Uber warns drivers against avoiding 'disadvantaged' areas (opens in new tab)

Uber already have different options for vehicles bigger, ability to haul equipment, luxury, etc... so how about embrace this issue by having a class of armored vehicle for rough neighborhoods? Call it the "Presidential Service". Or pay former bouncers and ex gang members extra to service these areas. If there is a policy against this make an exception for this category and add disclaimers. Probably not a wonderful idea but someone could probably build upon it.

That sounds like something you could reasonably demand of employees, but not contractors like Uber drivers.

When certain "no-go" areas are so dangerous that neither police, ambulance, or fire fighters will go there (alone), I certainly don't expect Uber drivers to go there either - even if the corporate overlords are are insisting on it.

This article is over three years old.

The article particularly mentions California. It seems that Uber had to give up some of the tools that they use to police the ecosystem in order to show CA regulators that the drivers are contractors: the article mentions penalties for skipping too many fares in other locales and Uber letting CA drivers see destinations of ride requests.

CA drivers have predictably used thise tools to optimize for their own profit/enjoyment/safety(?)

Archived link: https://archive.is/7DYjv

Discussed by Zvi: https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2023/07/12/housing-and-transit-...