No driver background checks or vehicle inspections, per the TOS [0]:
"The Carpool Platform is operated by Clara Rides, Inc., not Lyft, Inc. Clara Rides, Inc. is not a Transportation Network Company or a transportation service. Clara Rides and Lyft do not conduct criminal background checks on Carpool Drivers, perform vehicle inspections on vehicles used for Carpool Rides, or provide insurance for Carpool Rides."
Sounds a little stupid to me: "No money, gifts, or tokens of appreciation are ever offered or requested. A driver doesn’t expect the riders to help out with gas money. The relationship between the driver and rider is mutually supporting. The driver needs the slugs just as much as the slugs need the driver. If a driver wants help with the gas, he should organize his own car pool. He shouldn’t ask a slug to pitch in for helping him access the HOV!"
Car costs money, gasoline costs money. How do the drivers need the riders? Sounds like just plain stupid to me. Money is a good invention and tool, why not to use it.
Edit: realized that this allows the drivers to use express lanes, which are common in US. (Don't have those in my country).
Instead of just calling the system stupid you could have spent 30 seconds searching for it and seeing how it works. It is right there in the first paragraph on the wiki:
[...] frustration over failures of public-transport systems and high fuel prices, led to the creation in the 1970s of "slugging", a form of hitchhiking between strangers that is beneficial to both parties, as drivers and passengers are able to use the HOV lane for a quicker trip. While passengers are able to travel for free, or cheaper than via other modes of travel, and HOV drivers sometimes pay no tolls, "slugs are, above all, motivated by time saved, not money pocketed".
---
It would have taken you less time to read that than to write your comment.
Most people are more concerned about getting somewhere than reading contracts, seeing proof of insurance, etc. -- this based on seeing how commuter sharing systems work in the wild. If you're super concerned, next time you flag down a taxi make sure you make sure they're not a "rogue" cabbie; them being uninsured is the the least of your concerns.
> Most people are more concerned about getting somewhere than reading contracts
Indeed. I'd also add "Getting somewhere cheap..." as a primary incentive for these rides.
I've used Craigslist "ride shares" between Montreal<>Toronto ($30) on a number of occasions. I fully understood the risks I was taking compared to paying 3x as much for a safer train ride ($100).
The vehicle is advertised as being a Mercedes mini-bus [1] with seating for ~8 people but usually only has 6 passengers and plenty of extra space. The driver was usually an immigrant from China who drove the route everyday, so they know the route well and are always very efficient and reliable. Their lack of english-speaking skills was somewhat of a concern but never caused any issues in practice.
I was more concerned about how they managed to survive on what was basically a minimum-wage payout for a full-day of driving. But there is clearly a supply of workers. Plus they made extra money doing deliveries of newspapers between cities.
Paying for an over-packed Megabus for a comparable $30 price was out of the question because it's always full, always noisy, full of extra stops in between, smells halfway through if you're near the back, etc, etc.
Consumers are capable of making economic cost comparisons. You go on Craigslist searching for bottom-of-the-market rides to save money, there's always a certain expectation of added risk. Same goes with Megabus, almost all of the worst bus drivers I've seen are employed by them, but being outside of the 'sharing' economy seems to protect them from similar scrutiny.
My brother does regulation of motor carriers for a living. The answer to "how do they do it" is -- the companies are run by organized crime, use illegal immigrant labor, and do zero maintenance.
When I say "no maintenance", I don't mean ripped carpets and dirty windows. We're talking no functioning brakes.
When there's an accident, the bus driver just runs off.
Right, if people could "magically" be anywhere they wanted instantly, safely, free, etc. - who would go somewhere any other way unless it was for the experience of doing so. Most people don't even realize how dangerous driving is currently relative to other risks to health and life; sorry, but I'd take zero risk over being insured for it any day.
Guessing they mean the fairly common (around me) practice of a cab driver loaning their car to a friend or relative who may not have the correct licenses or carry the correct insurance.
Getting robbed, kidnapped, raped, killed, etc. - I personally had a "ghost" cabbie try to swipe my credit card data using a card swipper, demand to take me to an ATM, etc. - lucky, nothing "bad" happened; after the fact, called in his ID number and it wasn't real. This is a bigger issues in some areas, Uber first introduced a panic button in countries were cabbie attacks were a larger issue, but believe they're even adding it to some cities in the US now.
Depends what you mean by "greater concern." Obviously getting robbed, kidnapped, raped, or killed are among the worst possible outcomes of any scenario, but when I think of "greater concern" I tend to consider the likelihood of each outcome and not just the desirability.
What makes this even more concerning is that the driver's insurance company may decide he is carrying passengers for hire and, therefore, that the regular car insurance offers limited or no coverage.
My policy says it does not apply:
"To any vehicle used to carry persons or property for compensation or a fee, including but not limited to delivery of food or any other products...However, a vehicle used in an ordinary carpool on a ride sharing or cost sharing basis is covered."
The question would be whether this is an "ordinary carpool on a cost sharing basis." Lawyers are paid to argue about these things.
> The question would be whether this is an "ordinary carpool on a cost sharing basis." Lawyers are paid to argue about these things.
I imagine the intent of this is to cover 'informal' car sharing - e.g. you have a roadtrip with a friend and both pay for petrol, or you drive to work with your neighbour and share costs.
Not sure how it would apply to Lyft Carpool - I think initially your insurance company would push back on it.
A serious question to everyone complaining about uninsured drivers: do you ask your friends for proof of insurance before getting in their cars as passengers?
Do any insurance companies sell passenger insurance to cover accidents when you're the passenger in a car with an underinsured driver?
1. No, but I have a pretty good understanding of the economic situation of my friends and would be very surprised if they are not in compliance with insurance requirements. Some guy who just drives up to my house, not so much.
2. There is something called "uninsured motorist insurance" which covers a variety of situations caused by drivers without insurance. You'd have to check the details of a given policy as to this situation. Even without that, your health, disability, and life insurance should apply.
I have health insurance, so treatment for my bodily injuries is covered. Someone else is driving, so if his negligence results in a wreck I generally won't be liable to the other driver. I won't be responsible for fixing his vehicle.
That covers most garden-variety car wrecks, so there is little need to be concerned about my friend's insurance. I suppose if I were really on top of things, I would ask my friends for proof of insurance anyway, because maybe I would want to sue him for pain and suffering, which his insurance might pay for (my health insurance would not pay for that, or for lost wages.)
Never seen "riding around in someone else's underinsured car" insurance. Typical umbrella policy wouldn't cover that unless I'm negligent. I suppose I could get disability coverage which might help protect against the lost wages from getting injured in someone else's car.
> I have health insurance, so treatment for my bodily injuries is covered
No, that's not how it typically works. If the injury was caused by car accident, your insurer will likely deny the claim. This happened to me when someone rear-ended me and I went to the ER to get checked out; I didn't want to file a claim with the other party's auto insurance but had to for payment of the ER visit.
Sorry your insurance is crummy. Mine explicitly says it will pay for my care and that my insurance company can seek damages from those who may be liable and their insurers.
"If I am injured in an accident, does my health insurance pay anything?
Usually, your health insurance pays for your immediate medical care. Then your health insurance company will typically try to get back money from your auto insurance or the other person's auto insurance. When one insurance company tries to get money back from another insurance company, it is called subrogation."
That situation only exists because the other party had auto insurance. If they didn't have auto insurance and you didn't have auto insurance that covered it, your health insurance policy would have covered it.
> Your injuries could potentially be more than what your insurance would pay, thus your driving friend would be liable for the injuries.
I suppose that could happen to some, but my insurance pays for all care after I satisfy the flat out-of-pocket requirement.
I suppose my friend would be liable for the out-of-pocket cost, but that would typically be only several hundred dollars--a fair amount of money, but not much relatively speaking if this is a wreck that caused injuries.
Insurance companies tend to cover passengers, unless those passengers are there because you're doing weird things.
Car-pooling is sufficiently weird for insurers to require you to let them know you're doing it, and they may adjust the premiums.
As for whether I ask: yes, I do. Most of the people I get lifts from are insured as part of their job and a bunch of other people have checked for me; or it's public transport and again other people have checked for me.
1) I don't, but I don't have any friends who would be so stupid as to not have insurance. If I do, that means my choices in friends are poor, but I hope not. On the other hand, when I'm getting into a car with a stranger I would really like to know if they have insurance. Just like I don't check the food my friends are serving me to make sure it's fresh,but when I go to a restaurant I expect relevant agencies to make sure that people employed there know how to cook and the place fulfils certain hygiene requirements.
2) I guess if that happened my home insurance would cover it. I'm honestly not sure what would be there to cover if I was a passenger though, even if I had to be hospitalized it wouldn't cost a penny(national health care).
>>Probably less surprising is that they might be insured, but have taken out the minimum required for passengers.
In EU any car insurance, no matter the premium, has to cover minimum 5 million euro for bodily harm and 1 million euro in property damage, so this is not an issue. But lyft does not operate here so it does not matter.
>>Pain and suffering, lost wages, cosmetic surgery.
Yeah, I can agree with those.
afaik liability insurance only covers passengers when you are the driver (hence, "liable") and either typically, or always, not at all if you're a passenger - according to my sister, who works in the insurance industry - and, additionally, all of this varies greatly from state to state in the US.
To me, the game of the "sharing economy" is to use the vastly lowered transaction and communication costs of the internet to make better use of unused capital. Cars and housing in those cases.
That regulation is a decade or two behind the technology is unfortunate, but merely a side story.
I spend two nights with Airbnb hosts. Both had a spare room, one was home writing her thesis the other a single mother. Both could use the additional money more than the few minutes of bathroom/kitchen time that I used.
I also spend a couple nights with family - they don't have any special insurance or taxes for me either. I don't really see any difference, I didn't annoy the neighbours in any case.
What? It's well known that both Uber and AirBnB long relied on their users to operate unlicensed jitneys and unlicensed, uninspected, uninsured lodging houses.
You could improve your comment by acknowledging that most businesses cajole, skirt, finagle or ignore regulations when it suits their purpose and they think they can get away with it. Uber and AirBnB did not invent this game.
True, but most businesses (outside finance) have other ways to make money besides cajoling, skirting, finagling or ignoring laws (or the latinate "regulations," as you prefer).
"Regulation" (at least in the US) is a broader category, covering both "laws" passed by elected lawmakers and "rules" made by unelected public servants.
Existing, old school carpool programs aren't paying their drivers, either. Which means it isn't commercial use. Which means your regular auto insurance covers it. Unlike this.
They get around this by limiting the amount of payment to the drivers' costs (i.e. the IRS standard mileage rate of $0.54/mile.)
From the TOS:
"...we may charge you to reimburse the Carpool Driver for the costs associated with a Carpool Ride provided to you. [...] Reimbursements may include per mile charges at up to the prevailing IRS standard mileage rate, and other expenses like tolls and parking fees." (Emphasis mine)
If they wanted/needed to pay a higher amount, could Lyft get around this by paying the driver two fees - a first constrained one to skirt the insurance rules and then a "separate" fee for another component such as advertising or data provision or something else plausible but arbitrary?
A 1992 email from Richard Stallman about libreadline's license is, oddly enough, relevant here:
"The issue first arose when NeXT proposed to distribute a modified GCC in two parts and let the user link them. Jobs asked me whether this was lawful. It seemed to me at the time that it was, following reasoning like what you are using; but since the result was very undesirable for free software, I said I would have to ask the lawyer.
"What the lawyer said surprised me; he said that judges would consider such schemes to be 'subterfuges' and would be very harsh toward them. He said a judge would ask whether it is 'really' one program, rather than how it is labeled.
"So I went back to Jobs and said we believed his plan was not allowed by the GPL."
Judges are not computers, and are generally capable of seeing through your clever plans.
I think it's debatable, legally, whether or not this constitutes commercial use. It's designed only for picking people up along a route you already drive regularly, and the monthly cap of $400 means no one could conceivably make a living off of it, even if they gamed it somehow and had multiple accounts.
Pretty sure normal insurance covers giving rides so long as you don't profit -- that is, as long as your compensation is no more than the cost of giving the ride, at which point it would become commercial activity, with a different risk profile.
People shouldn't just worry about "no insurance" but also underinsurance. Minimal insurance in many areas is ridiculously too low. If you're signing up to do this as a driver you better #1 Tell your auto insurance company and #2 Up your insurance levels to the max (something you should probably do anyways if you can afford it).
If you're signing up to do this as a rider, well I don't think you should given the insurance problems and you not having any guarantee that someone will be held liable if they cause an accident.
Getting into a bad accident with an underinsured driver at fault is a life changing event.
Yeah. Perhaps my comment was not clear. They made it sound like you were in grave danger if you merely rode in the car of someone with insufficient automotive insurance, to which my answer is "make sure you have health insurance." Actually, that's my answer to many things.
I suppose they can't offer insurance because the insurance company didn't know how to compute the price. In other words, because Lyft is doing something very different than what has happened for the previous 6 or so years, the insurance industry doesn't know how to react.
Background checks? I had 2 UberX/Grab (the Singaporean Lyft) drivers who openly admitted to being ex-cons - and that in Singapore too. One even laughed that British prisons were like a 5* hotel compared to Asian ones.
If these companies perform background checks, what are they checking for?
Being an ex-con should not disqualify you from driving a cab. Especially in a country like the US that has obscene incarceration rates, and where who ends up in prison is a factor of race and wealth more than the seriousness of the crime.
An ex-con has paid his or her "debt to society" by being in prison. If we don't let them get a job and earn a living, how will they get rehabilitated in society?
Oh, I don't mind, personally, and I agree with you. I also think security on these apps is done by the dissuasive power of knowing that you are live-tracked and almost certain to be caught, rather than any pre filtering (which is the taxi industry's MO); this is a feature.
Basically any lifetime sex offense, or terrorist register; and anything violent, or DUIs in the last 7 years.
Both of my drivers would not have passed the last 7 years bit (from what I deduced from our conversation) so the standards are clearly different abroad.
I agree if they fiddle with some numbers on a spreadsheet and payed less in taxes or smuggled drugs or something. If they beat somebody up or raped somebody I don't ever want to be near them, much less trust my life to them. I don't give a hoot if they can't get a job or be integrated in society. As far as I am concerned they are permanently broken people - probably like their victims.
Maybe I am overthinking it. Would love to see Carpooling succeed. Makes commutes easier and environment friendly. Lets hope for the best. Lyft itself is a great service. Never used Line before so cannot speak for that. Even having location tracking for your ride is a notch up.
Home insurance? No. I live in a large apartment building so I'm not nervous about home invasion.
Health insurance? I've been punched by strangers (road rage, sigh) and haven't needed to go to the hospital. The kind of incident my mother imagines for me walking at night isn't the kind of incident where health insurance matters. Life insurance, though. I should probably get that.
I doubt lyft is making much if anything on this. It's likely just a way to get users to start using the app. If they use it daily it's more likely they'll use the standard lyft service too
I have a theory that this service is to allure drivers more than consumers. Given that consumers had an option of using Lyft Line or Uber Pool for their daily commute anyways, Lyft Carpool don't add that much value other than perhaps cheaper fare. On the other hand, for the single drivers, this sounds like a good opportunity to make a side income without a huge impact on their lifestyle. Probably another 10 minutes of their lives picking up and dropping off a passenger, and they get paid a few hundred extra bucks a month.
I have never thought about being a Lyft/Uber driver, but I am seriously considering registering for Lyft Carpool, and who knows? If I like it, I might become a Lyft driver as a side gig.
Haha I said exactly this in my private slack to my ops network:
Overlay "uber" app where people can submit a bid for flat-fee plus tip % from point A to point B - the idea is that uber drivers could also login to a system to select A-B trips which are bid on
Driver says gimme a bid from a radius of me at point a to a radius of point b - when there is a march they connect
Yep. You could classify trip requests for delivering people, goods, alcohol, medical, or perishable goods. A multitude of apps for people with cars could push or pull from the network, so at any time a driver (with a compatible app) could see nearby deliveries and their bids. Business services and apps users could post bids for delivery real time.
I mean, drivers already run Lyft and Uber simultaneously, and are now used to the idea of ridesharing.
Eh, I see where you are coming from, but I wouldn't use it myself. The constant bidding and sequential worrying of whether I paid the "right" amount for the service would be too much stress for me. I would rather pay an extra couple of more bucks instead of stressing over the bidding itself.
A network, not a platform. Being platform agnostic makes a difference.
Think of it as building an ad auction network for multiple websites and advertisers, rather than just trying to build an ad network for just your own website.
1. To get from the East Bay to SF in the carpool lane you need 2 passengers (3 people total - or a car that only seats two)
2. The East Bay already has a pretty nice system for this called the Casual Carpool which is probably its biggest competition. The Casual Carpool is just a bunch of spots (usually BART Stations) where drivers can stop and pick up a few other passengers to get in the carpool lane across the bridge and usually the passengers chip in a few bucks for the toll. This system is pretty good and works well considering the need for 3 folks in the car to get carpool lane access. The Lyft model is a lot harder to coordinate picking up 3. The biggest issues with Casual Carpool are that there's no revenue for the driver and it's mostly one way (inbound in the morning). The eastbound after work system is not as efficient, there's a common pickup area downtown with stops indicating destinations but it can be hit or miss on whether passengers are there when you're ready to go home.
Long and short of it I think this is a Peninsula solution not really an East Bay to SF one yet.
The largest such system I'm aware of is slugging in the DC area (particularly along the 95/395 corridor to Pentagon/downtown): at various parking lots, a driver pulls up to a line of people, says they have 3 slots and is heading to the Pentagon (say), and 3 people pile in and get to ride the HOV to the Pentagon.
It's entirely free, almost entirely grassroots (governments occasionally ask that the pick-ups/drop-offs move slightly), and remarkably safe (1 known incident in >30 years). Having grown up in the area, I was surprised when I casually made reference to it to someone not in the area and they had no idea what I was talking about.
I've been riding the Casual Carpool for the last 6 years. Love it! The reason drivers don't care about "revenue" is that they are driving across the bridge anyway and care more about the time than money. Another way to think about it is the 30 minutes saved by picking up riders and getting into the carpool lane is payment enough. Also explains the reason why riding back to east bay is not "successful". It isn't particularly faster nor as convenient.
Aren't most tolls everywhere just in one direction? That way, half the number of toll booths are needed compared to both directions (before FastTrak, etc each lane required a human cashier)
By implementing another toll gates, they might actually worsen the traffic jam. When I cross the Bay Bridge, i see lines upto the toll booths, and after them, it's usually clear.
Well that doesn't make any sense either, because there is no toll at the southern entrances to SF on 101 and 280.
I'm not looking for an answer here because I know the answer. The answer is that car drivers are the most self-entitled bunch of externalists the world has ever seen. If there was any sense in this system the toll at the existing toll plaza on the Bay Bridge would have been raised until congestion disappears, but that hasn't happened. On the other hand BART fares are indexed to inflation, because only the riff-raff ride transit.
#2 is the kind of system that's ripe for "disruption" (or whatever your favorite buzzword is for this). Is the answer specifically this app? Maybe not, but "pretty nice systems" don't tend to involve "usually", "chip in", or "common" (not to pick on your specific language, I just mean the "hidden" knowledge and customs that come with informal, organic systems).
It's that informal and inconsistent group knowledge that gets turned into an app, which formalizes the informal parts, removes the barrier to entry (knowing about the informalities in the first place), and (should) build protections in to ensure conformity to the now established system (payment, insurance, etc).
I don't think the first and last mile problem applies to people living within a 5-minute walk from a casual-carpool pickup location. Most people would probably choose Lyft over casual carpool if they lived, say, 20 or more minutes from their nearest casual carpool pickup.
Neat that a "ridesharing" company is finally helping people actually share rides.
I imagine something like this would be a lot easier for municipal governments to swallow, compared to the current "not a cab but yes it's actually a cab" model.
We've been doing this in Vancouver, Canada for 5 weeks now (http://sparerides.com). It is great to see another player doing true ridesharing. Lyft actually started with a business model similar to this (http://zimride.com) but saw much greater growth with the taxi model so rebranded and pushed that instead.
While HOV lanes are a large incentive for drivers, we have seen that many of our drivers here in Vancouver are looking to either cover the cost of parking and driving, or meet new people. These solutions generally work best in dense metro areas with relatively good public transit (I.E you have to be able to get home, if you can't find a carpool home).
Also interesting, Uber is not allowed to operate under the existing Vancouver taxi regulation. Because carpooling does not provide an income to the driver, the car is not considered a vehicle-for-hire, making systems like Lyft carpool and Spare Rides legal in Vancouver and I'm guessing many other cities that have pushed Uber out. This is a really good way for Lyft to grab those markets before the regulation changes.
What do you mean by "carpooling does not provide an income to the driver"? I honestly wouldn't pick up people without compensation, especially for longer distances. So you just charge riders and the driver gets nothing?
I'm curious because I'm planning on starting a similar venture in my home country.
Sorry, the correct word to use there would be profit. The driver does get paid, just not enough to exceed the operating cost of the vehicle and parking, which in Vancouver is roughly $0.58 per km.
"Compensation" doesn't have to be monetary. Here in DC, for instance, the compensation you get for driving a carpool is being allowed to drive in the high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) lanes, which are restricted to vehicles carrying 2+ or 3+ occupants, depending on the road. These lanes are less congested than the main part of the highway, so your payment for sharing your ride is access to a faster, less stressful commute than you would have if you drove by yourself.
It is good to see Lyft moving towards a more civic minded direction in their business model. A lot of "disruption" talk is simply code for deregulation.
I'm the CPO and Co-Founder of Scoop automated carpooling - www.takescoop.com. I wanted to jump in with a few thoughts.
It's exciting to see one of the ridesharing/ride-hailing companies focus their attention on where the pain is still high - the commute. 100M Americans still wake up everyday, grab their keys, and get in their car to drive to work. On average, that drive lasts at least 25 minutes.
The negative impact of driving alone is enormous - congestion in our communities, $250B out of our pockets every year, and a huge toll on the environment. Autonomous vehicles, hyperloops, or whatever the future has in store might change this - but not for a while.
So, carpooling is obviously something I've spent a lot of time thinking about - and I think Lyft is doing some smart things here. I like the Rider scheduling buckets. We do something similar with Scoop - every trip is scheduled with "time slots" that help align Rider and Drivers' schedules.
And of course, Lyft's availability around the Bay Area is nice. For Scoop, we really focus on partnering with employers and 511 (https://carpool.511.org/) to strategically open "routes" into different Bay Area cities. We do this carefully, to ensure that commuters can really rely on their local Scoop community for a carpool every single day.
There are also some important ways that carpooling is really different from ride-hailing, and it'll be interesting to see how Lyft, Uber, etc. address that. For example, who you go with really matters. 45 minutes in a car isn't the same as 10. How you get home really matters too. In the case of no carpool, a regular Lyft or Uber with surge-pricing will make for an unhappy commuter.
Our team of 13 works really hard every day to try to take cars off the road, and are excited by anyone who wants to try to do that too. To that end, we just opened up our newest route today to tackle congestion in a new community. Starting today, you can schedule commute trips with Scoop into Palo Alto. All trips to Palo Alto are just $1 - sponsored by the Palo Alto TMA and Stanford Research Park. And we're excited to have great partners like the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce and companies like Tesla, Palantir and HP.
I wonder what this will do the the already established causal carpool for crossing the bay bridge. At the moment, it's free for riders, the benefit for the driver being that they skip the toll.
On the upside, I had a friend who was a rider, and had lots of stories of terrible drivers. Once he witnessed the driver hit a person and then drive off, and then drop off my friend. My friend called the police, but I guess with Lyft carpool this type of thing wouldn't happen, or at least not as often?
> Once he witnessed the driver hit a person and then drive off, and then drop off my friend. My friend called the police, but I guess with Lyft carpool this type of thing wouldn't happen, or at least not as often?
Lyft would probably rate the drivers like they do normally and stop allowing them to drive for the carpool. You can't prevent accidents like that, but you can prevent those people from doing it again with your service fairly easily.
> I wonder what this will do the the already established causal carpool for crossing the bay bridge. At the moment, it's free for riders, the benefit for the driver being that they skip the toll.
Depends on how big the market is/how it's shaped; if there are more riders who are willing to pay than drivers and drivers can easily find a rider not too far out of their route then the cars at the carpool will dry up.
I can see drivers/passengers travelling together for weeks or months at a time. So you'd probably just want to quit Lyft and enter a private arrangement. Is there anything in Lyft's business model to prevent or mitigate this?
It says riders pay up to $10 per ride and drivers get up to $10 per ride. This makes me think that Lyft won't be taking a cut from the carpool rides. If that's the case, then Lyft is also providing a super easy way to pay the driver without having to remember to bring cash.
Well the math says they won't. If the most a rider can pay is $10, and if Lyft takes a cut, then the max the driver will receive will be less than $10, which is not what they say.
It says "drivers earn up to $10 per trip", which means a driver can earn nothing! Or the rider can pay "from $4-10"; Lyft takes no more than the rider(s) pay; and the driver takes the rest.
The terms of service have a section reserving the right to impose a service fee. Not sure if there will be a fee at launch.
"Service Fee. In exchange for providing the Carpool Platform, Clara Rides may assess a service fee on each Carpool Ride (on either or both of the Carpool Rider or Carpool Driver). The amount of the applicable service fee shall be communicated to you in writing."
I think the convenience of having Lyft manage the logistics will mitigate this to some extent. Lyft carpools are scheduled as late as an hour in advance; if you've entered into a more long-term arrangement, more notice is required especially if you're the driver.
That is a fact of life for all marketplaces. Historically speaking, it has already been proven that the power users who look to form relationships outside of a marketplace are usually edge cases and have little effect on the viability of the business
Yes they did, the founder of Lyft gave a speech at SXSW last year on the evolution of Zimride => Lyft. He said that "the focus of Lyft would continue to be and always has been reducing the number of empty seats on the road." (paraphrasing)
I used Zimride when I was moving from Portland to Los Angeles, I picked up some random guy along the way and dropped him off in SFV. Great way to subsidize gas of the moving truck.
After that it seemed like ZimRide went for the University market instead of having total strangers effectively do e-hitchhiking.
Now it seems Enterprise Car Rental bought the company.
I'd probably be willing to do this if they gave me insurance, tied it to the regular Lyft rating system (and maybe let me set a threshold of 4.5 rider score or something?) and if the Bay Bridge were a HOV-2 v. HOV-3.
I don't do Casual Carpool right now because of 1) insurance 2) not knowing who the passengers are 3) not really knowing how to do it.
I hope Lyft will tweak this to work better for my use case. Otherwise, it will probably be a US-101 solution only.
Curious if this allows for picking up two passengers so that one can use the carpool lane in areas that require 3 passengers (notably, the Bay Bridge). If not, most of the value for both parties is drastically diminished.
It seems the natural progression of this service is not paying each other $5-$10 for a ride, but some sort of service that allowed getting and giving credits for sharing rides.
Most of us in the bay area have cars (because public transportation is stinking horrible). I want more to lessen my burden on the environment/save money on gas by sharing the road. A more natural pair would be to easily find people who share my commute and then rotate rides.
I'm guessing it's because the OP wants riders to also be drivers, so you don't end up with one set of people making less than minimum wage to drive another set of people around (the Uber model). Of course, this won't work with formal "credits," since people will just create a market exchanging "credits" for dollars. This is where an informal reputation system shines: people eventually identify freeloaders, and kick them out of the carpool.
Since this is limited to one passenger only, would this allow for drivers that have two-door cars? I'd love to use this all the time if that's the case :)
I wonder what the ettiquite is when sharing a ride like this? On a bus or in a cab there is no pressure to make conversation with the other passenger/driver, although sometimes they may be chatty. In this situation I'd feel pressure to make conversation with the driver, but what if I want to just read? Would that be rude?
If I found a good driver I would just deal directly with them because (a) I know they share my route and (b) I don't need to get to know them again each time I commute. That would be money off the table for Lyft though.
But I would not use the service because I have kids to drop off and also I may not finish at the same time every day.
Hey Lyft: I have a truck (in addition to my fuel and earth friendly bike). However, I know a lot of people need help getting stuff home from home depot, babiesrus, best buy, etc. How about a summon a truck option?
Interesting. This new service from Lyft has some similarities to the ride-sharing service of French startup company Bla Bla Car. The French company is doing well in European countries but hasn't launched in the US.
I expected a feature similar to UberPool but having the limitations on this being your daily commute is very cool. Encourages a different set of drivers and seems friendlier.
If I recall correctly Lyft made an announcement/small release of Line and shortly after uber sent out a PR page with a signup form to be notified when available.
Really would love this in Orange County, CA. I think it would work very well in SoCal where there isn't a lot of transit but many routes are fairly deterministic.
Someone on HN tried to make a similar service in Africa (I can't remember who you are, sorry!) and found that eventually the commuters just worked together to commute and cut out the middle-person.
$10 per ride is really not a lot of incentive to drive an hour to the city with company that you don't want, who may not want to listen to your music/podcast, or smell your farts, or listen to you sing along to Rebecca Black.
How does Lyft expect to maintain a financial middleman relationship in a carpool relationship? What incentive does a commuter have to keep paying Lyft?
Seems like the advantage here is that you're never beholden to a particular time, or really any prior agreement. You can check for compatible carpools whenever and wherever you want.
I wanted to join their previous Line effort, but re-read my insurance policy and found it falls under prohibited commercial driving. The terms now encompass any participation in online ride-coordinating services. Government needs to step in because individually the insurers have no incentive to allow this.
Lyft is attempting to get around the limits on commercial activity by only reimbursing up to the driver's costs (see the TOS section on Reimbursements). But the terms you describe would seem to preclude even this. Do you mind saying which insurance company has those terms?
As to the question of incentives, I have pay-by-the-mile car insurance (from MetroMile, in SF). They would make more money if I took a detour and drove a little further, or if this service caused me to drive to work more frequently.
During my morning commute I sit in traffic in the regular (non carpool lane) for about 5-10 minutes, whereas the carpool lane passes right by with no traffic. I am only on this stretch for about a mile. So imagine about 5-10 minutes/mile saved as an example.
It really depends on the area though. I am referring to the 85/101 merge near all the Google exits.
>I am referring to the 85/101 merge near all the Google exits.
I've never stepped foot on the West coast, but I found this sentence really amusing! I guess I never realized the extent to which GAFA was embedded in the landscape.
Lyft are spending time and money on things like this (it looks great to be fair) but they can't be bothered to compete with Uber in markets outside of the US.
They need to grow within their budget -- Uber has way more funding than they do.
Lyft is scaling by leveraging technology to be better. Uber is doing that but also burning cash opening in new markets. The only way Lyft can compete is to out-innovate Uber.
If I was Uber I would love to have a competitor as callow as Lyft; they seem willing to cede whole markets up front. For me it's as weak as not internationalising your software; if you wanna downvoted for this view point that's fine btw but I stand by it!
EDIT: downvoters, Lyft has $2.01 BILLION dollars in funding... It's ridiculous to suggest they shouldn't be competing with Uber internationally!
Unlikely unless there is a regulatory change. Commuter benefits, as in an employer paying for transit with pre-tax dollars, currently exclude vehicles that can carry less than 7 passengers.
In my case it doesn't make sense. Fremont to San Jose is $10 per ride or $400 per month. This cost more than what I pay in gas, insurance and maintenance. ($240 in gas on avg)
I totally would have used this last year when commuting from SF to Menlo Park. It's too bad I sold my car and quit my job, would have been fun to meet some cool people and make some extra money at the same time.
"The Carpool Platform is operated by Clara Rides, Inc., not Lyft, Inc. Clara Rides, Inc. is not a Transportation Network Company or a transportation service. Clara Rides and Lyft do not conduct criminal background checks on Carpool Drivers, perform vehicle inspections on vehicles used for Carpool Rides, or provide insurance for Carpool Rides."
[0] https://www.lyft.com/carpool/terms