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

Uber: Disability Laws Don’t Apply to Us

thedailybeast.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 212 posts

Re: Uber: Disability Laws Don’t Apply to Us

#61

Post by r00fus »

mhurron wrote: post #41
goatforce5 wrote: post #33

I can kinda get that companies might want to skip around accessibility issues when they're first getting started. But once you reach a certain point (somewhere well before billion dollar valuations) it's unconscionable to ignore accessibility. > [Tim] Cook replied [...] that a return on investment (ROI) was not the primary consideration on such issues. “When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind,” he…

If you can't run a business by following relevant laws and regulations, can you really say you have a viable business model? I don't care what stage of running your business you're in, you shouldn't get to ignore laws and regulations that apply just because you don't like them, or it would be too expensive right now.

Ask any number of companies that skirt the law (mining/extraction) or who are powerful enough to simply evade the law (most pipeline incidents aren't fully accounted for in terms of environmental/damage cost because lax laws shield the companies that maintain/build pipeline).

It's a question - if your business is big enough to essentially buy off legislators or judiciary, is it your company's fiduciary duty to go into legally gray area for higher profits?

Re: Uber: Disability Laws Don’t Apply to Us

#62

Post by bttf »

kaolinite wrote: post #27

This really saddens me. I used to love Uber, it was one of my favourite companies. I remember when I first used it - I'd gone down to London and was going to try UberLux out, just for the one trip. I ended up using it about four times that day, even though it was far more expensive than a taxi. It was incredible and worth every penny because unlike taxis, Uber was professional[1]. The driver was polite, you got a bot…

I've had a similar experience with Uber. Awesome at first, but then the horror stories started emerging, and what was upsetting was Uber's lack of initiative to abate the problems.

I can understand their position in trying to keep their drivers as independent contractors and therefore less controlled and regulated. But it seems that they are not even trying to show a willingness to appease to their own trodden customers and conscientious user base.

Re: Uber: Disability Laws Don’t Apply to Us

#63

Post by hahainternet »

dia80 wrote: post #4

This kind of concerns me. I have a T4/T5 spinal cord injury from a snowboarding accident 4.5Y ago. I have good hand and arm function but that's it no abdominals etc. I drive myself to work everyday and transfer in and out and fold up my wheelchair. London's black cabs all have ramps. UBER is making big inroads here and I'm worried that eventually it'll be tricky to get a black cab. I can transfer into a regular car b…

Uber in the UK uses licensed taxi drivers the same as any other Private Hire firm. I think they'd have an extremely hard time claiming that they are exempt from UK and EU law. Furthermore, Black Cabs are an entirely different taxi group and the competition between them is regulated AFAIK.

Re: Uber: Disability Laws Don’t Apply to Us

#64

Post by a3n »

stephenr wrote: post #44
goatforce5 wrote: post #33

I can kinda get that companies might want to skip around accessibility issues when they're first getting started. But once you reach a certain point (somewhere well before billion dollar valuations) it's unconscionable to ignore accessibility. > [Tim] Cook replied [...] that a return on investment (ROI) was not the primary consideration on such issues. “When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind,” he…

> companies might want to skip around accessibility issues when they're first getting started So, if it's inconvenient, you get to pretend it doesn't exist because you're a "startup"? That kind of mindset is what's wrong with the startup community. "Disrupt" isn't a synonym for "break any laws you don't like" and "startup" isn't a synonym for "I am above the law!"

And "the law" is not the only measure of what's right. Just because it may end up being legal for Uber to discriminate against disabled doesn't mean they aren't major dicks.

There's a fundamental rule for living in the world: Don't be a dick. Uber is breaking that rule, through sociopathic sophistry.

Re: Uber: Disability Laws Don’t Apply to Us

#65

Post by shit_parade2 »

aikah wrote: post #10

> but Uber claims that because it’s a technology company, not a transportation service, it doesn’t fall under the ADA’s jurisdiction. What the ? Come on ,They don't get to decide what law they should follow. Or maybe they know that all these lawsuits cost them less than having to respect the law, I don't know. All I can say is that Uber displays an unbelievable level of arrogance.

That's how banks do it, laws and regulations are just another business expense.

Re: Uber: Disability Laws Don’t Apply to Us

#67

Post by stephenr »

UK-AL wrote: post #51
kaolinite wrote: post #27

This really saddens me. I used to love Uber, it was one of my favourite companies. I remember when I first used it - I'd gone down to London and was going to try UberLux out, just for the one trip. I ended up using it about four times that day, even though it was far more expensive than a taxi. It was incredible and worth every penny because unlike taxis, Uber was professional[1]. The driver was polite, you got a bot…

Have you ever considered since there cutting into established markets now, the vast vast majority anti-uber articles are PR pieces from competitors. You'll be surprised how common this is.

Really? You think it's more likely that their competitors have made up junk stories, than a company which has a known public history of ignoring rules and regulations, is breaking more rules and regulations?

Re: Uber: Disability Laws Don’t Apply to Us

#68

Post by Frondo »

JonFish85 wrote: post #8
venomsnake wrote: post #2

Here is the thing with "sharing" economy - the moment money exchange hands, this is no longer sharing but commercial activity. So you must abide to the regulations. You cannot cherry pick only the rules that suit you.

They've been able to do it to the tune of a tens of billions of dollars valuation. So has Airbnb. Why change now? They'll get their IPO before anyone has to answer for anything, so investors & founders will be happy. Keep running the marketing machine with the "sharing" moniker right until the check clears, and after that, it's the shareholders' problem.

"Why change now?"

Because what they're doing is wrong, and doing something wrong because you can get a lot of money for it is pretty awful.

Re: Uber: Disability Laws Don’t Apply to Us

#69

Post by dopeboy »

kaolinite wrote: post #27

This really saddens me. I used to love Uber, it was one of my favourite companies. I remember when I first used it - I'd gone down to London and was going to try UberLux out, just for the one trip. I ended up using it about four times that day, even though it was far more expensive than a taxi. It was incredible and worth every penny because unlike taxis, Uber was professional[1]. The driver was polite, you got a bot…

Interesting - I've only been using Uber for ~2 years now but I came across it from the opposite direction. I couldn't afford them until UberX came out. I took an UberX last night and the driver didn't know the cross street in Harlem I told him to go to. He insisted on me finding the street address and putting it in the app so that GPS could guide him. Then he asked for five stars before I left. His car had random water bottles in the back seat.

But none of that bothered me.

I want to get to point B from point A - that 15 minute user experience isn't really important to me. So all I care about is cost and, atleast here in NYC, UberX can sometimes be cheaper than a yellow cab.

Different strokes for different folks I suppose.

Re: Uber: Disability Laws Don’t Apply to Us

#70

Post by a3n »

bttf wrote: post #62
kaolinite wrote: post #27

This really saddens me. I used to love Uber, it was one of my favourite companies. I remember when I first used it - I'd gone down to London and was going to try UberLux out, just for the one trip. I ended up using it about four times that day, even though it was far more expensive than a taxi. It was incredible and worth every penny because unlike taxis, Uber was professional[1]. The driver was polite, you got a bot…

I've had a similar experience with Uber. Awesome at first, but then the horror stories started emerging, and what was upsetting was Uber's lack of initiative to abate the problems. I can understand their position in trying to keep their drivers as independent contractors and therefore less controlled and regulated. But it seems that they are not even trying to show a willingness to appease to their own trodden custom…

> their own trodden customers

If I understand what Uber is really trying to do, I think the drivers are Uber's customers. Riders are simulataneously customers of the drivers, and the product being sold by Uber to drivers.

Post reply on HN