Multiple drivers told me years ago that they had riders get into the car with a lit joint and demanded to be allowed to smoke it. They said they'd give the driver a bad rating otherwise. At the time (in my city), this often meant the driver would have such a low rating that they'd rarely get any fares.
I personally dislike it when cars smell like (any kind of) smoke because I smell like it, so I like this feature of the app.
It would of course make sense if getting in the car reeking of any kind of smoke was theoretically punishable by a ban. But getting in a car reeking of tobacco smoke is covered only by the usual ratings system.
I assume this is simply a problem of large-company bureaucratic policies: they don't want to have a separate policy for every local polity, and it's fairly reasonable policy from a liability perspective to ban people on, say, crack or heroine repeatedly getting into Uber. The unreasonable thing here is the fact that weed is illegal federally, but everyone already knows that.
It would of course make sense if getting in the car reeking of any kind of smoke was theoretically punishable by a ban. But getting in a car reeking of tobacco smoke is covered only by the usual ratings system.
Where I drove, you were permitted to kick people out for smelling bad. Whether it was body odor, a drunk covered in his own puke, or someone reeking of cigarettes.
If you've ever been waiting for your Uber and he drives by while you take one last drag from your cigarette, now you know why.
Isn't it great when the customer is always right? The rating systems of the gig economy let them hold whatever unreasonable demand they want over the head of someone trying to make a living.
And unlike a customer throwing a temper tantrum in a physical store, the situation will not be reviewed by a manager - but with an algorithm.
Uber's support people, even though they're overseas, are actually pretty responsive. Not every problem is solved through them, but the majority of the time they side with both the diver and the passenger by refunding the passenger's fare, while simultaneously giving the driver the full fare and taking the financial hit.
The CSR will also mark the two of you so that you're never matched again.
Most of the rides I've taken in Colorado have been in vehicles that smell of pot smoke. This isn't great for business travelers. I wish there were a way for drivers and riders to be marked as non-smoking. It's not a huge health issue for me, though I do have asthma, but no one want to show up to a work meeting smelling of pot smoke.
Seems pretty reasonable to me. Look at it from the driver’s perspective: if you’re pulled over and the car reeks of weed or alcohol your day just got a lot worse. Doubly so if you’re a minority and you get pulled over by someone on a power trip. What is the driver supposed to do, strip the customer looking for illegal substances? This gives an easy way to decline the ride or disincentive the passenger without having to make a long explanation.
Some (many?) drivers will refuse to take a visibly intoxicated passenger. They don't want to risk a vomiting incident.
It's why the long-time and full-time Uber drivers usually don't drive after dark/9pm/midnight (depending on the location), and leave the late-nights to the newbies.
Vomit can be a big problem, and on top of that there can be a difficult tightrope to walk of knowing when someone needs to go to a hospital instead of going home.
Being fucked up is one of the main reasons Uber exists and people take it. Otherwise people can just drive their own cars. Smoking even a big blunt before getting into the car will not leave that smell in the car nor will it cause suspicion if someone is pulled over. That's bullshit.
I don't really care. It seems like a reasonable response. But why single out marijuana? There is a rating system for customers, and this seems like it should fall under that.
Because the number of people lighting up a joint in Ubers vastly outnumber the people who are doing smack in an Uber.
My guess is that it's not being singled out. This is just the interest of the publication. Doing drugs of any kind in a car is illegal (at least where I drove), and equally problematic.
People are going to be smoking weed, doing drugs, having sex, generally making a mess when autonomous taxis roll out. They will be disgusting.
Once you remove the "let's respect the vehicle because it's owned by an actual human being sitting in front of me" you feel a lot less bad about being disrespectful when using a product owned by some corporate entity.
There are cameras in taxis today. I don't believe for a second a self-driving taxi would ever be used without internal cameras.
As a privacy minded person I think that is ok. When I enter a taxi I don't expect total privacy (obviously don't expect the recordings to end up on youtube though).
I'm more concerned by the external-facing cameras. Possibly registering everything and everyone that didn't take part in my ride.
Without laws in place that data will most definitely be used for evil and the excuse might be targeted ads.
I think they'll go on step farther. There will be a video screen with a video of a person on it who will be there to answer questions the customers might have, subtly advertise things and so forth. The presence of a human face who "interacts" with the passengers will help create a personal connection both to the company and to the car, so people will be less likely to vandalize things. Even crazier, whoever is the "face" of uber or waymo will be one of the most viewed human beings one arth, so there will be big bucks invested in find a face or faces that people will bond with on an emotional level. At some point, someone may say to you, "I prefer uber because Gina is so much nicer."
i imagine the interiors will evolve into a "very easy to quickly hose down" configuration. if you can run the interior through an automated powerwash in a mere few moments, i suspect it won't matter too much what... remnants... passengers leave behind.
I think very strict moderation will come into auto taxis. If I'm paying a lease on a car, or better yet if I'm lending time in my own autonomous car, I'm going to exercise extremely judicious moderation. If it's not clean after UserABC rides, he never rides again. Simple.
This is why I would never, ever rent out an autonomously driving vehicle I own (something Tesla wants to offer). I really have to wonder about peoples' experiences with shared services that they think this is desirable.
This will probably be used as an opportunity for price discrimination. Want to get from A to B? That will be $5. Oh, you want to ride in a tidy car? That will be $15.
When there's no longer a human watching there will be cameras. Instead of the driver telling people to knock it off right away, passengers will do whatever. Then they'll get a hefty cleaning bill in the mail or kicked off the platform after the next passenger reports issues and a person checks the footage. It won't be perfect, but hopefully it will be good enough
either cameras will inform AI algorithms and they will classify you as a "bad" passenger, or the next person who rents the taxi will report the taxi as unsanitary.
Which means you're going to lose your taxi privileges. Cue Black Mirror comparisons. Though it's pretty much how Uber already works.
Hello: Thank you, but Auto-Ma-Tron is refusing you service. On your last visit you abused the TOS. The actions that were flagged are viewable here <Video of user shitting in the car>. Your credit card account has previously been charged $150 US for damages. You are no longer allowed to use our services until <one year from today's date>. As we use facial identification, attempting to use alternate means of payment to avoid detection will result in criminal trespassing charges being filed.
It's easy to maintain accountability: any damage done can be trivially traced back to the party that did it. Anyone that opens up a disgusting mess will just report it, and that will be tied to the previous user.
This is already how car-share programs work. Each time you use a Zipcar, you look around for any damage and claim it. If you forget, you might be held responsible.
If it's really a problem, then people might not mind placing a sizable deposit to use a service where that's discouraged even more. Or accept that they'll be recorded for the duration of the trip, etc.
I agree it's an issue, but it seems like one that can be effectively mitigated.
I drove for Uber for a little while, and I kicked people out of the car for smoking weed, just like I kicked people out of the car for smoking cigarettes.
1. My car is no-smoking. Ask before you light up. This is my personal property, not your living room.
2. Smoking weed is legal where I was driving, but only in your private home. Not in a hotel. Not on the street. And certainly not in a motor vehicle. I'm not going to lose my license because you can't wait 18 minutes to get high. (Which is pretty much the definition of an addict.)
Where I drove, Uber would very quickly take $150 out of your credit card and give it to the driver if you vomit in the car, as a cleaning fee. I would not be surprised if the same applied to smoking drugs.
(I don't know if any of this was covered in TFA because I'm not going to visit what appears to be a stoner website on a work connection.)
Just a nitpick here: when you open your car up to the public, you open it legally and socially to a status beyond just your "personal property." It's not their living room, but it's not yours either, in the sense that you take on a litany of obligations the second you open to the public.
This is what scares me about these stories. First kill any competition (go in debt if you need to) to become a giant. Then start enforcing (sometimes arbitrary or politicized) rules to the detriment of some customers who now have nowhere else to go.
Uber with surge pricing and this MomCorp weed ban (Uber drove the taxi's out of your neighborhood first, so now you have to pay for surges). "Sorry sir, I won't pick you up and drive you home, even though you are drunk, and unable to drive, because I only pick up people with a 3.7 rating or higher."
Netflix for entertainment (you rely on it so much for entertainment that you simply don't see a movie if it is not on there).
AirBnB refusing hosts to host you, if they suspected you came to Charlottesville to protest/march for your beliefs (that are counter to AirBnB's beliefs). Not saying that those protesters are not scummy or that AirBnB does not have the right, but look at the future where AirBnB owns 90%+ of accommodations. Can you imagine a hotel chain acting like this? "Sir, we saw you say on Twitter that you came here to protest. The management has decided you can't sleep here. The next competitor is 50 miles that-ah way. Good luck!".
What a bunch of fuckwads. Yet another reason to avoid this shitty ass company completely. Weed is legal in California as the article points out. So now they are penalizing riders for doing something legal? What did they take a page from Amazon's playbook who kicks people off for returning shitty products? Let them close accounts. If people really need to use their shit service, they'll create new ones. It works everywhere else.
58 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 102 ms ] threadI personally dislike it when cars smell like (any kind of) smoke because I smell like it, so I like this feature of the app.
I assume this is simply a problem of large-company bureaucratic policies: they don't want to have a separate policy for every local polity, and it's fairly reasonable policy from a liability perspective to ban people on, say, crack or heroine repeatedly getting into Uber. The unreasonable thing here is the fact that weed is illegal federally, but everyone already knows that.
Where I drove, you were permitted to kick people out for smelling bad. Whether it was body odor, a drunk covered in his own puke, or someone reeking of cigarettes.
If you've ever been waiting for your Uber and he drives by while you take one last drag from your cigarette, now you know why.
And unlike a customer throwing a temper tantrum in a physical store, the situation will not be reviewed by a manager - but with an algorithm.
The CSR will also mark the two of you so that you're never matched again.
It's why the long-time and full-time Uber drivers usually don't drive after dark/9pm/midnight (depending on the location), and leave the late-nights to the newbies.
My guess is that it's not being singled out. This is just the interest of the publication. Doing drugs of any kind in a car is illegal (at least where I drove), and equally problematic.
Once you remove the "let's respect the vehicle because it's owned by an actual human being sitting in front of me" you feel a lot less bad about being disrespectful when using a product owned by some corporate entity.
As a privacy minded person I think that is ok. When I enter a taxi I don't expect total privacy (obviously don't expect the recordings to end up on youtube though).
I'm more concerned by the external-facing cameras. Possibly registering everything and everyone that didn't take part in my ride.
Without laws in place that data will most definitely be used for evil and the excuse might be targeted ads.
Bad disks create bad drives.
Bad drives create bad disks.
Wah, rinse, repeat, pandemic!
Which means you're going to lose your taxi privileges. Cue Black Mirror comparisons. Though it's pretty much how Uber already works.
Good day, prick!
This is already how car-share programs work. Each time you use a Zipcar, you look around for any damage and claim it. If you forget, you might be held responsible.
If it's really a problem, then people might not mind placing a sizable deposit to use a service where that's discouraged even more. Or accept that they'll be recorded for the duration of the trip, etc.
I agree it's an issue, but it seems like one that can be effectively mitigated.
1. My car is no-smoking. Ask before you light up. This is my personal property, not your living room.
2. Smoking weed is legal where I was driving, but only in your private home. Not in a hotel. Not on the street. And certainly not in a motor vehicle. I'm not going to lose my license because you can't wait 18 minutes to get high. (Which is pretty much the definition of an addict.)
Where I drove, Uber would very quickly take $150 out of your credit card and give it to the driver if you vomit in the car, as a cleaning fee. I would not be surprised if the same applied to smoking drugs.
(I don't know if any of this was covered in TFA because I'm not going to visit what appears to be a stoner website on a work connection.)
“another claim of this nature could result in permanent account deactivation.”
Uber wants to replace private and public transit, and then wants to be able to permanently "deactivate" your ability to transit.
Uber with surge pricing and this MomCorp weed ban (Uber drove the taxi's out of your neighborhood first, so now you have to pay for surges). "Sorry sir, I won't pick you up and drive you home, even though you are drunk, and unable to drive, because I only pick up people with a 3.7 rating or higher."
Netflix for entertainment (you rely on it so much for entertainment that you simply don't see a movie if it is not on there).
AirBnB refusing hosts to host you, if they suspected you came to Charlottesville to protest/march for your beliefs (that are counter to AirBnB's beliefs). Not saying that those protesters are not scummy or that AirBnB does not have the right, but look at the future where AirBnB owns 90%+ of accommodations. Can you imagine a hotel chain acting like this? "Sir, we saw you say on Twitter that you came here to protest. The management has decided you can't sleep here. The next competitor is 50 miles that-ah way. Good luck!".