

Uber sued for allegedly refusing rides to the blind - cwal37
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/

======
arenaninja
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
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?

~~~
arenaninja
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

------
totony
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.

~~~
Iftheshoefits
> 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.

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

~~~
ASneakyFox
I agree there's a difference. As the objection is not to the person. But being
that the person needs a dog to go anywhere in public the two are very
intertwined.

Also itd serve as loophole to discriminate since many blind people have
service dogs.

------
fuzionmonkey
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."

