本文转自【FM93交通之声】； 据1818黄金眼报道，杭州的陈先生反映，他打网约车上班，等了20多分钟车没来，走到司机的定位点也没找到，结果上班 迟到"乐捐"了100元。他算了一笔账之后，想向网约车平台索赔。 陈先生介绍，他们公司对于上班迟到，不是直接扣钱，而是让迟到人员在小组群内部按阶梯30元、50元、100元、200元发 红包，封顶200元一次，本月他已经第3次迟到。 陈先生说，公司上班时间是9点，有的时候因为电梯慢稍微晚一点，他也认了。但是12月4号这次迟到，他觉得有点窝火。 当天，他通过美团打车下单，从杭州上城区春晖社区的住处出发，前往在萧山区的公司。接单的是一辆如祺经济型网约 车。 "其实这个月就1次是真的迟到了，其他都是各种意外导致的，包括这次也是意外。上个月迟到好像是五次还是六次啊，反 正也挺多。" 陈先生介绍，自己当天是8:07叫的车，8.08就有车接单了，8:10左右他下楼，看到地图上显示司机在动，就想着等司机来， 但等到大概20多分的时候，定位显示司机挪到了离他大概700米的位置就不动了。 期间，他也多次打电话给司机，每次都是响了一下就挂掉了，陈先生觉得这是种欺诈行为。 后来，陈先生又花4 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the growing issue of discrepancies between estimated and actual fares in the ride-hailing market, particularly focusing on the controversial practice of drivers requesting "return empty fees" for cross-city rides, which has become a common yet problematic phenomenon in the industry [1][10]. Group 1: Market Conditions - In the first half of 2025, Shenzhen's transportation authority reported 556 violations related to ride-hailing operations, a 73.21% increase from the previous year, alongside 53,526 valid passenger complaints, averaging nearly 300 per day [1]. - The average daily order completion per vehicle in Shenzhen increased from 11.82 to 12.69 orders, with 57,111 vehicles completing at least 10 orders daily, up from 48,402 [3]. Group 2: Driver Practices - Drivers are increasingly requesting additional fees for cross-city rides, citing low income due to high platform commissions and the prevalence of order transfers between platforms [3][10]. - A driver reported that the practice of requesting return empty fees has become a "hidden rule" in the industry, reflecting the financial pressures faced by drivers [3]. Group 3: Passenger Experiences - Passengers have reported being pressured to pay return empty fees, with some agreeing to additional charges out of safety concerns during late-night rides [6][7]. - A passenger experienced a significant fare increase due to a driver deviating from the planned route after refusing to pay a return empty fee, resulting in a final fare of 315 yuan instead of the estimated amount [6][4]. Group 4: Platform Responses - Ride-hailing platforms like Meituan and Didi have stated that they do not permit drivers to request return empty fees, labeling such actions as deceptive [5][9]. - Didi's customer service confirmed that while drivers can negotiate return fees, the amount should not exceed the actual highway tolls incurred, which has raised concerns about the fairness and transparency of this practice [9]. Group 5: Legal and Regulatory Perspectives - Legal experts indicate that while the collection of return empty fees may be legally permissible under current regulations, it is deemed unreasonable due to the lack of standardized pricing and the potential for exploitation of passengers [10][11]. - Recommendations include the need for regulatory bodies to prohibit the collection of return empty fees and for platforms to take responsibility for managing driver compensation more effectively [11].

Core Viewpoint - Recent controversy arose over Meituan's aggressive payment reminders via SMS, prompting discussions about customer service practices and communication tone [1] Group 1: Company Response - Meituan confirmed that the SMS reminders were sent to passengers who had not paid their ride fees within five days after the trip [1] - The company stated that after the ride, passengers receive three app notifications and one SMS reminder if payment is not made, emphasizing the importance of supporting drivers [1] - Meituan acknowledged that the tone of the reminders was perceived as harsh and indicated that adjustments would be made to improve communication [1] Group 2: Customer Experience - Customers reported receiving stern warning messages about overdue payments, which included threats to lower their personal credit on the platform if payments were not made by a specified deadline [1] - The reminders were intended to prompt payment but sparked debate over the appropriateness of the messaging style [1]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the backlash against Meituan Dache for sending aggressive collection messages to users regarding overdue payments, which some users find excessive and inappropriate for small amounts owed [1]. Group 1: User Reactions - Users have expressed their frustration on social media, describing the collection messages as akin to those from debt collection agencies, particularly when the owed amount is as low as 10 yuan [1][9]. - One user highlighted that they were unaware of using Meituan Dache and found the urgency of the payment reminder to be unreasonable, questioning the platform's business practices [1][9]. Group 2: Collection Practices - The collection messages sent by Meituan Dache create a sense of urgency, warning users that failure to pay by a certain time could lead to penalties, including a reduction in personal credit on the platform [1][3]. - The messages often include threats of account suspension or being reported to credit agencies if payments are not made promptly, which users find alarming for minor debts [10][15]. Group 3: Historical Context - The aggressive messaging strategy is not new, as users have reported similar experiences in the past, indicating a pattern in Meituan Dache's approach to overdue payments [1].