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."
'dealing with a host of legal and regulatory issues'
This is also why businesses leave.
Gotta stroke Big G and Unions before you can do business in this country!
If Uber drivers are truly independent contractors, do they have to abide by the ADA?
Is being born disabled any different that being born in say, Afirca in terms of luck? Why are disabled entitled to a standard of life subsidized by the American tax payers just cause they were born in America? Shouldnt they be required to bear the expenses of their disability themselves, just like people not born in US have to bear the expenses of not being born in US?
Deaf Dumb and Blind get all the breaks. Me, I just get free gin. By the bathtub full.
they can and do refuse service dogs (against their religion) with no statuary legal repercussions
https://www.google.com/search?... dogs
Deny access to everyone because Uber isn't ADA compliant?
... to protect entrenched special interests from competition/audit/legal action/defunding/etc... using "health", "safety", and/or "the children" as the reason monopolies, cronycapitalism, campaign donors, and other shill like behavior has to be protected from... literally anything that would clean house.
Name anything broken in government or the economy and I shit you not... every last bit of it is armored in babies.
Baby armor.
https://dviw3bl0enbyw.cloudfro...
And why does this work? Because voters/readers are lazy and don't look past the surface. They just see the baby armor and the guy taking shots at it. they don't look closely enough to see the babies are mostly plastic, and there is some cynical shit giggle in the middle of the babies that have been tied to his body while he's getting away with pretty much whatever he wants because after all... baby armor.
I'd cite specific issues outside of the fucking taxi companies but then I'd endure endless comments from fuckwits that don't realize they're enabling systemic corruption/dysfunction because... baby armor.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
With millions then clearly it has been a waste of time, and more importantly money. Also, sponsors must ensure that they invest into brands with a good reputation and ethical beliefs in line with the values of their own organisation. It's no coincidence that when a company or even an individual, like golfer Tiger Woods, act inappropriately Nike Free pas cher. companies often rush to withdraw their sponsorship. Ultimately they do not want to be seen as supporting negative actions as it could tarnish their own reputation. But any sponsorship must be to a brand that is relevant to the product or service the company is trying to promote. If Vauxhall sponsored the Teletubbies it would be completely pointless, as the children watching are not going to buy their cars. Brand sponsorship is essentially a method of focused consumer targeting, and it's vital that the brand chosen will gain the attention of the right consumers. If done properly, brand sponsorship can strengthen the position of all parties involved.
Does anybody really think the state of Massachusetts actually gives a flying fuck about disabled access to Uber and Lyft? This is about shutting down the competition and maintaining the giant fees associated with "legitimate" taxi services. All presented in a way of protecting the poor helpless disabled, because what kind of monster would be against helping people who really need it?
TLDR: protect profits while maintaining political image
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.
....Handicapped people want to be considered equals....except when it comes to access. Parking spots at the front....ramps everywhere...more big bathroom stalls...
Some of those I get (ramps). Some I don't (parking at the front).
However, if they want a service that caters to them, perhaps one of them should start Uberhandi. Or Handilyft. And give rides only to handicapped people.
If I have a handicapped friend, and I invite them to go somewhere with me, they better be able to utilize my vehicle or arrange their own. It's not my responsibilty to accommodate them. Why should the rest of the world give in to everything?
It's the humane thing to do.
Sadly, it don't think it's as much about people defending Uber (though Slashdot is populated with the self absorbed and self centered) as much as it Slashdot's demographic slants heavily towards ignorant self entitled assholes. (Read any article on diversity or women in tech, etc... for existence proof.)
I reference for your viewing pleasure the show "Last Week Tonight" with John Oliver whose expose on the practice of chicken farming is enlightening and pertinent to this conversation. Uber's only innovation is a scheduling application for taxis. The rest of the business model is "hiring" a bunch of "contractors" to be unregulated taxi drivers in violation of most local laws and regulations while collecting fees for taxi rides that Uber doesn't actually deliver - but are delivered by a bunch of rubes who have been convinced that if they take their family sedan and act like a taxi driver they'll make a lot of money. Push all of the things that cost money onto the "cab driver" and keep all of the things that make money for Uber. Just like the big chicken companies. As time progresses, the requirements on those "cab drivers" will increase and their costs will go up while Uber will continue to make their nice piece of the pie regardless of the costs on the "cab driver." There will be a turn over that comes into existence - much like the one that exists for Amway Distributors wherein a few people do well enough to encourage more suckers to sign up and keep Uber making money while they put themselves out of a car and violate the local laws. Uber is a nasty business that has wrapped itself in the banner of innovation while practicing the worst of capitalism an claiming to be an innovative underdog.