The only question about payment is "Who?"
As much as you can fight it, at the end of the day the answer will always be "the end consumer." The only question is whether you pay it on every ride as an up front increase or whether you pay it on the unfortunate ride as an addition. Both are perfectly acceptable solutions and can even coexist in the market in different companies.
People have gotten spoiled by the fact that ridesharing was burning VC cash to subsidize exceptional cases. Once those costs all quit being subsidized, they're all going to materialize back to the end consumer.
What no one ends up paying for when incentives are aligned however, is taking the tourist from the airport on an unsolicited tour of the city rather than directly to their destination.
Or the taxi driver who accidentally ends up on that one road that always has an idiot who caused a fatality when there were others that were less busy at the time.
_That_ is what most people are worried about, not having to reimburse someone for an unforeseen circumstance.
Not to mention ridesharing apps have incentivized safer driving with their review systems much more than taxi drivers who generally felt they were beholden to no one or "their own" (which is why they felt comfortable doing things like taking people on joyrides) ever did
There's a lot of ambiguity about accident rates when a passenger is not in the vehicle with an Uber driver, but the rates for actual trips are lower than national averages: https://techcrunch.com/2019/12/05/ubers-fatal-accident-tally...
Amortizing the cost of rare negative pricing events across all trips seems a much better model to me. I'd personally choose that option every single time.
The time-and-distance model asks me to learn average wait times, approximate route information, and consider potential worst case outcomes for both time and distance. It also requires me to police the route the cab driver is taking to ensure they aren't taking advantage of me. And I need to do all of this in every city I visit.
The upfront model asks me to be able to compare prices between different offerings (a skill I already have), and doesn't change at all between cities.
If they take a suboptimal route, you as the rider aren't charged more.
The incentives are also better aligned, since the driver now would always prefer the quickest route, since they get the same payment regardless of the route.
> If I didn't, then the price was specified--$X from Zone A to B and $0.Y for time spent not moving.
That's...exactly the non-upfront pricing that got taxis killed. Upfront pricing is $X to your destination. It's not route and time dependent as almost all taxi pricing was.