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
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?
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
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.
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
Read "Where Service Animals Are Allowed" at [1]. My understanding is that a driver with allergens would not be required to take the dog the same way they can exclude a dog from a burn unit. However making a false claim about such things would be against the law.
From the link you posted:"Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. "
They can exclude a dog from a burn unit, because the public is not normally allowed in a burn unit.
I've read about this before. In Minneapolis there are some drivers with doctors' notes and you are supposed to tell the dispatcher that you have a dog so that they can be sure to not send one of those drivers. In Cincinnati there was a lawsuit filed over this and the city decided that unless the driver could prove that their allergy was so severe that it rose to the level of itself being an ADA disability, they could not use it as a reason to refuse fare.
In one case it is explicitly mentioned, and in another tangentially, that some people have refused rides to people with dogs on religious grounds as Islam considers contact with dogs to be very objectionable, using allergies as an excuse. I read the recent filing and it didn't mention anything specifically about that though. Included below for completeness:
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
"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."
20 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 55.0 ms ] threadI 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
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?
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
http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm
http://www.nagdu.org/taxis.html
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/29312754.html
In one case it is explicitly mentioned, and in another tangentially, that some people have refused rides to people with dogs on religious grounds as Islam considers contact with dogs to be very objectionable, using allergies as an excuse. I read the recent filing and it didn't mention anything specifically about that though. Included below for completeness:
http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/ca/NationalFederationoftheBlindvU...
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.
Also itd serve as loophole to discriminate since many blind people have service dogs.
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
Also, I was stating that law SHOULDN'T force people. Not that it doesn't.
Buildings are the same way. Most residential homes do not have ramps unless some one lives there who needs it.
"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."