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

491–500 of 502 posts

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

#491

Post by OJFord »

contravariant wrote: post #453
OJFord wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

As far as I can tell a business is allowed to have a surcharge for carseats and dogs. However it seems reasonable that those should be waived for people who need either because of a disability (at least that seems like a 'reasonable accommodation'). Of course without anything in place there is effectively no accommodation whatsoever which seems to be one of the things that lead to this penalty (with probably more to…

Being a dog owner isn't a protected characteristic, requiring a guide dog is.

I am (only infinitesimally less than) 100% sure you cannot have a guide dog surcharge in the UK. (Nor can you refuse them.)

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

#492

Post by magsnus »

hwillis wrote: post #364
magsnus wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering how little Uber drivers makes per drive (and they are independent contractors and not workers in most places) a simple divider would probably come close to the "unreasonable cost" in the ADA. It is not that I don't empathize with disabled people but ADA as it seems to be written and all the "support animals" these days would probably drive many small business to bankrupcy. In Sweden "our ADA" only applies…

> and all the "support animals" these days would probably drive many small business to bankrupcy. Those are not covered by the ADA: https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html >Q3. Are emotional support, therapy, comfort, or companion animals considered service animals under the ADA? > A. No. These terms are used to describe animals that provide comfort just by being with a person. Because they have not been…

They aren't covered here in Sweden either and there are apparently less then a 1000 actual guide dogs that are covered. But that does not stop people from trying to bring their support dogs in. At least we have official "guide dog blankets" and the training facilities hands out identification cards so the real ones are easy to spot.

My experience (of 1) is also that guide dog owners are mostly reasonable, willing to come to a compromise that works for everyone and have very well behaved dogs. The woman I helped was more then happy to take a window table right next to the terrace door and let her dog stay right outside the window.

"Support dog"-owners (the handful I've met) are in my experience pretty unreasonable and unpleasant to deal with, have a "customer is always right"-attitude and their dogs are pretty universally badly behaved. I've had a group of seven try to argue that one guy in a wheelchair needed his support dog inside the restaurant while the dog was pulling on his leech and jumping on me.

Other dog owners i Sweden are also pretty nice to deal with. They usually keep their dog tied outside, in the car (with the backdoor open if they have crates) or ask if they can bring their dog through the restaurant to the terrace and eat outside (even if it is cold).

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

#493

Post by syshum »

shagie wrote: post #475
syshum wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By "fix the root cause" you mean shut down uber right? because if all the "solutions" I have seen just in this thread were required (everything from Uber outfitting every car with Hypoallergenic compartments, to paying drivers extra for different types of customers (with out charging extra to the customer ofcourse) ) then the cost of the ride would be so prohibitively expensive that no one would use the service Peopl…

However, that is how regular taxi services work... and they're profitable. They don't ignore the ADA. They allow service animals. They help with wheelchairs and storing them appropriately - even if that requires more time for the driver. That extra cost of service is spread out across all customers and its a non-issue. Uber's business model of trying to disrupt the taxi service by ignoring regulations is at issue her…

>>However, that is how regular taxi services work... and they're profitable.

That really depends on the location, and many are not profitable and in some area many only service some parts of the town / city.

Sure if you are in a large city like NYC, LA, Chicago etc, then it would be different but if you start getting out of the top 50 cities the profitability starts to drop

Also clearly taxi's are not providing the service at the value demanded of users or Uber would not exist

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

#494

Post by pessimizer »

ehmmmmmmmm wrote: post #268
pessimizer wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if I'm afraid of homosexuals or black people?

I don't think that's funny or a valid comparison. Dogs aren't even the same species. It's not immoral to be afraid of them and having PTSD because of negative interactions with a particular predatory canine species is very normal. Hopefully service robots won't be very far into the future. I don't want to discriminate against blind people. But I really don't think there is a problem with not being okay around a parti…

I don't think it's funny either. I am a black person, and plenty of white people have been traumatized by their experiences (or lack of experiences) with black people. It's also not "immoral" to be afraid of anything, it is uncontrollable.

Don't avoid a direct, clear question by painting it as non-serious.

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

#495

Post by loco5niner »

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…

People allergic to dogs should also get consideration though, and have the ability to reject a ride with a service animal.

The ADA should protect both sides.

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

#496

Post by jedberg »

loco5niner wrote: post #495
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…

People allergic to dogs should also get consideration though, and have the ability to reject a ride with a service animal. The ADA should protect both sides.

It does though. If your allergy is so severe that you can’t accept a dog, then you can sue Uber too.

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

#497

Post by subsaharancoder »

reaperducer wrote: post #203
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.

Uber is at least aware of its responsibilities. When I drove for Uber, we received email messages every couple of months reminding us of the rules concerning service animals and people who need physical assistance getting in and out of the car. I seem to recall that if you had the right kind of car you could mark yourself available for wheelchairs and other things. I was forever picking up people with walkers and hel…

> I seem to recall that if you had the right kind of car you could mark yourself available for wheelchairs and other things. I was forever picking up people with walkers and helping them in and out, though I know some drivers never ever wanted to touch a passenger unless they were dead drunk and had to be dragged out of the car and deposited on the front lawn of the destination address. (Been there, done that.)

Uber had/has WAV (Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles) on request.

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

#498

Post by URSpider94 »

Ekaros wrote: post #481
URSpider94 wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point of granting taxi medallions in the first place was to provide a semi-monopoly on the service, in return for requiring taxi drivers to act like a public utility. There’s a societal benefit to being able to get a ride from wherever, to wherever for a pre-determined fare, without having to worry that your destination is a “bad neighborhood” or your skin is the wrong color or your guide dog might not be a…

So we should ban them from operating without medals? You can't have it both ways... And I don't understand why shouldn't free market apply to them as well. Or maybe start applying it to all labour. Demand that all workers can be hired at certain price level for any job...

You CAN have it both ways. We can still hold the business to requirements that we set, that represent a baseline of public acceptability, with or without medallions.

"The free market" isn't an answer to everything. We decide as a society that some forms of market pricing are not allowed. For instance, I can not pay children to work for me. I can not pay a woman less than a man. I can not pay an old person less than a younger one. I can not refuse service to someone who has a disability. These are social choices that we make, and I would argue that we SHOULD make, to restrict the free market in ways that benefit society as a whole.

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

#499

Post by dillondoyle »

URSpider94 wrote: post #479
dillondoyle wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it definitely looks like it's for pets here is what I see: https://imgur.com/a/apOq0TA the guide dogs should be allowed, at least that's what the article is about basically

If Uber Pet costs any more than just Uber, then it’s not ok for guide dog owners. You can’t charge a surcharge for transporting a service animal.

we are saying the same things

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

#500

Post by lm28469 »

syshum wrote: post #456
lm28469 wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many Uber drivers barely make minimum wage. Because they're legally allowed to be underpaid contractors. The law should be changed to fix the root cause, not to change this side effect. Uber drivers aren't barely making min wage because they have no incentives to pick up disabled people ...

By "fix the root cause" you mean shut down uber right? because if all the "solutions" I have seen just in this thread were required (everything from Uber outfitting every car with Hypoallergenic compartments, to paying drivers extra for different types of customers (with out charging extra to the customer ofcourse) ) then the cost of the ride would be so prohibitively expensive that no one would use the service Peopl…

Well yeah, if the service can't treat people decently and make a profit of course it should shut down ...
Post reply on HN