One of the things I’ve been trying to do with The GigMan’s Life is find a balance between planning ahead and leaving room for current events.
For a while, I was scheduling articles weeks in advance. That gave me consistency, but it also meant that when something important happened, I either had to move articles around or wait much longer than I wanted before discussing it.
Lately, I’ve been adjusting that strategy.
Rather than extending the publication schedule as far into the future as possible, I’m intentionally leaving room for newer articles. That keeps the website active and allows current topics to be published while they’re still relevant. Evergreen articles are still being written, but they don’t all have to be published immediately.
One of those upcoming pieces is a proposal on regulating e-bikes and other micromobility vehicles. Instead of arguing for broad restrictions, it focuses on matching responsibility to the capability of the vehicle while preserving affordable transportation for people who need it.
That’s exactly the type of discussion I enjoy having—looking for practical solutions instead of simply complaining about the problem.
An Update on the Uber Car Seat Incident
I also wanted to provide an update on the recent trip involving a passenger who did not have the legally required child safety seat.
Uber ultimately compensated me for my time.
I appreciate that the issue was reviewed and corrected.
That said, I still believe the process needs improvement.
When a driver cancels because a passenger does not have the legally required safety equipment, that should immediately be recognized as a safety cancellation. Drivers shouldn’t have to spend additional time trying to justify a decision that was made to comply with the law and protect everyone involved.
When I select the reason that the required child safety equipment isn’t present, that should trigger a review focused on exactly that issue.
Drivers are often placed in an uncomfortable position. We have to explain to a customer why they can’t take the trip, even though the requirement isn’t our personal policy—it’s the law. Many passengers don’t want to hear that, and some become frustrated because they now have to figure out another solution.
Unfortunately, that interaction can also increase the likelihood of receiving a poor passenger rating simply because the driver enforced a safety requirement.
No driver should have to choose between following the law and protecting their customer rating.
Safety Shouldn’t Require Extra Work
One of the lessons from this experience is that good safety policies also need good administrative policies.
If a company tells drivers to refuse unsafe trips, then the review process should support those decisions quickly and transparently.
The cancellation should clearly identify:
- The reason for the cancellation.
- The time the ride was accepted.
- The time it was canceled.
- Whether the cancellation involved a documented safety issue.
- Any compensation associated with the review.
That kind of transparency would reduce confusion, shorten review times, and reinforce that safety decisions are being supported rather than questioned.
Looking Ahead
Production continues to move forward.
New articles are being scheduled, existing ideas are being refined, and I’m continuing to leave room in the calendar for timely topics that deserve immediate discussion.
Sometimes the best content comes from experiences that weren’t planned at all.
The important part is taking those experiences, learning from them, and turning them into something that can help someone else.
As always, have a fun, safe, and profitable day.