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

301–310 of 502 posts

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

#301

Post by passivate »

stefan_ wrote: post #272
passivate wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that the general point people are making is that Uber is like Ebay - a platform. If a seller on Ebay sells you a busted iphone, Ebay has a 'buyer protection' policy to help you seek redress. Maybe Uber needs to have some of that as well.

Thats what Uber likes to pretend, but at the end of the day they are the ones charging my credit card.

They don't hire the drivers, and pretty much anyone can join the platform, so I don't agree that its 'pretend'.

However, I do think we can do more to make sure the disabled are taken care of. Maybe riders could mark themselves as needing assistance, and drivers could get paid a few more pennies per mile for taking care of them - at the end of the ride, when the passenger approves the 'bonus'.

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

#302

Post by yarcob »

usbline wrote: post #289
yarcob wrote: post #271

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…

This is someone's personal property we're talking about. Should they forced to shuttle around drunken and incontinent people too? Why should anyone be coerced with being kicked off of a platform and losing (their possibly only) source of income because they don't want piss, shit, and vomit in their car?

Good point. Please note that I wrote: "There's nothing wrong with needing some special accomodations". I did not say you need to accomodate everything.

If someone is drunk enough that he's going to piss and throw up in the car, it might be a better idea to call an ambulance instead.

But to be honest, if you are in the transportation business, someone is going to fuck up your car sooner or later, and you really need to take potential cleaning costs into account. That's just part of the job.

Don't want your car to get dirty from driving people? Then don't offer to drive people.

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

#303

Post by DanBC »

zachrip wrote: post #202
ehmmmmmmmm wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is good. PTSD should be added to that as well. Dogs send me into panic and it would be a bad idea for the law to force me to drive against it. I mean, I would because it's the law, and as a result, you would be in danger.

Couldn't this result in anyone just abusing this system when they don't want to drive with service dogs in the car?

In the UK you need to apply for a certificate to exempt you from this part of the law.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/168

168Assistance dogs in taxis

(1)This section imposes duties on the driver of a taxi which has been hired—

(a)by or for a disabled person who is accompanied by an assistance dog, or

(b)by another person who wishes to be accompanied by a disabled person with an assistance dog.

(2)The driver must—

(a)carry the disabled person's dog and allow it to remain with that person;

(b)not make any additional charge for doing so.

(3)The driver of a taxi commits an offence by failing to comply with a duty imposed by this section.

(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

169Assistance dogs in taxis: exemption certificates

(1)A licensing authority must issue a person with a certificate exempting the person from the duties imposed by section 168 (an “exemption certificate”) if satisfied that it is appropriate to do so on medical grounds.

(2)In deciding whether to issue an exemption certificate the authority must have regard, in particular, to the physical characteristics of the taxi which the person drives or those of any kind of taxi in relation to which the person requires the certificate.

(3)An exemption certificate is valid—

(a)in respect of a specified taxi or a specified kind of taxi;

(b)for such period as is specified in the certificate.

(4)The driver of a taxi is exempt from the duties imposed by section 168 if—

(a)an exemption certificate issued to the driver is in force with respect to the taxi, and

(b)the prescribed notice of the exemption is exhibited on the taxi in the prescribed manner.

The power to make regulations under paragraph (b) is exercisable by the Secretary of State.

(5)In this section “licensing authority” means—

(a)in relation to the area to which the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 applies, Transport for London;

(b)in relation to any other area in England and Wales, the authority responsible for licensing taxis in that area.

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

#304

Post by techsupporter »

qaq wrote: post #299
yarcob wrote: post #271

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?

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 mismatch for each other in the public sphere.

The law, and society in making that law, has generally decided that the right of a person with particular needs--such as a service animal or a carseat--outweigh the rights of someone to ply a trade in a customer-facing role. And, given the level of discrimination that people with those needs experience on a daily basis, I happen to think this is a fair trade-off. The person with the needs may not have a choice, or may have fewer choices, than the service provider.

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

#305

Post by amyjess »

usbline wrote: post #289
yarcob wrote: post #271

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…

This is someone's personal property we're talking about. Should they forced to shuttle around drunken and incontinent people too? Why should anyone be coerced with being kicked off of a platform and losing (their possibly only) source of income because they don't want piss, shit, and vomit in their car?

Because the Americans With Disabilities Act tells them they have to.

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

#306

Post by Simulacra »

This also occurs with taxi cabs as a Google search shows. This is absolutely something Lyft/Uber should be taking into account in their apps, but I think it could go even further. Female passengers can prefer a female driver; yes male can prefer male. Notify the driver ahead of time I have a dog, I have a child, I'm blind, I'm sweating like a beast please For the love of God turn on the a/c, etc.

I'm surprised but also not, and saddened that in 2021 this is still an issue.

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

#307

Post by vkou »

qaq wrote: post #299
yarcob wrote: post #271

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?

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.

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

#308

Post by Causality1 »

zachrip wrote: post #202
ehmmmmmmmm wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is good. PTSD should be added to that as well. Dogs send me into panic and it would be a bad idea for the law to force me to drive against it. I mean, I would because it's the law, and as a result, you would be in danger.

Couldn't this result in anyone just abusing this system when they don't want to drive with service dogs in the car?

Seeing as there is no national certification for service animals, the same problem applies to them as well.

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

#309

Post by orthecreedence »

joombaga wrote: post #205
flowerlad wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not about "helping". This is about illegal discrimination. When you open a service to the public then you can't refuse it to someone on the basis of their disability. (Or race, or gender, or sexual orientation.)

Right, but those laws are in place to help those who would be refused service on those bases. It's reasonable to question if those laws (e.g. in the context of Uber and people with disabilities) are truly a societal benefit, and if that benefit is worth the moral cost of legal coercion.

The fact that the laws exist in the first place seems to answer that line of questioning already.

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

#310

Post by wdn »

usbline wrote: post #289
yarcob wrote: post #271

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…

This is someone's personal property we're talking about. Should they forced to shuttle around drunken and incontinent people too? Why should anyone be coerced with being kicked off of a platform and losing (their possibly only) source of income because they don't want piss, shit, and vomit in their car?

This is not the only issue. It is an extension to a bigger issue, cancelling rides.

There are many time I have Uber driver cancelling my ride from the airport because my destination is not the big metro center, rather, just outside of it. The driver was quick to accept the request, then called and then cancel the ride. Of course, the driver would said the customer "request the cancellation".

This wasted so much of people's time.

Please don't tell with all those smart people Uber have in their payroll couldn't figure out this. Or they simply ignore it.

Post reply on HN