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

#221

Post by jonfw » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:26 PM UTC

Bedon292 wrote: post #176

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".

Seems rather simple: Let drivers with allergies put that in their profile. Let riders put that they have a service animal in. And the system just doesn't pair them together. And now that the system knows someone has a service animal you can automatically review any cancelations by the driver and look for problems. I am actually kind of surprised that there isn't some review system already in place when a driver ends…

What's the incentive for a driver not to mark that they have allergies? You're essentially just giving them a checkbox "I don't want to deal with people who have service animals"

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

#222

Post by zachrip » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:27 PM UTC

jedberg wrote: post #167

snapetom wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Op is saying implementing that is a minor inconvenience for Uber. If they wanted you to be able to tell the driver, it would take them a couple of weeks.

I'd say OP is wrong. The Uber UX is localized into many languages. It probably takes them quite an effort to make any UI change, especially ones that require localization. Also, the change I'm proposing changes the fee structure as well. I'm sure they do deep analysis any time they change the fee structure. It would probably take a ton of effort to add what I suggest. I think they should do it, but it probably doesn'…

Not every feature is launched everywhere. If they want to test out a new feature they probably pick a single market and try it out there I'd bet.

> I think they should do it, but it probably doesn't come up often enough to be worth it.

That's the thing, it's not worth it to the people that are not affected by these situations. To those that are, it's life changing. Which is part of the reason ADA appears to side so heavily with those with disabilities. A tiny inconvenience to a driver means a blind person can make it to work on time. The driver should of course be compensated for their time and any cleanup required should also be covered - that's a no brainer.

Totally understand the fear of dogs or allergies, but people systematically abuse those situations which further reduces ease of access for those with real disabilities. Emotional support animals on planes for example - plenty of people need them but a lot of others just used it to get their animal on the plane.

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

#223

Post by magsnus » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:27 PM UTC

Kharvok wrote: post #88

lupire wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ADA applies to workers too. A dog allergy is a disability.

This is specifically addressed in updated guidance from 2010. "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 or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning…

How on earth does this apply to cars?

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

#224

Post by Miner49er » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:28 PM UTC

Ansil849 wrote: post #212

Miner49er wrote: post #166

Unless Uber fixes this, it seems like a way to get some money if you have a disability. 1) Train or buy a service dog for your disability. 2) Request an Uber with your service dog, record what happens when the driver shows up. Assuming Uber doesn't fix this, many drivers will probably deny service. 3) Repeat a couple dozen times. 4) Contact a lawyer 5) Profit?

This is an extremely callous comment. Discrimination happens regularly to those with disabilities without needing to go out of their way to concoct such a scenario - it happens organically every day, due to people like that Uber driver mentioned ("One driver allegedly cut her trip short after falsely claiming to have arrived at her destination.") being trash.

Depends on the disability, I think. I have a disability per the ADA, and have considered getting a service dog. But me not being able to take my service dog would be nothing but an inconvenience, whereas for someone blind it is obviously much worse then that.

I don't see how I'm being callous, I think people doing this would force Uber to implement a fix, which is good for people with disabilities. Uber needs to be punished for this until it is fixed.

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

#225

Post by Bedon292 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:30 PM UTC

arenaninja wrote: post #151

valuearb wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the service animals that are the problem, is the "emotional support" animals, or more specifically, their owners.

I was out for breakfast for the first time since the pandemic started this weekend (I'm fully vaccinated now) and in walks a guy with a dog sporting a "Service Animal" sash that in tiny letters said "emotional support". I was paralyzed - I was traumatized by my interactions with dogs when I was a kid; where's my say in having untrained animals in my vicinity? This kind of shit needs to be ended but there should be NO…

Legally an actual service animal must be trained. Emotional support, for a variety of reasons including things like PTSD and anxiety attacks, is a completely valid use of service animals. How do you know they were not trained?

If they were misbehaving, that's reason for them to be rejected, training or not. If not, legally allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. Though Uber should certainly attempt to pair the rider with a different driver first, if they have registered that allergy / fear ahead of time.

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

#226

Post by __turbobrew__ » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:30 PM UTC

ehmmmmmmmm wrote: post #24

> "The bottom line is that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a guide dog should be able to go anywhere that a blind person can go." Okay, I completely get this, but question -- what about business owners and drivers who are traumatized by dogs? If I were a driver, I'd be much more likely to crash the car if there was a dog in the car of any kind. I've had traumatic experiences with dogs and being near one se…

The ADA has defined protected classes, and if you are not OK with a protected class you need to deal with it. How would you feel if I rephrased your comment:

Okay, I completely get this, but question -- what about business owners and drivers who are traumatized by black people? If I were a driver, I'd be much more likely to crash the car if there was a black person in the car of any kind. I've had traumatic experiences with black people and being near one sends me into panic.

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

#227

Post by bentcorner » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:33 PM UTC

xboxnolifes wrote: post #204

BoiledCabbage wrote: post #62

It was downvoted below, but reposting here because this is something that I think should be seen as it comes up often: >> "The bottom line is that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a guide dog should be able to go anywhere that a blind person can go." > Okay, I completely get this, but question -- what about business owners and drivers who are traumatized by dogs? If I were a driver, I'd be much more likely…

> If you want to completely avoid dogs, then don't take a job that involves having to interact with dogs. Following the above, wouldn't this be any job that requires interacting with other people? So basically any job?

Realistically seeing-eye dogs are not that common and plenty of jobs allow you to distance yourself from any potential dogs you might run into.

There's not too many jobs where a dog might end up right behind you for extended periods of time in an enclosed space.

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

#228

Post by orthecreedence » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:33 PM UTC

valuearb wrote: post #134

scsilver wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That at the end of the day, Uber sent a woman into terrible situation, creating a bunch of externalities that society has to bare. Society should have the right to identify those externalities and bring the companies attention to those externalities. If the company says "not my problem" the public should get to decide if they want to allow a company to blithely foist those externalities onto society. They have a lega…

What externalities?

Her getting fired from her job is a big one.

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

#229

Post by elil17 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:34 PM UTC

EugeneOZ wrote: post #73

jagger27 wrote: post #19

“One driver allegedly cut her trip short after falsely claiming to have arrived at her destination.” That’s particularly awful and cruel. It must be extremely disorienting and stressful for a blind person to be put in that situation.

Yeah, after reading this I can't forget it. Not sure what kind of animal one needs to be to do this.

Well perhaps it is because Uber pays their drivers poverty wages. I can imagine a driver taking advantage of a passenger because they need food or shelter for themselves or their family.

Obviously it’s cruel to do this to a blind passenger, but I think the fundamental moral problem is really with the decision makers at Uber not with the driver.

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

#230

Post by orthecreedence » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:37 PM UTC

magsnus wrote: post #223

Kharvok wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is specifically addressed in updated guidance from 2010. "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 or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning…

How on earth does this apply to cars?

Put up a divider. Or update the app's UX: "[ ] I'm blind and have a service dog."