[HN Gopher] Uber must pay wheelchair user $35,000, provide acces...
___________________________________________________________________
Uber must pay wheelchair user $35,000, provide accessible rides
Author : palidanx
Score : 49 points
Date : 2024-03-08 20:30 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (vancouversun.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (vancouversun.com)
| paulpauper wrote:
| So much for those attention-grabbing 7-8 figure settlements that
| sometimes make the news. The reality is much less money. $35k so
| tiny can be treated as a cost of doing business.
| jmspring wrote:
| Given this was in Canada, I wonder if that was part of the
| reason the settlement was low.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| That was the amount awarded to a single claimant. Living in
| this area I can promise you that there is more than one
| disabled person in the BC's largest city.
|
| Also they are required to begin providing acceptable service.
|
| So the business impact is much more severe than writing a check
| and forgetting about it. Canadian regulators are more than
| happy to shut down your whole business if you fail to comply
| with tribunal orders.
| abeppu wrote:
| I wonder if there will now be a large number of similar suits
| from others that have been discriminated against in the same
| way. Maybe the eventual total liability could be meaningful?
| bilbo0s wrote:
| Paying out 35k a ride on every 20 dollar canadian ride for a
| handicapped person is good business?
|
| You're losing money on every transaction.
|
| And no, you don't make it up in volume. You need to do 1750
| other 20 dollar canadian rides just to make up for each
| handicapped ride. That's assuming you only want to break even,
| and you don't pay anything to your drivers.
|
| That's a _horrible_ business.
| threadweaver34 wrote:
| In a strictly business sense, Uber made the right call. Paying
| $35,000 plus lawyers to learn this is a service they need to
| provide is cheaper than building it preemptively. In a human
| sense, it's pretty fucked.
| kohbo wrote:
| "...Uber told the 2022 hearing into Bauer's complaint that it
| didn't violate the human rights code because it's an app and
| doesn't provide a service as defined under the code."
|
| What an argument.
| rchaud wrote:
| The libertarian dream: no employees, no equipment, no
| liability.
| seneca wrote:
| > The libertarian dream: no employees, no equipment, no
| liability.
|
| Not a single one of those things are librarian values.
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| I mean, "no liability" definitely is.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| Not at all. If you injure someone you pay damages.
|
| That's a completely different thing than e.g. giving them
| the ability to sue you for not providing something you
| never promised to provide.
| noqc wrote:
| Where do you draw the line between damages and
| externalities?
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| Externalities are damages. But that's not what these
| kinds of laws are trying to address.
|
| The market is willing to provide car service to people in
| wheelchairs, for a particular price. A lot of people in
| wheelchairs can't afford that price. The law is trying to
| create a subsidy.
|
| In principle the people who want the subsidy should be
| the ones paying for it. If you think subsidizing this is
| a good idea then you give your money to a charity, they
| use the money to subsidize the service, and then the
| market provides the service because somebody is paying
| for it.
|
| You can also decide you don't want to be a libertarian
| and instead you want the government to subsidize the
| service out of tax revenue. Libertarians don't like this,
| because now you're taking money from the people who
| didn't agree to subsidize it without their consent. But
| also, politicians don't like this, because it's spending
| tax money and they'd prefer to spend that on their
| cronies in some government-adjacent industry.
|
| So what politicians do instead is pass it as an unfunded
| mandate on whatever industry. This is still a tax, but
| now it's not a tax on e.g. rich people, it's a tax on
| other ride sharing customers and drivers. Who tend _not_
| to be rich people, because rich people have their own
| cars or private limousines or planes. Then we get a
| covert tax on the poor so that the overt tax money can go
| to defense contractors and other politically-connected
| corporations. It 's at this point that you start to
| wonder if the libertarians might have been onto
| something.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| You don't have to promise it. The ADA promised it for
| you. It's the libertarian dream not to be forced to abide
| by those regulations.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| Having the politician you voted against promise something
| on your behalf is not a satisfying result.
| spaceguillotine wrote:
| this was proven true by the Libertarian backed Anti-Mask
| Rallies in Vegas, they did not care if they got people
| sick because they couldn't be held liable.
| thsksbd wrote:
| As a former libertarian that is exactly the opposite of
| the libertarian ideal.
|
| The libertarian ideal is a prodigiously litigious society
| where liability is the main driver of regulation.
| metamet wrote:
| Is Dewey Decimal Classification a librarian value?
| thrill wrote:
| 'Taxi companies "100 per cent support that Uber should also
| provide (wheelchair accessible vans) because why not?"'
|
| Because the drivers own the vehicles not Uber.
| primer42 wrote:
| > But Uber told the 2022 hearing into Bauer's complaint that it
| didn't violate the human rights code because it's an app and
| doesn't provide a service as defined under the code.
|
| What a slimy, disgusting, in-human argument to make.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Doesn't sound anything like that. It would be like if "Ask HN:
| Who's Hiring?" was asked why they didn't ensure that the hiring
| was evenly distributed among (say) races. They're just a forum,
| a place where people can post stuff. They can't guarantee that
| the people posting are of that distribution unless they
| themselves post it.
|
| In this case, Uber is just a forum where people post ride
| availability and people look for ride availability.
|
| It's not an outrageous argument to make, but it clearly didn't
| take. Presumably Uber will have to ensure there are sufficient
| UberWAV available in any region they offer normal services.
| teachrdan wrote:
| Uber enforces standards on drivers and cars to use their
| platform -- and take around 30% or more per ride. This is
| obviously completely different from HN's "Who's Hiring?"
| threads.
|
| https://therideshareguy.com/how-much-do-uber-drivers-make/
| teruakohatu wrote:
| Where I live there are few wheelchair taxis and they need to be
| booked in advance, sometimes months in advance if it's a holiday.
| If a driver is sick most likely all their customers are staying
| at home. Costs are significantly subsidised and yet still there
| are not enough drivers.
|
| It is hard to scale because it requires drivers with well above
| average patience, empathy and a caring personality. It's not a
| job for profit focused individuals.
|
| To scale it would require drivers paid a salary not paid per
| trip/mile. It would also require generous allowances for time
| (wheelchair taxi drivers are often delayed through no fault of
| their own).
| bombcar wrote:
| We have a local state/city sponsored ride share program for
| elderly, infirm, disabled, and it can do wheelchairs.
|
| And it is _still_ often simpler to just buy a (subsidized)
| wheelchair van for the person and let their caretaker drive
| them.
| mdorazio wrote:
| It's even worse. Wheelchair accessible vehicles are _extremely_
| expensive. As in, a basic wheelchair retrofit to a standard
| minivan adds over $30k of cost. And then the modifications to
| the vehicle prevent the cabin space from being used to the same
| level as before (you lose seats and cargo space). So it's
| monetarily a bad proposition on many levels for taxi operators.
|
| The best way around it is to push vehicles like the Cruise
| Origin that come with wheelchair-ready space by default but
| then you're into purpose built vehicles that have their own
| downsides.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| The Origin is also not currently in production and
| indefinitely delayed [0].
|
| [0] https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a45989501/gm-self-
| driving-...
| ajross wrote:
| > It is hard to scale because it requires drivers with well
| above average patience, empathy and a caring personality. It's
| not a job for profit focused individuals.
|
| To be glib: that's ridiculous. Offer $1000/ride and I
| _guarantee_ you 'll find a long line of patient, empathic and
| caring drivers signing up for your service.
|
| It just costs money. Maintaining a wheelchair-capable vehicle
| and operating rides for wheelchair-bound people is simply more
| expensive than driving millenials around to their dinner dates.
| Someone needs to pay for that. Law suits and regulation like
| those detailed in the linked article are part of the mechanism
| by which we as a society decide how to do that.
| mhandley wrote:
| It's not like it cannot be done - all London taxis are required
| to be wheelchair accessible. But it does require political
| will.
|
| https://levc.com/technology/accessibility/
| kevincox wrote:
| > B.C.'s attorney general was named as a respondent in the
| complaint and in its submission said that in early 2020 it
| implemented a 30-cent per-trip fee under the passenger
| transportation act or regulation as an incentive for ride-hailing
| apps to provide a wheelchair accessible ride option, not to
| exempt them from offering one.
|
| I think this is the interesting part. Uber was paying a fee per
| ride (previously $0.30, recently $0.90) which was supposed to go
| towards providing accessible transit options. This doesn't seem
| like an unreasonable way to ensure that there are accessible
| options while not requiring every provider to make those
| accommodations (which can be very expensive for smaller providers
| as in order to reliably offer accessible transit you need capable
| vesicles and always have them spread out over your operating
| range). It seems that raising/adjusing this fee and using the
| proceeds to subsidize accessible transit could be a quite
| efficient way to ensure that this service is available and self-
| balancing based on the market.
| advisedwang wrote:
| As a matter of law though it's a terrible argument.
|
| the BC Human Rights code has a provision "If there is a
| conflict between this Code and any other enactment, this Code
| prevails." So unless the taxi fee explicitly says it supersedes
| the human rights code it explicitly does not.
| sevenf0ur wrote:
| Wow, each ride is taxed $0.90 to hopefully provide taxi companies
| with wheel chair accessible vehicles so they can perform rides at
| a loss? The city would be better off forming a non-profit and
| managing the rides like public transit.
| threadweaver34 wrote:
| Uber gonna Uber, but I'm surprised someone in management doesn't
| realize this is a bad look, read the tea leaves, and buy a few
| wheelchair taxis and have Uber-employed drivers to handle this in
| cities with over 100,000 people.
| SuperNinKenDo wrote:
| The longer you look at it the more interesting the issue is.
|
| The fee Uber has been paying and the assertion that it doesn't
| protect a company from legal liability.
|
| The fact that what initially seems like a horrid and ridiculous
| argument ("we're an app!") actually unpacks to something
| consequential.
|
| The fact that Uber's model ostensibly relies on personal cars
| being used (so who's responsible for the lack of accessible
| cars?).
| webnrrd2k wrote:
| I'd think that Uber would just hire the wheelchair accessible
| taxis directly from the taxi company. Maybe the taxi company
| charged 3x or more for the ride, but it's still cheaper for Uber.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-03-08 23:01 UTC)