The same thing that happens in the non-Waze case: you kick them out, call the police, get mugged etc.

The pure software world exists from Google's perspective, they provide zero support and then it's just a matter of individual choice if you want to use the service or not.

Google can go a long way into making this significantly safer than random pick-up: you can select female only drivers or riders, only riders from your area, they can implement a minimal account age that uniquely identifies the wazer simply via ride history - even if they use an anonymous login and fake credit card data, and so on.

It's a bit harder to protect against rogue riders since they need to be able to use the app immediately, but still, phone number and credit card verification is much better the letting a random stranger into your car. If not too intrusive, they could even ask riders for a frontal picture that the driver can verify and that remains on record. So for people who would carpool anyway, it's a much better option.

> The same thing that happens in the non-Waze case: you kick them out, call the police, get mugged etc.

It's not so simple. Normally people, at least in cities, rarely hitchhike or take up hitchhikers. The goal here is to make it acceptable, and naturally greatly increase the frequency this is happening. This can be reasonably taken as an endorsement by Google to the driver/passenger, because it is -- they want this to happen more often, and are essentially saying "it's OK to hitchhike through our app". This means that they can reasonably be seen as taking part in the entire transaction and assuming some portion of the liability.

Read up on DC slug lines. We are talking 10,000's of people doing this daily with very minor government support for the last 15+ years. Mostly awareness and signage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slugging

>In the San Francisco Bay Area, with the third-busiest rush hour,[3] casual carpooling occurs on Interstate 80 between the East Bay and San Francisco. As of 1998, 8,000 to 9,000 people slugged in San Francisco daily.[5] However, after bridge tolls were levied on carpool vehicles in 2010, casual carpooling saw a significant decline and etiquette became more uncertain

Woah boy I have racked up so many toll violations, I just assumed I didn't have to pay a toll for HOV. Wonder why they haven't mailed them through?

Smaller toll but still a toll. Do you not have a fastrak. I can't understand how anyone in the bay area who drives doesn't have a fastrak it saves so much time. You don't even need to keep it with you just register the license plate with the website.

I don't have a fastrak because I falsely assumed that HOV always has free tolls (except at the Bay Bridge), and I drive a motorcycle.

I was reading an article about 10 years ago about this ride-sharing in the DC metro area. We discussed how a smartphone app could make all this much easier and smoother. We didn't follow up on it back then...

It wasn't (and won't likely to be) the only big missed opportunity in my life.

Survivorship bias makes us forget about the other dozens of "taxi/carpooling apps" that did not succeed.

"The Upstarts" [0] talks about some of those.

[0] https://www.amazon.com/Upstarts-Airbnb-Companies-Silicon-Cha...

To your benefit - it's not as easy as to take a few weekends and to code an ride-sharing app to app store.

Lots more business planning and resources are required to pull it off.

I have to think that putting it into an app is meant to encourage people who would otherwise never do this to do so -- the same way people happily use Uber who would never dream of using a gypsy cab under normal circumstances (and passengers then get upset/surprised/complain if Uber doesn't satisfy the expectations their implicit endorsement creates).

It's been happening in Houston for 15+ years, too. I suspect any city with decent HOV lanes and bad traffic has slug lines.

I think it's more like 40+ years, ever since the HOV lane went in.

"In practice, slugging involves the creation of free, unofficial ad hoc carpool networks"

Unofficial is the operative word here.

"Slugging"

What a charming name.

/s

You are pushing the argument a bit by assuming that people will treat it as something different than hitchhiking simply because it's via an app and in-city. There is no reason to asume that - but I do agree that false advertising from Google and failure to properly inform the users of the risks could expose Google to such a liability. The answer is not to add customer support, but to be honest with the users regarding the risks- and make large commissions in the process.

I think that people will almost certainly treat it as something different than hitchhiking, and Google wants them to. In fact, the service depends on it, because if people treated it the same, it would happen at the same frequency as it happens today -- which is hardly at all -- and the service will fail.

I think you're overestimating how much people can and do rely on Uber support when something goes wrong in an UberPool.

And underestimate people's willingness assume all the risks with carpooling with a stranger. I see people lined up for a shared carpool to the DC suburbs every day.

I contact Lyft and Uber support multiple times a year for various reasons, and I barely even use Line/Pool.

Shit happens. If a company is acting as facilitator and money-handler, they are going to get a lot of customer queries, and they are going to alienate most of them if they aren't prepared for it.

Do they do something more than give you a full or partial refund after the fact? I think Google can handle that too.

> You are pushing the argument a bit by assuming that people will treat it as something different than hitchhiking simply because it's via an app and in-city.

Are you suggesting that Google will market this as "it's just like hitchhiking, and is no different, don't @ me"?

> There is no reason to asume that

Sure there is, the main one being a public reputation for your prospective hitchhiker that you can check before deciding to pick them up.

"Casual Carpooling" at least used to be popular - you can read about it here: http://sfcasualcarpool.com/

Originally, for the East Bay to San Francisco trips, cash would not exchange hands because the Bay Bridge toll was waived for carpools. Now that the carpool toll is $2.50, my understanding is that it's a little more awkward.

it's still very popular, with a suggested donation of $1 per passenger. not awkward at all (I take it almost every day)

You are assuming hitchhiking is unsafe. It may be less safe than other forms of transportation, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's especially unsafe. News outlets love stories about strangers abducting children because of how they draw eyeballs, but that happens to be extremely rare. But the anecdotal examples make you overestimate the risk of it.

And this is safer than hitch-hiking. The vast majority of people planning on assaulting strangers dont want to leave electronic trails so they can be easily found.

I somewhat recently learned about the propaganda from the FBI in the 60's and 70's to discourage hitchhiking. (possibly a covert assault on civil rights protesters hitching to rallies) It's easy to be scared of failure, suffering or what can go wrong... but not everyone is excited about what could go right.

Ultimately, I believe a big reason why hitchhiking is not very prevalent is that both the cost of air travel and vehicle ownership has gone down significantly over time. (adjusted for inflation)

> I somewhat recently learned about the propaganda from the FBI in the 60's and 70's to discourage hitchhiking.

Would love to read more about that... Got anything trustworthy?

I think the point is: As long as the person is with you, they share the fuel cost. You already decided to use a car, so you're driving, but the other person is now able to split the cost with you and hitch a ride.

Unfortunately the reality of the situation is: Even with Uber / Lyft there are instances of groping and rape. Once you are in someone's car they have power over you. They don't have to stop. They can threaten to crash the car, etc. And without any vetting this is a risky move.

This can absolutely not survive without some sort of support.

While others say "people already hitchhike" the truth is yes, and there's no liable company so people get paranoid and such. This app will enable a bigger scale which causes more issues.

> Normally people, at least in cities, rarely hitchhike or take up hitchhikers.

Hitchhiking is also illegal in most states.

Speaking as a former hitchhiker who used it to travel through 39 states, it's actually legal almost everywhere. What is illegal is to stand in the path of travel of a roadway, and in some locations standing on the shoulder is also illegal. But on a sidewalk, onramp, etc, as long as you're not physically in the road, it's almost always ok.

Some exceptions being Utah, Delaware, New Jersey, and maybe another, where you're specifically banned from soliciting rides using signage.

Sadly, the best resource for seeing what the laws are in each state was digihitch.com, which went down in 2014, I believe when the founder passed. Quite sad, they had pamphlets for every state with relevant laws written down -- it came in handy a few times when police stopped me. They were always respectful, but I did have to clarify the laws a few times, since it's clear if read, but not widely understood.

are you looking for this: https://web.archive.org/web/20140220034659/http://www.digihi...

No.

Hitchhiking is technically illegal in 4 states and rarely enforced even there.

http://hitchwiki.org/en/United_States_of_America#Police.2FLa...

I'd love to hear the justification for this.

I encourage you to read the reviews on the Waze app. "User keeps sending me lewd messages and can still see my trips even though I blocked him" "the system automatically deactivated my account and I couldn't contact anyone".

Sure it's early days and these hiccups will be reduced. But they'll never completely go away and you need human support to resolve these situations. Better filters and software intelligence will help, but they won't be trained enough or effective for a long time.

Implementing proper features to block a user is the first thing a social app needs to get right. Esp if you can physically track users. That's basically an invitation for stalkers.

> The pure software world exists from Google's perspective, they provide zero support and then it's just a matter of individual choice if you want to use the service or not.

This is something only an engineer would say. In the real world, once you provide a service, you absolutely are on the hook— both ethically and in the mind of the average consumer— for providing some level of service when it goes wrong. “Don’t like, don’t use” is not an acceptable answer, especially in a business like this where outcomes like robbery, rape, etc. are all possible.

> once you provide a service, you absolutely are on the hook— both ethically and in the mind of the average consumer— for providing some level of service when it goes wrong.

The moral and legal liability has precise limits. No software application or payment service could be ever expected to prevent any and all criminal activity in relation to it's use. Google is on the hook, but to a more much limited extent than you suggest, namely they need to do their due diligence in providing a safe service, as far as it's reasonably expected, and inform the users as to the limitations of the service and that the other participants are not endorsed or vetted by Google. That is a level of risk and limited liability they can legally offer, because the much riskier anonymous hitchiking is generally legal.

Google is absolutely not responsible for the rapes and muggings perpetrated by users of Adwords or Waze.

>Google is absolutely not responsible for the rapes and muggings perpetrated by users of Adwords or Waze.

If you or a family member used Waze Carpool, and got raped or murdered, are you going to sit there quietly and say "oh well, not Google's fault"?

As a engineer providing a software solution, it's great to sit in an office desk and say "there are precise legal limits", it's exact, precise, formal, and correct. Like a math problem almost. This is the exact line.

But imagine if you used somebody else's service, and you got raped. Or your family member got raped. Are you really going to not sue and let the newspapers know what happened? It's not just 1's and 0s anymore, it becomes a moral/emotional issue.

Could ask the same question to an auto engineer who's relative dies in a car crash. Should he quit his job, should we ban cars?

While auto safety is important, cars save much more lives than they take - and the economic opportunities they enable drastically change the median quality of life in societies where they are used.

In the same way, carsharing is not an enabler of crime, it's much safer than hitchhiking and would be a drastic improvement in the lives of people who are economically dependent of hitchhiking.

A good example is the Highway of Tears murders - in the last 40 years 20 to 40 women disappeared or were found dead hitchhiking the same stretch of highway in Canada. They were typically underprivileged and of aboriginal origins, and lacking other forms of transportation. The vast majority of cases remained unsolved.

Should something like internet carsharing had been in use by a victim, the police would have had acces to a vast trove of forensic data, including their last match to a known Waze user, identified by credit card, phone fingerprint and cell tower and GPS location history, as well as the victims own location trail up to the point where her phone is taken away/shut down. While a determined high tech killer could operate with these constraints, it's orders of magnitude more difficult. A determined killer is by definition unstoppable by any service or company.

Yes but if your relative dies in a car crash, you can sue for damages. And you probably would, even if, say, you signed some kind of safety agreement before buying the car waiving the right to sue.

Just because the law "precisely" says it's not the carmaker's fault, doesn't mean the carmaker is not "on the hook" or share some of the legal burden.

I am not saying that we should ban cars or ban carsharing. I am saying, if you offer carsharing as a software service, and something goes wrong during that service, you are involved legally. It's not a precise "on/off" switch like launching a software product.

They ought to blame the murderer/rapist since people using an app to connect individual consumers aren't employees or customers of said business. They will probably try to blame whomever has the deepest pockets but that doesn't mean that we ought to or that the law will.

Weak legal arguments aside, if Google allows criminals or even just bad drivers/passengers to use the app then people are going to lose their trust in it and stop using it.

Criminals, bad drivers, and bad passengers probably all use casual carpooling opportunities, yet those continue to operate in many urban areas. With even minimal attention to the problem, any app-based solution will have better opportunity to identify and filter out those problems, so while it's a potential issue, I think it's unlikely to be particularly problematic.

If the app is aiming to making carpooling more accessible, you will see an increase in occurrence of these issues.

The point I'm driving at is that it's still a marketplace and it comes with all the same standard hazards that apply to any marketplace. There are disputes and exceptions that have to be managed. Machines are not good at that yet.

Casual carpooling opportunities don't have enormously wealthy corporations behind them.

Setting the support obligation or morality questions aside for a moment (though I'm on the side of "by facilitating and profiting from this, you accept some responsibility for the quality of that facilitation"), that big difference is still critical: suing the operator of a neighborhood carpool mailing list or somesuch has limited yield. Suing Google has potentially massive yield. So a corporation should think about that sort of risk, just like they would the PR risks, etc, of letting it be an unregulated wild west.

Your position sounds a lot like "light or even largely-community-based self-moderation will be enough" and yet platforms like Twitter and Reddit that have attracted some large controversies and PR shitshows even without real money or real physical harm being involved. Heck, "don't read the comments" is standard internet advice to the point of being cliche.

> The same thing that happens in the non-Waze case: you kick them out, call the police, get mugged etc.

If you shift a large enough volume of traffic into that mode of transportation and externalize 'support' to emergency services then you are taking a free ride on a scarce resource. At a minimum there should be a first tier of support within the company offering the service, if only to serve as a mechanism to immediately halt providing the service to or from that particular passenger or driver until the matter has been dealt with.

That's only true if the service is likely to induce behavior that require such intervention - otherwise it's absolutely ok, for example, to call a public ambulance when a taxi customer gets sick, as oposed to arranging private insurance for your customers.

There is no proof ridesharing would induce criminality, quite the contrary, it's a much safer alternative to random hitchhiking.

Waze has some sort of social integration. I wouldn’t be surprised if eventually you could scope things to some extended network.

I’d be happy giving a fellow student or employee of my company a lift, but probably less likely to give random members of the public.

Completely agree with this; not only are you more likely to share a common origin or destination, but it also becomes an opportunity to meet someone new within your network.

> Google can go a long way into making this significantly safer than random pick-up: you can select female only drivers or riders,

So I can choose to ride with only people of my approved gender? What about my approved age ranges? Or races?

> Google can go a long way into making this significantly safer than random pick-up: you can select female only drivers or riders

This specific example will likely never happen. It's such a can of worms, even before you get to people purposefully misrepresenting themselves on their profiles and creeping people out.

> The same thing that happens in the non-Waze case: you kick them out, call the police, get mugged etc.

So how do you keep the bad drivers/passengers from using the app again?

This should be taken care of once we start implementing a people rating system similar to the one seen in Black Mirror's Nosedive:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosedive

It depends whether you see Waze as a transportation service or not. Many European regulators would see this as a paid transportation service. And then Google has to deal with customers who were not satisfied with any part of the service.

From the site:

"Make a little money" - paid service, maybe even considered a part-time employment

"Get there quicker" - transportation service.

> it's going to need to staff entire buildings with agents if it doesn't want to completely piss off a nascent user base

That part from the original comment explains it though. I'm already pretty pissed at Google for them not being available at all while some music company is adding claims to all my videos. This is just annoying, but being groped by a person that a Google app set me up with would be infinitely worse.

I admittedly haven't had much experience on the other side but would it be possible to use the identity system that AirBnB uses to "vouch" for people?

This is exactly how Uber turned into a taxi service. They tried ridesharing, it turns out that people in cars do sketchy things and piss each other off, or worse.

I would rather see local grassroots organizations take on this project.

Lyft started as an offshoot of Zimride[0], a long-distance ridesharing platform.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimride

Similar to BlahBlahCar? Seems to be very popular in Europe.

Funny, just yesterday my Lyft driver pitched an idea exactly like this.

Cynically, if this is true, is it possible they switched because of the sheer profitability opportunities of the taxi-industry vs car-pooling.

Looking at this, i would think that if (and I'm certainly not saying it would/will happen) car-pooling became enabled and socially popular, it presumably both has naturally thinner margins than a taxi service, plus take out significant demand for individual trips from the likes of a taxi service.

Any references to stories/articles about their ride sharing efforts? Was it prior to their incorporation as UberCab or an experiment from further along?

It seems (from the pitch deck posted in another comment) that I had conflated "ride sharing" with "unregulated use of your car and free time to work for a cab service". It seems I was biased by all the "sharing economy" BS and jumped to a conclusion I shouldn't have jumped to.

ZimRide preceded UberCar. They largely targeted college campuses. Universities would pay them an annual subscription fee to enable ride sharing on their campus.

No links but I'm pretty sure they started off as actual ride-sharing, as in an app to help people car-pool. I'm assuming there was an "a-ha" moment when they realised the laws protecting state-authorized taxi services could be circumvented if you hailed the taxi via a phone app rather than by flagging them down.

Uber started as a better car service and had little to do with ride sharing. Go read their pitch deck. https://techcrunch.com/gallery/here-is-ubers-first-pitch-dec...

> This is exactly how Uber turned into a taxi service. They tried ridesharing, it turns out that people in cars do sketchy things and piss each other off, or worse.

Citation needed. My understanding is that the margins on actual ride-sharing, compared to being a taxi company, were too low for them.

And that they actually started as a black cab car company.

I don't doubt you but can you reference the source for this?

I'm actually kind of fascinated that an app that potentially sovles a problem via enabling a social solution is actually being phrase as a "software world solution".

More so, I'm amazed that what would previously have been deemed a "social issue" that you just have to deal with every day in dealing with other people in a car pool or society in general is now being framed as a commercial issue that needs customer support/someone to blame other than the people involved in the actual car.

Rather than being a software world solution, it seems we're heading further and further down the path where what is deemed a "solution" is the thing that tries to remove any element of social-interaction/community and places that in the context of commerical/legal interaction.

Have we really gotten to the point where its so radical to suggest that we survive without a commercial entity to blame when we car pool? And that this entity is doing something that helps us by enabling car pooling, rather than hurting us or which is responsible for what happens to us when we carpool?

Edit: I mean, the other thing about carpooling...these are people who have likely been:

a) have a verified form of identification b) commonly live and work in your own community c) will grow to commonly carpool with you

actually, there's an issue from the provider's point of view. After the initial contact and period of time...i need them in this as a third party...why exactly?

> What happens when the commuter I pick up vomits in my car?

Guess you have to use some of that hard earned ridesharing money to deal with the occasional downside such as this. It's not just free money, and anyone that thinks in terms ot cash for ride and that's the only things to think of is naive. You've thought it these scenarios, other people should too, and take that into account when deciding if it's worth it.

> Or steals something from my car?

File a police report.

> What happens if I get picked up by a person who changes their mind about where they're going?

Let them out at the first feasible opportunity, as long as there is some infrastructure (or they accept the location). Let them deal with finding transport from there.

> Or decide to take an unplanned detour to go to the store, or back home to grab the laptop they forgot, or to score some heroin?

Let them out as above, they can secure additional transport on their own.

> What happens when the driver gropes me? Or I grope the driver?

File a police report.

> You absolutely need actual support, it's not going to be minimal-to-zero. Both the driver and the passenger need to be able to pick up a phone number and speak to a real human being who can resolve some sort of issue.

You do need support, but clear and up-front expectations can reduce that quite a bit. I agree Google is horrible at this, and hasn't shown themselves as able to supply even the minimal amount of support I noted above.

I'm honestly surprised that Google doesn't create separate companies to handle actual product sales (and keep the Google name for the product if they feel the need) just to get past this horrible part of their culture. They just can't support anything adequately. Then again, we keep using their products even with this crappy support, so it's not like the market is punishing them enough to make them care. :/

> > What happens if I get picked up by a person who changes their mind about where they're going?

> Let them out at the first feasible opportunity, as long as there is some infrastructure (or they accept the location). Let them deal with finding transport from there.

Nope, gp was talking about getting picked up by someone who changes mind. You can't let them out, it's their car.

Oh. Drop the passenger of at an appropriate interim location, and you're forced to fund part or all of their subsequent trip accommodations to their original destination.

And suddenly we are back to the human help desk again.

Who is going to decide what is reasonable cost for covering the replacement trip. Is a bus ticket ok? cab ride? limo? Should the cost of time be counted for?

Reasonable cost is something you would define through policy, and would likely be based on percentage of trip traveled, initial cost, and some percentage as a premium. Even in human staffed companies this isn't left entirely to the discretion of the person handling the case.

I 's not entirely simole, but let's not act like it's impossible either. People use Google apps and services with shitty support all the time, because Google is fairly good at reducing the times you need support and also because they are pretty good at saying "you pay $X, we provide Y, and Z is what you can expect if there's a problem, and if you don't like that, go find a competitor."

Make breaking the contract painful on both parties, and hopefully it will be rare. In the case where it happens, you try to make sure the normal penalty covers it, and where it doesn't you eat the cost and look at why it failed and fix it if you can.

These things could happen, but since the product/service is about carpooling, I tend to pick up the same people repeatedly. Any time you work with a new person, there is a risk. That risk goes down significantly with repeated rides. I initially had issues with pick up and drop off location, due to Waze letting you pick how many minutes you're willing to walk. With new riders, I have a chat before accepting so they understand the nuances of Waze Carpool.

That's probably a similar, if not the same problems that AirBnB has to deal with regularly; how do they solve it? IIRC though, for that one it's more of an outlier - most people are decent people.

Good point.

I think it’s intersting that you go to medium for even small claims is a phone call.

I find the level of support we can get over chat to be pretty good nowadays, my bank, insurance, company HR also deals with all non lofe threatening issues by mail and messaging only.

We’re finaly getting away from a phone centric world, and I feel the service is actualy better while cheaper and more efficient.

I specifically chose "phone call" because it's an instant response, and you're certain you're talking to a human being - someone who can empathize, and who can elevate, and who's focused on you, right now.

A chat box? That can be a bot. That can be someone in a call center in Hyderabad or Abilene. That can be someone juggling five conversations at the same time, whose ability to escalate starts and ends at a button, the effects of which they don't even really understand.

We are not. I consistently choose phone support because it is nearly always superior.

> What happens when the commuter I pick up vomits in my car?

You clean it up and make a decision about whether you'd pick them up again.

> Or steals something from my car?

You call the police and tell them who that person is and where they live.

> What happens if I get picked up by a person who changes their mind about where they're going?

You tell them to drop you off and you don't ride with them again.

> Or decide to take an unplanned detour to go to the store

If you're fine with it, you go along with it. If you're not find with it, see above.

> or back home to grab the laptop they forgot

See above.

> or to score some heroin?

If you like heroin, ask them to pick you some up too. If not, see above.

> What happens when the driver gropes me?

Get out, report them to the police, don't ride with them again.

> Or I grope the driver?

Please don't do that.

Is it really Waze's job to resolve these issues beyond blacklisting users?

> > Or I grope the driver?

> Please don't do that.

Do you think that's going to be Waze's official FAQ entry on this topic?

From a PR standpoint, absolutely yes.

For these reasons I would seriously like to see is a carpooling system for regular trips, e.g. to and back from work. Intuitively, at least for me, that has fewer risks.

These are exceptions. If they happen, they are your problem. And if they eventually cost Google money, then that's no problem because they are exceptions anyway. So that's how Google gets away with it.

Wow what a skit!

Oh hai! I’m going to the city center!

Ooooh what a nicer phone charger than I have

Oh shoot I forgot my laptop can we go back it will only take a second

OH! I forgot - please stop at 123 B street - don’t worry it’s on the way... this will only take a sec!

Wait! I said I was going to Blake square, but now I’m going to jack square! - I’m so sorry, but don’t worry I’ll rate you five stars!

They have probably worked those issues out by dogfooding this internally already, don't you think?

It's not like they just thought it up and didn't test it out internally as they are wont to do. Those issues were likely discovered and have mitigation. Googliness only gets people to be nice to a point.

> They have probably worked those issues out by dogfooding this internally already, don't you think?

They absolutely could not work out the problem of being, e.g., abused by a driver, internally. By being employees of the company that provides the service, they have an automatic customer service hotline by way of HR.

If I catch a ride to work with my coworker Jeremy, by using a company-supplied app explicitly for us to test, and Jeremy gropes me, you bet your ass HR is going to hear about it as soon as I hang up with the police department.

You make a good point. However, you imply that the watchful eye of HR would prevent this happening and yet Google is not sex-crimes free. I grant that it may show up in lower numbers but these things will show up in a years-long program.

There's also the general stigma against, e.g., stealing from a coworker, or vomiting in a coworker's car, or being a shitty driver.