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

311–320 of 502 posts

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

#311

Post by inetknght »

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?

If they're ferrying passengers for compensation then they absolutely should follow the law (including ADA). If they don't want to deal with all types of passengers then they don't have to be in that business.

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

#312

Post by dillondoyle »

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…

My Uber in Denver has Uber Pet. I thought I remembered seeing child seat in the past, maybe Ski too but I could be wrong.

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

#313

Post by TheAdamAndChe »

wccrawford wrote: post #292
TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It shouldn't matter. As they say in the article, "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." If the driver isn't willing to comply with the regulations, then they shouldn't broadcast their services on Uber.

Uber is required to provide service to that person. An individual driver is not required to. If that particular driver can't, Uber still has to provide that service for the passenger.

This doesn't make sense to me. If a driver isn't capable or willing to be ADA compliant, then why are they driving other people? They shouldn't be.

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

#314

Post by vkou »

kube-system wrote: post #172
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…

I don't think Uber/Lyft wants to take the responsibility of ADA compliance, because that is implying that their drivers are employees.

The ADA does not give compliance exemptions to contractors employed by a company.

Uber doesn't want their drivers classified as employees because it would cost them a lot of money in benefits and possibly back-pay.

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

#315

Post by [deleted] »

xmprt wrote: post #288
scsilver wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lega…

I'm not sure how this could be fixed though. Uber tells the drivers that they have to comply with ADA for legal reasons but if the drivers still don't then Uber is liable? It kind of feels like me suing a grocery store because someone pushed me into a wall that was built by the store. Uber could definitely do more (like banning drivers that don't comply and allowing passengers and drivers to indicate their disabiliti…

[deleted]

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

#316

Post by bawolff »

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?

It stopped being their personal property the moment they started using it to run a business. Now its business property. They don't have to allow unruly/drunk/etc customers, but there are grounds its not ok to discriminate on when running a business.

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

#317

Post by R0b0t1 »

Miner49er wrote: post #219
fuzzer37 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, I see. That seems reasonable, honestly. So in that case, Uber should be able to just assign another driver. But the point about there being a small handful of drivers in an area still stands. However, I don't think Uber should be forced to provide service just because they technically can. If there are no drivers at all in your area, they'll tell you that (Or charge an exorbitant fee for someone to drive in) and…

> But the point about there being a small handful of drivers in an area still stands. Yeah in this case, a driver may have to take a service dog even if they have fear or an allergy, or Uber could be sued again. IANAL, but this is my understanding.

I am seriously doubting an allergic driver would be forced to take a passenger with a dog. Their immediate right to life trumps the ADA.

There's more interesting arguments to be made, like you can't ask the driver to provide proof of their allergies, and so on.

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

#318

Post by rPlayer6554 »

techsupporter wrote: post #304
qaq wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think you said yes to the parent comment but are not actually saying yes. Saying that "people with dog allergies cannot drive with Uber" is discrimination; allergies are also legally considered disabilities under the ADA[0]. Plus why would it be nessary if only a small portion of people have animals, and an even smaller portion need them for disabilities?

What should happen is allow drivers to get a doctor's note that marks their car as unstable for allergies (that way they can't make it up to discriminate). Also allow customers to mark themselves as needing to avoid animals or needing animal-friendly cars. You don't even have to show this information to either party: Uber can automatically choose the right car.

The law doesn't say every single driver has to pick up people that need service animals. It just says reasonable accommodations must be made.

[0] https://www.aafa.org/asthma-allergies-and-the-american-with-...

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

#319

Post by usbline »

amyjess wrote: post #305
usbline wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

ADA also says these accommodations need to be readily achievable. Considering the income level of people working at rideshares, it's really not achievable and extremely unfair.

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

#320

Post by URSpider94 »

dillondoyle wrote: post #312
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…

My Uber in Denver has Uber Pet. I thought I remembered seeing child seat in the past, maybe Ski too but I could be wrong.

Guide dogs aren't pets. They are medical equipment.
Post reply on HN