4 ms·

Uber sued for allegedly refusing rides to the blind

24 points by cwal37 12y ago

arenaninja 12y ago
Reading the article makes it really clear of why taxis are so regulated; because they need to be! I once had an idea that was basically Uber, back in 2005 when I had a Motorola Razr and had also been left stranded, kept waiting for 45+minutes and forgotten about (or denied service!). My idea at the time involved selling it to the yellow cab industry so that they could send the closest cab and let the customer know the estimate time. But at no point did I think it a good idea to throw away the entire body of regulation for taxi services
- dpweb 12y ago
  Uber blew up in large part cause the taxi experience was so horrible. Especially for middle class business-travellers. Try to get a driver to take a credit card, have a 15 minute argument, even when they were required to take them. Taxi regulation is about collecting fees. Proof. What do they do, slap a 30 cent surcharge here in Chicago for Uber. How does that go toward regulations when they don't regulate Uber?
  - arenaninja 12y ago
    I didn't mean to imply that the taxi experience isn't horrible, I'm well aware that it is. I've no idea how Uber works in Chicago, but what I am saying is that if Uber wants to truly replace taxis, they need to provide most if not all of the guarantees that regulations impose on regular taxi services, not just taking credit card payments. > Uber blew up in large part cause the taxi experience was so horrible. Especially for middle class business-travellers. Does that mean something else should now take off since the Uber experience appears to be horrible for people with service dogs? I understand that it isn't their targeted demographic, but that should in no way denigrate the experience for anybody who isn't a drunk at 1am looking to get home
totony 12y ago
The article keeps stating that the drivers are declining the disabled person access. In my understanding, they are denying the presence of an animal in their car, not necessarily the disabled person. This is an essential difference. Discrimination would be refusing the person due to his disability, whereas this is not discrimination. Uber is right in saying that the disabled person having a dog should mention it to the driver. Fact is, the dog could cause damage to the car, or the driver could be allergic, or the next passenger. Law shouldn't force people to accept such an hindrance, even more when it was not even mentioned.
- reverius42 12y ago
  IMHO the law should force people to accept such a hindrance, lest we live in a society where those less fortunate or less able are forced to accept all the hindrances instead. Society seems to agree with me -- we do in fact have laws requiring such "hindrances" as accepting service animals: http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/disability/ada.htm http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/disability/ada.htm
  - pkaye 12y ago
    I wonder what should happen if the driver is severely allergic to dogs? How would this be resolved?
    - iaw 12y ago
      Read "Where Service Animals Are Allowed" at [1]. My understanding is that a driver with allergens would not be required to take the dog the same way they can exclude a dog from a burn unit. However making a false claim about such things would be against the law. http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm
      - chrismcb 12y ago
        From the link you posted:"Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. " They can exclude a dog from a burn unit, because the public is not normally allowed in a burn unit.
fuzionmonkey 12y ago
Key statement at the bottom of the article: "In a statement reported by the San Francisco Examiner, Uber said its policy is to terminate drivers who refuse to transport service animals." The problem is some Uber drivers (who are independent contractors) refused to allow dogs into their cars. Uber should be more proactive about educating drivers about service animals, but it is hardly an Uber policy to "refuse rides to the blind."

24 points by cwal37 12y ago

Reading the article makes it really clear of why taxis are so regulated; because they need to be! I once had an idea that was basically Uber, back in 2005 when I had a Motorola Razr and had also been left stranded, kept waiting for 45+minutes and forgotten about (or denied service!). My idea at the time involved selling it to the yellow cab industry so that they could send the closest cab and let the customer know the estimate time. But at no point did I think it a good idea to throw away the entire body of regulation for taxi services

dpweb 12y ago
Uber blew up in large part cause the taxi experience was so horrible. Especially for middle class business-travellers. Try to get a driver to take a credit card, have a 15 minute argument, even when they were required to take them. Taxi regulation is about collecting fees. Proof. What do they do, slap a 30 cent surcharge here in Chicago for Uber. How does that go toward regulations when they don't regulate Uber?
- arenaninja 12y ago
  I didn't mean to imply that the taxi experience isn't horrible, I'm well aware that it is. I've no idea how Uber works in Chicago, but what I am saying is that if Uber wants to truly replace taxis, they need to provide most if not all of the guarantees that regulations impose on regular taxi services, not just taking credit card payments. > Uber blew up in large part cause the taxi experience was so horrible. Especially for middle class business-travellers. Does that mean something else should now take off since the Uber experience appears to be horrible for people with service dogs? I understand that it isn't their targeted demographic, but that should in no way denigrate the experience for anybody who isn't a drunk at 1am looking to get home

totony 12y ago

The article keeps stating that the drivers are declining the disabled person access. In my understanding, they are denying the presence of an animal in their car, not necessarily the disabled person. This is an essential difference. Discrimination would be refusing the person due to his disability, whereas this is not discrimination. Uber is right in saying that the disabled person having a dog should mention it to the driver. Fact is, the dog could cause damage to the car, or the driver could be allergic, or the next passenger. Law shouldn't force people to accept such an hindrance, even more when it was not even mentioned.

reverius42 12y ago
IMHO the law should force people to accept such a hindrance, lest we live in a society where those less fortunate or less able are forced to accept all the hindrances instead. Society seems to agree with me -- we do in fact have laws requiring such "hindrances" as accepting service animals: http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/disability/ada.htm http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/disability/ada.htm
- pkaye 12y ago
  I wonder what should happen if the driver is severely allergic to dogs? How would this be resolved?
  - iaw 12y ago
    Read "Where Service Animals Are Allowed" at [1]. My understanding is that a driver with allergens would not be required to take the dog the same way they can exclude a dog from a burn unit. However making a false claim about such things would be against the law. http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm
    - chrismcb 12y ago
      From the link you posted:"Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. " They can exclude a dog from a burn unit, because the public is not normally allowed in a burn unit.

fuzionmonkey 12y ago

Key statement at the bottom of the article: "In a statement reported by the San Francisco Examiner, Uber said its policy is to terminate drivers who refuse to transport service animals." The problem is some Uber drivers (who are independent contractors) refused to allow dogs into their cars. Uber should be more proactive about educating drivers about service animals, but it is hardly an Uber policy to "refuse rides to the blind."