by annie » Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:29 am
> If this is still a need for alot of people attending
> DLV, then it was wrong or premature to
> have gotten rid of the carpool schedule for
> rides for DLV several months ago.
If you're talking about the elimination of the "Ride Share Program", that was back in the summer of 2009.
Our Ride Share Program was simply a list of volunteer drivers and those who needed rides, and not really a carpool schedule or anything like that. It worked well during the early years, but as we grew, it just didn't work.
The main reason it was scrapped is that it resulted in more b*tching than it did the effective use of shared rides. Since I was the one who heard most of the complaints, I'll highlight a few issues.
Riders were complaining that there was no convenient way of getting in touch with a driver, and I admit that this was a valid point. Other complaints included drivers who were late, did not show, or backed out at short notice.
Drivers complained that some riders were too demanding, expecting them to be at the riders' beck and call. That was the gist of most of the complaints I recall. Others were such things as riders being late (thus causing the whole car to be late) or not showing at all. In the early 2000s we had a slew of complaints regarding unwanted smoking in nonsmokers' vehicles but that appeared to be connected with one individual.
After 2005 or so, several of those who were regular volunteer drivers stopped volunteering, and simply offered rides to those they knew on a case by case basis.
The ORG group had two choices, either adopt a more organized and formalized ride share program, or ash-can the existing program, leaving transportation up to the individual. The choice was for the latter, by acclamation, with no dissension. Individuals are still free to organize ad-hoc car pools for various activities, informally.
There's also the question of the liability assumed for a more organized ride share program.