Driving Under the Influence

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by cam_calderon

But you haven't even provided a solution? You're living in a fantasy land where there's zero personal accountability and city budgets are somehow boosted by hundreds of millions of dollars and for-profit companies make decisions that will reduce their profits. That is impotent.

No, you’re right. Sleep on the street. That’s a more intelligent contribution than discussing the role ride sharing and transit plays in enabling this behaviour. Everybody clap.

[cam_calderon]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Oh I see, so only solutions that can implemented tomorrow are okay to talk about.

.... So I guess this will be the last post in this thread

I can't recall any concrete solutions actually being mentioned. Only vague references to "making it easier for people", when there are already multiple options to get home to any part of the city.

[btimbit]

Like, come on. Identifying the causes of a problem are an important part of the conversation. That's the first step in working towards a solution to any issue, unless you're only interested in fighting symptoms instead of problems.

[cam_calderon]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Like, come on. Identifying the causes of a problem are an important part of the conversation. That's the first step in working towards a solution to any issue, unless you're only interested in fighting symptoms instead of problems.

The problem is drink driving. I'd argue the causes are more related to ingrained behaviours and psychology than lack of alternative transport options.

But let's go with other takes in this thread, like the cost of an Uber. How do you mitigate or eliminate surge pricing during peak periods? Does Uber not like making money?

[btimbit]

Yeah I'm not sure I get your angle. 'talking about different causes is ignorant' and then calling them 'takes.' Criticizing the posts for not offering a solution, while also not offering a solution

Guess some people just like arguing

[cam_calderon]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Yeah I'm not sure I get your angle. 'talking about different causes is ignorant' and then calling them 'takes'

Guess some people just like arguing

How do you solve the problem of Uber's surge pricing? Should Uber be sued by victims' families, because as Pepsi said they are "enabling" the behaviour?

[cam_calderon]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Yeah I'm not sure I get your angle. 'talking about different causes is ignorant' and then calling them 'takes.' Criticizing the posts for not offering a solution, while also not offering a solution

Guess some people just like arguing

Planning your evening instead of just winging it like a 12-year-old is a solution. Check maintenance schedules. Be prepared to shell out $60 for a rideshare. Or don't have more than two beers, and drive your car home. Those are all easy solutions to the problem, it's called personal responsibility.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by cam_calderon

I never said he was lying, nor did I question his motives or his actions. The latter part of his post, however, seemed to go down the path of ascribing blame for drink driving incidents to institutional issues rather than personal responsibility.

I assume, like me, most people on this forum find driving to be the most convenient form of transport. To legally drive you need to remain under the legal limit for blood alcohol content. So you could just... not drink if you want to get home quicker and easier? If you do drink, plan ahead.

Structural issues often lead to bad decision. Take for example the relationship between accessible grocery stores and obesity. Or refusing to give black people loans for housing. Or road design leading to car accidents.

So yes people need to make responsible choices but the structures in which we live greatly influence live outcomes.

Now I don’t think most Drinking and driving is affected by access to transit. I think people who drink and drive regularly plan to drink and drive. No one goes out and has a few extra drinks and says I’d take an Uber or the train but it's too expensive or inconvenient. A person who drinks and drive is planning to drink and drive from the start or at a minimum doesn’t care how they will get home or is lying to themselves saying they will only have one drink.

The habitual drunk drivers doing it 50 times a year won’t be changed by improving transit.

That said reducing it at the margins and having better transit are all good goals.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by cam_calderon

Planning your evening instead of just winging it like a 12-year-old is a solution. Check maintenance schedules. Be prepared to shell out $60 for a rideshare. Or don't have more than two beers, and drive your car home. Those are all easy solutions to the problem, it's called personal responsibility.

And people aren’t taking them. So use your brain, figure out why, and figure out if there are any solutions we can work towards as a society that also make these things better for everyone.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

It’s called money . You can exchange or charge for goods and services

And yet, a lot of times people aren't willing to pay the cost for an uber or a cab. So I'm trying to think of ways around that problem.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by cam_calderon

The problem is drink driving. I'd argue the causes are more related to ingrained behaviours and psychology than lack of alternative transport options.

But let's go with other takes in this thread, like the cost of an Uber. How do you mitigate or eliminate surge pricing during peak periods? Does Uber not like making money?

Disagree. The problem is people getting seriously injured and killed by other people in automobiles (in addition to a long list of other undesirable externalities from cars).

DUI is one element of this problem - about 18-26% of fatalities in recent years.

The good news is that almost all of the mitigations to the broader issue of dangerous vehicles also serve to mitigate the impacts from DUI. OTOH measures against DUI do nearly nothing to mitigate the other 74-82% of unnecessary deaths.


I suspect the feckless loser who murdered the Gaudreaus would have attempted the same manoeuvre if he encountered that situation when he was sober. But perhaps his sober reaction time means he only puts the young fathers in the hospital. Or maybe he just kills/injures one. Or maybe he misses them both. Or maybe he still kills both.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by cam_calderon

How do you solve the problem of Uber's surge pricing?

Legislation?

I don’t think you’d have a hard time getting the public on board with legislation that would either eliminate or at the very least cap surge pricing charges at double the regular fare.

It is a fairly unethical business practice after all.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Legislation?

I don’t think you’d have a hard time getting the public on board with legislation that would either eliminate or at the very least cap surge pricing charges at double the regular fare.

It is a fairly unethical business practice after all.

Don't drivers earn more with surge pricing? It's kinda the whole point...to get more of them on the road.

Uber would likely just pull out of any jurisdiction that did this

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Don't drivers earn more with surge pricing? It's kinda the whole point...to get more of them on the road.

Uber would likely just pull out of any jurisdiction that did this

Actually it works the other way around. Surge pricing only occurs when there is a “shortage” of drivers.

I guess whether or not Uber would pull out of the jurisdiction would depend on how much they make outside of surge charging(which technically isn’t a guarantee for them) and whether they would be willing to give up that money altogether.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Actually it works the other way around. Surge pricing only occurs when there is a “shortage” of drivers.

I guess whether or not Uber would pull out of the jurisdiction would depend on how much they make outside of surge charging(which technically isn’t a guarantee for them) and whether they would be willing to give up that money altogether.

The whole point is to get ubers who are not on the road onto the road, when demand>supply. Higher revenue for drivers is the enticement.

Uber would rather sell lots of rides at very slight surge price than few rides at mega surge.

[Fuzz]

The alternative to paying surge pricing is to call a cab.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

The whole point is to get ubers who are not on the road onto the road, when demand>supply. Higher revenue for drivers is the enticement.

Uber would rather sell lots of rides at very slight surge price than few rides at mega surge.

Based on chats I’ve had with Uber drivers I don’t think that’s exactly how it works. Generally the surge pricing starts because there are fewer cars available, that’s why you see cars with Uber decals on them parked outside of flames games not moving or accepting rides(they log out to increase the likelihood of surge pricing going into effect,) because once too many extra cars go on the road and the backlog clears up the rates go back down.

Oddly enough despite the “increased demand” with Uber during surge pricing, my average pickup time at the surge rates is usual the same as when it’s non-surge pricing. One would think it would be much longer given the shortage.

Higher revenue per ride is the goal, for both the drivers and Uber. Uber literally makes more money by doing absolutely nothing.

Personally I really dislike the idea of surge pricing in its current model because I think that it can influence peoples’ decisions at a time where I feel that the general public would agree we really don’t want anything possibly deterring someone from making a responsible decision.

If the purpose is to entice more drivers to take fares then cap it at 2x the regular fare and give all of the extra money to the driver. That would essentially cover what their take would have been even if the surge pricing was 3-4x the regular amount and it’s a far more reasonably expectable amount for consumers to consider before planning to rely on the service to get them home.

[TorqueDog]

Surge pricing is a scourge on both transport options available to people and their very perception of what's available. Taxi cabs don't get to increase their pricing with demand; the price is the price based on time and distance traveled, which is how it should be in a regulated industry.

One thing where taxis are getting whipped is convenience. Every cab company has their own stupid app -- albeit done through the same icabbi.com provider -- which makes them seem far less convenient than Uber. Aside from pre-arranged airport trips, the only time in the last few years I've taken a cab has been completely ad-hoc by hailing one from a sidewalk. Otherwise, I use Uber and taking a taxi doesn't even weigh into my decision making.

The City should put a stop to surge pricing, and cab companies need to figure out how to work together in a competitive environment. Maybe a unified app where distance from the customer, and a sort of round-robin priority system determines which company gets the fare (with a manual selection available if the customer so chooses). Of course, I don't see that happening because taxis in this city couldn't get out of their own way to modernize their business until it was clear that Uber was eating their lunch.

[CliffFletcher]

Even with surge pricing, it’s far easier to get a ride at peak times than it used to be. Before Uber and other ride-shares got established in this city, it could be almost impossible to get a cab at 1 am on a Saturday night, especially in winter. There simply weren’t enough of them on the road to handle the huge surge in demand at those times. On several occasions I saw people call at cab at 12 or 12:30, and just give up and drive home or go to sleep on a couch at 2 am when nobody had gotten back to them or the cab they called hadn’t showed up. I also saw cabbies flat-out refuse to take rides to the suburbs from downtown because of the turnaround time. The system was basically broken.

The root of the problem is there are huge spikes of demand at certain times, so you need a spike in drivers at those times as well. Since surge pricing incentivizes that, it looks like the least bad option to me.

[undercoverbrother]

If you are going out for drinks and will need a ride, Uber/taxi etc, you have to work it into the cost of your night out.

It's that simple.

Or make you adult children get you, which sometimes I do