[HN Gopher] Justice Department sues Uber for overcharging people...
___________________________________________________________________
Justice Department sues Uber for overcharging people with
disabilities
Author : pseudolus
Score : 116 points
Date : 2021-11-10 19:03 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.justice.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.justice.gov)
| Someone1234 wrote:
| What they ask in relief:
|
| > The lawsuit seeks relief from the court, including ordering
| Uber to stop discriminating against individuals with
| disabilities. Additionally, the department asks the court to
| order Uber to modify its wait time fee policy to comply with the
| ADA; train its staff and drivers on the ADA; pay money damages to
| people subjected to the illegal wait time fees; and pay a civil
| penalty to vindicate the public's interest in eliminating
| disability discrimination.
| DiabloD3 wrote:
| "bUt UbEr DrIvErS aReN't EmPlOyEeS" -- Uber, 2019
| rchowe wrote:
| The wait fees are imposed by the app, not the driver.
|
| It makes sense that disability accommodations should be part
| of Uber's normal service standard and supported by their
| technology.
| recursive4 wrote:
| A few thoughts come to mind:
|
| - How should a person with disabilities indicate that they have a
| disability requiring extra time in a fraud proof manner?
|
| - Should all disabilities be treated equally?
|
| - Who decides how much time should be granter per?
|
| - Should this same policy apply to people with ephemeral
| injuries?
|
| - Should Uber compensate the driver for this extra time to ensure
| the driver is still incentivized to pick up people with
| disabilities?
|
| - Why, ethically, should this cost fall on Uber instead of the
| driver? Either way an inefficient market is being created here
| because the government is stepping in and saying that a
| transaction made between two rational actors is unfair even if
| those parties agree to the terms of the transaction (unless Uber
| is a monopoly). If the driver is not compensated fairly for their
| time, why is this sacrifice ethically permissible?
| ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote:
| Being disabled you get to experience the wonders of the free
| and efficient market every day.
|
| For example when you need to go somewhere, as a rational actor
| you can choose with your wallet:
|
| * You can choose to go by foot using the sidewalks that aren't
| accessible.
|
| * You can choose to use public transport which is not
| accessible.
|
| * You can call a cab and pay an exorbitant amount as long as
| you don't tell them that you're disabled or they won't come and
| they might still leave when they see you.
|
| * You can call an Uber which is quite pricy as well as long as
| you don't tell them you're disabled or they won't come and they
| might still leave when they see you.
|
| Thankfully after three years of bureaucratic mazes and appeals,
| the magnanimous state has granted you benefits, although they
| don't constitute a living wage and don't allow you to pay rent
| nor food. (The glorious free market has given you a choice of
| one of twelve accessible dwellings in a radius of a 100km so
| that you may rationally choose the lowest rent.)
|
| Since you can't pay for rent and food and transportation you'll
| need to find a job to pay for your lavish lifestyle. Now if
| it's before 2020 don't expect remote work, disability
| associations have been asking for it for 10 years for jobs that
| don't require physical presence but as everyone knows that's
| entitlement of the highest order. Although if it's after 2020
| then it stops being entitlement because the average person
| needs it and wants it.
|
| Now if you've managed to get yourself an education before hand,
| despite your health issues, your inability to go outside, and
| your general standing as a second-class citizen, then you
| should be able to get a remote job, and even if it stops being
| remote you should be able to pay to go there using the methods
| listed above. Although if you make below or up to the median
| salary, it'll cost your more to go to and from work than what
| you earn there, also you no longer have your benefits. But at
| least you get to be part of society as long as it's the only
| place you go because leisure is entitlement.
|
| This is not fiction, this is how I got my first job, although
| Uber wasn't a thing back then, and you couldn't be remote. Also
| I didn't have benefits, I did freelance while I was doing a
| Masters at a college I couldn't attend because of
| transportation costs, save for the exams. Then when I got my
| first job I did pay more than my salary in cab fares using my
| savings and the rest of my college loans until I could move up
| and get a higher salary.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| These are good questions. They have been mostly answered by the
| law, rules and public paperwork. Past a certain size, having a
| dedicated team working on disability is not only the right
| thing to do, it's almost essential to ensuring compliance.
| (Below that size, a consultant.) Dealing with disability is
| complicated; "disability" deals, by definition, with edge
| cases.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > Why, ethically, should this cost fall on Uber instead of the
| driver? Either way an inefficient market is being created here
| because the government is stepping in and saying that a
| transaction made between two rational actors is unfair even if
| those parties agree to the terms of the transaction (unless
| Uber is a monopoly).
|
| You are relying on "ethical" principles that I would say are
| alien to the vast majority of people.
|
| There is no reason why Pareto efficiency should be ethically
| prioritized if the alternative is welfare enhancing in the
| aggregate.
| recursive4 wrote:
| Respectfully, I don't think we can say axiomatically that
| welfare is enhanced in the aggregate by Uber stakeholders
| ({drivers|employees|shareholders}) sacrificing in favor of
| the disabled because the Nth degree ethical consequences are
| unknowable.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| My claim is that there is nothing about Pareto efficiency
| that is ethically preferable to a situation in which more
| people are better off.
|
| Arguing that this policy would render some consensual
| exchanges illicit is irrelevant, because I don't think the
| most ethical outcome is axiomatically realized by solely
| consensual exchange without any coercion.
| toolz wrote:
| Can you describe to me a situation in which reaching pareto
| efficiency would, in your opinion, not be the optimal state
| for the welfare of the aggregate? I'm trying to imagine a
| situation where resources are optimally distributed where
| that would be suboptimal for the welfare of everyone.
|
| edit: I'm new to the concept of pareto efficiency, so
| hopefully this reads more as a sincere question rather than a
| challenge to your opinion
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Sure.
|
| Imagine a situation with two people and a state-like actor.
|
| One person has all of the food in the entire world minus
| one loaf of bread. The other person has one loaf of bread.
| After they eat that loaf, they will probably die of
| starvation in the next 30 days.
|
| This is a Pareto efficient distribution.
|
| If the state-like actor intervened and re-distributed some
| of the food to the other person (with coercion), I would
| argue that aggregate welfare would be improved.
| jjk166 wrote:
| That's not a pareto efficient distribution. The efficient
| option would be for the person with bread to sell bread
| to the person without bread in exchange for future labor.
|
| Pareto efficiency is defined to be an economic state
| where resources cannot be reallocated to make one
| individual better off without making at least one
| individual worse off. If a redistribution can make things
| better, it is not an efficient state.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > The efficient option would be for the person with bread
| to sell bread to the person without bread in exchange for
| future labor.
|
| Okay, with work, let's say they are given the bare
| minimum to survive and they will get their work done (no
| rational reason to offer a higher wage). It would still
| be welfare enhancing to re-distribute.
|
| > If a redistribution can make things better, it is not
| an efficient state.
|
| This is just straight-up false, no other comment. Not
| what Pareto efficiency. The redistribution makes the
| person taken from worse off.
| jjk166 wrote:
| If they both have the bare minimum to survive,
| redistributing from one to the other puts the first below
| the minimum. If someone has a surplus, the efficient
| thing is to trade it. If they don't, redistribution hurts
| them as much as it helps another. There is no free lunch.
|
| Again, that is the definition of pareto efficiency.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > If someone has a surplus, the efficient thing is to
| trade it.
|
| With only two people, the most efficient thing to do is
| to trade it for the bare minimum the other person needs
| to survive. Beyond that is not Pareto efficient.
| jjk166 wrote:
| Yes, you give someone the bare minimum they need to
| survive. Then they want more. Now you're back to the
| situation where you have a surplus and they're willing to
| trade, the efficient thing is to trade your surplus.
| Continue repeating until one of you dies of old age, and
| the remaining survivor has all the bread.
|
| So long as you have surplus, and that surplus has value,
| it makes sense to trade it, rather than have it sit idle.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Yes, someone living their entire life on subsistence
| amounts of bread while the other person has a great 3
| meals a day is not a welfare optima.
| jjk166 wrote:
| I don't think you're understanding this. As long as
| person A has more bread than they're going to eat, and
| person B still wants more bread, it is still optimal to
| trade. A well fed individual can do more labor than a
| minimally fed person who can in turn do more labor than a
| dead person. As person B's quality of life improves, they
| are in an ever better position to trade. The bread is
| worthless to person A, it doesn't matter how little
| person B gives for it, it is still optimal.
|
| It does not become Pareto efficient until person A is
| worse off by trading bread, by which point they no longer
| have enough to completely satisfy their needs.
| toolz wrote:
| That makes sense, I guess there's subjectivity involved
| as to what that would look like as I imagine the death of
| one of those people would be an unwanted consequence to
| the person with all the food and as such the first person
| would be better off giving food to the starving person.
|
| Your point makes sense to me now though, so thanks
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > unwanted consequence to the person with all the food
| and as such the first person would be better off giving
| food to the starving person.
|
| Doesn't really play out that way in actual real life
| (people still starve every day and both you and i
| probably have the resources to stop at least one of those
| starvation deaths), so didn't think of including this
| altruism in my toy model
| recursive4 wrote:
| This is a straw-man description of the ethics of Pareto
| efficiency. Even as such, if the second person has
| nothing the first person desires, what obligation does
| the first have to share their bread? Why can't the second
| person make bread or an alternative? Are they unable to,
| and if so, are they strictly a burden on the first
| person?
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Yes, you are coming from a very objectivist/libertarian
| perspective that I reject.
|
| It's not a straw-man description of Pareto efficiency,
| it's a toy example designed to answer a very explicit
| question by the GP. What I described was a Pareto
| efficient distribution, and not the most welfare
| enhancing one.
|
| What if neither person can make bread and the other just
| happened to inherit it all from their parents? Who is
| burdening who?
|
| And that's before we get into the real-world ethics of
| whether we can honestly claim that contemporary wealth
| distributions are _really_ derived from consensual
| interaction. Why should the descendents of nobility be
| entitled to wealth deriving from what are effectively
| violent takings?
|
| I don't know - the whole deontological libertarian
| project in this sense seems like it has gaping holes.
| recursive4 wrote:
| I _share_ the objectivist standpoint that, as long as
| wealth is accrued through fair transactions, having
| occurred without coercion (including monopoly influence)
| and because parties provided equitable value to each
| other, it (and its distribution to heirs over time) is
| ethically acceptable.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| So then you'll agree that in a society where people
| without jobs are precluded from survival, labor is (in
| effect) coercive. Thus, any wealth accrued by arbitraging
| the labor of others was unethically gained and fair game
| for redistribution up to the point where joblessness is
| no longer an existential threat?
| josephcsible wrote:
| The fact that you need something to survive doesn't mean
| that every transaction providing it is coerced. Do you
| consider it coercion when you shop at the grocery store?
| RHSeeger wrote:
| > what obligation does the first have to share their
| bread
|
| None. However, part of the role of government (I would
| likely say it's entire role) is to make society as a
| whole better. It does this by imposing rules
| (obligations) on members of that society (taxes, a force
| to enforce the concept of private property, etc).
|
| In the toy case described above, it is likely to the
| benefit of society to have both members survive and one
| member be unhappy; rather than have one member survive,
| but be happier. Hence, the government enforces an
| obligation on the first person to share their food.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _- Should this same policy apply to people with ephemeral
| injuries?_
|
| Are these sorts of things considered "disabilities" though,
| from the perspective of ADA and other disability-related laws?
| A bunch of years ago I broke my foot and was on crutches for 8
| weeks. I don't recall it being that difficult to get to my
| Ubers in time (they may have been more lax with wait time back
| in 2014). It didn't occur to me to even think I should be
| entitled to extra time.
|
| > _- Should all disabilities be treated equally?_
|
| I would assume not? IIRC the key phrase in disability cases is
| "reasonable accommodation". I think it's reasonable to grant
| someone extra time if they have a mobility issue, but perhaps
| not if they have something like diabetes?
|
| _- How should a person with disabilities indicate that they
| have a disability requiring extra time in a fraud proof
| manner?_
|
| That might not matter? From what I understand, the ADA (and
| similar laws) are worded and interpreted to give the person
| claiming a disability the benefit of the doubt. I would guess
| that Uber is expected to eat the cost of fraud here, unless
| they can prove in specific instances fraud occurred. In
| general, though, the opposite case is much worse: denying an
| accommodation because you (erroneously) believe no
| accommodation is needed can get you in big trouble.
|
| > _- Should Uber compensate the driver for this extra time to
| ensure the driver is still incentivized to pick up people with
| disabilities?_
|
| Personally I would say yes, definitely. I know this isn't how
| Uber works from the driver perspective, but the "meter" should
| start running as soon as the driver gets to the pickup spot.
| Uber eats (or builds in) the cost of a reasonable "grace
| period" for riders, which is Uber's decision. Ignoring the
| disability question, if Uber drivers were truly independent
| contractors and had full autonomy, they could certainly decide
| to give riders _zero_ time: either be at the pickup location
| _already_ when the driver arrives, or you miss your ride. (Not
| saying this is a _good_ policy, but in theory this could be
| something that 's allowed; pre-Uber taxis in San Francisco
| would sometimes do this, and it sucked.)
|
| Not sure if Uber should specifically note "this person is
| disabled so you'll be getting a little more money as
| compensation for waiting longer"; probably not? Though I guess
| after they accept the ride and arrive at the pickup point,
| they'll see their required pickup wait time be 8 minutes
| instead of 4 (or whatever), so they'll at least know at that
| point.
|
| > _- Why, ethically, should this cost fall on Uber instead of
| the driver?_
|
| Because, despite Uber's insistence that drivers are independent
| contractors and are not employees, Uber still sets ride pricing
| and does not give drivers all that much flexibility in what
| fares they are willing to take (that is, they don't give
| drivers much information up-front about fare details, to avoid
| discrimination).
|
| Ultimately, though, the cost will more likely fall on riders
| (all riders, that is), not drivers; the rational response here
| from Uber will be to raise the cost of _every_ ride slightly,
| in order to cover the added cost to transport people with
| disabilities.
| RHSeeger wrote:
| > the rational response here from Uber will be to raise the
| cost of every ride slightly, in order to cover the added cost
| to transport people with disabilities.
|
| And ironically, one of the reasons a lot of people like Uber
| is because it's cheaper than cabs... because it ignores
| regulations. Complying with regulations has a cost.
| gabriel_fishman wrote:
| Keep in mind the following scenario:
|
| A user with a disability books an Uber. They are unable to get
| to the Uber within the allotted time. The driver leaves. The
| customer then books another Uber, and this time successfully
| makes the trip. The customer calls Uber to refund the
| cancellation fee, which Uber does. Uber is then out the time
| the first driver took to reach the destination, the driving
| time, and the cost of the customer service contact (which can
| be quite expensive). They also have to deal with reputational
| and regulatory risk. This isn't an invented scenario - I've
| seen this happen.
|
| Wouldn't it be less costly for Uber for the driver to just wait
| an extra 5 minutes?
|
| > How should a person with disabilities indicate that they have
| a disability requiring extra time in a fraud proof manner?
|
| There are already systems for allowing people with disabilities
| to qualify for reduced fares or paratransit - typically
| involving having your doctor send a letter to the local transit
| agency. Uber could either replicate such a system, or they
| could accept documentation from a local transit agency or they
| could allow people to self-designate and eat the cost of fraud
| (my guess is that stigma and lack of awareness of the program
| will prevent a lot of people from fraudulently using it).
|
| > Should all disabilities be treated equally? > Who decides how
| much time should be granter per?
|
| Ideally you'd make a decision based on an individual's needs,
| but if I was a product manager for Uber I'd just just set a
| high limit for everyone who qualified for the program initially
| and then figure out later if something more complex is needed
| based on how much time drivers are actually waiting. If this
| program helps Uber reduce the number of cancellation/re-
| bookings/1-star reviews
|
| > Should this same policy apply to people with ephemeral
| injuries?
|
| Yes, temporary disabilities are disabilities.
|
| > Should Uber compensate the driver for this extra time to
| ensure the driver is still incentivized to pick up people with
| disabilities?
|
| Yes, for exactly the reason you mentioned
|
| > Why, ethically, should this cost fall on Uber instead of the
| driver? Either way an inefficient market is being created here
| because the government is stepping in and saying that a
| transaction made between two rational actors is unfair even if
| those parties agree to the terms of the transaction (unless
| Uber is a monopoly). If the driver is not compensated fairly
| for their time, why is this sacrifice ethically permissible?
|
| First, I'm not convinced that Uber having to pay for extra
| waiting time is against UBER's best interest - see the scenario
| above. But even if it were on balance a net cost to Uber,
| society has an interest in ensuring that everyone is able to
| travel and do all the things that travel enables (any kind of
| in-person commerce, healthcare, etc).
| [deleted]
| alberth wrote:
| Dumb question: so who gets the money from this lawsuit?
|
| Does the government keep it or does the government distribute it
| to all who were impacted?
| dawsmik wrote:
| On the DOJ website, they were asking for reimbursement of past
| disabled people who had to pay a fee to be paid.
| dastbe wrote:
| article from nytimes with more context and uber's response:
| https://archive.md/AHBG4
|
| not to pick a side, but doesn't the crux of the lawsuit fail if
| uber is now waiving wait fees for people who have a disability?
| or are they also going after drivers who cancel/harass riders who
| have disabilities, similar to what happened with lyft?
| KarlKemp wrote:
| Now that's a lawsuit that is going to cost you in PR about ten
| times what any fine will likely amount to, a hundred times what
| you made with the policy, and exactly as much as you deserve for
| being a caricature of the scumbag corporation stereotype.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| This seems like a crime through lack of thought not a willful
| middle finger to the disabled to make a few percent more in
| late fees.
| erehweb wrote:
| Possibly. But if you're a big company, then not thinking
| about the impact of your product on the disabled is wilful
| ignorance, even if it doesn't make you that much more money.
| Miner49er wrote:
| Uber has a long history of discriminating against people with
| disabilities. I'd be shocked if they didn't know that this
| was a problem.
| slownews45 wrote:
| Looking at this uber charged folks with disabilities on the same
| basis as those without, not differently. So the discrimination
| claim is that they should have not charged folks with
| disabilities the waiting fee.
| jedberg wrote:
| A perfect example of equality vs equity. Uber treated everyone
| _equally_ , but it wasn't _equitable_.
|
| I feel bad for the drivers. I have kids and I know it takes me
| longer to get in the car than just an adult. I wish there was a
| way to indicate in the app "traveling with kids" so the driver
| could get a bonus for picking me up, which I'd gladly pay for.
|
| But in this case, Uber should still pay the driver the waiting
| fee but not charge the rider. It should be on Uber to cover this
| cost of doing business.
| stefan_ wrote:
| Is it 2009 again and Uber was just founded? Meanwhile, in 2021,
| there isn't a fee or tip that this ethical void of a company
| has not stolen from its drivers.
|
| You are right, they should pay, but we certainly should not
| rely on their goodwill or initiative to do so.
| ghostbrainalpha wrote:
| Off topic, but man I can't tell you how many times I have read
| a really good comment and then looked to see the username and
| its jedberg.
|
| I don't know if you comment a crazy amount, or I just agree
| with everything you say, but it's literally happened 30-40
| times.
| kyleee wrote:
| Good point. Honestly I don't think that uber should allow
| drivers to use any vehicles not equipped for wheel chair
| transport. The discrimination and inequity, as you've noted,
| runs very deep with uber and indeed many other companies
| InitialLastName wrote:
| This is a good case of perfect being the enemy of better. Why
| should Uber (and, by extension both drivers and users) be
| forced to treat all users as if they are the most expensive
| users? Assuming that 10% (WAG) of Uber cars are currently
| wheelchair-accessible, and a rule like that doubles the
| number of wheelchair-accessible Uber cars, you've cut your
| total supply by 80% to satisfy a small percentage of users
| (and in doing so made the experience worse for those users as
| well, because they are now competing for a smaller supply).
| podgaj wrote:
| > Why should Uber (and, by extension both drivers and
| users) be forced to treat all users as if they are the most
| expensive users?
|
| It's about kindness. These companies want to treat ALL
| customers as the least expensive user. Don't you realize
| that this demeans YOU and much s it does the disabled?
| InitialLastName wrote:
| Sure, and I agree that Uber should be ensuring sufficient
| supply of wheelchair-accessible vehicles, but this is
| really another place where Uber's model (treat their
| drivers like independent companies whenever it is
| convenient to Uber) falls apart.
| slg wrote:
| >Why should Uber (and, by extension both drivers and users)
| be forced to treat all users as if they are the most
| expensive users?
|
| The same reason we require businesses to install wheelchair
| ramps.
|
| A business has to follow all laws. If a business can't do
| that in a cost effective manner that is the business's
| problem and not the law's.
|
| Laws also aren't always all good or all bad. Sometimes they
| include both positive and negative consequences. Making it
| more expensive to do business is a tradeoff that society
| has decided to accept in the name of making the world more
| accessible to people with disabilities.
| goatlover wrote:
| But in this case, the business relies on drivers
| providing their own vehicles. The tradeoff would be that
| most drivers would no longer be able to drive for Uber.
| slg wrote:
| It doesn't matter who pays for it. That is a debate
| between Uber at its drivers. All that matters it the
| requirements for the service that is provided to the
| public.
|
| If Uber can't afford to pay for it and/or they lose
| drivers because drivers refuse to pay for it, those are
| Uber's problems and not the law's.
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| >those are Uber's problems and not the law's.
|
| It becomes a problem for the citizens when the cost of
| this policy causes prices to skyrocket due to artificial
| scarcity.
| slg wrote:
| Should we also allow companies to run sweatshops and dump
| pollutants in the local water supply because not doing
| those things causes price to skyrocket?
| cortesoft wrote:
| The law doesn't require all cars be equipped for
| wheelchairs, just that wheelchair users can get service
| for the same price and same wait time as others. You can
| accomplish that without requiring all cars to have
| wheelchair access.
| slg wrote:
| I'm not the one who suggested that all Uber vehicles need
| to be wheelchair accessible. However increasing the
| current percentage of their fleet to an acceptable level
| will have costs associated with it that either Uber or
| its drivers will need to cover.
| goatlover wrote:
| It potentially becomes a problem for the public if we
| lose a commonly used transportation service, if Uber and
| it's drivers can't afford to pay for it.
| jedberg wrote:
| Wheelchair ramps don't create an ongoing cost. It's a one
| time cost.
| slg wrote:
| I'm not sure why it matters whether the cost is one time
| or ongoing. Either way, wheelchair ramps were simply one
| example. There are plenty of other accessibility
| considerations that do have ongoing costs. Elevators are
| probably the most similar parallel that have both an
| upfront cost and an ongoing maintenance cost and are
| often required for the same accessibility reasons.
| [deleted]
| duskwuff wrote:
| > 10% (WAG) of Uber cars are currently wheelchair-
| accessible
|
| I'd be surprised if it were even 1%. As far as I'm aware,
| stock passenger vehicles are never wheelchair accessible --
| it requires some expensive aftermarket hardware to be
| installed.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| Sure, I just made up a number in the tail to make the
| point, hence the "Wild-Ass Guess" in the tail (I need a
| better flag for "estimate for numerical simplicity
| only"-type numbers).
| rnotaro wrote:
| It's the first time i've seen "WAG".
|
| I was thinking about "Worldwide AggreGate" or something
| like that when i've read your comment.
| _3u10 wrote:
| Because few companies / cities / etc do it without being
| regulated to do so. I would imagine in the case of Uber
| they will grant additional time for anyone who files with
| them the paperwork indicating they require an
| accommodation. Generally speaking if Uber extended the wait
| period to 5 minutes for everyone it would also be in
| violation of the ADA as again, they are not providing an
| accommodation for people with disabilities.
|
| ADA exemptions exist for small companies where it would be
| unreasonable to bear the additional costs.
|
| Fundamentally it's a political question of what kind of
| society we want, do we want one where cities have to make
| curb cuts in sidewalks or do we want one in which it is
| extremely difficult for wheelchair users to use sidewalks.
| The balance the US has currently settled on is that small
| business is largely exempt, and larger businesses must
| accommodate.
|
| It should be noted that this case has not been ruled
| against Uber yet, and that the suit revolves around wait
| times, not wheelchair accessible cars.
|
| To be honest once accessibility standards are adopted by
| society at large they are not very expensive in general. It
| is however, VERY expensive when accessible goods and
| services are not provided at scale.
| raisedbyninjas wrote:
| There is no way this would work. This would limit uber
| vehicles to at least a modified minivan. Most school buses
| and public transport buses are not wheelchair accessible.
| Those orgs have specialized vehicles that can be dispatched
| as needed. It's fine to require the same of Uber.
| OldHand2018 wrote:
| I can't remember that last time I saw a public transport
| bus that wasn't wheelchair accessible. It may not be
| completely obvious, but the floor at the front of the bus
| flips out onto the sidewalk and the air suspension lowers
| the bus to make it level. The front seats fold up to reveal
| a wheelchair area, complete with belts and attachment
| points to keep a wheelchair safely in place.
| andylynch wrote:
| Not at all- for example, London taxis are wheelchair
| accessible as standard.
| whymauri wrote:
| Just looked it up and it's true -- this is actually
| pretty cool!
| GaryTang wrote:
| _> "I don 't think that uber should allow drivers to use any
| vehicles not equipped for wheel chair transport"_
|
| Poor and handicap people will suffer more so from a price
| hike resulting from your suggestion -- disabled people should
| just pay more because (1)they are taking up more time to
| service and (2)they receive benefits that everyone else
| doesn't to compensate for such scenarios. The way it is
| currently setup is likely the most optimal configuration for
| all parties involved.
| alistairSH wrote:
| "I got mine, screw the rest of y'all"
|
| If we used your plan, there would be no taxis for the
| disabled because the costs would be prohibitive. This isn't
| really any different than any other similar
| legislation/regulation (ADA, etc).
| jjk166 wrote:
| That doesn't logically follow. It's not cost prohibitive
| to equip a small fraction of ubers with the equipment to
| transport the fraction of customers who need it. Indeed,
| some fraction of uber drivers are going to have handicap
| accessible vehicles simply because they or members of
| their household need those features anyway. Having such
| features is a competitive advantage - you can take
| passengers no one else can and thus secure their
| business. It only becomes prohibitive when you need an
| enormous surplus of equipment well in excess of demand -
| then this expense doesn't lead to serving more customers,
| it's just a burden that needs to be borne by existing
| customers.
|
| Existing legislation doesn't require all vehicles, or
| even all commercial vehicles to be handicap accessible.
| Hell they don't even require that vehicles be made such
| that they can be converted to handicap accessible.
| Current legislation requires that accommodations are
| available, not that they are ubiquitous. We put
| wheelchair ramps on buildings because without them there
| is no way for a wheelchair bound person to get in, but
| it's fine if there are stairs as well.
| alistairSH wrote:
| I never said all Ubers should be wheelchair accessible. I
| was responding to your assertion that wheelchair-bound
| customers should bear all the cost of their
| accommodations.
|
| Currently, in most cities, a certain number/% of taxis
| are required to be wheelchair-accessible. It's a bare
| minimum, usually with wait time well in excess of what
| the rest of us would consider reasonable (DC states it
| averages 45 minutes, but I can call a cab in 10-15
| minutes notice or hail one on the street in less time
| than that).
|
| If there was a market for equivalent service for
| wheelchair-bound customers, it would exist already. The
| market simply doesn't exist, at least not in any way that
| makes financial sense. So we have regulations to force
| it.
|
| Having a blind family member who encounters similar
| issues on a daily basis, I'm totally fine with
| socializing the cost of her accommodations. To do
| otherwise would just be greedy and mean.
| jjk166 wrote:
| You may not have made that claim, but GP comment did, and
| it's the context of this discussion.
|
| If you are waiting longer for a specialty service, you
| are in essence paying a premium for it (your time has
| value). If people were willing to pay more for the
| service, more cars would voluntarily provide the service,
| and they would get served faster.
|
| I'm also fine with socializing the costs. Put a tax in
| place to pay for this public service. Commanding Uber to
| do it on their own is essentially just a regressive tax
| on uber customers.
| andylynch wrote:
| It can be a win for users more generally- a wheelchair
| accessible cab also turns out to be quick to jump in and
| out of, and has amazing space for people and luggage.
| GaryTang wrote:
| > _"There would be no taxis for the disabled because the
| costs would be prohibitive."_
|
| This is 100% false because I know for a fact if there was
| no other taxi company providing services to the disabled
| I would start my own company for the disabled today.
| jedberg wrote:
| No you wouldn't. You would quickly find that the market
| is too small to be worthwhile.
|
| There is a reason the ADA exists. Because before then,
| everyone assumed businesses would cater to disabled
| people because they wouldn't want to lose out on the
| business. But it turns out they are such a small market,
| it doesn't affect their bottom line.
| RHSeeger wrote:
| And don't forget that you'd wind up having to charge more
| than the other transport companies in the area, because
| your costs are higher. And then you'd wind up getting
| sued, because you're charging disabled customers more
| than your competitors are charging other people (and
| people love to sue over stuff like this, even if the
| result is "oh well, now you get NOTHING").
| GaryTang wrote:
| > _"You would quickly find that the market is too small
| to be worthwhile."_
|
| How many markets will be too small to be worthwhile after
| prices increase? I would wager it would be more than the
| contrary
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| Why do you think prices will increase so much? There's a
| limit to how much people can pay for a service, even if
| they fundamentally need it. And I'd wager that in
| aggregate, people with disabilities are _more_
| financially limited than people without.
| GaryTang wrote:
| What comes to mind is the fact that the prevalence of
| adults with a disability in the United States is
| significantly higher in rural areas compared to large
| metropolitan areas and those rural areas are already
| underserved by commuting options given the current model.
|
| To your point that they are more financially limited --
| that is the reason why disability benefits exist.
| jedberg wrote:
| Probably a lot. And they won't be served anymore. All the
| more reason the government has to mandate serving
| disabled people.
|
| You're arguing that the free market will serve disabled
| people. That's been tried many times, and it never works
| out. That's why the government mandates serving disabled
| people.
|
| And let's not even talk about the ethics of suggesting
| that disabled people get charged more just for being
| disabled, something they don't have control over.
| uoaei wrote:
| This kind of fallacious reasoning is very pernicious.
|
| It assumes very simple cause-effect relationships by
| default. See "fallacy of the single cause".
|
| It cannot be countered except by elaborating on the
| complexities of this particular example. Which are then
| promptly dismissed out of hand because they are "special
| cases".
|
| And as a result, the person using this rationale never
| learns their lesson that, actually, the world is much
| more complicated than that, and this kind of simple 1-2-3
| doesn't fit with basically anything except those
| processes which are determined primarily by averages.
| oliv__ wrote:
| How about a button in the app that says "I need a wheelchair-
| accessible car".
| handrous wrote:
| How do normal taxi services handle this? I really have no
| idea. I assume better, since they'd have already dealt with
| these sorts of suits decades ago if they didn't.
| OldHand2018 wrote:
| I looked into buying a taxi medallion recently - they are
| historically very cheap and would dramatically increase in
| value if Uber and Lyft fail.
|
| Turns out that there are a lot of financial incentives
| available from city/state/federal governments for attaching
| the taxi medallion to a wheelchair-accessible vehicle.
| alistairSH wrote:
| For wheelchairs, in DC and the suburbs (VA and MD), the
| customer calls and asks for a wheelchair-accessible taxi.
| IIRC, taxi fleets are required to maintain a certain % of
| the fleet as wheelchair-accessible. Wait times for dispatch
| can be quite long.
|
| In DC, there's an initial fee (charged for the pickup and
| first 1/8 mile). Additional wait-time fees start accruing
| after 5 minutes. Mileage/time fees then get added by the
| meter as the ride progresses. This formula applies to all
| taxis - wheelchair or not.
| rjzzleep wrote:
| Does it cost the same? I'm all for charging everyone the
| same, but just seeing how it was in the family, helping
| the wheelchair person into the car, it's not an easy
| task.
|
| Of course I don't think that the complaint here is only
| about wheelchairs.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Yes, cost to consumer is the same, by regulation.
| Maintaining part of the fleet as handicapped-accessible
| is just part of doing business, despite the additional
| costs associated with acquiring/maintaining wheelchair-
| accessible vehicles (usually vans or buses with hydraulic
| lifts/ramps).
| andylynch wrote:
| Depends on the city. Some make it a mandatory part of
| having a licensed cab.
| mushufasa wrote:
| Regular taxis have this. It's probably one of the
| contributing reasons why taxis are more expensive than uber
| on average.
| newsclues wrote:
| If Uber needs to mandate all vehicles must be equipped for
| disabled people, then costs will go up and non disabled
| people who are low income will suffer the increase in costs
| to accommodate disabled people.
|
| By trying to be fair to specific groups, you tend to make
| things unfair for others.
| rayiner wrote:
| And accommodating small minorities with outsized needs
| often generates the greatest unfairness to others.
| vageli wrote:
| Reminds me of the time when Berkeley deleted their online
| content.
|
| https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/03/06/u-californ
| ia-...
| podgaj wrote:
| Then maybe we should change something more fundamental?
| Like maybe not have an economic system that depends on some
| false notion of social darwinism?
| goatlover wrote:
| Wouldn't that rule out most drivers, since most drivers don't
| have wheel chair ramps in their vehicles?
| [deleted]
| radu_floricica wrote:
| There is no "cost of doing business". You're asking that the
| riders without children cover the extra cost. It's an
| interesting proposition and we can of course discuss it, but
| please, for the sake of all that is rational and logic, don't
| pretend the money comes from thin air.
| jedberg wrote:
| I think you confused what I said. I said that people with
| children should pay extra, but disabled people should not.
| foo92691 wrote:
| Wait fees seem pretty reasonable. Maybe the solution is to have
| them subsidized by the government for qualified individuals.
| recursive4 wrote:
| This is my personal opinion.
|
| If society decides that a sacrifice should be made in favor of
| a disabled Uber customer, society should incur that cost and
| compensate the Uber driver the market rate for their time.
|
| Wait fees, in this case, are not being used (in the abstract)
| to discriminate because there is an time cost inherent in this
| business model that somebody needs to inur.
| [deleted]
| jdmichal wrote:
| Should society also pay grocery stores for lost throughput
| when someone with a disability takes longer to check out?
| Where exactly does this line of logic end?
| missedthecue wrote:
| I think people feel differently about Uber's situation
| because unlike a grocery cashier who must spend extra time
| assisting a slower customer, an Uber driver isn't getting
| paid in the meantime.
| Miner49er wrote:
| Uber will need to pay them, otherwise drivers will have
| grounds for a lawsuit next.
| missedthecue wrote:
| Uber is a marketplace not an employer. They're like an
| Ebay but for car rides. Does Ebay owe you money if you
| wasted your time listing an item that didn't sell?
| recursive4 wrote:
| Good questions. Are they going to lose business because of
| lower throughput?
|
| Ultimately the nature of codifying altruism in the law is
| that someone must sacrifice for someone else; the
| sacrificer and as well as the recipient of the sacrifice
| are subject to an Overton window.
| vkou wrote:
| When a private business has to meet the legal demands set out
| by laws governing serving disabilities, it is up to the
| business in question to shoulder those costs, not society.
|
| Don't like it? Close down shop. Someone else's business will
| replace you, you won't be missed, and life will go on.
|
| It's outrageous to suggest that private businesses have to be
| bribed so that they follow the law.
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| It's not about "bribing". It's about using positive
| incentive-based economic policy instead of outright bans if
| certain regulations aren't met. Requiring companies to
| support certain things doesn't suddenly make them free.
|
| Either way, society eventually shoulders the costs. It just
| comes down to which members shoulder it more.
| RHSeeger wrote:
| >> It's outrageous to suggest that private businesses
| have to be bribed so that they follow the law.
|
| > It's not about "bribing". It's about using positive
| incentive-based economic policy instead of outright bans
| if certain regulations aren't met.
|
| And, to be very clear, this is done constantly. If you
| leave your home to go anywhere but a nature walk, I
| guarantee you you pass within close range of at least
| entity that is getting/generating some sort of rebate or
| similar for following a regular. Energy rebates alone are
| everywhere you look.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _Either way, society eventually shoulders the costs. It
| just comes down to which members shoulder it more._
|
| Right. In this case, the question is: should Uber riders
| as a whole shoulder the cost of accommodations for
| disabled people (presumably Uber could make the price of
| _every_ ride slightly more expensive in order to
| compensate for the added cost for disabled riders), or
| should society as a whole bear this cost (via taxes and
| subsidies), including people who don 't use Uber?
|
| I think a reasonable argument could be made for either,
| honestly.
| annoyingnoob wrote:
| After Prop 22, I gave up on Uber. Uber never gets another penny
| from me. Not surprised that Uber shifts responsibility.
| [deleted]
| gabriel_fishman wrote:
| My girlfriend has a visual impairment. When it's dark outside, it
| can take awhile for her to locate the Uber and get to it. A
| number of times she's been unable to locate the Uber and the
| driver has just left. I'll have to look and see if she's been
| charged wait fees.
|
| There was another incident which was caused by a very poor UI
| decision by Uber (or maybe just a bug). She scheduled a ride in
| advance from her work to a doctor's office. Then when she went to
| get a ride home (this time in real time, not scheduling in
| advance), the origin was set by default to the last place she
| scheduled a ride from - her workplace, NOT her current location
| at the doctor's office. She didn't realize that Uber wasn't doing
| its usual thing of setting the origin to your current location,
| so the driver showed up at her workplace. She ended up paying the
| driver cash to come to the doctor's office and pick her up from
| there.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-10 23:02 UTC)