Uber sued for allegedly refusing rides to the blind

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/09/10/uber-sued-for-allegedly-refusing-rides-to-the-blind-and-putting-a-dog-in-the-trunk/

by cwal37 • 12 years ago

24 19 12 years ago

washingtonpost.com

arenaninja2• 12 years ago

Reading the article makes it really clear of why taxis are so regulated; because they need to be!

I once had an idea that was basically Uber, back in 2005 when I had a Motorola Razr and had also been left stranded, kept waiting for 45+minutes and forgotten about (or denied service!). My idea at the time involved selling it to the yellow cab industry so that they could send the closest cab and let the customer know the estimate time. But at no point did I think it a good idea to throw away the entire body of regulation for taxi services

dpweb• 12 years ago

Uber blew up in large part cause the taxi experience was so horrible. Especially for middle class business-travellers. Try to get a driver to take a credit card, have a 15 minute argument, even when they were required to take them.

Taxi regulation is about collecting fees. Proof. What do they do, slap a 30 cent surcharge here in Chicago for Uber. How does that go toward regulations when they don't regulate Uber?

arenaninja2• 12 years ago

I didn't mean to imply that the taxi experience isn't horrible, I'm well aware that it is.

I've no idea how Uber works in Chicago, but what I am saying is that if Uber wants to truly replace taxis, they need to provide most if not all of the guarantees that regulations impose on regular taxi services, not just taking credit card payments.

Uber blew up in large part cause the taxi experience was so horrible. Especially for middle class business-travellers.

Does that mean something else should now take off since the Uber experience appears to be horrible for people with service dogs? I understand that it isn't their targeted demographic, but that should in no way denigrate the experience for anybody who isn't a drunk at 1am looking to get home

totony3• 12 years ago

The article keeps stating that the drivers are declining the disabled person access. In my understanding, they are denying the presence of an animal in their car, not necessarily the disabled person. This is an essential difference. Discrimination would be refusing the person due to his disability, whereas this is not discrimination. Uber is right in saying that the disabled person having a dog should mention it to the driver. Fact is, the dog could cause damage to the car, or the driver could be allergic, or the next passenger. Law shouldn't force people to accept such an hindrance, even more when it was not even mentioned.

reverius42• 12 years ago

IMHO the law should force people to accept such a hindrance, lest we live in a society where those less fortunate or less able are forced to accept all the hindrances instead. Society seems to agree with me -- we do in fact have laws requiring such "hindrances" as accepting service animals: http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/disability/ada.htm

pkaye• 12 years ago

I wonder what should happen if the driver is severely allergic to dogs? How would this be resolved?

_delirium• 12 years ago

In most jurisdictions, laws do typically require seeing-eye dogs to be exempted from "no pets" / "no animals" requirements, with some exceptions.

Iftheshoefits• 12 years ago

In my understanding, they are denying the presence of an animal in their car, not necessarily the disabled person.

Your understanding is incorrect, because denying the presence of the animal is identical to denying the dependent disabled person because he's disabled. The two are inextricably linked together.

lazylizard• 12 years ago

its a bit like saying hearing-impaired people can't take the ride if they bring their hearing aid along.

totony3• 12 years ago

Imo there is a difference, as the motive for not allowing the person is different. Morality is majorly about motives.

iaw2• 12 years ago

I think you may be a bit ignorant of the law here. Read 'where service animals are allowed' at [1]. The American Disabilities Act states pretty clearly that to deny reasonable accommodations to disabled people is illegal.

To create an analog to your argument. Lets say an individual is in a wheelchair and a store doesn't have ramp accessibility. In your argument, it would be perfectly fine for the individual to abandon their chair and crawl into the store because the store isn't barring that individual from entry. The issue in this analog (as with your argument) is that for the disabled person to function they need access to their wheelchair (or dog). Denying access for the dog is equivalent to denying access to wheelchairs which is equivalent to denying access to the individual.

[1] http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

totony3• 12 years ago

Here, the ramp is a specific accomodation for the disabled person. A better analogy would be a scenario where law would require every stairs accessing the building (driver) to have an associated ramp (allowing dogs). For Uber, in my opinion, certain "dogs-allowed" cars should be added (as suggested somewhere else in this thread), but not every driver should be required to allow them.

Also, I was stating that law SHOULDN'T force people. Not that it doesn't.

fuzionmonkey• 12 years ago

Key statement at the bottom of the article:

"In a statement reported by the San Francisco Examiner, Uber said its policy is to terminate drivers who refuse to transport service animals."

The problem is some Uber drivers (who are independent contractors) refused to allow dogs into their cars. Uber should be more proactive about educating drivers about service animals, but it is hardly an Uber policy to "refuse rides to the blind."

Uber sued for allegedly refusing rides to the blind

Related Stories