Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides • Hacker News Board

Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides

#191

Post by tzs » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:10 PM UTC

VBprogrammer wrote: post #5

belinder wrote: post #2

Does an uber driver know when they accept a ride that the rider has a dog with them?

Presumably not. Even if they did, what should they do with that information? Service dogs have special status.

While under the law a transportation company must accommodate people with disabilities, I don't believe that they are required to have accommodation for every disability available on every vehicle.

They can have a fleet of vehicles with a mix of accommodations ranging from none to fully equipped for everything, as long as when a disabled person calls for a ride the company can send a vehicle, about as promptly as they can send a vehicle to a non-disabled person, that can handle that person's needs.

So if we were talking about a normal taxi company, that is one that acknowledges that they are a taxi company, then it would make sense for the company to ask when someone calls for a pickup if they have any particular requirements for the vehicle sent or will need any assistance from the driver. Then they could dispatch an appropriate vehicle.

It would also make sense to tell the driver, since sometimes there is extra work or preparation the driver has to do or special handling of the pickup or drop off.

With a taxi company like Uber that is pretending it is not a taxi company, it is a more difficult situation. If they just keep on as is, they will have more and more cases like the present case.

I only see a couple of approaches Uber can take if they don't want this to keep happening and they want to continue pretending they aren't a taxi company.

1. Only allow drivers to use Uber if they and their cars are able to handle all disabilities at all times they they are in service.

2. Allow a mix of drivers/cars like the normal taxi companies have. Users can specify what they need and Uber only shows the ride request to drivers that can handle it.

Should they tell drivers that a ride involves a disabled person? That would aid the driver who goes to handle the ride for the same reasons given earlier for normal taxis. On the other hand, it might lead to drivers giving preference to non-disabled requests, and so still land Uber in hot water. Maybe not tell the driver until after a driver has accepted the ride, with heavy penalties for cancelling after they find out?

They could also just continue as is, except offering early settlements with any disabled person who can't get service rather than trying to fight it and running the cost way up when they lose. That might be financially sensible in the short run, but it bolsters the argument that they undercut normal taxis by skimping on compliance with the law, which strengthens the case for cities to regulate them as heavily as taxis are regulated.

Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides

#192

Post by ehmmmmmmmm » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:11 PM UTC

shuntress wrote: post #177

ehmmmmmmmm wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That kind of policy means that people with PTSD from dogs who are desperate for a job will sign up and WILL experience PTSD and WILL endanger riders. It's a shitty policy IMO.

I feel like you might kind of be missing the point here... Uber should have to deal with this systemically because it is shitty to just leave it up to the drivers. Please note that in your example here, it is also shitty for the rider who is expecting to be driven somewhere safely.

Yes, I agree with you, Uber should have to deal with it.

A lot of people in this thread are arguing that the driver should be forced to suck it up and I think that's shitty for both the driver's and rider's safety.

Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides

#193

Post by florin_g » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:11 PM UTC

As a homebuilder, 100% of labor is done by subcontractors. For me to blame subs for any issue is beyond comprehension. What makes Uber different?

Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides

#194

Post by maxharris » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:12 PM UTC

orf wrote: post #162

maxharris wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you assume that the problem of a second-class existence for some is avoidable given the current state of the art in science, technology and medicine? You can put wheelchair ramps on every building and have zero impact on the number of people that can walk that will date someone in a wheelchair, or the number of non-hearing-impaired people that will even be friends with a deaf person. This is because people oft…

You're conflating a number of different points and mixing it together with a dash of futurism rubbish. Handicapped people need access to goods and services right now. Services like banks, restaurants, public buildings. Laws and regulations that ensure they have access to those goods and services is not holding back "science and technology". In some vague future where we've cured all disabilities then sure, I agree th…

I don't think you understand the impact that government controls have on the development of science and technology. (Just look at the decades of failure in the public space program and compare it against the progress made by private companies in the last decade!)

Nor are you acknowledging the fact that resources are finite for any a single instant in time. Every dollar you take from someone in taxes is a dollar they are not free to put toward their own values. Even more importantly, they are no longer free to guide that money with the information they uniquely have.

If you want meaningful change, you have to think about this at an individual level. After all, it is individuals who think, make scientific discoveries, and make business decisions. Groups don't think.

Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides

#195

Post by aksss » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:13 PM UTC

shagie wrote: post #108

Causality1 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why shouldn't they have the option to reject the ride? What if they're allergic, or deathly afraid of dogs? I have a friend like that. Anything bigger than a chihuahua and she'd probably flee the vehicle before driving it anywhere. Being able to reject work you can't handle seems like the one silver lining of being "independent contractors".

That is an issue for uber to work on dealing with - it is not an issue for the person with the disability that needs the service animal. https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm > Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room…

How does the analogy of different rooms translate to vehicles? A different vehicle?

Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides

#196

Post by ehmmmmmmmm » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:13 PM UTC

Operyl wrote: post #174

ehmmmmmmmm wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not every Uber driver has much choice of a thousand companies trying to hire them.

I'm terrified of heights, I probably shouldn't get a job as a window cleaner. Not every window cleaner has a thousand companies trying to hire them either.

I think it's perfectly fine to be a window cleaner but refuse you're employer's request to go clean a 100-storey skyscraper and keep taking the 2-storey buildings you usually do.

Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides

#197

Post by dnautics » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:14 PM UTC

kube-system wrote: post #172

jedberg wrote: post #50

The real problem here is Uber/Lyft not accounting for this in their app. As someone who takes rideshare with a small child who needs a car seat, I've had similar issues. A person with a dog will need extra time getting in and out, and the driver will need extra time to clean the car and remove any dog hair or other stains or spots. A person with a carseat like myself needs extra time to get into and out of the car wh…

I don't think Uber/Lyft wants to take the responsibility of ADA compliance, because that is implying that their drivers are employees.

Taxis don't have their drivers as employees, and that sort of dispatch mechanism is exactly how they handle it.

Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides

#198

Post by kube-system » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:14 PM UTC

plank_time wrote: post #154

somethingwitty1 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they are more generally saying that drivers for these ride share companies aren't aware of the risks that the company is passing on to them. They used the example that quite a few drivers have standard insurance (rather than one that covers ride-sharing). I don't think they were claiming the drivers didn't know what they were doing in that they were mistreating her, but more that they weren't aware of the law…

Uber supplies the insurance while the driver is driving for Uber.

They have some insurance, which was mostly a result of backlash from their original attempts to completely externalize those costs. If you wreck while driving an Uber, and your liability exceeds the amount Uber bought on your behalf, you are responsible for the remainder, and most all personal insurance policies will exclude coverage for this.

Rideshare companies are well aware of the advantages of using independent contractors (it's basically the entire point), and many of the independent contractors themselves are not entirely aware of the consequences of that arrangement.

Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides

#199

Post by m11a » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:14 PM UTC

core-questions wrote: post #183

Brian_K_White wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does this change anything? If someone has a problem with dogs, or anything else, then they are not qualified to perform a job that requires interacting with dogs, or whatever their particular disability involves. They aren't being denied a right to work out of discrimination or prejudice. They simply can't do that job. Here's the difference between that and prejudicial discrimination: If someone does have either…

> Don't take a job serving the public if you only like some people and not others. Seems like this logic doesn't apply to payment processors, web hosts, and anyone else who doesn't want to deal with free speech that they find offensive. Bake the cake, right?

A lot of platforms have arbitrary requirements of who they'll serve or won't serve. Even those with fixed rules can enforce against anyone, and then just ignore your support tickets when you try to appeal.

I guess the difference in this case is targeting someone due to a disability/protected characteristic, compared to some other reason. One fair thing might be Uber subsidising rides of disabled people with guide dogs (in the sense that it pays drivers a bit more to account for cleanup costs etc). I dunno if they can be expected to do this, but such costs probably won't show up on their bottom line and the PR of doing that alone would probably make up for any costs.

Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides

#200

Post by Brian_K_White » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:14 PM UTC

fastball wrote: post #97

shuntress wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The drivers represent the company and all interactions with the driver are setup through the company. So, yes. ie: If a driver snatches my backpack and drives away, I expect Uber to replace/return what was stolen from me by their contractor. Not for them to just tell me to take a hike and deal with it myself.

So there is absolutely nothing a company can do to absolve themselves of the poor behavior of employees? By that system, Uber would still be at fault if they explicitly told all drivers "you are not allowed to deny service to someone with a service dog under any circumstances", and a driver did anyway.

Uber specifically placed itself in the role of intermediary. I don't have a phone book of drivers numbers and I don't pay a driver. I have the Uber app and I pay Uber.

They want the money, part of earning it is accepting responsibility and liability.

Why in the world is anyone even remotely worried about the plight of poor Uber? Holy cow.