3 ms·

This seems like a really clear cut case: the woman in the article is blind. The drivers would have known that when they showed up and she has a geared-up guide

This seems like a really clear cut case: the woman in the article is blind. The drivers would have known that when they showed up and she has a geared-up guide dog and she can't see. If a driver cancels the ride at this point, there is no ambiguity that they're just shitty people: they're turning away a blind person because they don't want a dog in their car. Guide dogs (specifically for the blind) are some of the most well-trained animals on the planet, by far. This isn't an emotional support chihuahua. The woman both legally and _morally_ has the right to have her dog with her. And certainly, there's absolutely zero excuse for the one exceptionally awful driver mentioned in the article who dropped the woman off somewhere else and lied that she was at her destination just to end the ride early.

chii 6y ago
> The drivers would have known that when they showed up and she has a geared-up guide dog and she can't see. If a driver cancels the ride at this point, there is no ambiguity that they're just shitty people but if the uber driver did not expect this, then aren't they getting a shitty deal if forced to accept the ride? If the blind person had to specify ahead of time that they have a service dog, and let the drivers accept it knowing so, then there shouldn't have been any problems. And if there's no drivers willing to accept this condition, then obviously the price is too low - the price would have to be increased such that it is acceptable for a driver to take the risk/damage of a service animal to their vehicle.
- donmcronald 6y ago
  > the price would have to be increased such that it is acceptable for a driver to take the risk/damage of a service animal to their vehicle IMO the huge corporation making outsized profits is in the best position to absorb the increased cost, so if you mean Uber should pay their driver more and eat the loss, I agree. If you mean the disabled person should pay more, I don’t agree. Accommodating outliers with disabilities is one of the very few things a huge company can do better than a small business. It should be expected of them IMO.
  - chii 6y ago
    > if you mean Uber should pay their driver more and eat the loss they don't really eat the loss - it merely spreads the cost onto all the drivers in that case, rather than specific drivers (e.g., the payment for all drivers would decrease by a small amount). May be it's going to be a very small amount, such that nobody cares. In that case, it makes business sense to do so - and sell the PR that uber is more disabled-friendly than their competition. A corporation cannot be altruistic.
- curryst 6y ago
  Charging riders with service animals more is illegal under the ADA. The "correct" handling for this would be something like raising everyone's rates (probably a tiny amount; there aren't that many service dogs) to create a pool of funds which Uber dips into to pay for cleaning the driver's car after the ride and to compensate them for the time they can't be driving. In many ways that would be quite favorable to drivers, I think. They get a free car cleaning, and guaranteed pay while the cleaning happens. Riders would suffer some, but I doubt it would be a substantial change in prices. It's a relatively expensive process, but it impacts such a low portion of rides that I don't think most people would even notice. Amortizing the cost is how most aspects of the ADA are handled. It's not like people in wheelchairs have to pay more because a restaurant had to put in an accessible bathroom. We all pay a little more for that to happen.
- bastawhiz 6y ago
  > but if the uber driver did not expect this, then aren't they getting a shitty deal if forced to accept the ride? No. Drivers know in advance that they are not allowed to turn away folks with service animals. This is part of driver onboarding, and it's the law nationally (at least in the US). If they didn't know, it's negligence on their part for not understanding their responsibilities as a driver. And on top of that, rides should NOT be more expensive for disabled folks. A blind person shouldn't need to pay more to receive equal accommodation. If there was a material cost (there isn't) the ride services should increase the cost of all rides to accommodate their disabled passengers. The ADA is extremely clear about this. Have some empathy for folks who didn't have a choice in their situation.

chii 6y ago

> The drivers would have known that when they showed up and she has a geared-up guide dog and she can't see. If a driver cancels the ride at this point, there is no ambiguity that they're just shitty people but if the uber driver did not expect this, then aren't they getting a shitty deal if forced to accept the ride? If the blind person had to specify ahead of time that they have a service dog, and let the drivers accept it knowing so, then there shouldn't have been any problems. And if there's no drivers willing to accept this condition, then obviously the price is too low - the price would have to be increased such that it is acceptable for a driver to take the risk/damage of a service animal to their vehicle.

donmcronald 6y ago
> the price would have to be increased such that it is acceptable for a driver to take the risk/damage of a service animal to their vehicle IMO the huge corporation making outsized profits is in the best position to absorb the increased cost, so if you mean Uber should pay their driver more and eat the loss, I agree. If you mean the disabled person should pay more, I don’t agree. Accommodating outliers with disabilities is one of the very few things a huge company can do better than a small business. It should be expected of them IMO.
- chii 6y ago
  > if you mean Uber should pay their driver more and eat the loss they don't really eat the loss - it merely spreads the cost onto all the drivers in that case, rather than specific drivers (e.g., the payment for all drivers would decrease by a small amount). May be it's going to be a very small amount, such that nobody cares. In that case, it makes business sense to do so - and sell the PR that uber is more disabled-friendly than their competition. A corporation cannot be altruistic.
curryst 6y ago
Charging riders with service animals more is illegal under the ADA. The "correct" handling for this would be something like raising everyone's rates (probably a tiny amount; there aren't that many service dogs) to create a pool of funds which Uber dips into to pay for cleaning the driver's car after the ride and to compensate them for the time they can't be driving. In many ways that would be quite favorable to drivers, I think. They get a free car cleaning, and guaranteed pay while the cleaning happens. Riders would suffer some, but I doubt it would be a substantial change in prices. It's a relatively expensive process, but it impacts such a low portion of rides that I don't think most people would even notice. Amortizing the cost is how most aspects of the ADA are handled. It's not like people in wheelchairs have to pay more because a restaurant had to put in an accessible bathroom. We all pay a little more for that to happen.
bastawhiz 6y ago
> but if the uber driver did not expect this, then aren't they getting a shitty deal if forced to accept the ride? No. Drivers know in advance that they are not allowed to turn away folks with service animals. This is part of driver onboarding, and it's the law nationally (at least in the US). If they didn't know, it's negligence on their part for not understanding their responsibilities as a driver. And on top of that, rides should NOT be more expensive for disabled folks. A blind person shouldn't need to pay more to receive equal accommodation. If there was a material cost (there isn't) the ride services should increase the cost of all rides to accommodate their disabled passengers. The ADA is extremely clear about this. Have some empathy for folks who didn't have a choice in their situation.