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

191–200 of 212 posts

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

#191

Post by true_religion »

dhruvbird wrote: post #161
true_religion wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxis are regulated primarily because they do business on public streets. If the only way to get a taxi were to call them up, there'd be far less of a reason to regulate them.

Do you mean to say that it's okay for private operators to discrimate based on whether their potential client is disabled or not (when it has nothing to do with the safety of the client or the driver)?

You're using discriminate in an odd way. Is it discrimination to not set yourself up to be able to provide service for someone because of an additional cost?

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

#192

Post by true_religion »

venomsnake wrote: post #167
true_religion wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Their statement is that they are a black car service, not a taxi service. Personally I think having a meter in the car makes them a taxi, and I'm glad to see the UK government agrees. However, if they simply take out their meter they are a black car service and only have to comply with the rules set about for those. Just being a better private car service, doesn't make them illegal by default.

No, but it means they must comply with relevant regulation - like accommodating disabled people.

Do private cars have to accommodate disabled people?

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

#193

Post by true_religion »

URSpider94 wrote: post #179
true_religion wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxis are regulated primarily because they do business on public streets. If the only way to get a taxi were to call them up, there'd be far less of a reason to regulate them.

Can you explain why that would be? In any case, in many locales it's almost entirely unheard of to street-hail a taxi. To name two places I've lived, in Boston and Silicon Valley, you always need to call for a taxi, unless you happen to be staying at a hotel in a downtown area.

If taxis do not generally pick up people from the street, then they should not be forced to conform with special regulations designed for taxis that pick up the public on the street.

However, they should additionally be barred from picking up clients on the street.

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

#194

Post by hahainternet »

jackgavigan wrote: post #127
hahainternet wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Uber in the UK uses licensed taxi drivers the same as any other Private Hire firm. That is not correct.

Is it not? Can you tell me why all the Ubers I use have the exact same markings and plates as private hire firms? I'm in Manchester.

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

#195

Post by sillygoose »

true_religion wrote: post #190
sillygoose wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that taxi regulation doesn't make any sense to begin with. As you said, people get transported from Place A to B for a fee. Fundamentally, it's as simple as buying a pound of cheese from a supermarket. It's just a transaction between people. So why should taxi drivers have to get "licensed"? What exactly is that license? What does it represent besides going through a burdensome ordeal? How would gettin…

> So why should taxi drivers have to get "licensed"? What exactly is that license? What does it represent besides going through a burdensome ordeal? How would getting licensed increase safety in any way? It's not like anyone wants to experience a car crash. All businesses must be licenced. Taxi licensing is special because of their special circumstance. They conduct their business primarily on public streets, and wit…

You're seeing problems that aren't really there.

> All businesses must be licenced.

Why? Why the hell would a grocery store need a license and what for? I'm not asking for "because the government says so", because the government says a lot of things that don't actually make sense. Is there a good, objective reason for all businesses to have to be licensed and how would the license help?

> Taxi licensing is special because of their special circumstance.

What does that mean? What are the special circumstances? It's just people with cars and people who need to go places.

> (a) 'forget' about picking up people of a certain skin color

Suppose there was no regulation for taxis. Now suppose a big taxi company had emerged. Let's call it "Toober". Now Toober, just like most companies, wants to make as much money as possible.

Do you think people accusing its drivers of racism would be conducive to that goal, and if not, do you think Toober would do something about racist drivers?

What about the drivers? They want money too, right? So if there was a racist driver working for Toober, and he knew Toober doesn't tolerate racism because it's bad for their image and thus, bottom line, don't you think the driver would refrain from behaving in a racist way so that he could keep his job?

> (b) refuse fare to a certain district they don't like

Don't like? Because it somehow displeases them like Justin Bieber's music displeases a lot of guys? What sense would it make for a taxi to leave money on the table because he finds a district distasteful?

> (c) arbitrarily set fares depending on what they see as people's willingness to pay--like say setting the fare for single women outside nightclubs to 3x the normal rate.

Again, imagine Toober getting complaints about discrimination. On the other hand, getting home safely from a night out is a more valuable service than just getting from Place A to B in less dangerous situation, so maybe it's alright to charge a bit more.

Sure, three times the normal rate would be too much, but another taxi company would be free to offer a better rate, and people would take it.

Do you see why regulation is not necessary at all? Whenever the government says it's doing something for your safety or for fairness, you can be 100% sure the results and real reasons are different.

The real reason why we have taxi regulations is to maintain a state-supported taxi-cartel.

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

#196

Post by sillygoose »

shalmanese wrote: post #185
sillygoose wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that taxi regulation doesn't make any sense to begin with. As you said, people get transported from Place A to B for a fee. Fundamentally, it's as simple as buying a pound of cheese from a supermarket. It's just a transaction between people. So why should taxi drivers have to get "licensed"? What exactly is that license? What does it represent besides going through a burdensome ordeal? How would gettin…

The logic for street hails is that it's fundamentally impossible to negotiate prices or quality of service ahead of time. Enforcing a uniform price & service standard lends predictability to the procedure.

Impossible?

    - How much for taking me from here to ?
    - That would be $40.
    - Alright, let's go.
Quality of service would involve various things, but there could be a big taxi company called Toober, for example, with a good reputation, so you could reasonably expect to receive at least decent service from their drivers, and there would be no problem.

If you were feeling more adventurous, you could opt for a small(er) provider without an established reputation, but it would cost a bit less than Toober. Most likely, there would be no problem.

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

#197

Post by stephenr »

electroly wrote: post #100
stephenr wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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!"

Yes, you do. Accessibility laws generally include exemptions for small businesses. The Americans with Disabilities Act definitely does. Title III goes out of its way to only require "reasonable accommodation" that is "readily achievable" and not overly burdensome to the small business.

I'd really like to see you try and claim that loading a folded-up wheelchair that the occupant themselves regularly loads into a car on her own, is "overly burdensome".

I know the american legal system is pretty much fucked, but surely even you lot would have to accept that putting a folded wheelchair into the boot/trunk of a car is "reasonable accommodation".

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

#198

Post by sillygoose »

sillygoose wrote: post #196
shalmanese wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The logic for street hails is that it's fundamentally impossible to negotiate prices or quality of service ahead of time. Enforcing a uniform price & service standard lends predictability to the procedure.

Impossible? - How much for taking me from here to ? - That would be $40. - Alright, let's go. Quality of service would involve various things, but there could be a big taxi company called Toober, for example, with a good reputation, so you could reasonably expect to receive at least decent service from their drivers, and there would be no problem. If you were feeling more adventurous, you could opt for a small(er) pr…

As a sidenote, whoever downvoted this and the other related post is allergic to thinking.

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

#199

Post by jackgavigan »

hahainternet wrote: post #194
jackgavigan wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Uber in the UK uses licensed taxi drivers the same as any other Private Hire firm. That is not correct.

Is it not? Can you tell me why all the Ubers I use have the exact same markings and plates as private hire firms? I'm in Manchester.

> licensed taxi drivers

> private hire firms

You need to learn the difference between these.

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

#200

Post by dang »

sillygoose wrote: post #198
sillygoose wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Impossible? - How much for taking me from here to ? - That would be $40. - Alright, let's go. Quality of service would involve various things, but there could be a big taxi company called Toober, for example, with a good reputation, so you could reasonably expect to receive at least decent service from their drivers, and there would be no problem. If you were feeling more adventurous, you could opt for a small(er) pr…

As a sidenote, whoever downvoted this and the other related post is allergic to thinking.

Please don't post comments like this, which break the site guidelines.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Post reply on HN