Slashdot Mirror


Uber's Ad-Toting Drones Are Heckling Drivers Stuck in Traffic (technologyreview.com)

Drivers stuck in traffic in Mexico city are lately seeing a fleet of sign-toting drones buzzing at them, saying (in Spanish) "Driving by yourself? This is why you can never see the volcanoes." (It's a reference to the smog that often hovers over the city and obscures two nearby peaks.) Turns out, it's an ad for UberPOOL, part of Uber's big push into markets across Latin America. From an MIT Technology Review article: Uber already does more business in Mexico City than any other city it operates in, and Brazil is its third-largest market after the U.S. and India. Uber sees Latin American countries as generally easier targets for expansion than either of its top two markets.Umm, I get that Uber has self-driving cars now in Pittsburgh, but they don't fly (at least as of now). So wouldn't they be stuck in the traffic as well?

60 comments

  1. Drones are advertising in Mexico? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What a country!

    In Capitalist America, we advetise to the drones!

  2. Bad ratings.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I recently took Ubers from San Jose to San Francisco, back and forth. I think this has affected my rating negatively. I guess the drivers don't love long drives in traffic...

    1. Re:Bad ratings.. by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Did you not rate them? It's rare that a driver will rate you down unless you either rate them down or are a total asshole to them, since they know you'll do the same.

  3. The smog would be less if less cars because you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use the service dill weed.

  4. The ending comment by Calydor · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Please do a bit of quick math.

    If each car stuck in traffic has one person in it, and Uber can cram just two people into each car, there would - theoretically - be half as many cars on the road at that given point in time, which would likely help to seriously reduce traffic congestion.

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    1. Re:The ending comment by bhcompy · · Score: 2

      Only if you have 3 people in the car, as one of them is a driver by default and not a commuter. Makes sense for UberPool(where the driver is theoretically also a commuter), but not UberX. The problem with UberPool is they never fucking go where you need them to

    2. Re:The ending comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Math, WTF? This isn't a site for nerds, ok?!?!?!?!?!?! MMMk byeeee. /sarcasm

      CAPTCHA: Proofs. ... that captcha is like the universe saying QED Slashdot. Get your shit together. Quality, not quantity.

    3. Re:The ending comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you missed an important part of the article that this isn't the US or Europe. I have a sneaking suspicion, in a market like Mexico City, where the average income is going to be vastly lower than north America or Europe that Uberpool is probably used vastly more. That's not even taking into account culture, which probably, I'd expect (and I'm Mexican), is more accepting of an idea like Uberpool. I'd be surprised if UberX was even remotely popular by comparison in those countries.

    4. Re:The ending comment by GNious · · Score: 1

      but but but ... Uber is a ride-sharing thing, not a taxi thing, so there's no driver, just 2 or more people who happen to be going the same way, and one of them is getting paid for letting the other one sit in his/her car.

      *cough*cough*

    5. Re:The ending comment by GuB-42 · · Score: 2

      Real ridesharing/carpooling is popular in Europe. The market is mostly taken by Blablacar. Uber, which mostly market its high end offers, is not as popular by comparison.

    6. Re:The ending comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Math? Here's some math: A taxi has to drive much farther on average to get you from point A to point B than you would have to drive to make the same journey in a car you owned and kept with you. If the world magically switched overnight from privately-owned cars to some Ubertopia where GM (or whoever) owned every car in the world and rented them out by the mile, traffic congestion - and therefore trip time - would skyrocket.

    7. Re:The ending comment by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Only if you have 3 people in the car, as one of them is a driver by default and not a commuter. Makes sense for UberPool(where the driver is theoretically also a commuter),

      And you didn't even have to RTFA to know that this WAS an ad for UberPOOL. Pedantic fail!

    8. Re:The ending comment by jopsen · · Score: 1

      This was an ad for uberPool, but even uberX is better... you get fewer cars driving around looking for parking that isn't there, and you have more experienced drivers. Plus people are more likely to walk home during rush hours, as they aren't bound by having to get the car home somehow.

    9. Re:The ending comment by Dahamma · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's a shame, because my Uber experiences in Europe were fantastic. The cars were spotless (a BMW 535 and a Merc C63 AMG!), the drivers eminently polite, and the rates cheaper than in the US.

      I guess it's not the same for commuting/ridesharing, where you don't want to pay taxi prices... but for a tourist trying to get around it was perfect ;)

    10. Re:The ending comment by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Not if they were all linked self-driving cars taking multiple passengers as appropriate. It would be a MASSIVE reduction in traffic in that case. You did mention "Ubertopia" and GM - and that IS what both of those companies are working on right now.

      The ideal self-driving car future is not a bunch of Teslas taking one passenger around, it's a fleet of mini-buses (or even expanded & cost reduced Model X's, 6-8 passengers would be plenty!) that can optimize routes near-perfectly to pick up multiple passengers while not significantly impacting the time of each passenger. You don't even need to be that good of a computer scientist to immediately understand all of the interesting optimization potential to that situation...

    11. Re:The ending comment by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Replying again since it's a totally separate point but probably more significant than my other highly significant point ;)

      A taxi has to drive much farther on average to get you from point A to point B than you would have to drive to make the same journey in a car you owned and kept with you.

      You must be pretty rural if you think driving is the only time/expense in a commute. In any major city, try PARKING. You can spend 30+ minutes trying to find free parking (sometimes without luck), pay $30+ to park in a garage (sometimes taking 2-3 garages to find a space), or any combination in between. None of those work out in favor of the individual private commuter.

    12. Re:The ending comment by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      The problem with that is you always want to cram the other guy in a shared ride. It's never you.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    13. Re:The ending comment by andymadigan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What are you talking about? Is UberPOOL different in Mexico City? In SF, UberPOOL is just another mode of UberX. Same drivers, same cars. UberPOOL is a dynamic ridesharing system because the app basically finds other people on the same route when you request a ride. It's not set up in advance, and the driver doesn't set the destination. It's not like a carpool to work, it's more like sharing a taxi.

      UberPOOL drivers aren't typically driving to work, they're at work. I think the point of the ads is that if you have 2-4 riders (not including the driver) in each car, then the number of cars on the road should go down, reducing congestion and pollution. Of course, making access to anything cheap and fast tends to drive up the usage, so it may actually end up with more people taking an Uber rather than walking or taking a bus.

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    14. Re:The ending comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So in other words, public transportation. Just infinitely more profitable - and environmentally destructive - than the usual manifestations. If you slap an Apple logo on a bus and rename it a SmartBus or an iBus, it's still a damn bus. And hardly anyone in America rides the bus or carpools if they can afford a car (or a taxi even). You also neglect the time that you and your iBus will spend waiting (on the street/curb, causing congestion) while the other 7 idiots you're carpooling with meander their way out to the car. I'm sure you'll love waking up an hour earlier every morning because you're the iBus' first pickup (or getting home an hour later because you're the last dropoff).

      If you work somewhere where parking is *that* bad, then you're why public transportation is a thing. Invest in and "optimize" that instead of cheerleading GM's trillion-dollar daydream whose success relies on overthrowing a huge part of American culture - if not the very concept of personal property that's been ingrained into our brains since we were monkeys.

    15. Re:The ending comment by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      If only. What happens in real life when you take a car off an unpriced road is that it makes room for another car, and then you're right back where you started from a congestion standpoint. (Throughput is increased, but that's a different metric.)

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    16. Re:The ending comment by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      "Infinitely more profitable" already makes the argument moronic. So, infinite money? Awesome! Or nope, fucking stupid!

      You clearly have not read ANY of the reasonable discourse on this topic. Large transit buses (ie all current buses, that are cheap, have set routes and carry 60+ people) vs taxis (that are expensive and usually carry 1-2 people) have nothing to do with it.

      It's about automated microbuses that can carry 6-8 commuters, routing them in a way that they are WAY faster than trains/trainsit buses/parking private cars at a fraction of the cost.

      Self-driving minibuses ARE public transportation, or as close as it will get (and the bonus it can get your to the door not blocks away). Fully public to the door transportation is not an option at this point - right of way in a city is 100's of billions - in one big chunk - to build such a thing. So the only palatable option will be to use the existing infrastructure...

    17. Re:The ending comment by lxs · · Score: 1

      We have a similar bed-sharing thing around here.

    18. Re:The ending comment by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Why would the Uber driver have been out driving, if it wasn't to carry around the second guy?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    19. Re:The ending comment by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      If you work somewhere where parking is *that* bad, then you're why public transportation is a thing.

      Ummm, you do remember that public transport long pre-dates private transport in almost all of the world other than rural America? No, you probably don't, being an AC. Horse-drawn omnibuses were common on the streets of most cities by the 1850s and 1860s when they started to receive competition in some areas from suburban and/ or subterranean railway lines. Around 1880-1890, appreciable numbers of people started having bicycles. Motor vehicles were a vanishing rarity everywhere until after World War 1.

      Public transportation is a thing because most people can't and couldn't afford mechanised personal transport, and even fewer could afford personal organic transport. Meanwhile both factories and central business districts needed more people than could be housed within an hour's walk of those facilities. Even with high-density urban (or even "slum") housing.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  5. "Umm," by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure why the summary is directing that last statement at residents of Umm al-Fahm.

  6. UberPool by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 0

    You dont see how pooling will help with traffic/smog (without flying)?

  7. "Wouldn't they be stuck in the traffic as well?" by tlambert · · Score: 0

    "Wouldn't they be stuck in the traffic as well?"

    I believe the theory is that if you practice something, you get better at it. An Uber driver (presumably) practices driving, which means they get better at it, which means that they don't automatically slow down any time they see a huge ball of fire in the sky (try 101 Northbound at 4-5 PM), or other stupid things that less practiced drivers do, meaning they end up not clogging things up, like less practiced drivers tend to do.

    The expression "Sunday driver" is actually based on observations.

  8. Why is this even legal? by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

    In the US we were smart enough to restrict commercial usage of drones.

    Not only that, but flying over traffic causes a hazard; what if one of those drones loses power and lands on (or IN a car! convertible?) or distracts a driver causing an accident?

    I'm surprised the Mexican authorities aren't all over this.

    1. Re: Why is this even legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Mexico, the authorities obey market principles, that means you have to consider the value of paying attention to drones, or the shoiting of them.

    2. Re:Why is this even legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is why willy-nilly drone use should not be allowed and their non-hobbyist ('hobbyist" = ordinary "r/c" aircraft with no other function other than 'flying' with short-range line-of-sight only) use must be regulated like crazy.

  9. ya know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Suddenly the FAA regulations on drones in the US don't seem so bad. The marketing department ruins everything.

  10. I always thought that shooting down drones was bad by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Until now I thought those people who shot down drones were luddites and assholes. If a drone advertises at me I will use every engineering skill in my toolkit to take those bastards down. And I don't mean knock it out of the sky. But send it back to its base with malware that will fly the entire fleet into the ocean.

  11. zap by BenBoy · · Score: 1

    A portable, directional EMP device cannot come soon enough.

    1. Re:zap by rwyoder · · Score: 1

      A portable, directional EMP device cannot come soon enough.

      Paintball guns are here today.[evil grin]

    2. Re:zap by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      They look pretty industrial, I don't think a paint pellet would do much good.

      Then again, if it was *really* gridlock, low tech is the right tech. Bring a net, get out of your car, and hey, free $2000+ drone! (just make sure its camera is looking at someone else).

    3. Re:zap by qume · · Score: 1

      um, or just a piece of rope

      or the jumper cables in most Mexican cars

      But I get it EMP is more interesting

    4. Re:zap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (just make sure its camera is looking at someone else).

      Or covered in paint...

    5. Re:zap by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      If you manage to hit the camera square with a paint pellet, it already got you on camera...

  12. stupid questions for stupid customers by frovingslosh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you drive to work and park your car there, then drive home that evening, your car only has to drive to and from work. If you call Uber for a pickup. someone (or something) drives a vehicle to you and then takes you to where you want to go. It then drives to the next pick-up, which during morning rush hour is more likely than not another commute from the suburbs into the city. At the end of the day the car with no paying customer makes another trip "home". Overall it isn't hard to see that the more Uber cars there are on the road replacing private cars, the more total miles will be driven and the worse traffic will be.

    You might say to you could reduce the total miles driven with Uber if rides were shared, although that would add inconvenience and lengthen the trip for most people. But you can ride-pool already if you are so inclined, so there seems to be no good reason to use Uber if the goal is to reduce traffic and time wasted in traffic.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:stupid questions for stupid customers by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      It then drives to the next pick-up, which during morning rush hour is more likely than not another commute from the suburbs into the city

      Not sure you get how Uber works...

      I know a bunch of Uber drivers, and based on the way the app works they tend to find a new passenger close to them after dropping off a fare. They may make less going in the opposite direction, or they may have to hang around "downtown" for a while doing shorter trips until they get one that is going where they want - but any Uber driver who actually makes a living on it knows the system and how to maximize their income over time. NO ONE would drive all the way back to "the suburbs" repeatedly to pick up more fares. Especially since "commute time" is a limited window.

      But you can ride-pool already if you are so inclined, so there seems to be no good reason to use Uber if the goal is to reduce traffic and time wasted in traffic.

      Duh, that's what UberPOOL is, an instant rideshare, without any of the hassle of dealing with the fickle schedule of any one individual driver.

    2. Re:stupid questions for stupid customers by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

      I really doubt if the majority of Uber drivers will be able to catch drives close to where they discharged their last passenger and will not go after another rush hour fare. But it really doesn't matter, the logic still holds. Even if they make short trips to pick up all of their fares, An Uber driver still represents more miles and time spent in traffic than the miles and time if their fares all drove themselves. So taking Uber increases traffic and traffic delays, it does not reduce them as Uber wants to claim.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  13. How insufferable. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Uber never misses an opportunity to come of like a bunch of insufferable assholes, do they?

    1. Re:How insufferable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well they do employ more lawyers than engineers...

    2. Re:How insufferable. by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Nope. I can't wait for their self-driving cars, they'll need and entire insufferable asshole AI department.

    3. Re:How insufferable. by rdxdas20 · · Score: 1

      Uber never misses an opportunity to come of like a bunch of insufferable assholes, do they?

      ”satta matka” SATTA MATKA | MATKA RESULT | KALYAN MATKA | MATKA RESULT | http://t.co/8rkSzlY7PB

    4. Re:How insufferable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, Lyft advertises that they allow tips, thus putting the onus of their shitty compensation on the customer and creating a source of social anxiety - A company that allows tips is almost certainly figuring on the existence of tips in their compensation system, so a passenger who doesn't tip the right amount is irresponsible. It's part of the price, but not part of the listed price. As a customer, I personally prefer to go with the one where the price is the price.

    5. Re:How insufferable. by rdxdas20 · · Score: 1
    6. Re:How insufferable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one ever misses the opportunity to misspell "off" as "of".

  14. Re:"Wouldn't they be stuck in the traffic as well? by jopsen · · Score: 1

    Also this was an add for uberPool, but not having amateur drivers looking for parking helps a lot.

  15. That will end real fast some day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a fleet of sign-toting drones buzzing at them

    That will end real fast once someone can show that a fatal accident was caused by a driver being distracted by a flying, buzzing drone that was trying to capture his attention while driving.

    I hope that the resulting lawsuits end up killing the company.

  16. Lock`n load by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck ads.

  17. Re:"Wouldn't they be stuck in the traffic as well? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

    It's even simpler. UberPOOL. Every extra passenger replaces a solo driver. The difference between gridlock and flowing traffic can be 20% or less, so it's not that hard to imagine it making a significant difference...

  18. Re:I always thought that shooting down drones was by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    let's get that kickstarter going
    *pretty please*

  19. So wouldn't they be stuck in the traffic as well? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

    The service they're advertising is UberPOOL. Did you even read the text you posted yourself?

    "Driving by yourself? This is why you can never see the volcanoes."

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  20. Re:I always thought that shooting down drones was by zvar · · Score: 1

    So shooting down a drone hovering over your teen daughter sunbathing is being an asshole, but taking down a drone showing an advert is fine? Just wow. You might wanna get your priorities in order.....

  21. Re:I always thought that shooting down drones was by Ogi_UnixNut · · Score: 1

    The way things are going, people will want to shoot down drones for all sorts of reasons. Some due to adverts which will float around their person and follow them until they say whether they are interested or not (just you wait and see), others because peeping toms were trying to get some nudie shots of them/their loved ones. And people who just don't like being spied upon in some dystopian society. Not sure what the solution is. Banning drones won't work, restricting them will not work due to it being hard to enforce (short of having no-go zones like airports, which are easy to control), and allowing people to take them down themselves will just result in drones being taken down all the time, for a range of reasons as varied as the people taking action against them.

  22. There's only one possible response to this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ("this" meaning "advertising toting drones".)

    PULL!

  23. Thief bait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since it's Mexico City I'm sure they'll start getting stolen soon and this practice will die down.

    Yep, I'm Mexican.