5 ms·

Both offer wheelchair accessible cars. I'm not sure what the formal ADA rule should be on them, but offering these services seems to work out for everyone.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
gnicholas 8y ago
The people who are suing Uber would disagree: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/18/nyregion/uber-disabilities-lawsuit-new-york-city.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/18/nyregion/uber-disabili...
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago
  I would guess that no matter what they did they would be sued.
  - Spivak 8y ago
    Nope, the ADA requirement for transportation is that a company must provide "equivalent service." https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/civil-rights-ada/part-37-transportation-services-individuals-disabilities#sec.37.105 https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/civil-r... The relevant requirements are that the following must be equivalent for everyone regardless of disability. (2) Response time (if the system is demand responsive); (f) Reservations capability (if the system is demand responsive); (g) Any constraints on capacity or service availability; (h) Restrictions priorities based on trip purpose (if the system is demand responsive).
    - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
      It still leaves much to interpretation. A taxi company is subject to the same rules, but only a small portion of their fleet is accessible. If you call a wheel chair accessible taxi, response depends on where those taxis are and if they are available. At any rate, the ADA is a popular topic to sue over (see California drive by ADA lawsuits, for example). You can do everything right but still expect a few lawsuits at least. A lawsuit itself doesn’t prove anything until judgement has happened.
    - gnicholas 8y ago
      The response time requirement could create an interesting tension between ADA proponents and environmental advocates. That is, if Uber/Lyft need to have vehicles that are 2 minutes away for passengers with motorized scooters/chairs whenever they have vehicles that are 2 minutes away for ambulatory passengers, this will require having many larger vehicles. These vehicles pollute more (and if they're EVs some day, they'll draw more electricity). In my experience, only about 5% of the rides I've had end up being on vehicles large enough to stow a motorized chair, so equivalent response time could mean a major shift in the type of vehicles used.
      - usaar333 8y ago
        ADA already forces decisions to be made contrary to environmental concerns. Added construction being a key one. IMO, ADA is a great example of overbearing government regulation. It doesn't leave much room for "reasonable" accommodations and dictates solutions. (Case in point, my condo building can't use a portion of trash rooms as recycle storage, which gives large environmental benefits, because of wheelchair accessibility rules.. but why does this matter on floors where wheelchair bound residents don't live?)
        Spivak 8y ago
        The fact that people consider it 'added' rather than the bare minimum is partly why the ADA is prescriptive. Also, because it would be incredibly burdensome for someone with a disability to have to figure out how each building does their 'accommodations'. > why does this matter on floors where wheelchair bound residents don't live? Because residents aren't the only people who could be using that trash room. Because a resident could be injured while living there. I think it's weird how the default experience is apparently to be exclusionary.
        usaar333 8y ago
        Right, I agree on the intention of ADA. But buildings should be allowed to make reasonable tweaks. My building was built before recycles and computer became a huge thing. Trash room only has a trash shoot. To dispose compost, I need to take an elevator 30 floors down to dispose compost, which takes a lot of time. If the building could allocate a third of trash rooms to store recycles, rotate them if a resident became disabled, we'd be in a situation where able bodied people are better off and disabled people are no worse off. Instead ADA is too restrictive, so we're in a suboptimal spot
Spivak 8y ago
It's not enough to offer wheelchair accessible cars, in short they also have to be as available and as responsive as the non-wheelchair accessible cars.
kradeelav 8y ago
Negative. I'm physically disabled and not in one of their ~3 select cities (still a large city, mind you; ATL is hardly small) with that additional 'service' and the friction to get a workable vehicle is next to impossible. Of course, it's obvious that's working as intended - providing disability services is often treated by businesses as nothing but a cost center. Never-mind the fact that the elderly would be the perfect early users for comparable services + autonomous vehicles.
- catkin 8y ago
  I've tried to request WAVs in various cities around the world (SF, NYC, LA, London, Portland, Paris etc) on both Lyft and Uber and the results are depressing. Overwhelmingly, if there are any WAVs available, they are only in cities where local ordinance requires them, and even then there are usually only a handful in the city. Wait times can be long at times. I think the only place in the US where the experience was remotely good was New York, but even then wait times were closer to 20 minutes instead of 2 minutes as they would be for able-bodied people. The only other thing I can say about this is that Uber/Lyft drivers are required to store a foldable wheelchair upon request. And unlike taxi drivers, they can't just drive by you when they see your chair. In that respect, the experience is better. But there are too many situations when a foldable wheelchair is not possible/desirable, and a true WAV is required.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

gnicholas 8y ago

The people who are suing Uber would disagree: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/18/nyregion/uber-disabilities-lawsuit-new-york-city.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/18/nyregion/uber-disabili...

seanmcdirmid 8y ago
I would guess that no matter what they did they would be sued.
- Spivak 8y ago
  Nope, the ADA requirement for transportation is that a company must provide "equivalent service." https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/civil-rights-ada/part-37-transportation-services-individuals-disabilities#sec.37.105 https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/civil-r... The relevant requirements are that the following must be equivalent for everyone regardless of disability. (2) Response time (if the system is demand responsive); (f) Reservations capability (if the system is demand responsive); (g) Any constraints on capacity or service availability; (h) Restrictions priorities based on trip purpose (if the system is demand responsive).
  - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
    It still leaves much to interpretation. A taxi company is subject to the same rules, but only a small portion of their fleet is accessible. If you call a wheel chair accessible taxi, response depends on where those taxis are and if they are available. At any rate, the ADA is a popular topic to sue over (see California drive by ADA lawsuits, for example). You can do everything right but still expect a few lawsuits at least. A lawsuit itself doesn’t prove anything until judgement has happened.
  - gnicholas 8y ago
    The response time requirement could create an interesting tension between ADA proponents and environmental advocates. That is, if Uber/Lyft need to have vehicles that are 2 minutes away for passengers with motorized scooters/chairs whenever they have vehicles that are 2 minutes away for ambulatory passengers, this will require having many larger vehicles. These vehicles pollute more (and if they're EVs some day, they'll draw more electricity). In my experience, only about 5% of the rides I've had end up being on vehicles large enough to stow a motorized chair, so equivalent response time could mean a major shift in the type of vehicles used.
    - usaar333 8y ago
      ADA already forces decisions to be made contrary to environmental concerns. Added construction being a key one. IMO, ADA is a great example of overbearing government regulation. It doesn't leave much room for "reasonable" accommodations and dictates solutions. (Case in point, my condo building can't use a portion of trash rooms as recycle storage, which gives large environmental benefits, because of wheelchair accessibility rules.. but why does this matter on floors where wheelchair bound residents don't live?)
      - Spivak 8y ago
        The fact that people consider it 'added' rather than the bare minimum is partly why the ADA is prescriptive. Also, because it would be incredibly burdensome for someone with a disability to have to figure out how each building does their 'accommodations'. > why does this matter on floors where wheelchair bound residents don't live? Because residents aren't the only people who could be using that trash room. Because a resident could be injured while living there. I think it's weird how the default experience is apparently to be exclusionary.
        usaar333 8y ago
        Right, I agree on the intention of ADA. But buildings should be allowed to make reasonable tweaks. My building was built before recycles and computer became a huge thing. Trash room only has a trash shoot. To dispose compost, I need to take an elevator 30 floors down to dispose compost, which takes a lot of time. If the building could allocate a third of trash rooms to store recycles, rotate them if a resident became disabled, we'd be in a situation where able bodied people are better off and disabled people are no worse off. Instead ADA is too restrictive, so we're in a suboptimal spot

Spivak 8y ago

It's not enough to offer wheelchair accessible cars, in short they also have to be as available and as responsive as the non-wheelchair accessible cars.

kradeelav 8y ago

Negative. I'm physically disabled and not in one of their ~3 select cities (still a large city, mind you; ATL is hardly small) with that additional 'service' and the friction to get a workable vehicle is next to impossible. Of course, it's obvious that's working as intended - providing disability services is often treated by businesses as nothing but a cost center. Never-mind the fact that the elderly would be the perfect early users for comparable services + autonomous vehicles.

catkin 8y ago
I've tried to request WAVs in various cities around the world (SF, NYC, LA, London, Portland, Paris etc) on both Lyft and Uber and the results are depressing. Overwhelmingly, if there are any WAVs available, they are only in cities where local ordinance requires them, and even then there are usually only a handful in the city. Wait times can be long at times. I think the only place in the US where the experience was remotely good was New York, but even then wait times were closer to 20 minutes instead of 2 minutes as they would be for able-bodied people. The only other thing I can say about this is that Uber/Lyft drivers are required to store a foldable wheelchair upon request. And unlike taxi drivers, they can't just drive by you when they see your chair. In that respect, the experience is better. But there are too many situations when a foldable wheelchair is not possible/desirable, and a true WAV is required.