gives me service I could never get in areas without it.

The taxi medallions racket was a prohibitive barrier to entry, not at all what Capitalism should be about, and deserve to die.

Re:Ban Uber

[andymadigan]

If those medallion owners (many of whom, by the way, rented their medallions out, and thus were also rent seekers) had kept their businesses up to date then Uber wouldn't exist. They spent years fighting Uber, even trying to ban the idea of smartphone ride-hailing, rather than building their own alternative.

Don't feel bad for the taxi business, it stagnated and had to be replaced before it became a drag on society.

I don't like a lot of things about Uber. I'd really prefer that all of the vehicles and drivers be tested thoroughly for safety. Up front fares (which they seem to be implementing) would be nice too. I do like the idea of being able to report bad drivers, and pooling cars. I also like that Uber can review routes taken by drivers, it's a frequent problem in NYC that drivers intentionally take a longer route to increase their fare, or refuse to take riders to or from certain parts of the city. Don't forget that Uber was founded because the taxi cartel in San Francisco had successfully captured its regulators, keeping the number of medallions too low (restricting available service, but increasing the resale value of their medallions).

Banning Uber and forcing us all to go back to the discriminatory, fraud-ridden, unreliable taxi system is just not an option.

Re:Ban Uber

[fluffernutter]

When they let the taxi business run unregulated it was dangerous and bad for the cities residents. So they introduce controls on the market and it's too corrupt for you. What's the solution then?

Re:Ban Uber

[Anonymous Coward]

When they let the taxi business run unregulated it was dangerous and bad for the cities residents. So they introduce controls on the market and it's too corrupt for you. What's the solution then?

Tax cuts*, duh.

*Starting with billionaire's inheritances first.

Re:Ban Uber

[invictusvoyd]

Why don't they just put a fat chip inside their brain?

Re:Ban Uber

[ShanghaiBill]

When they let the taxi business run unregulated it was dangerous and bad for the cities residents.

Do you have a citation for this assertion?

So they introduce controls on the market and it's too corrupt for you.

How do medallion fees make taxis safer?

Re:Ban Uber

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a valid point. Uber has not picked up so much in countries where the taxi companies and public transport offer a lot better service than in the USA.

It is a funny thing though. PayPal is not a big thing Europe, for example, because the banking system is much more customer friendly. Many of the American startups wouldn't be viable in Europe because the incumbents are too good.

Re:Ban Uber

[drinkypoo]

When they let the taxi business run unregulated it was dangerous and bad for the cities residents

I know two women who were raped by the same taxi driver... who had been reported both to police and to the taxi company multiple times.

Maybe you should give up the idea that taxi licensing systems protect people, because they don't. They absolutely. fucking. do. not. However, Uber drivers get reviewed by every rider and drivers who get poor ratings are dropped from the system. We can all hope that a rapist would be filtered out before their rating dropped, but the sad truth is that this is probably equally likely (if not more likely) to stop rapists for driving from Uber than a medallion system is to stop them from driving for taxi companies.

So they introduce controls on the market and it's too corrupt for you.

That's how controls always work. They are always abused. That's why we need the minimum controls.

What's the solution then?

Implement UBI, implement meaningful vehicle inspection laws, force insurance companies to cover people on their way to or from picking up a fare, and eliminate taxi licensing. Take rape reports seriously.

Re:Ban Uber

[Ol Olsoc]

After killing the taxi industry and ruining the lives of thousands of owners who invested in government backed medallions the rent seekers at Uber will have to reinvent the same rules that the taxi industry has implemented in the past, and for the same reasons.

Meet the new boss - the same as the old boss. And jeezuz cryst in a bowling ball, isn't it amazing to see that in a few years, we will be right where we were, only with a monopoly.

The interesting possibility is that after Uber becomes the new normal taxi service, is whether or not the politicians will allow a different service to run unregulated and destroy Uber.

And at least the old Taxi services didn't monitor their drivers while not working.

Re:Ban Uber

[Ol Olsoc]

Banning Uber and forcing us all to go back to the discriminatory, fraud-ridden, unreliable taxi system is just not an option.

In the not too distant future, Uber will be discriminatory, fraud ridden, and unreliable. Unless they become the only monopoly that avoided it.

Enjoy

Re:Ban Uber

[Ol Olsoc]

What's the solution then?

Tax cuts*, duh.

Banning Gay marriage.

Re:Ban Uber

[fluffernutter]

Nothing is going to be perfect. You haven't given any proof that what Uber does as effective as what the taxi companies do. Without knowing how many crimes there were by taxi drivers without fingerprinting, you cannot say that the fingerprinting is not helping, just that it isn't perfect. I can see however how an Uber driver would not want a comment like 'driver raped me' on his account; assuming that there is no way around having customers see the comments that people make. Having someone rate you one star won't prevent anything.

Controls more often prevent corruption than assist it. For example, there are controls on how people can build houses because if there aren't they will be building substandard houses that look like luxury houses and selling them as luxury houses. The controls on taxis that are being abused is the fact that there are limited numbers of cars on the road. This protects me as a driver of my own vehicle because there is less vehicle congestion, so I have no issue with this control.

Re:Ban Uber

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the solution then?

Tax cuts*, duh.

Banning Gay marriage.

And Abortion rights. I mean unborn child murder.

Re:Ban Uber

[Ol Olsoc]

What's the solution then?

Tax cuts*, duh.

Banning Gay marriage.

And Abortion rights. I mean unborn child murder.

School Prayer

MADD

[Anonymous Coward]

MADD lost all credibility 20 years ago. They are nothing but a means for their executives to get rich.

Also, those cunts are the reason why at 11 AM in the fucking morning, the cops can pull people over any reason - "papers please!" - to check for anything they feel like.

Re: MADD

[Anonymous Coward]

STFU you potty doofus

Re:MADD

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh they're still doing quite a good job of ruinging black people's lives for DWB. You blew a 0.02% but you were driving blackly, therefore you must be under the influence. Happened to *two* black guys in my group. Valdumpster, GA, I'm looking at you.

Re:MADD

[Anonymous Coward]

Racist cities like Valdosta are going to hate on blacks no matter what. MADD is just as happy to see white people locked up. Someone ought to remind them we tried prohibition once already.

Re:MADD

[Ol Olsoc]

MADD lost all credibility 20 years ago. They are nothing but a means for their executives to get rich.

MADD always had an undercurrent of the Women's Christian Temperance Union in them.

They would like to go back to the days of prohibition, and reinvigorating organized crime.

Taxis

[Anonymous Coward]

When taxi drivers are better behaved than UbÃr then you know something is fucked up.

Stick with Lyft.

Don't think you understand good driving

[SuperKendall]

Weither in a taxi, or an Uber, or any car where someone is driving me I don't want "good" driving. I was to get there as quickly as I can, with attentive driving . If the driver turns suddenly into a side street to avoid some traffic problem he spotted later, that is good driving. If the driver goes over the speed limit because the highway is empty that is good driving. If the driver saves us from an accident with a sudden swerve because some idiot decides to cross multiple lanes of traffic at once, that too is good driving.

There's not much you can get from data alone to say what is good or bad, so I don't see where neutering the Uber drivers will do anything but cost them customers. They already do vehicle inspections and take reviews, between the two that should be more than enough to weed out truly bad (i.e. scary) drivers.

Re: Don't think you understand good driving

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut it you dumb potch. I hate you, potty doofus. You're stupid.

Re:Don't think you understand good driving

[Calydor]

Swerving shouldn't happen frequently enough to raise red flags. If it does your driver is a hazard on the road.
Turning into a side street should happen with the car slowing down, turning on the blinker, checking there are no bikes coming up from behind and then turning at low speed, not doing a sudden 90 degree turn at cruising speed.
Going over the speed limit on an empty highway is still going over the speed limit and against the law.

Re: Don't think you understand good driving

[Anonymous Coward]

I am intrigued by your ideas, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Don't think you understand good driving

[dfghjk]

"Going over the speed limit on an empty highway is still going over the speed limit and against the law."

But it's not a measure of "good driving". Traffic laws are implemented to create a large pool of violators, not to increase public safety. Empty freeways easily support greater than posted speeds.

Re:Don't think you understand good driving

[SeaFox]

If the driver turns suddenly into a side street to avoid some traffic problem he spotted later, that is good driving. If the driver goes over the speed limit because the highway is empty that is good driving. If the driver saves us from an accident with a sudden swerve because some idiot decides to cross multiple lanes of traffic at once, that too is good driving.

Gonna have to dispute that once. Speed limits don't exist just for the sake of other motorists. They are also set according to proximity to businesses and homes, local game activity, and the construction of the road itself. Just because there is no one in front of you don't make it okay to speed.

Re:Don't think you understand good driving

[SuperKendall]

Swerving shouldn't happen frequently enough to raise red flags. If it does your driver is a hazard on the road.

Or they are driving in Boston and blending in with the rest of traffic.

Turning into a side street should happen with the car slowing down, turning on the blinker,

Thanks for fucking up about a mile of traffic behind you in any large metro area. I hope you also really like horns, like a LOT.

Re:Don't think you understand good driving

[Anonymous Coward]

Your homework for today is to Google the "85th percentile rule."

Re:Don't think you understand good driving

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, s/he thinks Uber cares about turnover enough to wait for "frequently". I'm afraid that's not the smart, capitalist way to use disposable proles.

Try not to lose sight of the big picture. Your line-by-line myopia resembles #895.

Re:Don't think you understand good driving

[Calydor]

I come from a country where a lot of people ride bikes, I forgot the US does not do that.

Not looking if there is a bike coming up behind you is a recipe for disaster. I would MUCH RATHER 'fuck up about a mile of traffic' than kill someone, sorry you got to work five seconds later.

Re:Don't think you understand good driving

[dave420]

Some do, some don't. There are obscured entrances, maintenance failures, changes due to recent roadworks, etc.

You can't know which freeway is which without some method of letting other people know which ones are actually capable of faster travel and which ones aren't. If only there existed some sort of mechanism by which the roads could be labelled with the maximum speed people should expect to travel (and to encounter people travelling) at...

So yeah, it is a measure of good driving, as it shows that the person following the speed limits isn't so deranged to assume they know more about the road than the people in charge of the road itself.

Re: Don't think you understand good driving

[Anonymous Coward]

It's okay if my driver gets me killed as long as I am not late for The Simposons the post.

Re:Don't think you understand good driving

[danbert8]

Except the people in charge of the road itself aren't experts or even familiar with highway design and safety. They are ignorant politicians who play with speed limits based on emotional rationalizations and bribes.

Too much monitoring can spoil the reaction time

[Anonymous Coward]

If I'm an Uber driver, I shouldn't have a nanny looking over my shoulder sending me nasty e-mails every time I have to make a panic stop for a toddler that ran out in the street in front of me... that would be trading instinctive reactions and safety for a metric related to passenger comfort.

Instead, can we just collect statistics on the drivers and then let the customers choose their driver based on the statistics? I mean, if I've got a flight to catch and 2 Uber drivers are available: Mr. Marshmallow and Mr. 0.9G turns and consistent 25MPH over the speed limit, who you gonna call?

Re: Too much monitoring can spoil the reaction tim

[Anonymous Coward]

GHOSTBUSTERS!

That will make Uber *WORSE*

[gavron]

I take Uber and Lyft whenever I can and enjoy having these options.

However, my issues with the drivers aren't that they exceed the posted speed
limit or "brake too harshly". No, there are more annoying things that these
sort of OBD-II based systems will not detect.

1. The driver that is getting passed by everybody. The driver may be obeying
the posted speed limit but that does little to reduce annoyance when none of
the other drivers are doing that. We are being passed every few seconds and
are literally moving backward in the line of cars. There's no "rush" and "we'll
get there eventually" but why go slower than traffic? (Note: in some jurisdictions
this is known as "impeding the flow of traffic" and is in and of itself unlawful.)
If you can't "drive WITH traffic" just don't drive.

2. The driver that won't switch lanes. We're not in "Fast and Furious" here but
just because three miles ago you chose one lane doesn't mean you must stick
it out like a broken marriage. If we're coming to a traffic stop and there are three
cars at the red light in our lane and none in the other, SWITCH LANES. Also if
we're in a lane that's about to end, plan ahead and SWITCH LANES.

3. The driver that is constantly on and off the throttle. I don't have any desire to
feel my inertia being moved about my center of gravity forward and back every
three seconds. Absent something on the road, pick a throttle setting or a cruise
speed or an acceleration rate and STICK TO IT!!!

Unfortunately these things are greater annoyances than "speeding driver" or
"braking harshly" but are undetectable by the OBD-II summary reports.

All this system will do is take these drivers... and make them slower for two reasons
1: their speed is being monitored, so slow down
2: can't "brake harshly" (whatever that is) so keep an even more outrageous "safe distance"
from the vehicle in front... meaning go backward in the line of cars even faster as others
enter that safety distance...

Ehud Gavron
Tucson AZ

Re:That will make Uber *WORSE*

[Known Nutter]

The only thing more annoying than those are the slashdot poster who inserts a CR after every line for no fucking reason whatsoever.

To your point #1 - over the limit is over the limit. You will not be cited for impeding the flow of traffic if you are traveling at or near the limit, regardless of what other traffic is doing. Because everyone is doing 85 in a 65 does not mean your uber driver should be too.

Re:That will make Uber *WORSE*

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing more annoying are those slashdot readers who want to tell everyone else how to format their posts, where to insert carriage returns, line breaks, grammar marks, bolding, italics, fonts, or anything else.

Also you're wrong about impeding traffic, so I guess the slightly less annoying thing are slashdot readers that open their mouths to be rude to others because they don't like formatting but then spew out incorrect facts as if it were true without providing any basis for it. Here you go, kid: http://forums.officer.com/t151...

Re:That will make Uber *WORSE*

[Anonymous Coward]

The link you posted says the opposite of what you claim it's saying and cites laws in different states to prove their point: Driving over the speed limit is illegal. You do not need to switch lanes to pander to someone breaking the law, though many states prefer you stay in the right lane if there's no reason not to be there.

I think the more annoying posts are the ones that are completely wrong, like your's.

Gavron is a rude and inconsiderate person for both unnecessary line breaks (probably wrote in a different editor and copied the text over) and an unnecessary signature. Signatures make posts longer to read without adding any useful info, especially when a forum shows user names. It's even worse when you see most of his posts are only signed with an "E". That's even more useless than full name and location, which is also useless except for if you want to harass or stalk the poster,

Re:That will make Uber *WORSE*

[Jack_the_Tripper]

2. The driver that won't switch lanes. We're not in "Fast and Furious" here but just because three miles ago you chose one lane doesn't mean you must stick it out like a broken marriage. If we're coming to a traffic stop and there are three cars at the red light in our lane and none in the other, SWITCH LANES. Also if we're in a lane that's about to end, plan ahead and SWITCH LANES.

Ah, yes, one of my (many) pet peeves.

So you're coming up on a red light where you're about to be turning right and some 'good' driver cuts in front of you because there's 'none in the other' so now you both have to wait for the light to turn green. Almost always the guy who has the coffee-can muffler on some POS car who wants to race off every red light.

And also I'll let you in on a little secret -- If you 'drive Mrs. Daisy' then drunks have a tendency to pass out instead of getting sick in the back seat which is much, much better for the driver who just wants to get on to the next fare instead of dealing with human waste.

Oh, and professionalism...which uber/lyft drivers need to start learing about (hence the driver tracking).

And the more you drive the more you have to drive for the other cars on the road (goes triple during drinking hours).

So if you drive safe all the fricking time then you have a lot less to worry about than if you modify your behavior based on the individual preferences of the individual passengers.

Re:That will make Uber *WORSE*

[vux984]

Note: in some jurisdictions this is known as "impeding the flow of traffic" and is in and of itself unlawful.)

In almost all those same jurisdictions exceeding the speed limit to drive with the flow of traffic is known as "speeding".

Practically everyone I've ever known has received a ticket for speeding while driving with the flow of traffic, including me.

I've also never heard of anyone doing the speed limit being cited for 'impeding traffic'; even if they were. They'd have to be going considerably BELOW the speed limit.

Re:That will make Uber *WORSE*

[drinkypoo]

Also if
we're in a lane that's about to end, plan ahead and SWITCH LANES.

No. People need to stop doing this. Traffic merges most efficiently if everyone follows the same rule, and the easiest rule for everyone to follow is to zipper at the merge.

Re:That will make Uber *WORSE*

[demonlapin]

The only real negative I've noticed with Uber is new drivers who can't read the directions in real time. I ended up directing a guy the other day - literally telling him how to get from A to B, even though it was on his smartphone screen. He lived there, and I've never been there before, but I know how to read a Google Maps display in real time, and he doesn't. I settled on just doing the navigator duty. Nice guy, though. Wish him well.

In other words. . .

[smooth wombat]

Uber, as a cab company, is monitoring its employees to see they provide a decent service.

Too bad Uber the cab company doesn't provide benefits or a living wage to its employees.

Re: In other words. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

This may force them to w2 workers with them being paid for wait time and full irs Mileage

Re:In other words. . .

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

It's not meant to be a living. It's supplemental income.

Anyone trying to make a living at it is an idiot. Or a Haitian cab driver who thinks it might be easier (perhaps but since you still act like a Haitian Cab driver, you got a 1 rating, Jerome, now your average dropped, and you're out of luck). OK so also an idiot.

Re:In other words. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to be moving closer to a model where it employs and control drivers rather than merely a ride hailing service. Not that for many the cab company does not employ the driver but merely provides infrastructure for a fee. Uber, outside of safety, is increasingly treating it's worker like wage labor, not contractors. The cab companies are careful not to do this, which is why Uber can provide a different experience.

Uber outsources risk to the driver, while limiting the driver as one would an employee. In particular Uber gets in trouble on the basis of behavior, a contractor has freedom on how to do the job, outside of federal state or local rules. In particular if a firm evaluates an worker, that worker is an employee. Here Uber is increasing the evaluation.

Uber appears to be handing the independent contractor claim on the fact the driver has investment in capital equipment(car), reimbursed expenses(fuel, maintenance) and the opportunity to create profit. But none of these defines a contractor if there is not freedom to earn the profit.

Re:In other words. . .

[OzPeter]

It's not meant to be a living. It's supplemental income.

If Uber is paying substandard wages to its drivers then it doesn't matter if you class it as "supplemental" or not.

Re:In other words. . .

[fluffernutter]

It's supplemental income.

Like everything else these days.

Re:In other words. . .

[fluffernutter]

Their taking a big gamble for their $13 clear an hour (based on a $16K vehicle lasting 250,000km). People have totaled their vehicles and not been covered.

Re:In other words. . .

[ShanghaiBill]

If Uber is paying substandard wages to its drivers ...

They don't. My sister drives for Uber several evenings every week to earn some extra cash. She makes about $18/hour after expenses. That is a pretty good wage for a near zero-skill job with flexible hours.

Re: Exclusivity to just about anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

That's racist!

Ride-sharing, again...

[GuB-42]

Uber is not ride sharing.
Ride sharing is when I intend to go from A to B and I accept to take you with me with or without financial compensation. Uber drivers have no intention doing the trip for themselves, they only do it for you in exchange for money. Unless you are using UberPool, they don't even take other passengers along the way. There is absolutely no sharing involved. If you don't want to call it taxi, call it "chauffeur" or "car with driver" service but not ride-sharing.
Real ride-sharing services exist, and they don't look at all like Uber. The difference being that the driver decide on the time and destination and the price is much lower since the driver is not expected to make a profit.

Re:Ride-sharing, again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber drivers *are* the cabbie scum.

Re:Ride-sharing, again...

[Jack_the_Tripper]

If you don't want to call it taxi, call it "chauffeur" or "car with driver" service but not ride-sharing.

"Illegal livery service" is what I call them since that's exactly what they are...for the most part, some of them are actually fully licensed and insured livery vehicles but the majority are not.

Re: Exclusivity to just about anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

It can't be racist, I'm black you dumb cracka

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I used Uber to get home from the airport a few weeks ago and the driver was going in excess of 75 mph the entire way. Did not feel safe at all. I think the speed limit is 60. I rated him low.

Re:Good

[fluffernutter]

*GASP* Uber drivers aren't perfect?

It's the jerk, stupid!

[Anonymous Coward]

Jerk (the third derivative of position, second derivative of speed, first derivative of acceleration) is a key indicator of driver performance. Not only does jerk measure ride smoothness, it also indicate driver surprise - failure to anticipate what's happening ahead. I'm convinced that high jerk is more highly correlated with accident rates than speed or acceleration levels. I know managing jerk levels lets me drive rapidly w/o passenger complaints.

backseat

[markdavis]

>"specifically if drivers are traveling too fast or braking too harshly."

Here we go again. As if some desk jockey can know or predict how "good" someone is driving based on braking, acceleration, speed, or other factors WITHOUT KNOWING ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT IS OR WAS HAPPENING WITH TRAFFIC AT THE TIME. Brake hard = avoid hitting something that wasn't your fault. Serve= avoiding collision with some idiot going into your lane while looking at their damn phone. Accelerate hard= not wasting time or trying to merge smoothly and safely. Speed = keeping up with the flow of traffic so you don't piss off everyone and become a hazard.

And yet they WON'T and CAN'T monitor if you have good following distance, if you are sharp and unaltered, if you use proper turn signals and look over your shoulders, if you have your mirrors adjusted correctly, if your car is in excellent condition (brakes, steering, suspension. tires), if you are courteous, if you are able to converse or use controls without them being a distraction, if you don't have loose items all over the place or handing from mirrors.

It is the same crap the insurance companies are trying to push with their spyware "dongles" attached to our cars. NO THANKS. Keep your blindfolded, remote, uninformed, statistics-only, past-tense, backseat driving out of my car.

Re:backseat

[mrprogrammerman]

Good points but if someone is consistently braking hard or traveling too fast it points to the driver.

Re:backseat

[markdavis]

>"Good points but if someone is consistently braking hard or traveling too fast it points to the driver."

I agree that it points to the driver, but it doesn't necessarily make the driver a "bad" driver. Perhaps he/she is just spirited.

The reverse situation is true also- old grandpa going 5 under the speed limit all the time and braking three times too soon doesn't make him a "good" driver. His reaction times might be slow, with poor vision too, and he might be causing lots of accidents around him.

Re:backseat

[Anonymous Coward]

No grandpa is just driving like you should be.... courtsey first not FU you asshole
You folks need to stop with the "Get the Hell out of my way" attitude.
Grandpa has the right to use the road...even more than you do...He paid for it.

Re:backseat

[markdavis]

>"No grandpa is just driving like you should be.... courtsey first not FU you asshole"

So holding other people up is courteous? I think not.

>"You folks need to stop with the "Get the Hell out of my way" attitude."

You certainly presume to know me without knowing me.

>"Grandpa has the right to use the road...even more than you do...He paid for it."

I guarantee I have already paid more in taxes than most grandpa's out there...

Now why would Uber need to do that?

[rsilvergun]

After all, they're just an app that connects private contractors with customers, right? What possible use would they have for all that information. It's not like they have any control over their driver's behavior. That would make them just like employers, wouldn't it?

Screw Astroturfing

[rsilvergun]

I don't like Uber because they're part of a global race to the bottom that redefines the (largely broken) social contract between employee and employer that says when you work hard and play by the rules in America you'll succeed in life. When people say the game is rigged Uber is one of the parts their talking about.

Re:Screw Astroturfing

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no way out. Uber is not the problem. Fighting the trend is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

Re:Screw Astroturfing

[fluffernutter]

Just wait for automated vehicles and watch Uber eat Lyft for lunch and become the ONLY player in the industry. Then you'll see race to the bottom.

Re:Screw Astroturfing

[Killall -9 Bash]

"Breadcrumb economy"

Re:Screw Astroturfing

[Richard_at_work]

When automated vehicles come about, Uber will be left in the cold - there are numerous massive management companies who own and manage car fleets (but you guessed that) who would simply start offering direct transport services rather than cars on lease. These companies are already set up to own and maintain large car fleets, which Uber is not, and as a result have a much lower barrier to entry to provide automated transport to the general public - for them, its a simple side step from "long term lease with maintenance" to "instant short term lease with maintenance".

Re:Screw Astroturfing

[drinkypoo]

I don't like Uber because they're part of a global race to the bottom that redefines the (largely broken) social contract between employee and employer that says when you work hard and play by the rules in America you'll succeed in life.

Actually, that social contract is complete bullshit. It was only possible because America had just won a war that everyone else had lost. I'm not saying we won the war for everyone, I'm saying that our deliberate dicking around and delaying entering a war in which we knew that the principal was engaging in genocide left us in the best economic position on the planet. Those effects are wearing off now, and leaving us in the same position as everyone else, which is to say fucked.

When people say the game is rigged Uber is one of the parts their talking about.

Uber is a symptom, not a disease, and there will be absolutely nothing wrong with it if and only if we implement UBI/MGI/COLA. (I wish we could pick one fucking acronym for sensible redistribution of wealth. Oh shit, now I've said that, and people will start calling it SRW.)

Re:Screw Astroturfing

[drinkypoo]

When automated vehicles come about, Uber will be left in the cold - there are numerous massive management companies who own and manage car fleets (but you guessed that) who would simply start offering direct transport services rather than cars on lease.

Actually, I think Uber would more likely be bought out than left out. It will cost peanuts relative to the value of the name recognition to acquire them when they're in that position. If they are "lucky" they will be overvalued, and with a cool name like Uber they probably will be.

Re:Screw Astroturfing

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, in destroyed European countries there was that same kind of high growth, high inflation and full employment, as well as relatively low prices for housing or a plot of land to build a house on.
In my parent's (or slightly older?) generation people would buy or build a house with a 10-year mortgage and started to work at age 18 or 16, or a bit later if longer studies.

Re:Screw Astroturfing

[bill_mcgonigle]

the (largely broken) social contract between employee and employer that says when you work hard and play by the rules in America you'll succeed in life.

There is no social contract - that's just "Divine Right of Kings" nonsense warmed over. Sure, people wish there were such a thing, but nobody I've spoken with has ever been able to produce such a document.

We need to stop with such fantasies if we ever hope to bring all people up to a comfortable standard of living - facing reality is mandatory for real progress.

check out this museum piece

[Anonymous Coward]

"CR" aka "Carriage Return". How quaint!

We call 'em "Line Breaks" now, Rip Van Winkle.

Re: check out this museum piece

[Anonymous Coward]

Well when you get the ASCII standard changed to call them 'line breaks' you just let me know because there's an actual term for that and it's not the one you use.

Bullshit on consumption

[SuperKendall]

Gonna have to dispute that once. Speed limits don't exist just for the sake of other motorists.

You're right; mostly they exist for the sake of revenue collection, because drivers all mostly drive around the speed they are comfortable driving and that is higher than the speed limit anywhere I have ever driven, across multiple countries.

They are also set according to proximity to businesses and homes

Which do not exist anywhere near a highway... and the relevance of such lowers depending on time of day.

Re:Bullshit on consumption

[Calydor]

and the construction of the road itself

You very conveniently left that part out. Are you intimately familiar with the location of every little pot hole and slight incline or decline on the side of the road on the entire highway system?

Re:Bullshit on consumption

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever logic you're suing to justify speeding is just moot. If someone is driving for a living and they get into the habit of speeding then they'll accumulate points and get their license suspended in no time - in addition to the losses in paid fines.

Monitoring speeders is a good measure because you're then filtering out plain tools who don't even have the judgement to protect their bread and butter.

On a different note, if you're the passenger and you consider speeding in some situations 'good driving', are you then willing to put your money where your mouth is and cover a speeding ticket on a trip you're taking (on an empty highway blah blah), or even fairer, compensate the driver for loss of income if he/she gets their license suspended?!

Re:Bullshit on consumption

[dave420]

You can't have it both ways - either spend enough money to get quality roads like you'd find in places with sensible (or no) speed limits (e.g. Germany), or have shitty roads and speed limits. You do not possess the super power of instantly being able to determine what is a safe speed or not, no matter how much that thought tickles you. You also might want to ensure driving standards are a lot higher, as then the driving population will be less likely to fuck it up quite so bad as they seem to do in the US.

You get what you pay for.

Re:Bullshit on consumption

[danbert8]

Right, because we often see the speed limits adjusted every time a new pothole opens up and after freshly paving a highway, they go out and post a higher speed limit right?

Speed limits aren't sent by engineers who design the road. They aren't even set by anyone who has any sort of safety or technical background. They are set by elected politicians who are beholden to campaign contributions and the fickle emotional response of the most vocal attendees of city council meetings.

Re:Bullshit on consumption

[Calydor]

Speed limits - at least in my country - are based on the type of road, whether you're driving in the city (50 km/h), between cities (80 km/h) or on the freeway, highway, motorway or whatever it exactly translates to (110/130 km/h).

This is regardless of whether the road has been recently repaired to avoid confusion on what the speed limit is today. You were in the city doing 70 km/h? Ticket.

Uber just keeps getting tackier

[comrade1]

What about monitoring when an uber driver offers me a French fry from their dinner? Or when they offer me a sip of their soda? Or when they give me a business card for their laundry detergent business? Or the driver that was alternating delivering Indian food and giving uber rides in their stinky car? Uber just keeps getting tackier and tackier. They need to raise their rates to attract better quality drivers.

Re:Uber just keeps getting tackier

[drinkypoo]

Uber just keeps getting tackier and tackier. They need to raise their rates to attract better quality drivers.

I just went on a ride with an international voice actor who drove like an angel. Maybe you should be a better Uber passenger, and then you'll get matched up with better drivers. Mind you, it wasn't on my Uber account, it was a friend who people tend to like.

Government is evil...

[Anonymous Coward]

The government is evil and will lead to Orwellian societies. Long live the Orwellian Libertarian Corporate overlords!

It is not "ride sharing"

[dave420]

It is not "ride sharing" - it is a taxi service. Ride sharing exists, and has existed for a long time, and means sharing the cost of a journey among those wanting to take part in it. If no-one shares the ride in question, it happens regardless. This is demonstrably not the case with Uber and the like.

Safety Initiatives

[DaMattster]

I am all for increasing safety of the Uber drivers and holding them to more professional driver standards. I used to work in IT and now I drive a big rig for a living. There is a camera in my truck cab that monitors what I do. The company is going to know if I am texting or using my phone while driving but they do let use Bluetooth. I am all for this! I want to know that my loved ones are as safe as possible when using Uber.

Beware of Rising Standards

[bill_mcgonigle]

Uber will raise the minimum standards until there are too few drivers, then introduce their autonomous cars to "fill the gaps". Then they'll raise the standards again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

It's 2016 now ... let's check back in 2020 and see if this has happened.

Nothing unusual

[Bristol_92]

It’s normal for companies to see after their workers. They promote services performance such way. As a result, they will conduct better policy. I find Uber modern and comfortable. It’s cheaper than taxies in my city. I don’t need to wait in a line. All I need is push some bottoms in the app and drivers will arrive in about 5 minutes. What is awesome that I don’t need to pay by cash. I simply get out the car. And money is written down my bank account. I used Uber many times so I can say that every time cars were clean and safe. This company provides good service. Drivers are friendly and peaceful. Another pleasant moment is different bonuses.