Slashdot Mirror
Massachusetts Examining Disability Access For Uber, Lyft
An anonymous reader writes: Uber and Lyft have been dealing with a host of legal and regulatory issues, and the Massachusetts attorney general's office is adding one more: disability access. No formal action has been taken, but the office has contacted the companies to see how they handle equal access. Uber says it often speaks with advocates about accessibility, and less than a week ago they introduced uberASSIST, which connects riders with drivers who are specifically trained to assist those with disabilities. Still, the inquiry seems to have been spurred by questions from disabilities rights groups, not to mention ongoing lawsuits. "[T]he National Federation of the Blind of California accused Uber in a lawsuit last year of discrimination by refusing to transport guide dogs. A San Francisco federal judge has said the case can proceed. ... In Texas, Jennifer McPhail sued Lyft last year, accusing the company of not having a wheelchair accessible vehicle operating in Austin."
Yes me me me me me and fuck the disabled, because the almighty dollar should rule everything. Uber/Lyft are examples of he worst of the free market system. Just bully your competition into having crap labour laws and screw anyone who falls outside of fit, high rate, low risk riders. Uber/Lyft are going to fire all their drivers as soon as driverless cars come in and they're trying to build monopoly empires right now. Americans are so gullible they'll fall for convenience for most at the expense of everyone else.
Most parking space are not handicapped spaces. You only need enough to serve.
If this is a service that is needed by people, then it should be provided by government, and not forced upon private enterprises. Towns and cities themselves should operate transport for the disabled. Government should also foot the bill for wheelchair access and the like. I'm not against accessibility, just against forcing business owners to pay for it in cases other than necessities.
The government DOES provide it. They do so through legislation that requires hire car businesses to have a certain percentage of vehicles on the roads at all times that are accessible, the cost is then passed on through higher average fees across all vehicles. In essence this is one of the taxi industries complaints (and a justified one at that), Uber by ignoring the regulations avoids costs that legitimate businesses pay and hence can undercut the market.
If this is a service that is needed by people, then it should be provided by government...
Aren't all services "a service that is needed by people"?
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
I have to say, I'm really shocked about insensivity towards the disabled seen in this thread. This further entrenches my opinion that the people defending Uber care nothing for others, and do nothing to appreciate the situation that others find themselves in. We don't have much of a society if we turn our backs on the weakest among us.
You are not the center of the frigging universe, as difficult as that may be for some of you to comprehend.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
In other words, "if you make the government pay for it, people will complain about raising taxes" is a feature, not a bug. That's the point--the government should make it obvious that it is taking the money, so the public can decide whether it's really worth it. And sometimes they won't.
The likely outcome of leaving a mostly able-bodied populace to decide whether providing transportation to the disabled is "worth it" is precisely why such matters are and should be handled by the government which, ostensibly, promotes the common good.
blog
Their handicap isn't OUR fault....
Just because something is not our fault does not mean we cannot collectively make things better. You know, old-fashioned pre-21st century things like succor, empathy, and compassion.
blog
No.
If you drive a car in the U.S., you probably need to have auto insurance. You avoid insurance by not driving a car. You avoid driving a car by living and working where alternative transport is available. Yes, this means most of North Dakota is not a place to try and go without a car, while Manhattan or inner city Boston is a great place to go without a car, though Boston will challenge you with more hills and snow.
If you lived in America more than about 6 years ago, you could go without health insurance, paying as you go for care if needed. I didn't see a doctor or need any care for more than 7 years at a time twice in my life, punctuated by a broken leg (soccer) and shoulder pain (occupational), during which time I had employer subsidized insurance for only a few years. The broken leg I paid for. Now in America you 'need' health insurance, because the government has decided you do. Lots of people disagree.
Need. You may be using that word incorrectly.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.