4 ms·

> “I don't think that uber should allow drivers to use any vehicles not equipped for wheel chair transport” Poor and handicap people will suffer more so from a

> “I don't think that uber should allow drivers to use any vehicles not equipped for wheel chair transport” Poor and handicap people will suffer more so from a price hike resulting from your suggestion — disabled people should just pay more because (1)they are taking up more time to service and (2)they receive benefits that everyone else doesn’t to compensate for such scenarios. The way it is currently setup is likely the most optimal configuration for all parties involved.

alistairSH 5y ago
"I got mine, screw the rest of y'all" If we used your plan, there would be no taxis for the disabled because the costs would be prohibitive. This isn't really any different than any other similar legislation/regulation (ADA, etc).
- GaryTang 5y ago
  > “There would be no taxis for the disabled because the costs would be prohibitive.” This is 100% false because I know for a fact if there was no other taxi company providing services to the disabled I would start my own company for the disabled today.
  - jedberg 5y ago
    No you wouldn't. You would quickly find that the market is too small to be worthwhile. There is a reason the ADA exists. Because before then, everyone assumed businesses would cater to disabled people because they wouldn't want to lose out on the business. But it turns out they are such a small market, it doesn't affect their bottom line.
    - GaryTang 5y ago
      > ”You would quickly find that the market is too small to be worthwhile.” How many markets will be too small to be worthwhile after prices increase? I would wager it would be more than the contrary
      - jakelazaroff 5y ago
        Why do you think prices will increase so much? There's a limit to how much people can pay for a service, even if they fundamentally need it. And I'd wager that in aggregate, people with disabilities are more financially limited than people without.
        GaryTang 5y ago
        What comes to mind is the fact that the prevalence of adults with a disability in the United States is significantly higher in rural areas compared to large metropolitan areas and those rural areas are already underserved by commuting options given the current model. To your point that they are more financially limited — that is the reason why disability benefits exist.
      - jedberg 5y ago
        Probably a lot. And they won't be served anymore. All the more reason the government has to mandate serving disabled people. You're arguing that the free market will serve disabled people. That's been tried many times, and it never works out. That's why the government mandates serving disabled people. And let's not even talk about the ethics of suggesting that disabled people get charged more just for being disabled, something they don't have control over.
      - uoaei 5y ago
        This kind of fallacious reasoning is very pernicious. It assumes very simple cause-effect relationships by default. See "fallacy of the single cause". It cannot be countered except by elaborating on the complexities of this particular example. Which are then promptly dismissed out of hand because they are "special cases". And as a result, the person using this rationale never learns their lesson that, actually, the world is much more complicated than that, and this kind of simple 1-2-3 doesn't fit with basically anything except those processes which are determined primarily by averages.
    - RHSeeger 5y ago
      And don't forget that you'd wind up having to charge more than the other transport companies in the area, because your costs are higher. And then you'd wind up getting sued, because you're charging disabled customers more than your competitors are charging other people (and people love to sue over stuff like this, even if the result is "oh well, now you get NOTHING").
- jjk166 5y ago
  That doesn't logically follow. It's not cost prohibitive to equip a small fraction of ubers with the equipment to transport the fraction of customers who need it. Indeed, some fraction of uber drivers are going to have handicap accessible vehicles simply because they or members of their household need those features anyway. Having such features is a competitive advantage - you can take passengers no one else can and thus secure their business. It only becomes prohibitive when you need an enormous surplus of equipment well in excess of demand - then this expense doesn't lead to serving more customers, it's just a burden that needs to be borne by existing customers. Existing legislation doesn't require all vehicles, or even all commercial vehicles to be handicap accessible. Hell they don't even require that vehicles be made such that they can be converted to handicap accessible. Current legislation requires that accommodations are available, not that they are ubiquitous. We put wheelchair ramps on buildings because without them there is no way for a wheelchair bound person to get in, but it's fine if there are stairs as well.
  - andylynch 5y ago
    It can be a win for users more generally- a wheelchair accessible cab also turns out to be quick to jump in and out of, and has amazing space for people and luggage.
  - alistairSH 5y ago
    I never said all Ubers should be wheelchair accessible. I was responding to your assertion that wheelchair-bound customers should bear all the cost of their accommodations. Currently, in most cities, a certain number/% of taxis are required to be wheelchair-accessible. It's a bare minimum, usually with wait time well in excess of what the rest of us would consider reasonable (DC states it averages 45 minutes, but I can call a cab in 10-15 minutes notice or hail one on the street in less time than that). If there was a market for equivalent service for wheelchair-bound customers, it would exist already. The market simply doesn't exist, at least not in any way that makes financial sense. So we have regulations to force it. Having a blind family member who encounters similar issues on a daily basis, I'm totally fine with socializing the cost of her accommodations. To do otherwise would just be greedy and mean.

alistairSH 5y ago

"I got mine, screw the rest of y'all" If we used your plan, there would be no taxis for the disabled because the costs would be prohibitive. This isn't really any different than any other similar legislation/regulation (ADA, etc).

GaryTang 5y ago
> “There would be no taxis for the disabled because the costs would be prohibitive.” This is 100% false because I know for a fact if there was no other taxi company providing services to the disabled I would start my own company for the disabled today.
- jedberg 5y ago
  No you wouldn't. You would quickly find that the market is too small to be worthwhile. There is a reason the ADA exists. Because before then, everyone assumed businesses would cater to disabled people because they wouldn't want to lose out on the business. But it turns out they are such a small market, it doesn't affect their bottom line.
  - GaryTang 5y ago
    > ”You would quickly find that the market is too small to be worthwhile.” How many markets will be too small to be worthwhile after prices increase? I would wager it would be more than the contrary
    - jakelazaroff 5y ago
      Why do you think prices will increase so much? There's a limit to how much people can pay for a service, even if they fundamentally need it. And I'd wager that in aggregate, people with disabilities are more financially limited than people without.
      - GaryTang 5y ago
        What comes to mind is the fact that the prevalence of adults with a disability in the United States is significantly higher in rural areas compared to large metropolitan areas and those rural areas are already underserved by commuting options given the current model. To your point that they are more financially limited — that is the reason why disability benefits exist.
    - jedberg 5y ago
      Probably a lot. And they won't be served anymore. All the more reason the government has to mandate serving disabled people. You're arguing that the free market will serve disabled people. That's been tried many times, and it never works out. That's why the government mandates serving disabled people. And let's not even talk about the ethics of suggesting that disabled people get charged more just for being disabled, something they don't have control over.
    - uoaei 5y ago
      This kind of fallacious reasoning is very pernicious. It assumes very simple cause-effect relationships by default. See "fallacy of the single cause". It cannot be countered except by elaborating on the complexities of this particular example. Which are then promptly dismissed out of hand because they are "special cases". And as a result, the person using this rationale never learns their lesson that, actually, the world is much more complicated than that, and this kind of simple 1-2-3 doesn't fit with basically anything except those processes which are determined primarily by averages.
  - RHSeeger 5y ago
    And don't forget that you'd wind up having to charge more than the other transport companies in the area, because your costs are higher. And then you'd wind up getting sued, because you're charging disabled customers more than your competitors are charging other people (and people love to sue over stuff like this, even if the result is "oh well, now you get NOTHING").
jjk166 5y ago
That doesn't logically follow. It's not cost prohibitive to equip a small fraction of ubers with the equipment to transport the fraction of customers who need it. Indeed, some fraction of uber drivers are going to have handicap accessible vehicles simply because they or members of their household need those features anyway. Having such features is a competitive advantage - you can take passengers no one else can and thus secure their business. It only becomes prohibitive when you need an enormous surplus of equipment well in excess of demand - then this expense doesn't lead to serving more customers, it's just a burden that needs to be borne by existing customers. Existing legislation doesn't require all vehicles, or even all commercial vehicles to be handicap accessible. Hell they don't even require that vehicles be made such that they can be converted to handicap accessible. Current legislation requires that accommodations are available, not that they are ubiquitous. We put wheelchair ramps on buildings because without them there is no way for a wheelchair bound person to get in, but it's fine if there are stairs as well.
- andylynch 5y ago
  It can be a win for users more generally- a wheelchair accessible cab also turns out to be quick to jump in and out of, and has amazing space for people and luggage.
- alistairSH 5y ago
  I never said all Ubers should be wheelchair accessible. I was responding to your assertion that wheelchair-bound customers should bear all the cost of their accommodations. Currently, in most cities, a certain number/% of taxis are required to be wheelchair-accessible. It's a bare minimum, usually with wait time well in excess of what the rest of us would consider reasonable (DC states it averages 45 minutes, but I can call a cab in 10-15 minutes notice or hail one on the street in less time than that). If there was a market for equivalent service for wheelchair-bound customers, it would exist already. The market simply doesn't exist, at least not in any way that makes financial sense. So we have regulations to force it. Having a blind family member who encounters similar issues on a daily basis, I'm totally fine with socializing the cost of her accommodations. To do otherwise would just be greedy and mean.