Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 502 posts

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

#291

Post by maxharris »

neom wrote: post #249
maxharris wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm genuinely curious; is your position that there should be zero societal consideration for those less able than others?

No. Wherever the property in question is publicly owned, such as a courtroom or public road, reasonable accommodations must be made.

The views I have shared apply only in the case of private property. On my view, if something is yours, it is yours alone to manage or dispose of so long as you do not interfere with the individual rights of others.

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

#292

Post by wccrawford »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #3
belinder wrote: post #2

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

It shouldn't matter. As they say in the article, "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." If the driver isn't willing to comply with the regulations, then they shouldn't broadcast their services on Uber.

Uber is required to provide service to that person.

An individual driver is not required to. If that particular driver can't, Uber still has to provide that service for the passenger.

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

#293

Post by zachrip »

LocalH wrote: post #233
zachrip wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't this result in anyone just abusing this system when they don't want to drive with service dogs in the car?

IMO that's not a valid reason to ignore deep-seated fears of others.

Oh I don't want to force anyone who has that fear through that, and I'm not suggesting it. All I'm saying is put a barrier to prevent it being easy to be classified as this type of driver so that it isn't abused.

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

#294

Post by bgorman »

yarcob wrote: post #271
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 think you are giving service providers way too much leeway. Service providers should offer their service to everyone, not just to "easy" customers. Service providers should not reject you because you are disabled, because you have a child, because you have a certain religion, or whatever else is the problem. If someone is in the business of transporting people, they shouldn't be allowed to just pick the most profit…

I understand what you are saying, but reality doesn't agree with this worldview. The reality of the situation is that some people need more help than others, and this help does cost more money/time/labor. I think overall it is a better experience if the marketplace for these services prices in the extra labor necessary for this help.

Perhaps the government could subsidize the lost time. However expecting workers to do more work for less pay is not in line with human nature.

Having children is expensive, and parents should be factoring in paying extra to do things.

The problem you are outlining is that picking up non-special needs customers is the most profitable way to be an uber driver. If there was a bonus for picking up "special needs" passengers, the incentive problem could be fixed. Right now, "special needs" passengers just get worse service, and it will always be this way unless human nature fundamentally changes or they gain a way to signal to drivers that it will be worth the driver's extra time.

Many Uber drivers barely make minimum wage.

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

#295

Post by teddyh »

jariel wrote: post #270

"One driver allegedly cut her trip short after falsely claiming to have arrived at her destination." What is wrong with people? I can understand something like this maybe happening once? But that this happened 14 times makes me lose faith in people. Civilization is built on the little things if they go, it stops.

> Civilization is built on the little things if they go, it stops.

Empathy is built on the premise of relative economic equality.

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

#296

Post by cwhiz »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #169
lupire wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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…

>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.

An allergic reaction is not just a "problem with dogs." An allergy to dog hair is no more or less important than any other disability. The law requires reasonable attempts to accommodate the individual with a service animal, and the individual with an allergy. In the case of Uber or Lyft, it seems relatively trivial (to me) to classify drivers with allergies, riders with guide dogs, and to prevent those two groups from connecting for a ride.

The real problem here is that Uber/Lyft don't want to take any action that would further blur the line between employee and contractor.

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

#297

Post by teddyh »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #182
tmpz22 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was a victim of "vomit fraud" where the driver sends in fake photos from an identical model vehicle of interior damage and pockets the money. I now take photos of the interior of the car before and after. Uber charged me for the "damage" same-day and reversed the charges two days later after I sent them article after article on the issue and pointed out it was a Sunday noon drive not a late night Friday escapade. W…

Sometimes, it sounds like we should all have a 24/7 GoPro cameras attached and running all the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance

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

#298

Post by xmprt »

chrisBob wrote: post #267

I am amazed that Uber still exists. Of course a blind woman was refused rides. Their goal is to be a taxi service minus that ignores the regulations that were added to taxi services for a reason. As a large healthy white male I know I could probably use Uber safely, but I refuse to support a business that makes rides much worse and more dangerous for those that are more vulnerable. Taxis seem bad enough with the over…

While I agree that Uber could have done more here, I'm not sure why you think taxis would be better. If 14 individual yellow cab taxis refused to pick up a passenger, it wouldn't be a story. Apps can also track your location for safety, allow you to report drivers, and help you get picked up from anywhere (instead of having to risk going to a busy street where taxis might roam).

The way I see it, Uber is super helpful for people with disabilities.

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

#299

Post by qaq »

yarcob wrote: post #271
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 think you are giving service providers way too much leeway. Service providers should offer their service to everyone, not just to "easy" customers. Service providers should not reject you because you are disabled, because you have a child, because you have a certain religion, or whatever else is the problem. If someone is in the business of transporting people, they shouldn't be allowed to just pick the most profit…

So in this setup a driver allergic to dogs should not be allowed to drive for Uber?
Post reply on HN