3 ms·

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 i

by 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.
- jjk166 5y ago
  You may not have made that claim, but GP comment did, and it's the context of this discussion. If you are waiting longer for a specialty service, you are in essence paying a premium for it (your time has value). If people were willing to pay more for the service, more cars would voluntarily provide the service, and they would get served faster. I'm also fine with socializing the costs. Put a tax in place to pay for this public service. Commanding Uber to do it on their own is essentially just a regressive tax on uber customers.

by jjk166 5y ago

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.

jjk166 5y ago
You may not have made that claim, but GP comment did, and it's the context of this discussion. If you are waiting longer for a specialty service, you are in essence paying a premium for it (your time has value). If people were willing to pay more for the service, more cars would voluntarily provide the service, and they would get served faster. I'm also fine with socializing the costs. Put a tax in place to pay for this public service. Commanding Uber to do it on their own is essentially just a regressive tax on uber customers.