If they showed the driver the ride details beforehand, drivers could not accept the ride and passengers would never know. That's what would happen if drivers were truely independent. But by forcing the driver to cancel and irritating customers, Uber and Lyft are able to use this as a stick to discipline "independent" drivers.
Note that drivers wouldn't cancel profitable rides, only rides that don't make them or cause them to lose money. I'm not sure why anyone has a problem with this.
A driver won't just chose profitable over unprofitable, but also more profitable over less profitable, and this ends up hurting some passengers on less profitable / less desirable routes.
If you wanted a cab to Brooklyn from Manhattan 20+ years ago, you had to get in the back of the car before telling the driver where you wanted to go. Otherwise the driver would just drive off without you. The ride was definitely profitable, but they knew they'd pick up another Manhattan ride on the next block and so on - a more profitable option that to risk not having a fare back from Brooklyn. Many drivers wised up and wouldn't let you into the cab until you told them where you were going. It was a major PitA.
Not necessary. In India there is law that if you are running cabs on govt license then you cannot refuse passengers. If you as a cab driver do refuse (for whatever reason) then traffic police can take action (article mentions this).
There must be reason that this condition has been put into place.
NYC had a law for decades that a licensed cab must take a passenger to any location in the five boroughs. In practice, late night cabbies would never take you to the boonies as the ride back is unprofitable dead time.
They’d ask you, “where you going?”, before you got in the cab and drive off if they didn’t like the destination. Experienced riders would ignore the cabbie, enter the cab, and then explain the destination. Then when the cabbie argues with you, you’d cuss them out and tell them to drive before you call the taxi commission to get their medallion revoked.
While many of us do miss the fun of those arguments, not having to deal with that is one big plus that Uber blessed the world.
And this is why the system really should be reverse. The riders provide all details and then drivers provide the price. Forming binding contract on both sides for agreed upon price. And there should be absolute no limit on the price. Be it 1 dollar or 1 million. And the company offering this should take action to enforce any contract in court.
In a pure market system, sure. I’m about as free market as they come, but the intention here is not just to maximize GDP. A functioning transit system with known costs makes a city more livable. That’s a sustainability issue for the city as a whole.
> There must be reason that this condition has been put into place.
It's because it's a democracy. That's the reason. And the majority of people don't like the idea of potentially being stranded in the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night. Now, I can appreciate that reason. And I totally understand it myself. And I also understand that drivers can be shit.
But as a former Uber driver myself (not in India, but in California), please try understand it from my perspective as well. Uber doesn't pay for elevation changes. If your car gets damaged on a windy rocky dirt road, or on a road with no lighting whatsoever (Santa Cruz hills, I'm talking to you). Uber won't pay for damages or loss of income. Or if Uber calls you to a neighborhood where drivers get carjacked and pistol-whipped, as a driver, you're the one who has to bear most of those consequences, not Uber (we're not cops, we don't get paid leave, workers comp, or even medical benefits). The same goes if you get called to an area notorious for handing out traffic tickets or parking tickets. Uber pays for none of that, but it will penalize you for refusing the ride (and in San Francisco, it took them almost 10 years from finally blacklisting Market St for pickups, the part that's downtown).
And people can be shit. They'll call you just for getting down a windy dirt road that they don't want to walk down themselves because it's too steep. Or they'll call you just to dump their semi-conscious intoxicated friend into your car. I could tell you a thousand stories.
But my point is, the situation is more nuanced than you think.
> My gut instinct is that it is a protection from caste discrimination
You’re probably right. Not even a decade ago in New York I had to call cabs for my Ivy-league educated, well-dressed black roommate because they would curiously blow past him.
It is about passenger safety. The article itself mentions that people are stranded late night and one driver after another refusing to pickup the rider. Think women, emergency,.. etc.
Then offer to pay more. There is always a price point where someone is ready to provide the service. This should be in the system, maybe provide all details up front and then include extra payment which the rider can agree to pay to get their service, free market.
Note that drivers wouldn't cancel profitable rides, only rides that don't make them or cause them to lose money. I'm not sure why anyone has a problem with this.