461–470 of 502 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, Uber simply needs to accommodate a passenger with a service dog, by assigning the closest non-allergic driver to them, and the driver not refusing service.
What stops every driver from checking the "I'm allergic to dogs" box?
Ideally that premium should mostly go to the driver, minus the regular Uber cut.
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 stopped using Uber when I got a child. I didn't have the app installed for 4 years now. Simply because they don't offer a service with child seat. I'm not bringing my own child seat, no way. Instead, I'm using bubs taxi in Sydney that will come with child seat and other stuff that may be necessary when you travel with a toddler. They target families with kids. If we to follow you "obligation" on the companies to serve anyone, there would be no bubs taxi for me to use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would argue that you're providing the service of companionship and should be paid for that too. :)
You know friend, I read enough comments from you to recognize you by name. You’ve always struck me as just an incredibly nice person. Thanks for this reply and for being such an all around good person. Hearing you talk on this thread is actually heartwarming - your respect and kindness are just incredible. Have an amazing evening!!!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possibl…
This. It would be absurdly easy for Uber to allow riders to specify "I have a service animal" and drivers to specify "I have a dog allergy" (probably with a requirement to provide a doctor's note to avoid abuse). You simply don't pair those riders with those drivers.
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…
So in this setup a driver allergic to dogs should not be allowed to drive for Uber?
My local council's guidance on the topic:
https://www.bristol.gov.uk/licences-permits/exemption-wheelc...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> This attitude [...] is why service for the disabled is shitty. Is 'this attitude' mine (GP's)? As far as I'm aware I simply described the legal reality. The point is that the driver may not 'ditch these fares', and that Uber (et al.) simply bares any difference as the cost of doing business. They are not allowed, by law, to discriminate between a disabled passenger who 'takes too long', an able-bodied speedy passen…
We want a minimum wage so we go after the only person paying someone, the boss, and demand that they pay more. If instead we paid a (temporary) UBI to bring up the compensation it wouldn't all fall on the business owner and we wouldn't have to force them to do it.
We want morbidly obese people to be welcome on airplanes but we forbid the airline from charging them for all the seats they consume.
If we want people to pick up the disabled, and not shirk the task, then we shouldn't stick them with the cost.
We should act like adults and pay (directly) for what we want, what we feel is right - trip subsidies for medical reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My Uber in Denver has Uber Pet. I thought I remembered seeing child seat in the past, maybe Ski too but I could be wrong.
Guide dogs aren't pets. They are medical equipment.
the guide dogs should be allowed, at least that's what the article is about basically
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I think you said yes to the parent comment but are not actually saying yes. Saying that "people with dog allergies cannot drive with Uber" is discrimination; allergies are also legally considered disabilities under the ADA[0]. Plus why would it be nessary if only a small portion of people have animals, and an even smaller portion need them for disabilities? What should happen is allow drivers to get a doctor's note t…
This pales in comparison to some of the stories I've heard from women regarding the sexually aggressive and harassing behavior they've experienced from (always male) Uber drivers, often on the way home late at night (where the driver gets to see their home address). This isn't apparently a firing offense at Uber.
The fact that others have worse problems does not negate the illegal treatment of a blind woman. There is a terrible tendency to brush of problems by pointing other issues.