6 ms·

This is a good case of perfect being the enemy of better. Why should Uber (and, by extension both drivers and users) be forced to treat all users as if they ar

This is a good case of perfect being the enemy of better. Why should Uber (and, by extension both drivers and users) be forced to treat all users as if they are the most expensive users? Assuming that 10% (WAG) of Uber cars are currently wheelchair-accessible, and a rule like that doubles the number of wheelchair-accessible Uber cars, you've cut your total supply by 80% to satisfy a small percentage of users (and in doing so made the experience worse for those users as well, because they are now competing for a smaller supply).

podgaj 5y ago
> Why should Uber (and, by extension both drivers and users) be forced to treat all users as if they are the most expensive users? It's about kindness. These companies want to treat ALL customers as the least expensive user. Don't you realize that this demeans YOU and much s it does the disabled?
- InitialLastName 5y ago
  Sure, and I agree that Uber should be ensuring sufficient supply of wheelchair-accessible vehicles, but this is really another place where Uber's model (treat their drivers like independent companies whenever it is convenient to Uber) falls apart.
duskwuff 5y ago
> 10% (WAG) of Uber cars are currently wheelchair-accessible I'd be surprised if it were even 1%. As far as I'm aware, stock passenger vehicles are never wheelchair accessible -- it requires some expensive aftermarket hardware to be installed.
- InitialLastName 5y ago
  Sure, I just made up a number in the tail to make the point, hence the "Wild-Ass Guess" in the tail (I need a better flag for "estimate for numerical simplicity only"-type numbers).
  - rnotaro 5y ago
    It's the first time i've seen "WAG". I was thinking about "Worldwide AggreGate" or something like that when i've read your comment.
- sterlind 5y ago
  Depends on what you need. Some wheelchair users can stand and walk short distances, so they'd just need trunk space. Others can transfer independently, others still can't leave their chairs without expensive lifts. So it can really range from needing a bit of help to needing a special vehicle.
slg 5y ago
>Why should Uber (and, by extension both drivers and users) be forced to treat all users as if they are the most expensive users? The same reason we require businesses to install wheelchair ramps. A business has to follow all laws. If a business can't do that in a cost effective manner that is the business's problem and not the law's. Laws also aren't always all good or all bad. Sometimes they include both positive and negative consequences. Making it more expensive to do business is a tradeoff that society has decided to accept in the name of making the world more accessible to people with disabilities.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jedberg 5y ago
  Wheelchair ramps don't create an ongoing cost. It's a one time cost.
  - slg 5y ago
    I'm not sure why it matters whether the cost is one time or ongoing. Either way, wheelchair ramps were simply one example. There are plenty of other accessibility considerations that do have ongoing costs. Elevators are probably the most similar parallel that have both an upfront cost and an ongoing maintenance cost and are often required for the same accessibility reasons.
- goatlover 5y ago
  But in this case, the business relies on drivers providing their own vehicles. The tradeoff would be that most drivers would no longer be able to drive for Uber.
  - slg 5y ago
    It doesn't matter who pays for it. That is a debate between Uber at its drivers. All that matters it the requirements for the service that is provided to the public. If Uber can't afford to pay for it and/or they lose drivers because drivers refuse to pay for it, those are Uber's problems and not the law's.
_3u10 5y ago
Because few companies / cities / etc do it without being regulated to do so. I would imagine in the case of Uber they will grant additional time for anyone who files with them the paperwork indicating they require an accommodation. Generally speaking if Uber extended the wait period to 5 minutes for everyone it would also be in violation of the ADA as again, they are not providing an accommodation for people with disabilities. ADA exemptions exist for small companies where it would be unreasonable to bear the additional costs. Fundamentally it's a political question of what kind of society we want, do we want one where cities have to make curb cuts in sidewalks or do we want one in which it is extremely difficult for wheelchair users to use sidewalks. The balance the US has currently settled on is that small business is largely exempt, and larger businesses must accommodate. It should be noted that this case has not been ruled against Uber yet, and that the suit revolves around wait times, not wheelchair accessible cars. To be honest once accessibility standards are adopted by society at large they are not very expensive in general. It is however, VERY expensive when accessible goods and services are not provided at scale.

podgaj 5y ago

> Why should Uber (and, by extension both drivers and users) be forced to treat all users as if they are the most expensive users? It's about kindness. These companies want to treat ALL customers as the least expensive user. Don't you realize that this demeans YOU and much s it does the disabled?

InitialLastName 5y ago
Sure, and I agree that Uber should be ensuring sufficient supply of wheelchair-accessible vehicles, but this is really another place where Uber's model (treat their drivers like independent companies whenever it is convenient to Uber) falls apart.

duskwuff 5y ago

> 10% (WAG) of Uber cars are currently wheelchair-accessible I'd be surprised if it were even 1%. As far as I'm aware, stock passenger vehicles are never wheelchair accessible -- it requires some expensive aftermarket hardware to be installed.

InitialLastName 5y ago
Sure, I just made up a number in the tail to make the point, hence the "Wild-Ass Guess" in the tail (I need a better flag for "estimate for numerical simplicity only"-type numbers).
- rnotaro 5y ago
  It's the first time i've seen "WAG". I was thinking about "Worldwide AggreGate" or something like that when i've read your comment.
sterlind 5y ago
Depends on what you need. Some wheelchair users can stand and walk short distances, so they'd just need trunk space. Others can transfer independently, others still can't leave their chairs without expensive lifts. So it can really range from needing a bit of help to needing a special vehicle.

slg 5y ago

>Why should Uber (and, by extension both drivers and users) be forced to treat all users as if they are the most expensive users? The same reason we require businesses to install wheelchair ramps. A business has to follow all laws. If a business can't do that in a cost effective manner that is the business's problem and not the law's. Laws also aren't always all good or all bad. Sometimes they include both positive and negative consequences. Making it more expensive to do business is a tradeoff that society has decided to accept in the name of making the world more accessible to people with disabilities.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jedberg 5y ago
Wheelchair ramps don't create an ongoing cost. It's a one time cost.
- slg 5y ago
  I'm not sure why it matters whether the cost is one time or ongoing. Either way, wheelchair ramps were simply one example. There are plenty of other accessibility considerations that do have ongoing costs. Elevators are probably the most similar parallel that have both an upfront cost and an ongoing maintenance cost and are often required for the same accessibility reasons.
goatlover 5y ago
But in this case, the business relies on drivers providing their own vehicles. The tradeoff would be that most drivers would no longer be able to drive for Uber.
- slg 5y ago
  It doesn't matter who pays for it. That is a debate between Uber at its drivers. All that matters it the requirements for the service that is provided to the public. If Uber can't afford to pay for it and/or they lose drivers because drivers refuse to pay for it, those are Uber's problems and not the law's.

_3u10 5y ago

Because few companies / cities / etc do it without being regulated to do so. I would imagine in the case of Uber they will grant additional time for anyone who files with them the paperwork indicating they require an accommodation. Generally speaking if Uber extended the wait period to 5 minutes for everyone it would also be in violation of the ADA as again, they are not providing an accommodation for people with disabilities. ADA exemptions exist for small companies where it would be unreasonable to bear the additional costs. Fundamentally it's a political question of what kind of society we want, do we want one where cities have to make curb cuts in sidewalks or do we want one in which it is extremely difficult for wheelchair users to use sidewalks. The balance the US has currently settled on is that small business is largely exempt, and larger businesses must accommodate. It should be noted that this case has not been ruled against Uber yet, and that the suit revolves around wait times, not wheelchair accessible cars. To be honest once accessibility standards are adopted by society at large they are not very expensive in general. It is however, VERY expensive when accessible goods and services are not provided at scale.