
Uber: Disability Laws Don’t Apply to Us - luu
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/21/uber-disability-laws-don-t-apply-to-us.html
======
dia80
This kind of concerns me. I have a T4/T5 spinal cord injury from a
snowboarding accident 4.5Y ago. I have good hand and arm function but that's
it no abdominals etc. I drive myself to work everyday and transfer in and out
and fold up my wheelchair.

London's black cabs all have ramps. UBER is making big inroads here and I'm
worried that eventually it'll be tricky to get a black cab. I can transfer
into a regular car but I would need the driver to put my wheelchair in the
boot (trunk) and given busy streets, harassed drivers, needing to pull right
up to the kerb etc. I've not really had the guts to try it. It's particularly
relevant here as the tube is mostly inaccessible and the buses painfully slow.

~~~
jackgavigan
_> London's black cabs all have ramps._

It's worth noting that this is due to a legal requirement that all licensed
taxis (i.e. black taxis) _must_ be wheelchair accessible. I think that
requirement came into force around 1999 and it resulted in a lot of older
taxis that _weren 't_ wheelchair-accessible being sold on the second-hand
market when their owners were forced to upgrade.

So, in addition to successfully completing the Knowledge[1], black taxi
drivers _must_ operate using a compliant vehicle (which is inevitably more
expensive than a normal vehicle, which Uber drivers typically use), and they
_must_ pick up anyone (including a disabled person who hails them while their
light is on (if they ignore you or refuse to carry you without good reason,
you can complain to the Public Carriage Office, which can take away a driver's
taxi license).

In return for complying with all these requirements, licensed taxi drivers are
allowed to pick people up on the street and calculate the fare using a
taximeter.

Other cab drivers (driving what are typically referred to as minicabs or
"private hire vehicles") are supposed to agree a fare with the passenger up
front and are specifically prohibited, by law, from using a taximeter.[2]

London's licensed taxis drivers' view is that the Uber app is effectively a
meter, and therefore, Uber drivers are breaking the law. The High Court will
rule on the matter this summer.[3]

1: [http://tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/london-taxi-
te...](http://tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/london-taxi-test-
knowledge/)

2:
[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/34/section/11](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/34/section/11)

3: [http://www.cityam.com/212676/high-court-ruling-taximeters-
co...](http://www.cityam.com/212676/high-court-ruling-taximeters-could-mean-
end-uber-london)

~~~
sillygoose
> _Other cab drivers (driving what are typically referred to as minicabs or
> "private hire vehicles") are supposed to agree a fare with the passenger up
> front and are specifically prohibited, by law, from using a taximeter._

Their lives must be _miserable_ without The Queen's "taximeter"!

~~~
true_religion
I think the UK situation is fair. If the uber app lets you go to random
destinations, or charges you extra per the mile, then it is a meter.

Uber should be just like a black car service: point A to point B, with no
extras. If Uber doesn't find this as profitable, they're free to open a
segment of their company that actually is a taxi service and follows
regulation in exchange for picking up the public and being able to run a meter
on public traffic.

~~~
sillygoose
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 getting licensed increase safety in any way? It's not like anyone
_wants_ to experience a car crash.

The real point of the exercise is to maintain a state-supported taxi-cartel.
Higher prices for the masses, and higher profits for the cartel. Desperation
and hardship for the debt-slave drivers.

~~~
true_religion
> 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 without licensing to ensure fair pricing and service to clientele they
may:

(a) 'forget' about picking up people of a certain skin color (b) refuse fare
to a certain district they don't like (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.

All of these things I've seen in unregulated environments and to a lesser
extent (a & b ) in regulated environments too.

~~~
sillygoose
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.

------
goatforce5
I can kinda get that companies might want to skip around accessibility issues
when they're first getting started. But once you reach a certain point
(somewhere well before billion dollar valuations) it's unconscionable to
ignore accessibility.

> [Tim] Cook replied [...] that a return on investment (ROI) was not the
> primary consideration on such issues. “When we work on making our devices
> accessible by the blind,” he said, “I don’t consider the bloody ROI.”

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/03/07/why-
tim-...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/03/07/why-tim-cook-
doesnt-care-about-the-bloody-roi/)

~~~
stephenr
> 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!"

~~~
electroly
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.

~~~
gamblor956
A company, like Uber, that has raised several hundreds of millions of dollars
in financing, is definitely not a small business and doesn't get to claim that
exemption.

~~~
electroly
The post I replied to was talking about the "startup community," so I was
addressing that. A startup isn't breaking the law by not having the same level
of accessibility as a large company. Uber has 2000 employees (excluding the
drivers); they definitely wouldn't qualify.

------
DannyBee
Company set up to lower prices by avoiding regulatory overhead tries to avoid
regulatory overhead - film at 11.

FWIW: It seems really unlikely Uber will be able to play both sides of the
coin on this one for much longer.

Just in case anyone thought "courts have never considered things like Uber and
the ADA before", they have.

Search for "demand responsive transportation ADA"

The fact that the drivers are or are not employees will not matter.

Also

"49 C.F.R. § 37.171 - Equivalency Requirement for Demand Responsive Service
Operated by Private Entities Not Primarily in the Business of Transporting
People"

Whoops. Oh well, there goes any argument about not being in the business of
transporting people ...

~~~
alkonaut
In places where Uber is just another taxi company, it likely has to follow all
the local regulations that apply to taxi companies.

It's only special in the places where Uber pretends not to be a taxi by
claiming it's some kind of "ride sharing". I think _that_ isn't going to last
very long.

~~~
DannyBee
"It's only special in the places"

My point is precisely: It is not special, for ADA purposes, in _any_ of these
places, regardless of the outcome of the "we aren't really a taxi company"
argument they make.

------
MrSourz
I think I understand Uber's stance here. From a business perspective their
drivers are all independent contractors. This is an important part of the
discussion because if they start telling them what the can and cannot do
during their time then they start to look more and more like employees
(something they absolutely do not want).

An example of this are the popularly discussed drivers that run jewellery or
other businesses out of their car while also driving. The moment Uber says you
cannot do this on while a contractor for us the legal waters become murkier.

It may be the case that once someone challenges in court an Uber driver (not
Uber itself) and wins on the grounds that not accepting a disabled passenger
is illegal then the company will have the grounds (and precedent) to enforce
that their contractors do not break the law.

To drive the point home, even if Uber wants to prevent their drivers from
doing certain things doing so moves them closer to the realm of employees not
contractors.

Edit: To clarify I don't necessarily believe that Uber drivers should be
considered contractors, but until a case is brought against them and they lose
and all drivers become employees they're going to be as hands off as possible
to maintain their ability to defend the position. Also providing instructions
to a contractor (provide water) does not make them an employee.

~~~
ceejayoz
Surely I can tell a web developer contractor they can't build insecure/shitty
code without turning them into an employee? They tell their drivers all sorts
of instructions already - turn down tips, offer water, be courteous, etc.

~~~
pekk
Don't ask HN, look up the actual difference between an employee and a
contractor if you are not sure and are employing contractors.

~~~
ceejayoz
I don't. It's a hypothetical. Why can't Uber say "you must comply with the
ADA" to their drivers if I'm able to say to a web developer contractor
"website must be accessible to the visually impaired".

------
kaolinite
This really saddens me. I used to love Uber, it was one of my favourite
companies. I remember when I first used it - I'd gone down to London and was
going to try UberLux out, just for the one trip. I ended up using it about
four times that day, even though it was far more expensive than a taxi. It was
incredible and worth every penny because unlike taxis, Uber was
professional[1]. The driver was polite, you got a bottle of water to drink and
there was stuff to read too (and not rubbish either, quality stuff like the
FT).

For a while, it seemed like Uber was about the high-end - as Travis himself
said, he created Uber to have a more "baller" way to travel around San
Francisco - but then they started to care more and more about being seen as
affordable and UberX is now clearly the company's top priority. And as prices
drop and margins are squeezed, articles like this are the end result. People
will complain that luxury isn't important (and they might be right) but Uber
had a really good service that was different. Now they're just like all the
other ride sharing companies.

I really, really wish they would shut down UberX. I know they won't. But I
want to love Uber again - but with all of these stories, almost all regarding
UberX drivers - I feel obnoxious if I use them. I don't want to support them.

Love the service, hate the company.

[1] I was recently in a taxi where the taxi driver said a number of very
racist things, directly insulted me, my fellow passenger and pretty much
anyone he came into contact with during the ride (other cars, pedestrians,
etc) and swore repeatedly. This isn't the first time I've experienced this
(although it was the worst). I'm somewhat shy and find taxis to be, on
occasion, somewhat intimidating. I've never felt that way in an Uber.

~~~
DanBC
> I was recently in a taxi where the taxi driver said a number of very racist
> things, directly insulted me, my fellow passenger and pretty much anyone he
> came into contact with during the ride (other cars, pedestrians, etc) and
> swore repeatedly.

Please do always reprt this! I know you shouldn't have to; I know it happens
far too often. But please do report it.

[https://www.tfl.gov.uk/forms/12397.aspx](https://www.tfl.gov.uk/forms/12397.aspx)

[https://www.tfl.gov.uk/forms/12407.aspx](https://www.tfl.gov.uk/forms/12407.aspx)

[http://www.londonblacktaxis.net/complaints.htm](http://www.londonblacktaxis.net/complaints.htm)

(Are these the right websites?)

~~~
kaolinite
Thanks for those links, I didn't realise it was that easy. However, this was
in a private taxi and not in London, but yes, I could have reported it.

Honestly though, my problem isn't with the occasional awful ride, but the far
more frequent slightly annoying rides. The ones where the driver won't stop
talking or asking about local women or good bars in the city or the latest
football gossip. I can't complain about that (nor do I really have the right
to) but it's a huge reason why I prefer the Uber service.

------
venomsnake
Here is the thing with "sharing" economy - the moment money exchange hands,
this is no longer sharing but commercial activity. So you must abide to the
regulations. You cannot cherry pick only the rules that suit you.

~~~
JonFish85
They've been able to do it to the tune of a tens of billions of dollars
valuation. So has Airbnb. Why change now? They'll get their IPO before anyone
has to answer for anything, so investors & founders will be happy. Keep
running the marketing machine with the "sharing" moniker right until the check
clears, and after that, it's the shareholders' problem.

~~~
Frondo
"Why change now?"

Because what they're doing is wrong, and doing something wrong because you can
get a lot of money for it is pretty awful.

~~~
Drakim
That is how business and capitalism works.

Being immoral can hurt your profits, because customers might be repulsed and
boycott you. Breaking the law can hurt your profits, because the government
might take action against your business.

Those are the sole reasons why you would avoid doing immoral and illegal
things. If the benefit outweighs the negatives, then businesses will do those
things. If they don't do it, they will lose against other businesses that are
willing to do it.

Fortunately, the downsides can be quite big, which means that most of the time
businesses will "stay in line". A huge boycott from the people or hard
damaging actions from the government really hurts profits, so it's very rarely
a profitable thing to be immoral and break the law.

~~~
Frondo
Of course people can be moral actors in the business world.

"Because you might get caught" is by no means the only reason to do the right
thing, even if it means leaving money on the table.

What you're describing is a sociopathic greed.

------
parfe
Airbnb, Uber, and the unbonded money transmitter of the month, are all making
obscene amount of money breaking the law and investors keep rewarding them.

It's really easy in home construction to make a profit if you hire illegal
immigrants, pay them an illegal wage, don't carry insurance, don't pay payroll
taxes, and don't pay overtime. If only I could hide all that behind an app,
I'd call it a startup and become a billionaire!

It's to the point where I have serious issues with the morals of people
working for and investing in such outright abusive companies. You might "just"
be a programmer, but you're still earning your paycheck breaking the law and
skimming money away from businesses that are legit, protect their customers,
and exercise the base level of ethics. But I guess you personally didn't
abandon a handicapped person on the side of the road, or deny a trip to a
black neighborhood, so you don't feel like you did anything wrong?

~~~
throwaway12309
I agree with you, but take in account that if these companies didn't exist
like this (and I'm not saying this is a valid excuse) a lot of programmers
(and other positions) wouldn't exist. A lot of folks here go with the 'I
rather work at a startup then a corporate job', but the truth is, if these
ventures didn't exist, they wouldn't be able to get a 'normal' job at a boring
company, since those actually care about following the law and standards and
what not. Most of these 'senior' developers in the new startup flavour of the
week wouldn't be considered much above juniors in other industries.

------
afandian
I don't know what people expected from an organisation set up for the prime
purpose of avoiding regulation.

~~~
marknutter
A better service at a cheaper rate.

~~~
mrweasel
Which really only work if you're in the majority. Some groups of people rely
on the rest of us to subsidise the services they require.

If we allow companies to only service the group of people that are the most
profitable, we risk excluding others from purchasing that service altogether.
That's the exact same reason why Obama-care (sorry I don't know the correct
name for it) disallows the insurance companies from excluding people with pre-
existing conditions.

I understand rule and service levels are different around the world, but
allowing Uber, AirBNB and other to pretend that all the rules are solely in
place to keep competition out is doing society a disservice.

~~~
Dylan16807
I think it's been clearly shown that _part_ of the regulation is harmful to
both drivers and riders. Also that some of the beneficial regulation goes
unenforced.

In many cities it's definitely possible to make a system that's better than
the old one for everyone (except for certain investors).

------
codingdave
I just want to point out that posting about how wrong Uber is on HN, but then
still using them, doesn't help anyone.

If you feel they are in the wrong, do not use Uber until they update their
policies and actions.

~~~
maxerickson
That's not true though, hypocritical advocacy can logically be effective. If
you convince just 2 other people to make the change you are arguing for,
you've exceeded the change that you can personally effect.

~~~
a3n
> you've exceeded the change that you can personally effect.

That's not true though. You're still not effecting the change that would
result from you yourself taking action. In your example, you're shy the result
of 1/3 of possible change.

~~~
maxerickson
In your reply you are just ignoring my intended meaning with "personally". You
obviously understood what I said. If you think a different phrasing would be
better, feel free to suggest that.

~~~
Istof
Yeah, if you get everyone else to not use Uber, you won't be able to use it
either because it will be in business anymore. I have never used them but they
sure hope to avoid all existing laws... some cities have even written specific
laws that apply only to them because of that.

------
tzs
The real model of many "disruptive" startups is to come into some regulated
industry and only handle the easy cases/jobs/customers. Because they are only
doing the easy cases, they can do it cheaper and make the experience more
streamlined or friendly.

Their regulated competitors are required to handle all cases.

Since the easy cases are usually them most profitable, and the hard cases
might even be money losers that are subsidized by the easy cases, this can be
very bad. The disruptive startup might even kill off the competitors, and then
those people who are the hard cases can be left unserved until regulators
manage to catch up and put the startup under regulation.

------
ccurtsinger
I just closed my account. Unfortunately, this requires sending an email to
support@uber.com. It's inconvenient, but gives you a place to explain that you
will not use the service until they comply with the ADA.

------
beat
This is a terrible business approach. It's just _begging_ for crusader
retaliation from legislators and district attorneys - exactly the sort of
negative relationship that Uber needs to avoid. Acting "above the law" makes
the people who represent the law WANT to cut you down to size.

Uber's success may make its founders arrogant enough to think they're too big
to mess with. They've been fighting municipal governments so far, not
Washington. Washington crushes entire countries.

------
striking
It doesn't matter what the law says, in my opinion. Discrimination is
discrimination. You wouldn't stop an African-American from getting into your
car, right?

~~~
JohnTHaller
Uber drivers regularly discriminate based on race by discriminating based on
location of drop off... hence the high rates of 'cancelled' riders Uber users
in SF and NYC see when traveling to certain neighborhoods. Neighborhoods that
just happen to have higher percentages of non-white residents. This is why we
have laws against drop-off discrimination here in NYC. But Uber being Uber
sees them as bureaucratic red tape that shouldn't apply to them. Just like
disability access laws. And ethics.

~~~
jordanthoms
My understanding is that Uber drivers don't see the dropoff location until
they pick up the passenger, and at any rate you can simply not enter the
destination and tell the driver where to go.

------
moron4hire
>> Parisi says the driver called her an “invalid” and said she “must not be a
Christian” and needed to “develop thicker skin.” At the end of her ride,
Parisi says the driver asked her if was going to give her a bad review.

Maybe the driver should have thought of the possibility of a bad review
_before_ berating a customer. I don't know, maybe that's just me. Causality
might not be a real thing.

------
hellopeople1234
I've found myself using ride sharing services less and less lately, mostly
because I've found uber drivers to be more and more annoying they want to talk
non-stop and half the time have no idea where their going or how to get there
properly since whatever mapping system they uses seems to constantly fail for
whatever reason lately

------
chourobin
"But Uber describes its drivers as independent contractors, and says it
therefore is unable to control their actions."

Not being able to control the actions of its drivers is a bad excuse, and
precisely why there should be new regulation.

------
limeyx
This would be an awesome chance for Uber to take a leadership position and
embrace rather than try to avoid & deny.

Looks like that wont happen though ...

------
eire1130
It's really not that hard to "do the right thing." Yet they have to go out
their way to be dicks about it.

~~~
Thriptic
It depends on how you define doing the right thing. If you mean telling
drivers to be accomodating of passengers with disabilities, then yes I agree.
If you mean fielding an entire discrete service of vehicles across the world
to service a small, non uniformally distributed number of users without
actually employing their drivers; that's a bit harder. I'm not saying that
Uber shouldn't deploy such a discrete service, but I'm not sure it's fair to
say that ADA compliance in this context is cheap or easy.

~~~
fredkbloggs
ADA compliance is almost never cheap or easy. That was the knock on the law
when it was being debated and any business owner will tell you it's still
every bit the costly nightmare people said it would be at the time. It's a
terrible law and most of it should be repealed (the rest should devolve to the
states, which unlike the federal government have the constitutional authority
to impose it), but the fact remains that courts have upheld it and it is the
law. There's no reason one taxi company should have to follow it and not
another.

------
Radle
"...but Uber claims that because it’s a technology company, not a
transportation service..." What the fuck?!

------
aikah
> but Uber claims that because it’s a technology company, not a transportation
> service, it doesn’t fall under the ADA’s jurisdiction.

What the ? Come on ,They don't get to decide what law they should follow. Or
maybe they know that all these lawsuits cost them less than having to respect
the law, I don't know. All I can say is that Uber displays an unbelievable
level of arrogance.

~~~
zo1
They make an app that allows people to charge for driving services. I wouldn't
call that as Uber providing a transportation service, personally.

Remember, just because it "seems obvious" that they are "somehow" a company
related to "transportation", doesn't make them a "transportation service" by
whatever definition is used by the government for transportation service
company regulations (or whatever that law is called).

As much as I think individuals should follow the intention of laws, rather
than the 'letter'. We have to be realistic. Either we petition to have the
'letter' of the law changed to encompass what we 'think' the definition should
be, or we accept that the definition is a reasonable demarcation of what
constitutes and doesn't constitute a transportation company.

And lets not mix emotions into it in some sort of fit of outrage that 'they
dare not' pretend like they're not a 'transportation company' when we think
it's obvious.

#Edit. Typo.

~~~
forgottenpass
_They make an app that allows people to charge for driving services._

No, Swipe is an app that allows people to charge for driving services. Uber is
how the car is ordered, ride metered and payment processed. Oh, and the people
driving are Uber's 1099s.

I don't have the background to say anything about whether the court will hold
Uber liable in this suit. But on the question of classifying Uber, I find it
incredibly unlikely the court will be receptive to the idea they're
functionally equivalent to swipe.

------
fredkbloggs
You know, everything about Uber's structure and approach to the market has
been designed with the sole purpose of evading the law. It's only a matter of
time before some ambitious US Attorney starts thinking about tying all this
stuff together with RICO.

------
paulv
The disabled is a club anyone can join. Often without notice.

------
marvel_boy
Sad. This is the reason state legislation is necessary. Uber is banned to
operate in a lot of countries because his lack of respect to law.

------
RodericDay
Did this get downvoted out of the front page?

------
jgalt212
better title:

Uber: No Laws Apply to Us

------
tobiasu
Uber: Pissing off judges worldwide

------
copsarebastards
I don't give a fuck about the law. Basic human decency still applies.

EDIT: Anyone care to explain the downvotes?

~~~
jgalt212
I didn't downvote you, but foul language almost guarantees a downvote.

------
lorddoig
Using Uber with certain disabilities appears to be a real problem, this is
true, but there's a very real risk that regulating Uber to within an inch of
it's life will make it just another cab company -- and then what? What's the
point?

The goals here are not in question: Uber should not be turning these customers
away - ever - and currently it seems to be deficient in that regard. But
Uber's success is testament to the fact that the old system was also
deficient, just in different ways and for different people. Solving this
problem optimally is a big thing to ask of a centuries old
legislative/political machine, and it's quite likely it just plain old won't
manage it - some absurdly moralistic view such as "all Uber cars must be
capable of accommodating wheelchair passengers" is a far too predictable
outcome, if we let it get that far.

There is almost always a better way, and we should be very careful about going
on a witch hunt with things like this, lest we allow the old guard to slowly
destroy this exciting new world minutes after we build it.

------
rorykoehler
I would imagine that self driving cars will be much easier to design for
accessibility seeing as other design considerations become less relevant (such
as needing the driver to be in a certain position and facing the front in the
vehicle). If I were to design an autonomous car today I would design it with
one huge top hinged door on each side and a ramp that makes it easy to drive a
wheelchair straight in. Have all the seats facing each other and ensure that
at least one folds up/swivels to the side to make room for the wheelchair.
This would also benefit people traveling with over-sized luggage.

The only thing Uber will get from this is bad PR. Their seeming arrogance (not
only in this matter) is a real turn off.

