See previous discussion [1]. What's interesting about this case is that the customer was able to prove what happened, and Lyft still refused to fully engage until the press was involved, and even then, refused to answer direct questions about how it investigates fraud cases and what penalties will be assessed against drivers who do this.
My own suggestion of a solution (in the short-term) remains to alert passengers that they are getting charged a fee for making a mess in the car before the trip concludes, within the app. It's possible this could lead to confrontation between drivers and passengers, but taxi cabs do this every single day. Moreover, I have to think very few Uber/Lyft drivers would be brazen enough to assess a charge when no damage had been done. At the very least, it would allow a passenger the opportunity to take their own photo and video before exiting the car.
Car2GO has a similar setup. You self rate the condition of the car before you accept it (ie, when you unlock it and get in) and after you're done.
If you think the car is damaged they know it likely was the previous renter. It should be the same story when you get in a Lyft. "Is it clean enough?" and "Did you leave it dirty?" are your feedback to the company about how you think the place was left. Maybe add in photographic evidence...
I Shouldn't be the users responsibility. It should be part of the check out process for the driver, drop off XXXX, did the ride involve damage to the car? Please add pictures. tag them with the gps and time. If the rider doesn't complain that he got into a car with vomit, and the driver takes the picture at the location of the drop off before closing out the ride fully, then it's much harder to fake.
YOU can, a driver who is taking the picture through the app is going to have difficulty modifying it, or even uploading a picture. Was there damage? -> load the camera -> upload the file.
Don't ask for pictures to be uploaded, just ask if there was damage before the next ride can be accepted, and if there was ask for pictures right there, right then. Flag anything within 10 minutes of the end of the ride as suspicious and that will cut out 99 percent of this.
This works really well for Zipcar too: I personally go over the vehicle with a fine toothed comb before driving away from the garage, note any issues, notify customer service, and go on my way. This way the finger will never be pointed at me.
My go-to response when dealing with a company who doesn’t seem to want to respond or is giving me the run around is to explain the I will be filing a CFPB complaint. It is amazing how fast I get a response, from a real person, bending over backwards to make it right.
Not the person you're asking but I've filled a CFPB complaint against Citibank. It was an easy process, took maybe 10 minutes to fill out an online fourm. They contacted Citibank with the information I gave them and I got an apology from Citibank probably within a week.
This idea fails because it would would require the driver to report the mess while driving, which is illegal use of your phone in a lot of places. They'd need to come up with a big giant button to push or something, and even then it might run afoul of the law.
I've definitely heard of drivers getting cracked down on for "misuse" of phones, legit or not
Looks like frequently recording one's life is becoming more and more important. Note here how there's video evidence of pure fraud.
The "terms of service" are there to absolve a corporation of fraud and what would otherwise be criminal acts by virtue of contracts. This is yet another example of how one-sided contracts of adhesion are in this country.
Do you think that if courts did not necessarily honor these contracts as binding it would help, or cause more problems than it solves? For example: if there are server logs to show someone 'agreed' to a 5000 word T&C in under 5 seconds from presentation to acceptance, it seems unreasonable to assume they entered into that contract in good faith. In other words, do you think increasing the informed consent burden for the presenter/preparer of a contract in order for a court to veiw it as binding would help?
Why is it not mandatory for the driver to have a dash cam on all the time and if they want to charge for something like this they must have a video of it?
Lyft changed their policy to prohibit refunding crap rides. (Recently had a driver on their phone the entire ride, blowing through red lights; no material response from support.) Flipped me from a loyalist to (a) logging out of my account and (b) reporting their lawbreaking drivers to New York’s TLC.
I've taken Lyft, Uber, and taxis in NYC and don't see how that driver is any different than the rest? Seems to be a pretty regular part of NYC driving in general.
> Seems to be a pretty regular part of NYC driving in general
I thought the same thing. Then my distracted yellow cab driver blew an intersection, got us T-boned, and I cracked a rib. Distracted driving rules exist for a reason. Lyft et al used to be more vigilant. Lyft recently slackened, and I think that’s a shame.
Had a Lyft driver that was high as a kite when she started driving. Proceeded to go down the wrong freeway and ignore my directions on how to get back on track. Decided to end the ride in front of a homeless camp.
I called Lyft to complain. The driver claimed that I assaulted her. Despite the GPS records, eyewitnesses, and police report to the contrary, Lyft sided with her.
Switched to Uber immediately, and charged back every ride I'd ever taken with Lyft.
I could have sued them for quite a bit more than the value of the rides I charged back.
Lawyer estimated roughly $100k for false imprisonment, IIED and slander, not including punitive damages due to those being intentional torts. However, the case would have taken 5 years in the California court system and being a party to litigation can affect your credit quite dramatically, so I passed.
Yeah, drivers probably try to prey on college students.
But, per article, this was a 40-something clean-cut guy by himself (it said this was after his 25th high school reunion). Bad choice of target by the driver.
Nah, the target was drunk. If it looked like they might be blacked out, it means that they don't know that they didn't vomit in the car and can't/won't fight the charge.
The amount of money that drivers make on "vomit fraud" is going to be miniscule before the rideshare service, which is heavily incentivized to prevent it, flags and decommissions them.
Meanwhile, as a driver, you have to deal with someone vomiting in your car every few hundred rides. If it happens, you're done for the shift, and there's no making up for those lost hours.
Good grief, can it suck any worse to be a driver? Public outrage is focused on the exceptional case and ignores the common case.
As a passanger, I‘m expecting a ride to my destination. There are chances the driver will run into an accident, speed, drive recklessly etc. The car could be dirty or smelly, broken or old.
As a passanger, I do not expect to be a victim of fraud or any other criminal act committed by the driver towards me.
As a driver, my expectation from the passanger is that he will get in the car, do some small talk and get out of the car as soon as we arrive. There are chances that the passanger is sick, dirty, smelly, unpolite, unfriendly, noisy, drunk. With that comes the risk that he might mess up your car, especially if he is sick or drunk.
So I think, both, the driver and the passanger know exactly what they are getting into. No need for a „oh the poor taxi drivers!!“
The cleaning fee is already a decent solution for the common case.
It looks like these companies don't yet have a solution for the exceptional case. Relying on passengers to 'prove' the fraud and charging them $50-150 if they can't is a terrible solution.
Meh, that's how it is with the direction the money flows. Your complaint is a more specific version of general service industry complaints. Not that it's invalid, just not Lyft-driver specific.
My question is why there isn't a $1000 "false vomit report investigation fee" that is paid from the driver to the passenger? If the driver has to clean his car, they get $150, but if the passenger has to go pull security footage from a gas station, they get nothing? Lyft also needs to make clear that if there is a clear cut case like this one that the driver is permanently gone from the Lyft platform.
Because mere existence of such a thing would confirm existence of "vomit fraud" in the first place. There is no fraud according to Uber and Lyft, just maybe minor misunderstandings/clerical errors.
While the cases of fraud are despicable, I think being reimbursed only $150 for somebody vomiting in your car is far too little. Your car will be pretty much similar to "The Smelly Car" episode of Seinfeld once it has been puked into.
Lyft is a California company doing business in North Dakota, in Fargo and West Fargo. Who is going to step in and tell them to knock this off?
Well, I would imagine if it gets picked up nationally then some local politician or more probably the local DA. Someone will want to enhance their political career. A lot of these folks talk to others in their same positions in other communities, so it might end up being one of those waves. Lack of proper customer relations could come back and bite when dealing with the locals.
"The police view it as a civil matter, but could they look at it differently? Is there an ordinance that could be passed locally?"
This is more an issue with lazy or unmotivated policing rather than need for more and more specific laws. The driver is acting dishonestly to defraud the passenger of money. There are numerous statutes regulating fraudulent criminal conduct ranging from street scams to Bernie Madoff.
The fact there is a private contract between them regulating their commercial transaction does not obviate the need for both parties to comply with criminal law.
I wonder why the reporter did not seek any input from anyone legally trained. Relying on the police, who have no incentive to overly burden themselves with non-revenue generating police work, to inform the public on whether something is criminal or not is half-assed journalism.
If I had the means and inclination, I might have gone through the trouble of proving my innocence. But more than likely, I would have emailed Lyft and once I didn’t get a satisfactory response disputed the charge with my credit card company. The few times I have disputed a charge, it was painless.
54 comments
[ 1.5 ms ] story [ 129 ms ] threadMy own suggestion of a solution (in the short-term) remains to alert passengers that they are getting charged a fee for making a mess in the car before the trip concludes, within the app. It's possible this could lead to confrontation between drivers and passengers, but taxi cabs do this every single day. Moreover, I have to think very few Uber/Lyft drivers would be brazen enough to assess a charge when no damage had been done. At the very least, it would allow a passenger the opportunity to take their own photo and video before exiting the car.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17587952
If you think the car is damaged they know it likely was the previous renter. It should be the same story when you get in a Lyft. "Is it clean enough?" and "Did you leave it dirty?" are your feedback to the company about how you think the place was left. Maybe add in photographic evidence...
Don't ask for pictures to be uploaded, just ask if there was damage before the next ride can be accepted, and if there was ask for pictures right there, right then. Flag anything within 10 minutes of the end of the ride as suspicious and that will cut out 99 percent of this.
I've definitely heard of drivers getting cracked down on for "misuse" of phones, legit or not
The "terms of service" are there to absolve a corporation of fraud and what would otherwise be criminal acts by virtue of contracts. This is yet another example of how one-sided contracts of adhesion are in this country.
I thought the same thing. Then my distracted yellow cab driver blew an intersection, got us T-boned, and I cracked a rib. Distracted driving rules exist for a reason. Lyft et al used to be more vigilant. Lyft recently slackened, and I think that’s a shame.
did you get compensated for pain and suffering?
I called Lyft to complain. The driver claimed that I assaulted her. Despite the GPS records, eyewitnesses, and police report to the contrary, Lyft sided with her.
Switched to Uber immediately, and charged back every ride I'd ever taken with Lyft.
Uhh. That's not okay.
Lawyer estimated roughly $100k for false imprisonment, IIED and slander, not including punitive damages due to those being intentional torts. However, the case would have taken 5 years in the California court system and being a party to litigation can affect your credit quite dramatically, so I passed.
Then you should have done that, rather than fraudulently requesting chargebacks.
I assume there is an accepted normal rate of passengers vomiting. Maybe something like ~5% for midnight to 6:00am rides.
If a driver goes significantly over that rate, Lyft should be able to spot that something is up way before it gets to tracking down security footage.
But, per article, this was a 40-something clean-cut guy by himself (it said this was after his 25th high school reunion). Bad choice of target by the driver.
Meanwhile, as a driver, you have to deal with someone vomiting in your car every few hundred rides. If it happens, you're done for the shift, and there's no making up for those lost hours.
Good grief, can it suck any worse to be a driver? Public outrage is focused on the exceptional case and ignores the common case.
and? the exceptional case is caused by malice whereas the common case isn't. that's where the outrage is from.
As a driver, my expectation from the passanger is that he will get in the car, do some small talk and get out of the car as soon as we arrive. There are chances that the passanger is sick, dirty, smelly, unpolite, unfriendly, noisy, drunk. With that comes the risk that he might mess up your car, especially if he is sick or drunk.
So I think, both, the driver and the passanger know exactly what they are getting into. No need for a „oh the poor taxi drivers!!“
It looks like these companies don't yet have a solution for the exceptional case. Relying on passengers to 'prove' the fraud and charging them $50-150 if they can't is a terrible solution.
Well, I would imagine if it gets picked up nationally then some local politician or more probably the local DA. Someone will want to enhance their political career. A lot of these folks talk to others in their same positions in other communities, so it might end up being one of those waves. Lack of proper customer relations could come back and bite when dealing with the locals.
This is more an issue with lazy or unmotivated policing rather than need for more and more specific laws. The driver is acting dishonestly to defraud the passenger of money. There are numerous statutes regulating fraudulent criminal conduct ranging from street scams to Bernie Madoff.
The fact there is a private contract between them regulating their commercial transaction does not obviate the need for both parties to comply with criminal law.
I wonder why the reporter did not seek any input from anyone legally trained. Relying on the police, who have no incentive to overly burden themselves with non-revenue generating police work, to inform the public on whether something is criminal or not is half-assed journalism.