Saturday, August 20, 2016

Uber’s $100 Million Driver Pay Settlement Rejected by Judge + Uber driverless cars Aug 19 16

Track Your Mileage Automatically
Drive away with more deductions when your mileage is logged automatically and trips are categorized with a single swipe.
Today's Headlines:

Uber’s $100 Million Driver Pay Settlement Rejected by Judge

By John Ince on Aug 20, 2016 09:00 am
Harry here.  My contact form was broken this week so if you sent me a message through the contact form and never heard back, please e-mail me again!
A couple huge stories broke this week and we’ve got some good analysis as usual from senior RSG contributor John Ince.  Not a huge surprise that the $100 million settlement was rejected since Judge Chen has made his feelings about Uber and their business model pretty clear from the onset of the trial (hint: he doesn’t like it one bit).  But it will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
Lots to talk about on this week's round up! The Uber lawsuit, are passengers more aggressive than drivers, and self-driving cars all in the news this week -

Uber’s $100 Million Driver Pay Settlement Rejected by Judge[Bloomberg]

Sum and Substance: Uber Technologies Inc. may come out ahead by failing to win court approval of a $100 million settlement with drivers. Even before a San Francisco federal judge rejected the deal on Thursday, the drivers’ lawyer said the ride-hailing giant may have the upper hand to walk away from further negotiations because an appeals court hinted that it might overrule a key pretrial ruling in the fight over whether drivers must be treated as employees.
If the three-year-old lawsuit collapses, the world’s most valuable technology startup would escape without any significant changes to its business model or financial sacrifice while keeping hundreds of thousands of California and Massachusetts drivers classified as independent contractors. While Uber faces driver lawsuits elsewhere, as well as challenges to its pricing and business practices, the California case was seen as the most likely to upend its gig-economy workforce model because of the state’s relatively tough labor laws.
Before an appeals court added a new wrinkle to the California case, the biggest task for drivers’ attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan was to convince U.S. District Judge Edward Chen that the agreement she reached with the company in April is fair and reasonable. Dozens of drivers and other lawyers claimed the deal would let Uber off the hook too easily. Liss-Riordan told Chen in a June 17 filing that if the U.S. Court of Appeals overturns a ruling by him that invalidated Uber’s arbitration agreements with drivers in a different case, the result would be to eviscerate her class action, reducing it to “a few thousand drivers.”
The three-judge panel’s comments and questions at a June 16 hearing showed that it may be poised to overrule Chen, and even that “leaning” may give Uber leverage and dramatically diminish Liss-Riordan’s “ability to negotiate modifications to the agreement,” she said.
While acknowledging the risk a trial presents for both Uber and the drivers, Chen rejected the deal as unfair. He said he wasn’t convinced that the change to the tipping policy will result in the “substantially increased income” promised by Liss-Riordan.
A legal scholar who’s been following the case said Uber may now decide that rather than negotiate with Liss-Riordan, it’s better off trying to force the vast majority of drivers she represents into arbitration, where the company can fight them one-on-one. “There’s a good chance that the parties would be unable to reach a new settlement — at least not one that covers all 385,000 drivers now in the class,” Charlotte Garden, an associate professor at Seattle University School of Law, said before Thursday’s ruling.
Uber and Liss-Riordan were roundly attacked in court filings and at a June 2 hearing before Chen over claims the agreement benefited them at the expense of drivers. While Liss-Riordan argued that she negotiated the best deal possible and faced a significant risk of recovering nothing for drivers at a trial, she later offered to cut $10 million from her $25 million fee request and earmark that money for drivers.
My Take:  The net result of this development is that the matters in this high profile case are even more murky now. It vastly increases the risks both for Uber and for the drivers.
If the appeals court rules against the plaintive (drivers), then the number of drivers covered by the lawsuit decreases dramatically, and the previous $100 million settlement would look like a good deal for drivers.  But if the appeals court upholds Judge Chen’s previous ruling that the arbitration clause is unenforceable, then suddenly Uber is up the proverbial creek.
If that happens, Uber would likely attempt to settle and put a lot more money on the table. Personally I’d like to see this case go to trial, if for no other reason then I’d like to have a very public hearing and discussion of the issues involved.  Uber execs probably wouldn’t been too keen about that, so we can all expect some form of settlement that’s either be very large or very small depending on how the appeals court rules.
Let me put this now to you the drivers: when you were confronted with that arbitration agreement on your smartphone and told you either agree to it or you can’t go online to start driving, did you click through to the agreement and read all the fine print? Or did you just agree to it and start driving?  One would think the appeals court would consider this in their ruling, but apparently the questions they posed in the earlier hearing suggest otherwise. And so the convoluted process of “justice” marches on.

Uber’s first self-driving cars will start picking up passengers this month [TechCrunch]

Sum and Substance: It’s been a while since news broke in early 2015 that Uber was working on self-driving cars. Earlier this year, the company openly admitted it was testing cars in Pittsburgh, but we haven’t heard much more over the last 18 months. With Google, the self-driving car leader, slowly making progress with its autonomous cars, you’d be forgiven for thinking Uber’s efforts are far behind and barely visible in its frenemy‘s rearview mirror. Well think again! It turns out Uber has been making very rapid progress on its plan to replace its one million-plus drivers with computers. Bad news if you’re an Uber driver…
In an interview with Bloomberg, CEO Travis Kalanick revealed that the company is preparing to add self-driving cars to its fleet of active drivers in Pittsburgh as soon as this month. The company will deploy around 100 modified Volvo XC90s outfitted with self-driving equipment. Each vehicle will be staffed by one engineer, who can take the wheel as/when needed, and a co-pilot to observe and take notes. There will also be a “liquid-cooled” computer sitting in the trunk recording trip and map data.
That will mean that regular Uber punters in the city have a chance of getting an autonomous vehicle for their ride — their trip will be free if so. Precious little was known of Uber’s plans for self-driving cars, but the company told Bloomberg that it will outfit cars with autonomous driving kits rather than develop its own vehicles as Google is doing.
To do that, Uber has quietly snapped up Otto, a promising startup that launched this year to bring self-driving technology to trucks. Otto’s technology can be fitted to existing trucks, and, according to Bloomberg, the technology will be adapted to create a lidar — laser detection — system to power autonomous Uber vehicles.
The Otto acquisition is hugely notable, not only for the technology but the personnel involved. The company was founded by former Googlers Anthony Levandowski, Lior Ron, Don Burnette, and Claire Delaunay. Levandowski led Google’s self-driving car efforts, Ron was an executive on Google Maps and Motorola, while other staff have spent time with Apple, Tesla and other notable automotive firms. The deal is set to close as soon as this month, after which Levandowski will lead Uber’s driverless car efforts. In addition, two new R&D centers will open up to speed the technology’s development.
My Take:  This is a major development, that could materially affect the entire industry.  However, I’m wary of announcements like this from Uber.
Uber CEO Travis Kalanick has leaked information before which has the effect of generating investor interest or allay investor concerns. This has all the markings of such an announcement. When he releases information like this there are precious few details.
Surely regulators are going to have a lot to say before true driverless cars start hitting the road, and the regulatory process is notoriously slow.  These cars in Pittsburgh won’t have to score with regulators because there will be someone sitting in the driver seat – hence they are not really driverless cars.
Before Uber or anyone else gets the go ahead, there will have to be a ton of data to support the contention that these are truly safe.  In the meantime, the novelty aspect is sure to generate a lot of media attention and investor interest.  Mission accomplished.

Uber investigating drivers’ post disclosing riders’ information [WSMV, Meredith Corporation]

Sum and Substance: Uber is launching an investigation following reports of drivers posting their entire routes to social media. An east Nashville news blog has posted screenshots of the drivers’ social media posts. They show the drivers posting routes and addresses after they have dropped off their riders. Some of the posts are fairly innocent, but still include the rider’s address.
An Uber spokesperson said this is not an acceptable practice and it violates driver terms. The company said it will look into the issue and will be reaching out to drivers to resolve the issue.
Uber officials said company policy forbids disclosure of “confidential information of the other party to any third party. Confidential information includes company data, driver IDs, as well as user information (i.e. information about a user made available to you in connection with such user’s request for and use of transportation services, which may include the user’s name, pick-up location, contact information, photo, etc.)
My Take:  This story is trending on the social media because it raises a lot of potentially explosive issues about compromising passenger data.  As a writer who is collecting passenger stories from my time as a driver, I have to be extremely careful never to use real names or disclose enough information that a passenger could be identified or an address given. Privacy laws in this country are a serious matter, and with Uber / Lyft’s hair-trigger reactions to potential violations, drivers need to use an uncommon amount of common sense when posting on the Web.

Uber says most of its safety incidents involve ‘abusive riders on drivers’ [Chicago Tribune]

Sum and Substance: The 65-year-old Uber driver was on his third day on the job when a young passenger allegedly brutally attacked him. In an attempt to flee, the driver razed through several residential mailboxes in a cul-de-sac in Stafford County, Virginia, police said. He sustained injuries to his neck and lower left leg.
The July 20 incident is one of the latest in which passengers have assaulted drivers of the popular car service- an obscure side issue of the debate surrounding safety in ridesharing, which mostly has focused on the protection of passengers. “The truth is that most of our safety incidents are abusive riders on drivers,” David Plouffe, Uber’s chief adviser, told a group of journalists gathered in Washington last week.
The San-Francisco-based company declined to provide data to back Plouffe’s assertion. But company officials say they use technology to track passengers’ bad behavior. Specifically, Uber depends on its rating system, which allows riders and drivers to rate each other after a ride using a scale of 1 to 5 stars. When a rating is low, Uber can investigate and terminate the user’s access to Uber.
“Really abusive riders can get kicked off the platform,” Plouffe said. Uber spokeswoman Brooke Anderson confirmed that riders have been deactivated for bad conduct, but declined to provide data. She said a decision to end someone’s access is not only based on the rating, but takes into account feedback from the driver and rider.
My Take:  This is a central question in the industry – who’s usually to blame for incidents on the ridesharing platform? Blame is seldom 100% one way or the other, because incidents don’t escalate unless both parties participate. If indeed, as David Plouffe says, the passenger is more often the instigator, they why is the driver the first to get booted off the platform?
Of course, the answer is simple – both Uber and Lyft must make their platforms seem safe.  Anything that even remotely compromises their safety stance has to be nipped in the bud.  What do you think? Is Uber and Lyft’s stance here fair?

GM expressed interest in buying Lyft, but Lyft declined [TechCrunch]

Sum and Substance: Close partners GM and Lyft were apparently nearly even closer: The Information reports and TechCrunch has separately confirmed that the carmaker expressed its interest in purchasing Lyft, going so far as to specify a price it would’ve been wiling to pay. Lyft apparently explored what other strategic partners might be offering before deciding to say no to GM and opt instead to raise new funding.
Lyft declined to comment to TechCrunch on the report, but a source close to the matter confirms that the on-demand service provider turned down GM. GM also declined to comment on any acquisition reports, but noted that they were extremely pleased with how the strategic partnership with Lyft was going. The Information’s info suggests that GM’s interest in the car sharing market extends beyond simply partnering up with an external party. Other carmakers like Daimler have opted to own their own car sharing subsidiaries, with the German automaker operating Car2Go, and commanding a controlling stake in the merged Hailo/MyTaxi European on-demand ride provider.
In statements to The Information, both companies expressed continued excitement and enthusiasm about their ongoing partnership. Most recently, this partnership has resulted in the expansion of their Express Drive program, which offers potential Lyft drivers without their own qualifying cars the ability to rent vehicles to use for Lyft with fees based on usage.
Lyft and GM also plan to test self-driving taxis, with autonomous systems installed in all-electric Chevy Bolt vehicles. Self-driving Bolt tests using tech provided by GM acquisition Cruise have already begun in SF and Arizona. Depending on the size of the offer on the table, this could prove a risky move by Lyft. It already faces steep competition from Uber, which has far more cash on hand thanks to a series of monster equity and debt raises. Meanwhile GM could decide it wants to own its own operation, and either look around for another acquisition target like Daimler, or build an in-house on-demand ride service, which is what Ford appears to be doing with its Smart Mobility subsidiary.
Of course, the fact that GM made overtures and Lyft decided to pass this time around doesn’t forego future merger potential. But it does make watching the partnership’s progress far more interesting from here on out.
My Take:  Given that Lyft hired Quatalyst Partners to explore additional financing options including the sale of the company, this rebuff may indeed be a negotiating ploy on Lyft’s part.  Lyft knows that Uber has a deep war chest.  Lyft knows they’re bleeding $50 million a month in red ink.  Lyft knows that GM has deep pockets and a sale of the company would provide investors with the liquidity that they desperately want.  Stay tuned on this one,  I suspect there will be more offers forthcoming and at some price Lyft will bite.
Readers, what do you think of this week’s round up?
-John @ RSG

Monday, August 15, 2016

Sex crimes, marijuana, ridesharing and the other biggest issues we're following through the California Legislature la times aug 10 16

Making ridesharing easier and safer

What the legislation would do: Lawmakers want to make it easier for people to drive for Uber, Lyft and other ride-hailing companies as well as boost background checks and other measures to address public safety concerns for riders.
The bills to watch include:
• AB 2763: Prospective ride-hailing drivers would be able to take out short-term leases on cars to work for the companies.
• AB 1289: This bill would increase background check requirements on ride-hailing drivers.
• AB 650: This would create a statewide taxi commission to make it easier for cabs to compete with Uber and Lyft.
The latest: Most of the ride-hailing legislation has advanced to the floor of the state Senate. One bill, AB 828, was killed in the Senate Appropriations Committee. It would have formally exempted ride-hailing drivers from needing to buy commercial license plates. Drivers don’t have to under current regulations, so there won’t be any immediate changes.
Back story: Ride-hailing companies have scored notable successes at the Capitol in recent months as they’ve attracted both business-aligned Republicans and tech-friendly Democrats. Lawmakers continue to weigh efforts to promote the industry as well as react to high-profile labor and public safety concerns.

Lyft CEO Logan Green has a plan that's far bigger than ride-hailing la times aug 14 16


Lyft CEO Logan Green has a plan that's far bigger than ride-hailing


Logan Green applied for his first job out of college by submitting a resume and a document titled “Logan’s Life Plan.” 
It was a grandiose heading, especially for a 22-year-old angling for what was a junior role as sustainability coordinator at UC Santa Barbara. But the plan itself was more wonkish than ostentatious. Absent were typical life goals: owning a nice house, taking lavish vacations, starting a huge, successful company.
Instead, it called for creating a sustainability newsletter, serving on transportation and greenhouse gases subcommittees, and getting funding so the university could put solar panels on dorm roofs.
“He definitely stood out,” said Marc Fisher, UCSB’s vice chancellor of administrative services, who hired Green for the role more than 10 years ago. “Especially for his age, he had a lot of poise, and the combination of his intellect and social capacity was extremely unusual.”
Green, co-founder and chief executive of the ride-hailing company Lyft, had always been obsessed with making the world cleaner, greener and more efficient, said Matt Van Horn, a friend of Green’s since high school.
"Transportation was a big one for him," Van Horn said. "He was a power user of public transportation. He's one of the only people I know who knew how to take a bus in L.A."
When Green left Culver City for college at UCSB he also left behind his 1989 Volvo 740. 
“I wanted to absorb all the alternatives to car ownership,” he said. “My hope was to come up with a transportation solution that didn’t require everybody to own a car like L.A. does.”
Green talks about this with the tone someone might use to order a sandwich. He made giving up his car sound like it was no big deal.
“But it was crazy,” Van Horn said. After all, what kind of 18-year-old native Angeleno does that?
Growing up in Culver City, Green learned to sit in traffic — first in the car seat, then in the back seat, then, when he got his license, in the driver’s seat. 
Traffic was all anyone around him seemed to talk about. It was a fact of life, the trade-off for year-round sunshine in one of the most lively cities in America.
But for Green, this wasn’t good enough. Why did it have to be this way? What if people just gave up their cars? What if it started with him?
Now 32, he runs a company that plans to do away with car ownership, first by getting commuters to share rides, then eventually by having fleets of self-driving cars offer carpools at a the tap of a button.
It’s an ambitious plan that has drawn big bucks from investors, including $500 million from General Motors that brought the company’s valuation to $5.5 billion.
But Green’s company doesn’t just traffic in world-saving ideals. If it will survive, it must eventually turn a profit. Green is adamant that Lyft will find a way to do so on its own terms — as a socially responsible company.
“That’s one of the things that keeps me up at night,” Green said.

In the tech world, where companies sink millions of dollars into creating a brand identity, Lyft has cast itself as the friendlier, more thoughtful ride-hailing company.
It’s an image born in part from the firm’s relentless marketing efforts. Its “Your friend with a car” slogan is plastered on billboards, bus stop signs, and online ads.
But it’s also born from Green himself, according to people who have known him since middle school. 
Green was the kid who transcended social circles. He played ice hockey with the jocks, but also loved science and taught himself to code. He was the sweet kid, the calm kid, the 8th-grade kid who asked his parents to move the family TV into the garage because he thought it was too distracting. 
He was also a product of his home: the son of a veterinarian and doctor who composted and recycled before it was cool, who regaled him with stories of helping organize farm labor unions, who biked the 350 mile trail from L.A. to Mono Lake as part of a campaign to save the lake.
And where most kids sat in L.A. traffic sighing and groaning, Green was plotting and scheming, always asking what if, what if, what if?
As soon as he got to college, finding an alternative to car ownership became a mission he continues to obsess over today.
At UCSB he helped the campus fund-raise for a new bike lane. He convinced the university to donate six cars to a car-sharing program, similar to Zipcar, so students on campus could leave their cars at home, too.
His enthusiasm for buses and car sharing caught the attention of the Santa Barbara City Council, which appointed him to its Metropolitan Transit District’s board of directors. He became its youngest-ever member.
“He walked in bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. He was a quick learner, very collaborative, always smiling,” David Davis, chairman of the SBMTD said. “Although I see he’s lost his hair since he left us.”

Logan Green grew up stuck in Los Angeles traffic. He hopes his company can help make traffic disappear.
Logan Green grew up stuck in Los Angeles traffic. He hopes his company can help make traffic disappear. (Marcus Yam / Los Angeles Times)

Green joined the board with huge ambitions for the public transit system. If the MTD could get more funding, from higher fares or taxpayer revenue, it could add more services, extend existing lines, and bring the city a step closer to doing away with car ownership.
But his three years on the board were an education in the economic and political pressures public systems face. When the board tried to increase fares, the public pushed back. When the board put a measure on the ballot to increase taxes, voters defeated it.
He learned that while people said they supported public transit, few were willing to pay for it. This left the district locked in place.
This also meant Green couldn’t count on the public sector to accomplish his mission.

The concept of sharing a ride isn’t new. Many U.S. cities have some form of casual carpooling program. But the problem is not enough people do it.
What if, Green wondered, people whose cars were already on the road could charge a fare in exchange for giving others a ride? More bottoms in seats meant fewer cars on the road, which means less congestion, less pollution and, ultimately, a changed world.
During a post-college trip to Zimbabwe, he’d seen ordinary Zimbabweans do this, so he knew it worked. Maybe he could replicate it, make it work for Americans.
This was the beginning of Zimride, a Facebook app he built that let people take long-distance carpools with each other.
Zimride’s early investors recall making a bet on Green and fellow co-founder John Zimmer because of their mission, and also because of the enormous business opportunity Zimride presented.
In their original pitch presentation, Green and Zimmer talked about changing the way people travel, encouraging carpools, doing away with solo drivers. And, yes, taking a big piece of the trillion-dollar U.S. transportation pie.
“Doing the math, even if these rides they were doing were only a couple percentage points of all transportation, it was huge,” said Rajil Kapoor, a former board member and investor in Zimride. “Logan and John knew they had to pitch this as a massive business first. And they did.”
But there was a problem. In 2007 no one had a smartphone. Coordinating rides over Facebook was cumbersome. And demand for long-distance rides was low.
The breakthrough didn’t come until nearly five years later when they experimented with Lyft. With smartphones and GPS systems now ubiquitous, Green and Zimmer launched a separate app in which ordinary people could offer rides in their cars on demand — no need to go through a Facebook Web application.
Whether or not they knew at the time, moving into on-demand peer-to-peer ride-hailing pulled the trigger on a ruthless race. 
Logan as a leader and person grew up in wartime. From the outset, Uber just went after them.
— Scott Weiss, partner at Andreessen Horowitz
Back in 2012, Uber was only a black town car service. “But we knew [Uber CEO] Travis [Kalanick] and his team could turn on a dime, so we had to move fast,” Kapoor said.
Uber launched its own peer-to-peer ride-hailing product, UberX, a month later.

At first, Lyft and Uber had more differences than similarities.
Lyft was a service that let ordinary people book or offer rides — a casual arrangement in which strangers felt welcome in the front seat and greeted each other with fist bumps. With its whimsy pink mustache logo, Lyft cultivated a friendly public image, backed up by low-profile founders who regularly hopped behind the wheel and offered rides themselves.
Uber was a luxury service offering limousine-style comfort and on-demand convenience. It lived up to its lofty name with its high-end service and rapid expansion, establishing a reputation for brashness as it flouted local regulations, lashed back at critics and openly clashed with the taxi industry.
But as Lyft and Uber fought each other to recruit passengers and drivers, the competition led them to march in lockstep.
When Lyft promised to debut its carpooling feature, Uber stole its thunder by announcing its own carpooling feature a day earlier. When Uber lowered its fares in Los Angeles and San Francisco to attract passengers, Lyft followed. Uber launched fare-splitting in 2013. Lyft did the same in 2014. Both companies have accused each other of sabotaging their operations by booking and canceling thousands of rides. 
“I don’t know if I’ve been part of a company that has had such a tough competitor,” said Scott Weiss, a partner at Andreessen Horowitz, which invested in Lyft. “From the outset, Uber just went after them. Logan as a leader and person grew up in wartime. It was just one emergency after another, and after a while he became like a field general.”
Having to change strategies on the fly to keep up with the competition can be frustrating, but Weiss believes it has also made both companies better. And for Green’s part, he’s never lost his sandwich-ordering calmness.

Finding a way to build a profitable company that lives up to its ideals is "one of the things that keeps me up at night," Logan Green says.
Finding a way to build a profitable company that lives up to its ideals is "one of the things that keeps me up at night," Logan Green says. (Marcus Yam / Los Angeles Times)

“He’s not grizzled, smoking a cigarette, complaining about Uber,” said John Siegel, a close friend from high school who introduced Green to Zimmer. “He and John are very thoughtful, strategic people. They’re focused on something that’s bigger than Uber.”
Which isn’t to say that the threats facing the company aren’t real. Uber is 10 times the size of Lyft with more money, more drivers and more customers. And thanks to a deal that hands over the Chinese market to rival Didi Chuxing, Uber will have an extra $1 billion a year to steer toward other markets or projects — or deploy against its rivals. 
“Lyft might have to be content with the markets it’s in, or maybe try to get acquired by General Motors,” said Ajay Chopra, a partner at Trinity Ventures, which has not invested in Uber or Lyft.
GM and Lyft have partnered to develop and, eventually, distribute autonomous vehicles. Neither Lyft nor GM have publicly talked about acquisition ambitions, but more and more analysts believe it’s the only way for Lyft to take on Uber.
Or Lyft and GM could get to self-driving cars first, giving them the advantage over every ride-hailing company.
Zimmer told The Times he believes Lyft can provide a full alternative to car ownership over the next 5 to 10 years.
It’s an eyebrow-raising statement, but also “totally in the realm of possibility,” particularly given GM’s resources,said Karl Brauer, an analyst with Kelley Blue Book. 
If that happens, Lyft will have to transition from a company that “treats drivers better,” to one that has no drivers. But it’s “not going to happen overnight,” Zimmer said.
Until that day comes, venture capitalists and gig economy experts believe Lyft’s best bet lies in differentiating itself.

Lyft’s investors say the company’s ideology matters because millennials — the largest demographic in the U.S. — care more than previous generations about what a business stands for.
But as Lyft’s and Uber’s offerings have become nearly identical (last month, Lyft even rolled out a luxury “premier” line), those differences may prove harder for drivers and passengers to spot.
“The two are essentially the same,” said Douglas Cordero, 36, who drives part-time for Uber and Lyft. “The only difference is the Lyft app has a tipping feature.”
Cordero said both companies have cut driver rates to the point where they struggle to make a living. Neither have offered any worker protections or employee benefits. And both have been slapped with (and are in the process of settling) class-action lawsuits that accuse them of misclassifying drivers as independent contractors — a classification that means drivers can’t unionize.
Green declined to comment on the ongoing litigation, but acknowledged that neither employee or independent contractor categories are a perfect fit for what the drivers do. He said the company has lowered fares to remain price competitive. And as ride-hailing becomes commoditized, the company has tried to be the better platform for drivers, taking a smaller commission from those who drive full-time, and to date paying out more than $100 million in tips.
Lyft investors acknowledge that some of the company’s idealism has given way to pragmatism.
All Lyft drivers once had to mount fluffy pink mustaches on their cars. Now they use modest pink stickers. Passengers now sit wherever they want, and fist bumps are less common. Green and Zimmer used to interview every driver in person. They’ve handed that job over to driver mentors.
“Obviously, they’ve relaxed as they’ve expanded to new cities and realized they were competing for drivers,” Weiss said. “But their idealism still carries forward today.”

Green didn’t accomplish everything in his Life Plan during his time at UCSB. But the university held on to the document long after he left.
Ten years on, UCSB is now installing solar panels on dorm roofs, just like Green had laid out. The processes he created for how students can submit funding proposals and the organization’s bylaws are still in use today.
“So Logan’s Life Plan apparently turned into our life plan,” Fisher of UCSB said.
With one life plan behind him, now he begins another.
In this plan, he’ll have to navigate Lyft through challenges both personal and existential. There’s the ongoing lawsuits from disgruntled drivers. There’s the competition from a cashed-up Uber. There’s the race to self-driving cars.
And if all that goes right, there’s that dream of weaning the world off car ownership and solving that traffic problem once and for all. 
Green acknowledges it’s a “crazy long shot.”
Like his Life Plan, if the dream is fulfilled, there’s a chance it might happen well after both he and Lyft are gone. But he hopes it happens on his watch. 
Twitter: @traceylien
ALSO