• UberPeople.NET - Independent community of rideshare drivers. It's FREE to be a person and enjoy all the benefits of membership. JOIN US! CLICK HERE

Lyft wants to lower insurance costs by optimizing routes for safety rather than speed.

jocker12

Well-Known Member
In other words, Lyft doesn’t show how the insurance rates could be affected by using a “faster” route versus a ”safer”route, but tells to few potential investors that there is a potentially revenue making difference.

In reality they just admitted how the initial ride cost range calculation could be done based o a longer, slower and supposedly “safer” route (which the rider has no clue about), once they know the real ride it will be done on a shorter and “faster” route calculated by the navigation app every driver uses.

Who is pocketing the difference? Lyft. Who is to blame if the initial longer, slower and “safer” route is followed? Of course, the driver.

The Reuters article at - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lyft-ipo-roadshow/at-ipo-road-show-lyft-executives-look-to-lower-insurance-costs-idUSKCN1R12GJ?utm_source=applenews
 

goneubering

Well-Known Member
In other words, Lyft doesn’t show how the insurance rates could be affected by using a “faster” route versus a ”safer”route, but tells to few potential investors that there is a potentially revenue making difference.

In reality they just admitted how the initial ride cost range calculation could be done based o a longer, slower and supposedly “safer” route (which the rider has no clue about), once they know the real ride it will be done on a shorter and “faster” route calculated by the navigation app every driver uses.

Who is pocketing the difference? Lyft. Who is to blame if the initial longer, slower and “safer” route is followed? Of course, the driver.

The Reuters article at - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lyft-ipo-roadshow/at-ipo-road-show-lyft-executives-look-to-lower-insurance-costs-idUSKCN1R12GJ?utm_source=applenews
That’s crazy. How’s it possible for their IPO to be oversubscribed??!!


In interviews after the event several investors expressed a range of reactions to the presentation, on condition they not be named per the policies of their firms. Two said they would be more likely to seek to buy into the IPO, which is oversubscribed,
 

UberBastid

Well-Known Member

uberdriverfornow

Well-Known Member
The concept for Lyft going by this story is to do the opposite of that.
Post automatically merged:

lol reading the story, they are talking about SDC's, which we know will never happen

nothing to see here afterall
Post automatically merged:

this is all just the same mumbo jumbo to pump up the IPO
 

jocker12

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
The concept for Lyft going by this story is to do the opposite of that.
Post automatically merged:

lol reading the story, they are talking about SDC's, which we know will never happen

nothing to see here afterall
Post automatically merged:

this is all just the same mumbo jumbo to pump up the IPO
This article from The Washington Post - Lyft outlines all the reasons ridesharing could fail, in its IPO documents - its says "To the extent that Lyft is dependent on drivers," and adds (referring to Lyft and Uber as well) "Both companies lose money on each ride they provide."

The most essential detail that everybody seems to intentionally ignore is that as long as both companies share the revenue they make on every ride with the driver, then every single driver loses money on every single ride they provide.

The "better treatment of drivers" and "profitable platforms" translates into "per minute and per mile increased rates" only priority in sight.
 
Right turns are safer than left turns. Freeways are safer than non-freeways. I would welcome it if drivers were required to take the safer route, and if ETA estimates etc were all based on the safer route.
Too bad this article is just about SDCs.
 

Cigars

Well-Known Member
This article is about robot cars not cars driven by humans.
Lyft and Uber want you to believe you must turn right when they direct you to turn right.
This is false. You are not an employee.
These companies are trying to convince you you must act like an employee while they declare that you are a contractor.
This is inherently dishonest, but so is everything else put forth by these to companies.

You can fulfill your contract anyway you like.
If you determine its "safer" or "quicker" to travel from A to B using the 20 mile way instead of the 10 mile way, then you are free to do so.
It does not matter if you are "correct". It is a decision you made as a contractor.

Amusingly, Lyft admits to investors that if they double their sales, they will still lose money.
Lyft is not selling widgets, where if they sell 100 they lose money and if they sell 200 they make money.
Lyft states in court documents that their sales are down in NYC (The first market were rideshare has flatlined and begun to shrink).
Unsurprisingly Lyft does not mention this on their S-1 where they are required by the SEC.
No neutral analyst recommends "buy" Lyft.

And still its over sold.
 

bonum exactoris

Well-Known Member
This article is about robot cars not cars driven by humans.
Lyft and Uber want you to believe you must turn right when they direct you to turn right.
This is false. You are not an employee.
These companies are trying to convince you you must act like an employee while they declare that you are a contractor.
This is inherently dishonest, but so is everything else put forth by these to companies.

You can fulfill your contract anyway you like.
If you determine its "safer" or "quicker" to travel from A to B using the 20 mile way instead of the 10 mile way, then you are free to do so.
It does not matter if you are "correct". It is a decision you made as a contractor.

Amusingly, Lyft admits to investors that if they double their sales, they will still lose money.
Lyft is not selling widgets, where if they sell 100 they lose money and if they sell 200 they make money.
Lyft states in court documents that their sales are down in NYC (The first market were rideshare has flatlined and begun to shrink).
Unsurprisingly Lyft does not mention this on their S-1 where they are required by the SEC.
No neutral analyst recommends "buy" Lyft.

And still its over sold.
Its oversold because the wealthy think differently than you.
Ever hear: The rich get richer ?
For good reason
 

Lee239

Well-Known Member
It has nothing to do with saving on insurance. It's a scam for Lyft to longhaul and charge the pax more. The route a driver takes does not save them from insurance or guarantee that an accident won't happen. You are still driving in the same town or city and going from the same starting point to ending point. I hope Lyft execs are prosecuted for IPO fraud.
 

jocker12

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #13
Right turns are safer than left turns. Freeways are safer than non-freeways. I would welcome it if drivers were required to take the safer route, and if ETA estimates etc were all based on the safer route.
Too bad this article is just about SDCs.
There is no insurance company to offer coverage by ride, or if Lyft has something like that, they need to show how faster vs. safer affects the rates.
Post automatically merged:

This article is about robot cars not cars driven by humans.
Lyft and Uber want you to believe you must turn right when they direct you to turn right.
This is false. You are not an employee.
These companies are trying to convince you you must act like an employee while they declare that you are a contractor.
This is inherently dishonest, but so is everything else put forth by these to companies.

You can fulfill your contract anyway you like.
If you determine its "safer" or "quicker" to travel from A to B using the 20 mile way instead of the 10 mile way, then you are free to do so.
It does not matter if you are "correct". It is a decision you made as a contractor.

Amusingly, Lyft admits to investors that if they double their sales, they will still lose money.
Lyft is not selling widgets, where if they sell 100 they lose money and if they sell 200 they make money.
Lyft states in court documents that their sales are down in NYC (The first market were rideshare has flatlined and begun to shrink).
Unsurprisingly Lyft does not mention this on their S-1 where they are required by the SEC.
No neutral analyst recommends "buy" Lyft.

And still its over sold.
The article is about current insurance rates AND about the possibility of using SDCs on Lyft platform. These are two very distinct topics.
 

tohunt4me

Well-Known Member
In other words, Lyft doesn’t show how the insurance rates could be affected by using a “faster” route versus a ”safer”route, but tells to few potential investors that there is a potentially revenue making difference.

In reality they just admitted how the initial ride cost range calculation could be done based o a longer, slower and supposedly “safer” route (which the rider has no clue about), once they know the real ride it will be done on a shorter and “faster” route calculated by the navigation app every driver uses.

Who is pocketing the difference? Lyft. Who is to blame if the initial longer, slower and “safer” route is followed? Of course, the driver.

The Reuters article at - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lyft-ipo-roadshow/at-ipo-road-show-lyft-executives-look-to-lower-insurance-costs-idUSKCN1R12GJ?utm_source=applenews
Expect Ratings to Drop Immediately !

Want to be Safe ?

STAY HOME !
Post automatically merged:

There is no insurance company to offer coverage by ride, or if Lyft has something like that, they need to show how faster vs. safer affects the rates.
Post automatically merged:


The article is about current insurance rates AND about the possibility of using SDCs on Lyft platform. These are two very distinct topics.
An EXCUSE for SDC LONG HAUL !
Post automatically merged:

Its oversold because the wealthy think differently than you.
Ever hear: The rich get richer ?
For good reason
Yes. Good Reason.
RACKETEERING.
 

bonum exactoris

Well-Known Member
Expect Ratings to Drop Immediately !

Want to be Safe ?

STAY HOME !
Post automatically merged:


An EXCUSE for SDC LONG HAUL !
Post automatically merged:


Yes. Good Reason.
RACKETEERING.
Sorry, I’m Not jumping on the working poor “we hate successful rich folk” band wagon
However, U Hang On 🙄

 

JohnnyBravo836

Well-Known Member
Yea, but they don't have someone in the back seat saying, "Why you going this way. It's shorter if you turn here, here RIGHT HERE. If you think I'm going to pay more because you took the scenic route you got a big surprise comin, well, I otta ...."
And if the driver does take the passenger the way that the passenger is asking to go -- i.e., via the "less safe" route -- is the driver going to be penalized somehow? If not, why wouldn't drivers just ignore the longer, allegedly "safer" routes? It saves time and gas to go in the shortest, most efficient way possible.
 

mrpjfresh

Well-Known Member
Is there a legal reason they don't just create their own LLC and use their massive cash reserves to fund their own insurance? James River was like the only game in town willing to insure these TNCs and I cannot imagine they are getting the very best deal since there are very, very limited options. I always thought they could likely squeeze more money by giving drivers a "raise" but forcing them to buy their own commercial policies. Perhaps this would cull too many ants though.

That’s crazy. How’s it possible for their IPO to be oversubscribed??!!

In interviews after the event several investors expressed a range of reactions to the presentation, on condition they not be named per the policies of their firms. Two said they would be more likely to seek to buy into the IPO, which is oversubscribed,
We'll see in a week or so but color me skeptical to believe an anonymous quote regarding a company who is so overly desperate to go to an IPO.
 

jocker12

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #19
And if the driver does take the passenger the way that the passenger is asking to go -- i.e., via the "less safe" route -- is the driver going to be penalized somehow? If not, why wouldn't drivers just ignore the longer, allegedly "safer" routes? It saves time and gas to go in the shortest, most efficient way possible.
The longer (time plus distance) route initial price range value is calculated and shown (the price range, not the route) to the rider, makes the driver more money. If you switch to the shorter and faster the navigation pops on the phone screen, you make less money, because what you make is calculated NOT based on the recommended Lyft app, but on the actual time and distance you cover with your rider inside your car. The difference from the recommended Lyft route (supposedly safer) and the faster, shorter route you followed because of your real time navigation app calculations, is taken by Lyft, on top of what they already make based on the agreement between you and them.
 

bonum exactoris

Well-Known Member
Is there a legal reason they don't just create their own LLC and use their massive cash reserves to fund their own insurance? James River was like the only game in town willing to insure these TNCs and I cannot imagine they are getting the very best deal since there are very, very limited options. I always thought they could likely squeeze more money by giving drivers a "raise" but forcing them to buy their own commercial policies. Perhaps this would cull too many ants though.


We'll see in a week or so but color me skeptical to believe an anonymous quote regarding a company who is so overly desperate to go to an IPO.
use their massive cash reserves to fund their own insurance”
The wealthy have a saying “build with some else’s money, never your own”
Less risk 🤷‍♂️
 
Top