**TL;DR -- Forcing people to carry on a conversation when they don't want to is just as dehumanizing as treating the driver like a robot. Be polite, tip well, and that should be enough.** Some people have social anxiety, and just need to get from point A to point B without having to face another grueling exercise in human social interaction. This doesn't dehumanize drivers -- it protects individuals suffering of a social/mental disorder from an anxiety-filled car ride. Some people are introverts, and for them, [being social takes energy](https://introvertdear.com/news/introverts-socializing-draining/), and if the person is already in a position where they need to be somewhere to do something important, they don't need to exhaust themselves just to make the driver feel special. People have a social obligation to be polite, yes, but they DON'T and SHOULDN'T be expected to carry on a conversation with every individual they meet. Plus, sometimes a person just doesn't want to engage in conversation. This is true even for extroverts. Sometimes a person is tired or in a bad mood. In such cases it would be better not to engage in a conversation that may turn sour because the person is not in the mood to talk. This would only stress out the driver and the passenger. Not to mention, sometimes the driver doesn't want to talk, either. Maybe we ought to be human and respect that, too. Drivers are definitely people too and are deserving of more than just being forced to robotically chauffeur people around. This is why passengers should **always be polite and tip well**. But to force social interaction between two (or more) strangers in a temporary situation in which they're shoved together in a vehicle is to put a strain on people that isn't deserved or necessary.

**The “quiet-preferred” option may achieve comfort for some, but may also result in negative societal impacts.** Since 2019, the [Uber app](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48315229) has allowed passengers to select a “quiet-preferred” option which signals to the driver that they would not like to engage in any small-talk. Currently, this option is only available for users of the luxury Uber Black service, which comes at an extra cost. Some arguments in favour of the service include: • _Avoiding talkative drivers_: Passengers have the ability to rate the driver’s conversational skills. This has led some drivers to make deliberate small-talk at the expense of the passenger’s comfort. However, the “quiet preferred” option removes this problem (for those that can afford it). • _Good for anxiety sufferers_: Some people suffer from social anxiety, and thus dread the prospect of small-talk. This new option makes such people to feel more comfortable. • _Feeling safe_: Some people, especially women, do not feel safe when in taxis, and even more so when driver’s speak to them. Consequently, this service will help women to feel more at ease during their journey. Conversely, this service has received criticism: • _Classism_: It has been argued that this new service gives wealthy people an opportunity to “buy their way out” of interacting with their poorer Uber drivers, which perpetuates classism and elitism in modern society. • _Setting a precedent_: Lifestyle coach [Felicity Morse](https://twitter.com/FelicityMorse/status/1129287501309448192) believes that this option could have an impact on the way that we treat other social interactions if you do not have the capacity to communicate to someone verbally that you would prefer quiet.

**perhaps the issue is its premium status and the wording.** - a perk is that it saves people with social anxiety from having to tell their driver they aren't comfy talking. it is a scary thing to do sometimes, especially for [solo women who often feel threatened in cabs.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/business-48315229.amp) thus, it is less about the driver and more about the rider's situation. riders are people too with different personalities and lives, so if some people don't wanna chat this doesn't mean the drivers will miss out on conversation with someone else if they feel isolated. it's personal preference. - sometimes drivers themselves don't want to talk, but feel pressured to for ratings which is also dehumanising if anything. like they're having to sell themselves and put on a show so they can be successful when they likely just want to do their job and get money to enjoy their free time. perhaps there is a flaw in the system that is deeper than this one feature. - however, there is an argument to be made that it seems as though the aim is to [control drivers as if they were merely extensions of the car.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/graziadaily.co.uk/amp/life/real-life/uber-quiet-mode/) with a job like working in uber, some people will be severely lacking in empathy and social skills to the point where they will be rude and see their driver as less than human. particularly those who may, consciously or not, feel above talking to the uber driver who they deem as less than them due to classism which is a criticism that has been made a lot. - perhaps the real risk is that it promotes escaping conversations with people outside of our bubbles, which may be helpful short term but in the long haul makes these interactions more painful than they need to be. however, this would assume the feature itself was available to all users, so it is understandable why paying extra not to talk to someone who is providing a service may leave many with a bad taste in their mouths.

**People absolutely should be able to sit quietly, but treating their driver like a machine is unnecessary** It shouldn’t be compulsory to chat if you aren’t feeling up to it. In what can be an intimidating environment, feeling on the spot to command conversation is nerve-wracking. Furthermore, there have been serious incidents where drivers have [abused vulnerable passengers, especially young women]( https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/uber-boston-driver-kidnap-police-b1820451.html). However, these cases have been incredibly small in number… • Many drivers need extra income and are likely to work more than one job, and so treating a burnt out person, who may just want some kind words, like a machine _is_ dehumanising • I think this debate would be a different story if you were actually face to face with the person providing the service, such as a waitress.

**Extra convenience is not justifiable if it turns people into robots.** - There is definitely nothing wrong with preferring not to chat, however there are times when people who are at their most comfortable in silence _can_ afford to be generous with their time and engage in some conversation when it is being initiated. As someone without social anxiety who would still usually not choose to have a conversation in an uber, I know this to be true. In an often isolated, social media-driven world, [small talk can sometimes be good for us](https://www.stylist.co.uk/life/small-talk-is-good-for-our-mental-health-study-finds/175564) as well. - Equally, customers can be tired or can suffer from social anxiety, and uber drivers should be empathetic and not force conversation or interrogate them. Neither customer nor driver owes the other a conversation. However, as the people offering the service and as human beings with social skills, the majority of uber drivers already don't force conversations. Most of the time, people can take cues from each other. While sometimes there is a disconnect, this is not reason enough to opt for turning human beings into controllable robots. - This feature definitely has its positives, but it still basically creates a dynamic where wealthy people can buy their way out of interacting with their driver. It might be more convenient, but it is disturbing that you can pay to mute a human being like a piece of software.