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

121–130 of 502 posts

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

#121

Post by ehmmmmmmmm »

ARandumGuy wrote: post #84
ehmmmmmmmm wrote: post #24

> "The bottom line is that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a guide dog should be able to go anywhere that a blind person can go." Okay, I completely get this, but question -- what about business owners and drivers who are traumatized by dogs? If I were a driver, I'd be much more likely to crash the car if there was a dog in the car of any kind. I've had traumatic experiences with dogs and being near one se…

Then the business needs to find some way to accommodate both the employee and the customer. In Uber's case, the only requirement is that riders with guide dogs should be able to get a ride in the same time window as any other rider, at the same price. The ADA does not require that every driver has to drive guide dogs. It's up to Uber to figure out a solution, and they should have to pay up until they implement one.

Thank you. I think this is a reasonable strategy. Requiring every driver to accept dogs against their allergies and PTSD on the other hand, I don't agree with, as that would directly endanger lives.

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

#122

Post by [deleted] »

mlyle wrote: post #79
lotsofpulp wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m familiar with those guidelines, but effectively, anyone can say anything, and the last sentence shows that you basically have to take their word for it (unless you want to risk getting involved in a costly legal matter). I know you don’t have to take lizards as service animals, but you do basically have to take chihuahuas or Pomeranians or pit bulls or Rottweilers or whatever as service dogs, and maybe miniature…

First section of your link: > Beginning on March 15, 2011, only dogs are recognized as service animals under titles II and III of the ADA And thus now miniature horses are under a much more strict regulatory regime.

[deleted]

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

#123

Post by ehmmmmmmmm »

airstrike wrote: post #115
ehmmmmmmmm wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I shouldn't have to be around dogs. My fear is justified and I don't need to work on myself. Service robots are fine with me. But I shouldn't have to be forced to be around dogs. If someone was deathly allergic to peanut butter would you force them to drive Uber while passengers eating peanut butter sandwich in the back? And tell them to "work on themselves"?

Eating peanut butter sandwich isn't protected by law. Having service dogs is.

How the law is written doesn't change the fact that driving on highway with peanut butter allergy is life-threatening, and driving on highway with PTSD to a stimulus in the car is also life-threatening.

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

#124

Post by shariqm »

Uber settled a case similar to this in 2016 [1,2] and agreed to "Require that drivers provide equal service to people with disabilities who travel with service animals." Seems like they haven't learned their lesson, and this minor new $1.1M fee is unlikely to change their behaviour. OTOH, from a Teacher of the Visually Impaired (TVI) I know: -

"It’s challenging. I think they need to make it really clear this is part of their job. It’s common for people not to allow dogs in their car, just in general. On top of that, they employ a lot of people who don’t speak english and people from several cultures who would never have a dog in the car."

[1] https://dralegal.org/case/national-federation-of-the-blind-o...

[2] https://www.ada.gov/briefs/uber_soi.pdf

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

#125

Post by valuearb »

orf wrote: post #81
maxharris wrote: post #58

I'd like to go out on a limb and say that I don't agree with the ADA. I don't think any private person or organization should be compelled to provide facilities or services for anyone else, regardless of what their need is. I have no animus toward people with disabilities - I'm just saying that no one should be forced to help anyone else. If you want to do something for someone else's benefit, you should be free to d…

> When you compel others to do something, whatever it is that you've coerced them into doing cannot be a noble act > No good ultimately comes from that which is not freely chosen. > You get feedback about how your acts are impacting his life, which helps you be a better friend. > This ends up hurting more people than you help. What an absolutely mind numblingly self centered and brain-dead take. It's got nothing to d…

I have no problem with the government paying for ADA accommodations, and all of us sharing in the tax burden for them. Why should their costs be forced on a narrow group of businesses in unequal ways?

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

#126

Post by Pfhreak »

lupire wrote: post #75
Pfhreak wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are providing rides as a business, you must be willing to accept seeing eye dogs. If you cannot meet this qualification, then your options are limited. I am not a lawyer, but it sounds like you might not want to own a driving business or you may want to work with your employer to accommodate your needs. (e.g. by dispatching another driver, etc.)

Drivers are not a "business". They are laborers for Uber, which is the business.

I mean, yeah, I'd love to liver in that world. Unfortunately, Uber has campaigned widely that their drivers are, in fact, independent contractors and not employees.

The drivers should be employees, imo, but the way the company is structured today, they are not.

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

#127

Post by teraflop »

maxharris wrote: post #58

I'd like to go out on a limb and say that I don't agree with the ADA. I don't think any private person or organization should be compelled to provide facilities or services for anyone else, regardless of what their need is. I have no animus toward people with disabilities - I'm just saying that no one should be forced to help anyone else. If you want to do something for someone else's benefit, you should be free to d…

> When you compel others to do something, whatever it is that you've coerced them into doing cannot be a noble act. No good ultimately comes from that which is not freely chosen.

I couldn't care less about whether the ADA increases or decreases the number of "noble acts" that happen every day. I care about its actual effects on people's lives. And it has demonstrably done a lot of good for a lot of people, despite your assertion that such a thing is unthinkable.

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

#128

Post by Miner49er »

ehmmmmmmmm wrote: post #24

> "The bottom line is that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a guide dog should be able to go anywhere that a blind person can go." Okay, I completely get this, but question -- what about business owners and drivers who are traumatized by dogs? If I were a driver, I'd be much more likely to crash the car if there was a dog in the car of any kind. I've had traumatic experiences with dogs and being near one se…

The ADA says that is not a good enough reason to deny service:

https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

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

#129

Post by scsilver »

valuearb wrote: post #111
rectang wrote: post #10

> It rejected Uber's claim that the company itself was not liable, because, it argued, its drivers had the status of contractors rather than employees. Another example of how rideshare companies attempt to offload risk and liability onto individual drivers who are generally unprepared and unaware that this is happening. Insurance is a more important example (most rideshare drivers are not properly insured), but this…

Are you saying that the drivers didn't know what they were doing to this woman was wrong? Or are you claiming Uber told the drivers to mistreat her?

That at the end of the day, Uber sent a woman into terrible situation, creating a bunch of externalities that society has to bare. Society should have the right to identify those externalities and bring the companies attention to those externalities. If the company says "not my problem" the public should get to decide if they want to allow a company to blithely foist those externalities onto society.

They have a legal argument why they arent responsible, but that doesnt mean they are socially responsible to its users, shareholders and other stakeholders.

Even then, the courts have made their order, so it looks like their arguments were legally insufficient.

Its hard for me to defend a system that blatently hurts the disabled then tries to argue a loophole around the ADA. They even have a link declaring how much they care about providing accessibility https://www.uber.com/us/en/about/accessibility .

All this lip service and they wont take responsibility for a blind woman being stranded multiple times, because she was stranded by their "contractor".

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

#130

Post by akiselev »

valuearb wrote: post #120
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…

It's not the service animals that are the problem, is the "emotional support" animals, or more specifically, their owners.

Which is a problem for legislators. Taxi drivers should not be the arbiters of whether an animal is a true support animal or not.
Post reply on HN