What if the driver doesn't want to charge a fee and is happy to just circle the block and drop the item off to a thankful customer, as described in this episode? Maybe things won't be as convenient for some drivers, in which case a fee is appropriate. But imposing a fee without asking the driver or allowing the driver an easy way to notify the customer of the lost item is dishonest; Uber is not doing it on the driver's behalf but acting in loco parentis of the driver and deciding on their behalf, thus robbing the driver of autonomy.
The driver chooses to return the item in the first place (and they know the fee), and they can notify riders about lost items via their app.
Uber avoids price negotiation, and considering that it takes time and effort to resolve your mistake, it's likely much better to just charge a standard fee instead of planning for every single case.
The lost items were returned, so the return process is actually successful. It's designed to work for many people under various conditions, not just you. Whether it was as quick as possible is irrelevant to the original claim of being charged for the wrong reason.
Perhaps try and remember your items if you don't want to worry about recovering them later. There are plenty of drivers who also immediately check for and return items before they set off. Saying a system has failed because it doesn't perfectly suit your exact life situation/mistake is disingenuous and unproductive.
The fact that you made a mistake doesn't absolve another party of all duty to act like a reasonable person. Is capital punishment for stealing a loaf of bread okay, because perhaps you should try to remember not to steal things?
I also question the assertion that this process is designed to be as effective as possible for anyone, unless you mean Uber. As stated in the original post, both parties were trying to resolve this, while a busybody middleman stopped them.
This is what I mean by disingenuous. Nobody is getting punished. Uber is being reasonable, which is why the user got their items back, using a standardized process.
Why do you keep saying they failed under some arbitrary scenario?
Again, just because it could've been faster does not mean that it didn't work. That specific scenario is not the majority nor the only one that matters.
What arbitrary scenario? I'm literally discussing the scenario which kicked off this discussion.
The problem is not that it _could_ have been faster, the problem is that it _would_ have been faster if they'd done nothing at all. They injected themselves unnecessarily to slow down something which would have worked fine without interference.
If I find someone's wallet in the back of my car and I call them two years later to give it back, am I being reasonable? I mean, they got their items back. Or is it specifically a week which is acceptable? What's the maximum amount of time that it's reasonable to delay a by-default two-minute interaction?
I don't understand your comment but I'll try one last time:
The problem is helping riders get back lost items. The solution, taking into account potential abuse with open communication and all other scenarios in millions of rides, is to have a "report" button that then notifies the driver to find and return the items on their own, and get rewarded with a standard fee.
In any arbitrary scenario (meaning not representative of all of them), this process may not be the fastest or most effective, but it does solve the problem.
Sometimes a 2 minute situation might be stretched out, and sometimes it might mean things are lost forever, but vast majority of the time it works fine, and that's the trade-off. You are focusing on 0.1% scenario while ignoring everything else.
