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

401–410 of 502 posts

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

#401

Post by Rule35 »

OJFord wrote: post #284
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…

> The apps need a way for me to say "I have a carseat" or "I have a service animal" In the UK (and EU?) those are 'protected characteristics' that it'd be illegal to discriminate against. I suppose you could ask 'for information purposes', but you'd have to be prepared to defend yourself, proving that it didn't affect the service received. > and then give a bonus to the driver for picking me up. Like that. Of course…

This attitude that everything is the service providers problem is why service for the disabled is shitty. It does take longer to get into a car, etc, and that does cost a hungry driver more money.

The extra cost should be born by society, which is where the requirement comes from. If we think the disabled should ride for the same price we should make that part of medical coverage and pay the driver for the extra time spent.

As is, any sensible driver will ditch these fares with any means possible. More work, less money, and generally bitchier customers. The next time your fare comes up they'll pull over and take a bathroom break rather than responding.

If we want something, we have to pay for it, not try to stick someone else with the bill.

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

#402

Post by pasttense01 »

goatinaboat wrote: post #367
yarcob wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 think you are giving service providers way too much leeway. The problem is that Uber is getting work from the driver in order to meet Uber's obligations but without compensating the driver. The extra work required to e.g. clean the interior of the car after a service dog has been transported should be paid by Uber to the driver.

It's always the case that some trips are more profitable than others: for example there is another passenger to pick up immediately at the same place you dropped the last passenger off at. So while it matters that in total Uber driving is profitable for the driver it is not necessary that the 2% or so of the trips with blind passengers are.

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

#403

Post by Rule35 »

vkou wrote: post #314
kube-system wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The ADA does not give compliance exemptions to contractors employed by a company. Uber doesn't want their drivers classified as employees because it would cost them a lot of money in benefits and possibly back-pay.

And the drivers don't want to be employees or they'd be stuck driving for one company with a set shift.

We need to fix contracting which means fixing access to affordable (ie, the same actual cost the company would pay) medical. The problem for Uber drivers is that the money they make can't pay for coverage because companies get highly discounted rates.

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

#404

Post by ska »

Causality1 wrote: post #96
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…

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".

> the one silver lining of being "independent contractors".

It should be fairly obvious why employment contracts cannot be allowed to construct an end run around legislation like the ADA (or worker safety, etc.).

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

#405

Post by lotsofpulp »

Pfhreak wrote: post #390
lotsofpulp wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many hotels and motels are small businesses (usually franchisees) that are low margin, low volume, they can't just eat the costs, which are also not equal the price of the room rate. A disruptive pet can cause you to have to refund multiple other rooms, and potential loss of future business too. A disruptive pet can cause physical damage to the room far in excess of the room rate. We once had a pet ruin the carpet so…

Don't allow pets? Service animals are not pets. And service animals can be removed from a business for being disruptive. > they can't just eat the costs, which are also not equal the price of the room rate Amortize the costs does not mean eat the costs, it means bake them into the base rate.

I meant any animals, it’s a personal preference. I know how well hotel rooms get cleaned, and I’d rather take my chances with rooms that haven’t had animals.

It’s also not that simple for smaller business to amortize the costs since the pricing has to be competitive with larger businesses that can amortize over more rooms, so a lot of times, the business does have to eat it. It’s also a very unpredictable cost with high variance.

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

#406

Post by abawany »

floxy wrote: post #400
qaq wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Everyone seems to be avoiding the real question. When is Boston Dynamics going to disrupt the guide dog industry?

UC Berkeley is apparently looking into it: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2273390-robot-guide-dog... .

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

#407

Post by eloff »

cactus2093 wrote: post #374
_wp3r wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh you mean like a licensing system that requires drivers to pick up all passengers? /s HAAS Act '37 NYC TLC '71 Operation Refusal '98 Not that NY has it exactly right, but at least there was some structure. The entire business model of Uber is regulation avoidance. They did not "distrupt" any business they just did as you said and stole all the profitable easy routes/riders, avoided pricing regulations, and driver c…

Just curious, have you ever actually taken many cabs in cities? Or Ubers? I see this complaint all the time and I truly can't wrap my mind around it based on my own experience. The difference between yellow cabs and Ubers is night and day. I've had countless cabs drive away and refuse to pick me up because they didn't like where I was going, and that's never once happened with Uber (I'm sure it happens some behind th…

I've nearly missed flights twice because of uber drivers canceling on me - 10-15 min after accepting the ride In Columbus, Ohio and Panama. If you've ever tried to get taxis in Panama you know they're worse though.

If I'm going to take uber to the airport, I'm careful now to leave an extra 30 min over the two hours I would normally plan for.

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

#408

Post by bonzini »

Ekaros wrote: post #359
Miner49er wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well apparently not, or Uber would have won this court case, I think.

Uber has more than 15 employees. As such they need to be compliant, their contractors do not... It's weird situation, but applies to any areas where we are dealing with small subcontractors.

But it makes sense, Uber makes an app that offers a service or has to design the UI and UX of the app so that its customers can have the service that is required by the ADA. How they handle this with their contractors is none of the Uber customers' business.

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

#409

Post by syshum »

techsupporter wrote: post #304
qaq wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Realistically, yes? If their allergies are such to the point that they cannot be physically in the presence of a service animal for any length of time, they may be required to decline the fare and the income. We impose a lot of duties on people who are employed in the service of the general public. Humans are messy, unpredictable, inconsistent beings with unique needs so, yes, it is possible that two humans will be a…

Outside of service animals (actual service animals not "support animals") I think it should be perfectly fine to reject transporting peoples pets.

I also think it should be fine to have a "no children" policy, we have all kinds of business we do not allow children in, and personally i would like to see more business adopt a no children policy.

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

#410

Post by kube-system »

Rule35 wrote: post #403
vkou wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ADA does not give compliance exemptions to contractors employed by a company. Uber doesn't want their drivers classified as employees because it would cost them a lot of money in benefits and possibly back-pay.

And the drivers don't want to be employees or they'd be stuck driving for one company with a set shift. We need to fix contracting which means fixing access to affordable (ie, the same actual cost the company would pay) medical. The problem for Uber drivers is that the money they make can't pay for coverage because companies get highly discounted rates.

Employers are not legally required to set hours for their employees.
Post reply on HN