Well, I’m pretty sure it doesn’t cost uber any more or less to serve blind people, perhaps aside from some initial investment in getting their app to work with

Well, I’m pretty sure it doesn’t cost uber any more or less to serve blind people, perhaps aside from some initial investment in getting their app to work with VoiceOver (appears to work fine). Obviously it costs uber far more to serve people in wheelchairs. So yes, making life better for parapalegics might make life worse (or at least more expensive) for blind people. And here we have the double edge of regulation. It is not a very precise tool. Want a benefit for some group, but don’t want to have to, you know, actually pay for it? Easy! Just add a new regulation that makes all business owners pay for it! Voila, taxi regulations. Imagine instead if the government simply gave disabled a stipend to help fund their transportation costs. A diverse market would emerge. Some businesses, eager to tap into the fountain of government stipends, would charge higher prices and offer wheelchair friendly vehicles. Other businesses would offer cheaper services, which would benefit groups like the blind. And not just the blind but single mothers, veterans, and even just regular ol’ people that want to go somewhere. Regulations make taxis more expensive for everyone, including groups that deserve a break like the blind or the poor. Stipends paid for by tax raises can be targeted at specific groups, like the very rich. I have a lot of sympathy for the disabled and support policies that benefit them. But the existing regime of Taxi regulations of are extremely poorly thought out and inefficient.