241–250 of 502 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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."
https://www.thetransportationalliance.org/news/adanotice.pdf
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
You can attack a problem in multiple ways, it's not mutually exclusive. You can simultaneously fund research into curing disabilities _at the same time_ as ensuring people with disabilities have equal access. Which is what we are doing now.
Trying to make the argument that hand-wavey "resources" are being somehow diverted away from disability research because private businesses need to accomodate disabled people sounds rather silly. Almost as silly as arguing that these unthinking groups (shall we call them companies?) would invest any of the money they would save by not ensuring equal access in anything related to disability research.
When it comes to some forms of meaningful change at a group level then focusing on the individual is not a great tactic. You can spend an hour individually explaining to every person in a country why smoking is bad for them but that won't have nearly as much impact on smoking rates as banning cigarette adverts.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 peop…
>If not, legally allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. This should change. Especially on the allergy front. Forcing someone to suffer an allergic reaction because a customer has a service dog is immoral.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, I see. That seems reasonable, honestly. So in that case, Uber should be able to just assign another driver. But the point about there being a small handful of drivers in an area still stands. However, I don't think Uber should be forced to provide service just because they technically can. If there are no drivers at all in your area, they'll tell you that (Or charge an exorbitant fee for someone to drive in) and…
> But the point about there being a small handful of drivers in an area still stands. Yeah in this case, a driver may have to take a service dog even if they have fear or an allergy, or Uber could be sued again. IANAL, but this is my understanding.
I never really knew about this. Technically you could just bring your dog into any business and claim its a service animal when asked. If the dog is being unruly businesses can exclude you, but it would be an ADA violation to refuse entry. Quite interesting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
When you don't see such simple, market-based solutions, you can be sure there's a regulatory reason for it.
And sure enough, in this case Lyft and Uber can't do the common sense thing and evaluate a passenger's time to onboard and offboard and raise the price accordingly, because of the ADA.