Board 8 > Uber looking to cut out people who are drunk from their service.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://theoutline.com/post/4925/uber-doesnt-want-drunk-passengers-drinking-driving?zd=2&zi=r7d2ouyb

Makes a ton of sense.
---

How would they implement this.

I hope the standards for being drunk are lenient. Drunk people only become a problem if they're REALLY drunk.
---

My brother uber drives and he's said drunk customers have damaged his seats and dented his car, act completely belligerent, and just randomly give him bad reviews because they're not of good mind and think it's funny.

So I can sorta see where this is coming from

Friendly reminder that uber drivers use their personal cars and it apparently takes just a few bad reviews to get suspended
.
---

There is an interesting aspect to this where some drivers are definitely much more comfortable and prepared for a plastered person or even a group, and some drivers are not. So if there was a way to classify the passenger then the matching could work much better and drivers could choose to avoid taking certain rides. Leave it to those who want to go through the whole vomit fee process.

It is literally discrimination but it would be good for drivers. The problem is that Uber is completely incompetent technologically and can't possibly come up with a decent classifier for this.

Either way, who uses Uber anymore instead of Lyft anyways
---

I guess drunk people will just have to drive themselves from now on
---

I don't understand how their algorythm supposedly works. Sounds super assuming.
---

LeonhartFour posted...

I guess drunk people will just have to drive themselves from now on

---

Underleveled posted...

LeonhartFour posted...

I guess drunk people will just have to drive themselves from now on

---

VintageGin posted...

Underleveled posted...

I guess drunk people will just have to drive themselves from now on

---

As someone who runs a business, drunk people break tons of shit and are terrible to deal with. I don't blame a business for not wanting to deal with them
---

LeonhartFour posted...

I guess drunk people will just have to drive themselves from now on

I suppose this is an important lesson:

If you need to get back home and you're not going out with a DD, be responsible and don't drink that much!

or use Lyft
---

guarantee you its feminist SJWs who demanded this
---

...You realize this is not only old news, but most likely not happening?
---

Samurai7 posted...

As someone who runs a business, drunk people break tons of shit and are terrible to deal with. I don't blame a business for not wanting to deal with them

However it's a business that has gained a reputation as an alternative to drunk driving.
---

Underleveled posted...

Samurai7 posted...

As someone who runs a business, drunk people break tons of shit and are terrible to deal with. I don't blame a business for not wanting to deal with them

However it's a business that has gained a reputation as an alternative to drunk driving.

It is really only useful in cities. Most areas that are not do not have them and they are the areas most likely not to have transportation. Ala busses, taxis, etc.
---

what the hell. Uber is literally running advertisements towards drunk people.
---

It's not Uber's responsibility if someone drinks too much tbh. They are adults. If they know they won't be able to get a ride, then they should have a designated driver or don't put themselves in a situation where they need transportation.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

guarantee you its feminist SJWs who demanded this

Quite the opposite

Feminist SJWs are against it because they say it gives Uber drivers the ability to better find and assault drunk women
---

It's a patent. First off, it's not going to be implemented for years from now if it ends up being a thing. Secondly, there's no promise this actually ends up being a thing even when the patent finally goes through.

That said, Uber drivers are using their own personal vehicles. From conversations I've had, Uber is good for reimbursing drivers for damage done by drunk passengers. But the thing is that it comes out of Uber's pocket, so it makes sense why they want to cut it out. They should find a way to put in terms of service that people will get charged for damage done to vehicles as a result of being intoxicated.

To the entitled people who feel like they should be allowed a ride when they're plastered, they aren't owed a ride if they use Uber. This is more for cases where people are drunk enough to not want to drive but too drunk to keep from throwing up or making any sort of rational decisions.
---

I feel like their massive surge pricing already is there due to drunks. Am I wrong?
---

Corrik posted...

I feel like their massive surge pricing already is there due to drunks. Am I wrong?

They literally pay for damage to cars from drunks, because otherwise they couldn't keep drivers. So yes, that's likely why they need to up the prices since paying to repair cars is not cheap. I had a guy say in six months he needed to get reimbursed three times because of vomit stains and upholstry damage.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

guarantee you its feminist SJWs who demanded this

nazis actually
---

foolm0r0n posted...

SmartMuffin posted...

guarantee you its feminist SJWs who demanded this

nazis actually

same thing yo
---

Was having Uber as your DD basically the entire concept of Uber?
---

Uber absolutely already charges the customer damage fees for puking in someone's car (and rightfully so). It's not like Uber is footing the bill every time this happens.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, there are obvious reasons why drivers wouldn't want this even if they're being overcompensated for it (and I doubt they are), but direct costs are not a reason why Uber would want or need to curb this.
---

kevwaffles posted...

Uber absolutely already charges the customer damage fees for puking in someone's car (and rightfully so). It's not like Uber is footing the bill every time this happens.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, there are obvious reasons why drivers wouldn't want this even if they're being overcompensated for it (and I doubt they are), but direct costs are not a reason why Uber would want or need to curb this.

Actually my buddy who drives uber was given 250 for car cleaning when he had someone vomit.
---

He's saying that Uber charges the customer for it, so it's not out of their own pocket.

But the bottom line is that even with the cleaning fee, drivers don't want that 1% of customers ruining their car, so Uber wants to let drivers choose to avoid those rides (presumably letting drivers who are willing to take that risk make more money).
---

Yeah, none of the money outside of a tip goes directly from the customer to the driver. (And even then I'm not 100% sure that's technically true.)
---

Samurai7 posted...

As someone who runs a business, drunk people break tons of shit and are terrible to deal with. I don't blame a business for not wanting to deal with them

This.

It goes from frustrating to terrifying if you get drunk people who also decide to (concealed) carry. Virtually never goes well
---

Drunk people are usually either perfectly tolerable or act like some of the worst scum on Earth.

Rarely a middle ground I find, though seriously carrying firearms while drunk should be just as illegal as driving.
---