Destination discrimination: poll

Should destination discrimination be allowed?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Possibly, under certain circumstances

  • FFS Mr T, another poll??


Results are only viewable after voting.

Mista T

Well-Known Member
Author
Uber sez that DD (destination discrimination) is no bueno and they take these issues very seriously.

So I'm thinking of various situations when it might be okay, looking for your opinions. I know the TOS, no need to quote them.

Scenario 1: You've got your DF set to go South. Uber matches you with a pax going 20 minutes North. You tell pax you wont take them, they are going the wrong direction, Uber never should have matched you. True or not, that's DD.

Scenario 2: Pax wants to go to Taco Bell and back. You refuse because, well, for obvious reasons. That's DD.

Scenario 3: Snowstorm, and pax wants to go to a hilly area. You dont have snow tires or chains, so you know you can't go there. That's DD.

Scenario 4: Paz wants to go to bad neighborhood and get dropped off. If you refuse to go, that's DD.

Scenario 5: Pax wants to go out of territory and refuses to pay extra. Even tho you have the right to negotiate return trip fee, if you refuse that's DD.

Scenario 6: Pax wants to go to event center. You know that if you go, it will take you 20 minutes of free driving just to get out of there. Refuse = DD.

Scenario 7: City is surging and pax wants to go 20 miles away. If you do it, you will miss out on other surges rides, possibly many. Refusal = DD.

Okay, so how many of these DD scenarios are 'okay' in your book, and why?
 

tohunt4me

Well-Known Member
Uber sez that DD (destination discrimination) is no bueno and they take these issues very seriously.

So I'm thinking of various situations when it might be okay, looking for your opinions. I know the TOS, no need to quote them.

Scenario 1: You've got your DF set to go South. Uber matches you with a pax going 20 minutes North. You tell pax you wont take them, they are going the wrong direction, Uber never should have matched you. True or not, that's DD.

Scenario 2: Pax wants to go to Taco Bell and back. You refuse because, well, for obvious reasons. That's DD.

Scenario 3: Snowstorm, and pax wants to go to a hilly area. You dont have snow tires or chains, so you know you can't go there. That's DD.

Scenario 4: Paz wants to go to bad neighborhood and get dropped off. If you refuse to go, that's DD.

Scenario 5: Pax wants to go out of territory and refuses to pay extra. Even tho you have the right to negotiate return trip fee, if you refuse that's DD.

Scenario 6: Pax wants to go to event center. You know that if you go, it will take you 20 minutes of free driving just to get out of there. Refuse = DD.

Scenario 7: City is surging and pax wants to go 20 miles away. If you do it, you will miss out on other surges rides, possibly many. Refusal = DD.

Okay, so how many of these DD scenarios are 'okay' in your book, and why?
Uber can FORCE you to go to a CRACK HOUSE !?!?
 

dmoney155

Well-Known Member
Always should be allowed to discriminate against destination. No ride is the same. Some rides are worth more than others. I can be persuaded to do any of the ones listed with adequate compensation. Hence why i would vote for bidding system for each trip.
 

The Gift of Fish

Well-Known Member
Uber sez that DD (destination discrimination) is no bueno and they take these issues very seriously.

So I'm thinking of various situations when it might be okay, looking for your opinions. I know the TOS, no need to quote them.

Scenario 1: You've got your DF set to go South. Uber matches you with a pax going 20 minutes North. You tell pax you wont take them, they are going the wrong direction, Uber never should have matched you. True or not, that's DD.

Scenario 2: Pax wants to go to Taco Bell and back. You refuse because, well, for obvious reasons. That's DD.

Scenario 3: Snowstorm, and pax wants to go to a hilly area. You dont have snow tires or chains, so you know you can't go there. That's DD.

Scenario 4: Paz wants to go to bad neighborhood and get dropped off. If you refuse to go, that's DD.

Scenario 5: Pax wants to go out of territory and refuses to pay extra. Even tho you have the right to negotiate return trip fee, if you refuse that's DD.

Scenario 6: Pax wants to go to event center. You know that if you go, it will take you 20 minutes of free driving just to get out of there. Refuse = DD.

Scenario 7: City is surging and pax wants to go 20 miles away. If you do it, you will miss out on other surges rides, possibly many. Refusal = DD.

Okay, so how many of these DD scenarios are 'okay' in your book, and why?
Yes, destination discrimination is fine. If people can't get rides home to the hood, maybe they shouldn't live in the hood.

Resolved ✅
 

Nate5Star

Well-Known Member
It should be allowed
I am guilty of it, although I have canceled the trip for other reasons
I have actually accepted, then canceled trips while in destination. But I have also hit help on those cancellations and asked how driving south for 20 minutes to pick up a rider and drive north for 15 minutes is "heading in my direction" when I am already going north
I have dropped off a lot of pax in sketchy areas, with 'stop new requests' turned on
 

EastBayRides

Active Member
Uber sez that DD (destination discrimination) is no bueno and they take these issues very seriously.

So I'm thinking of various situations when it might be okay, looking for your opinions. I know the TOS, no need to quote them.

Scenario 1: You've got your DF set to go South. Uber matches you with a pax going 20 minutes North. You tell pax you wont take them, they are going the wrong direction, Uber never should have matched you. True or not, that's DD.

Scenario 2: Pax wants to go to Taco Bell and back. You refuse because, well, for obvious reasons. That's DD.

Scenario 3: Snowstorm, and pax wants to go to a hilly area. You dont have snow tires or chains, so you know you can't go there. That's DD.

Scenario 4: Paz wants to go to bad neighborhood and get dropped off. If you refuse to go, that's DD.

Scenario 5: Pax wants to go out of territory and refuses to pay extra. Even tho you have the right to negotiate return trip fee, if you refuse that's DD.

Scenario 6: Pax wants to go to event center. You know that if you go, it will take you 20 minutes of free driving just to get out of there. Refuse = DD.

Scenario 7: City is surging and pax wants to go 20 miles away. If you do it, you will miss out on other surges rides, possibly many. Refusal = DD.

Okay, so how many of these DD scenarios are 'okay' in your book, and why?
Scenario 4 is unquestionably discrimination and should not be permitted. Scenario 3 is unrelated. The others are business decisions that may or may not work out on profit margin.
 

Elland Rd

Well-Known Member
Scenario 4 is unquestionably discrimination and should not be permitted. Scenario 3 is unrelated. The others are business decisions that may or may not work out on profit margin.
I'm curious why #4 is unquestionably discrimination.

The primary factor is avoiding danger, and applies to any bad neighborhood, regardless of ethnicity. Why can someone discriminate based on profit margin but not on avoiding a dangerous area?

I'd say the bad neighborhood thing has an element of profit margin too. Many drivers don't mind dropping off as much as picking up. So they'd have to drive away empty to get another ride.

I'm not saying it should be allowed or not. Just don't see the difference between one scenario and the other.
 

waldowainthrop

Well-Known Member
I don’t think 3 and 5 are good examples of destination discrimination, and I might even argue they are not destination discrimination at all. Inability to negotiate a fair price for a distant location, or inability to come to a compromise on a safety issue (whether a road is safely navigable, not “whether a neighborhood is safe” which is by contrast not objectively provable) aren’t necessarily destination discrimination, even if the reason for the end of the trip might be related to the destination. 3 could definitely be perceived as destination discrimination, but having no safe route to a destination doesn’t necessarily mean you are discriminating against a destination.

Cancelling primarily for “business reasons” is the most justifiable form of destination discrimination.

The rest are fine to some extent, but rideshare as a service doesn’t provide adequate tools to engage in any of these examples of discretion, while a few of these examples are against terms of service. For example: let’s say you cancel because of snow but the passenger also has a service dog. Good luck convincing the company that you have a right to cancel that ride, especially if the passenger complains.

If anyone thinks 3 is destination discrimination, consider the case of the coffee shop refusing service to a rude customer (discrimination based on customer behavior, justified by company policies and employee discretion), against the case of the coffee shop shutting down the counter because of a flood (not discrimination, based on a safety and logistical problem). The snow example in 3 is more like the second case than like the first. Not being physically able to complete a ride isn’t “refusing” service. The case where the car will probably make it up a snowy hill but might not, or the case where the snowy destination is otherwise undesirable is obviously a more complicated situation that might involve discrimination.

An example: When I couldn’t make it up an icy driveway to a parking lot during a blizzard, I wasn’t discriminating, but if that person couldn’t walk an extra 200 feet to the car, I was never going to pick them up. I wanted to drive up to the pickup point but the car could not make it there.
 
Last edited:

Oscar Levant

Well-Known Member
Uber sez that DD (destination discrimination) is no bueno and they take these issues very seriously.

So I'm thinking of various situations when it might be okay, looking for your opinions. I know the TOS, no need to quote them.

Scenario 1: You've got your DF set to go South. Uber matches you with a pax going 20 minutes North. You tell pax you wont take them, they are going the wrong direction, Uber never should have matched you. True or not, that's DD.

Scenario 2: Pax wants to go to Taco Bell and back. You refuse because, well, for obvious reasons. That's DD.

Scenario 3: Snowstorm, and pax wants to go to a hilly area. You dont have snow tires or chains, so you know you can't go there. That's DD.

Scenario 4: Paz wants to go to bad neighborhood and get dropped off. If you refuse to go, that's DD.

Scenario 5: Pax wants to go out of territory and refuses to pay extra. Even tho you have the right to negotiate return trip fee, if you refuse that's DD.

Scenario 6: Pax wants to go to event center. You know that if you go, it will take you 20 minutes of free driving just to get out of there. Refuse = DD.

Scenario 7: City is surging and pax wants to go 20 miles away. If you do it, you will miss out on other surges rides, possibly many. Refusal = DD.

Okay, so how many of these DD scenarios are 'okay' in your book, and why?

Well, I've driven taxis, ice cream trucks, in poor neighborhoods for years. I've never been robbed. Though, there have been times when I thought I was going to be robbed, riders who gave me a creepy feeling.

I have no problem taking anyone to the hood. Why? Drive in the daytime, sunlight disinfects, as the saying goes.

I wouldn't do it at night, though.

If you are going to DD, don't do it after someone gets in your car, do it before. Once you accept a rider, it's illegal ( I think ) for you to redline.

I live in SoCal, there is no snow. I've lived in NY in the wintertime, I took subways.
 

Director T.Y. Sanchez

Well-Known Member
If people can't get rides home to the hood, maybe they shouldn't live in the hood.
All they really got to do is take action to make the 'hood safer than it is. If they took action to make it uncomfortable for criminals, the criminals would go someplace else. Crime is in the 'hood cause people there don't care. Criminals look for places where people don't care & they stay there, too.


Scenario 4 is unquestionably discrimination and should not be permitted. Scenario 3 is unrelated.


Actually, it should be allowed. They got places where the cops go only if they got their guns out. I ain't going to those places. Tell you what. I'll let you have all those trips since you like 'em so much.



There’ll always be some ant to pick up my rejects.
That's how I look at it. I discriminate based on names. I just don't take it for Lyft and cancel it for Uber.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

GoldenGoji

Well-Known Member
YES, destination discrimination should be allowed. The reason is that as "independent contractors", Uber said in the Uber Platform Access Agreement of Jan 6, 2020 that it's up to us whether or not we accept or reject rides presented to us, as long as we do not discriminate against passengers based on race, nationality, disability, service animal, gender, and things like that. In short, don't discriminate against people based on what the law says.

The destination of a ride will determine how much money you'll make as well as your potential to make more money later on. Since we're not "employees" (even here in California where AB5 is active, Uber is still treating us as independent contractors), we do not get paid by the hour or monthly. In other words, every ride is important and could determine whether or not you'll be able to pay rent and other important stuff or not. Each "independent contractor" driver has a different life situation. Some do this as a hobby or a form of relaxation, while others rely on this full time for the sake of survival or helping to support the family. This means that each ride has a different value for each driver, which is separate from the actual financial value.

For a driver who relies on this full time or HAS to do it for whatever reason, accepting a ride where the passenger is 3 miles away but the total trip distance is less than one mile with a stop to a local fast food restaurant and then back to the starting point, is a losing ride. The driver wasted his resources (time, gas) picking up the passenger, driving the passenger to a fast food joint, waiting for the passenger to grab his food which could take at least 5 minutes, and then head back to their place, and he did all these for what, $2.40 to $3.75? Definitely a waste of resources. Now for the hobbyist who drives rideshare for fun and doesn't really need the money or maybe just needs a hundred a week, this hobbyist driver probably wouldn't mind because in the first place, he doesn't really have the pressure to make the money.

For serious drivers who need to make money, being presented unprofitable rides is like being presented a one day job that only pays a third of what you usually make per assignment, and this new job is located at another state, but YOU have the eat the cost of how you get to that state. How much does it cost in gas? Do you take the plane, the train, or the bus? End result? You waste your time and money if you accept it.

In short, full time drivers or those who seriously want or need to make money will have to be smart about which rides to pick, especially if they're in California where important details for a ride are presented before you accept it. That's the point of business, make money within the borders of what is legal. If you have the information, use it.

As long as we don't discriminate passengers because of their skin color, their origin, their disability, their service animal (a real one, not fake!), religion, gender or sexuality, then it should be ok.

UNFORTUNATELY Uber here in California still thinks differently. They give us all of these information, only to threaten us if we actually use them to pick good rides or rides that make sense to us personally and reject those that don't. What's the point of letting us know the information about a ride before we accept them then, if Uber's just going to threaten us if we decline rides that don't make sense for us to take?

For those not in California, this is what it looks like before you accept a ride:

zz-Info.jpg


BUT if you decline rides that don't make sense for you to accept, this is what Uber sends you, doesn't matter even if Uber itself said they have no right to direct or control drivers and it's up to us whether to accept or reject presented rides:

zz-UberVSUber.jpg


And most recently, they even turned the orange color into RED, probably to appear extra threatening:

RedAndOrangeThreats.jpg



---------------------

Uber: We'll send you rides, we take 25% and you keep the rest. Also, you don't get paid when you're still on your way picking up the passenger. You can pick or reject rides as you wish, as long as you're doing so without breaking any discrimination laws, do we have a deal?

Driver: Ok, but not getting paid on my way to pick up the passenger sounds bad to me. I guess I'll just pick rides that are sensible to accept.

Uber: Sure no problem, that's why we said in our agreement that you can accept and decline whatever ride you want.

Driver: Cool, let's start working!

Uber: Ok here, $2 ride, passenger is 5 miles away from you.

Driver: No thanks, let other drivers nearby pick that up.

Uber: Alright, $2 ride, passenger is 6 miles away from you.

Driver: Uhm, that's farther than the first one, no thanks, I'll wait for something nearer.

Uber: Oh here look, $2 ride, passenger is 5 miles away from you.

Driver: That's just like the first one, it doesn't make sense for me to pick that up because I'll lose money.

Uber: RED LEVEL THREAT - DECLINING BASED ON DESTINATION OR REFUSING TOO MANY TRIPS MAY RESULT IN FEWER REQUESTS.

Driver: What the hell, where in our agreement did you say that?

Uber: Uhm.... whatever, you're on time out now!

Driver: But you said you have no right to direct or control drivers...

Uber: Talk to Rohit, goodbye.
 

_Tron_

Well-Known Member
Scenario 4 is unquestionably discrimination and should not be permitted.
Tip. You should be aware that you have been convinced by people with an agenda that this is discrimination. Never accept the opinions of others without question. Think for yourself. Look for situations in your life to validate or invalidate any attitude or philosophy put forth to you. Question authority.
 

jazzapt

Well-Known Member
Tip. You should be aware that you have been convinced by people with an agenda that this is discrimination. Never accept the opinions of others without question. Think for yourself. Look for situations in your life to validate or invalidate any attitude or philosophy put forth to you. Question authority.
It is discrimination. It is literally the definition of the word. The word has no agenda.

The word discrimination means "the act of discriminating" or "to discriminate". The moment you chose not to do something for a specific reason that is unattractive to you, you are discriminating. If you refuse to eat inferior cuts of steak, you are discriminating. If you will only stay at high-end hotels, you are discriminating. There is a reason they call it "discriminating tastes".

Literally every example OP listed fits the definition of the word "Discrimination". It's what is being discriminated against that determines the agenda. Calling the act of refusing rides to a bad neighborhood IS discrimination. However if OP is insinuating that type of discrimination is a bad thing, that is the opinion and/or agenda.
 
Last edited:

Mista T

Well-Known Member
Author
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #20
Literally every example OP listed fits the definition of the word "Discrimination".
Yes.

I have turned down at least one of every example. Almost every time I turn down a ride now it is because of a money reason, which relates to not being paid enough to go to that destination. Still, it is discrimination.

I dont discriminate on anything that is prohibited by law, even tho I have my beliefs against certain politics, religious stuff, etc.
 
Top