Equal Rights Center Sues Uber For Denying Equal Access To People Who Use Wheelchairs (techcrunch.com)

The Equal Rights Center is suing Uber, alleging that the company has chosen not to include wheelchair-accessible cars as an option in its standard UberX fleet of vehicles, and excludes people who use wheelchairs in Washington, D.C. According to the lawsuit, Uber is in violation of Title 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the D.C. Human Rights Act. TechCrunch reports: After conducting its own investigation of Uber's services for people in wheelchairs, the ERC found that passengers had to wait an average of eight times longer for an accessible car to arrive. They also had to pay twice as much in fares, according to the ERC's study. Ultimately, the ERC wants Uber to integrate wheelchair accessible cars into its UberX fleet so that people who use wheelchairs don't have to wait longer and pay more to use the car service. Uber said in a statement provided to TechCrunch: "We take this issue seriously and are committed to continued work with the District, our partners, and stakeholders toward expanding transportation options and freedom of movement for all residents throughout the region."

Comments

I still think we need more handicapped spaces

[Anonymous Coward]

There aren't enough empty spaces at the grocery store. We need more.

And where are the jetpacks and air cars for wheelchair people. That's discrimination.

Let's just cripple all people so we'll be equal. Harrison Bergeron style.

Re:I still think we need more handicapped spaces

[mark-t]

Most of them when I go to the grocery store, the lot is often very nearly full, but at least half of the eight or ten or so handicapped stalls always seem to be available at any one time, regardless of how full the lot is.

Re:I still think we need more handicapped spaces

[Anonymous Coward]

Confirmation bias. You're forgetting all the times there have been cars in the handicapped spots because those cars didn't register as anything unusual, whereas the state of the parking lot being mostly full affects you personally so you remember it most strongly.

I'd put good money down you don't actually study the handicapped spaces every time you visit a store. Just when you have specific reason to note them, such as when they're clearly vacant and the rest of the lot is full.

Re:I still think we need more handicapped spaces

[markdavis]

Maybe you live in retirement areas of Florida? Where I live, I rarely see even a single handicapped space filled/used. Rows of them just sitting empty at just about every location.

The deal with the Uber thing is a bit over-the-top. They demand that they aren't going to wait longer AND yet they also want access to a tremendously more expensive vehicle that also costs a lot more to maintain and operate and uses more gas and delays the trip a lot for the driver.... but they want to pay the same fare? Seems a bit unrealistic.

Re:I still think we need more handicapped spaces

[mark-t]

To be honest, I have no idea what the handicapped usage is like when the lot is not full, but given that vehicles used by the handicapped represent some real percentage of the total number of cars, one would tend to think that the actual number of handicapped stalls in use in a lot at any given time is going to be similarly roughly proportional to the total number of cars in the lot, that is, the more other cars there are in the lot, the more handicapped stalls will tend to be used as well. Even when the lot is virtually full, however, my observation is that many of the handicapped spots are still open. I suppose there might be an inverse correlation, but I find that dubious. I was, however, generally agreeing with the previous poster in that more parking in grocery stores would be greatly desirable.

Re:I still think we need more handicapped spaces

[Gavagai80]

one would tend to think that the actual number of handicapped stalls in use in a lot at any given time is going to be similarly roughly proportional to the total number of cars in the lot, that is, the more other cars there are in the lot, the more handicapped stalls will tend to be used as well.

Why would you think that? The times normal parking spots are full are based on people's work schedules. The handicapped are much more likely to be unemployed or self-employed... and moreover, crowds are particularly difficult if you're a slow mover so you're going to purposely avoid going to stores at the times they're most busy. It makes perfect sense that the disabled spots are all empty at a time when it would be very difficult for a disabled person to safely shop.

Re:I still think we need more handicapped spaces

[triffid_98]

eight or ten or so handicapped stalls always seem to be available at any one time

Really? Not around here. They're all full of rich old people with a note from their doctor. I laugh at it but if I were genuinely handicapped I would be keying those guys cars left and right. I mean, assuming my wheelchair had enough range to make it from the publicly available parking.

The moment you see a Hummer H1 or a Mercedes SL500 convertible in a handicapped space with perfectly legal placards you have to take a minute and realize that the system is utterly broken.

Re:I still think we need more handicapped spaces

[dgatwood]

Why would you think that? The times normal parking spots are full are based on people's work schedules. The handicapped are much more likely to be unemployed or self-employed... and moreover, crowds are particularly difficult if you're a slow mover so you're going to purposely avoid going to stores at the times they're most busy. It makes perfect sense that the disabled spots are all empty at a time when it would be very difficult for a disabled person to safely shop.

If we start from that assumption, then it makes no sense to have the handicapped parking places at all. During peak load, those spaces could be put to better use as normal parking spaces because the handicapped aren't going to be shopping, and when people with handicaps choose to shop, there will be plenty of empty spaces close to the building anyway without those spaces. Literally, the only way having 24x7 handicapped parking places makes any sense at all is if we assume that the shopping habits of the handicapped at least roughly match those of the rest of the public....

Re:I still think we need more handicapped spaces

[Anonymous Coward]

Literally, the only way having 24x7 handicapped parking places makes any sense at all is if we assume that the shopping habits of the handicapped at least roughly match those of the rest of the public....

Nope! Your logic is faulty, as access to the parking spots needs to be 24x7 regardless of any shopping habits, the discussion was merely over the observational peculiarities, but even aside from that, they make sense when you realize that the handicapped often need bigger spots due to wheelchairs.

Re:I still think we need more handicapped spaces

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck criples amiright? I want to save a few bucks!

Re:I still think we need more handicapped spaces

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it really matter? If that handful of lots were open to everyone you wouldn't be the one getting them. You'd be 3 or 4 spaces closer on average. It's really Not A Big Deal. Is walking 20 feet really that much of a burden for somebody "able bodied" when those who are truly in agony walking, or who can't walk, can make much better use of those spots?

Why the fuck are Americans so goddamn selfish? it's amazing how willing they are to make a handful of people suffer in order to avoid walking "just a little bit."

Re:I still think we need more handicapped spaces

[Highdude702]

My thoughts exactly on the situation.

Re:I still think we need more handicapped spaces

[Rockoon]

Progressives apparently hate handicapped people so much that they dont think that any of them should drive Hummer's or Mercedes.

Thanks for filling us in on what actually drives you thinking.... petty jealousy

Re:I still think we need more handicapped spaces

[I'm New Around Here]

Good job stereotyping the handicapped as not working, indeed as not normal at all.

Re:I still think we need more handicapped spaces

[I'm New Around Here]

I agree with you. My wife can walk around the house, but we use a wheelchair at the stores/malls. Many times I notice the sports car with the tag hanging on the mirror, and think that those bastards don't need the space.

But I live in Florida, so half the people have the tags. Can't do much about it.

Re:I still think we need more handicapped spaces

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you live in retirement areas of Florida? Where I live, I rarely see even a single handicapped space filled/used. Rows of them just sitting empty at just about every location.

Yep, here there must have been a new village ordinance where I work because last year my office building the nearby restaurants that we often have lunch at suddenly tripled the number of handicap parking spots and still most of them sit empty. There was no change in the nearby city where I live so apparently it wasn't a state law requiring this to happen.

Re:I still think we need more handicapped spaces

[jbengt]

I'm not familiar with the exact math used (codes tabulate the requirements rather than present the calculations), but the basic premise is to figure out the minimum number of accessible spaces so that there is very little chance that there will ever be a disabled person that can't park in one. Therefore, if you ever see them all occupied, there aren't enough of them (or, more likely, they've been taken up by people that didn't really need them).
Anyway, when driving my father around, there have been plenty of times when all the accessible parking was taken. (Which wasn't a problem for me as long as I wasn't alone with him, but meant getting him out of the car before parking, which backed up traffic behind me, and left him unattended while I parked if I was alone.)

Re:I still think we need more handicapped spaces

[lactose99]

You must be one hell of a doctor if you can remotely diagnose someone based on their vehicle to determine whether or not they are disabled.

Re:I still think we need more handicapped spaces

[triffid_98]

hate handicapped people so much that they dont think that any of them should drive Hummer's or Mercedes.

I challenge anyone with a bad hip or a bad spine to get into or out of either of those two specific vehicles on a daily basis. I'm not even talking wheelchair level disability here, just legitimate disability vs "I gots me a note, where's my tags" disability.

Re:I still think we need more handicapped spaces

[triffid_98]

So you're saying your erectile disfunction should qualify you for a handicapped placard? Nobody remotely disabled would ever drive those cars due to the difficult entry/exits.

Re: I still think we need more handicapped spaces

[Anonymous Coward]

I know a paraplegic that drives a CLK. Somehow gets his chair in as well.

Re:I still think we need more handicapped spaces

[Anonymous Coward]

I think some stores go way overboard in their handicapped allocations. The Home Depot in my area has 12 handicapped spots (4 spots each in 3 parking rows). It's almost like handicapped people don't do a lot of home modifications.

Re: I still think we need more handicapped spaces

[Anonymous Coward]

So my heart condition doesn't qualify me for a spot? Or my bad lungs? Or my cancer? I am only allowed, in,your world, to use a spot if I am in a wheelchair.

Got it. Thanks, genius.

Re: I still think we need more handicapped spaces

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL fuck off your lies.

Re:I still think we need more handicapped spaces

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because somebody can walk does not mean they are not at a disabled - My father had a stroke a few years back and lost a large portion of his eyesight and some mental faculties. My mother got a placard on the basis of being his carer, and at first I thought she was being dramatic (and possibly abusing an amenity designed for those who really need it.)

I thought this right up until I temporarily lost him due to being distracted by my own children while he was out for a visit earlier this year. He was completely disoriented, and frantic and distressed by the time I found him. Had he been out in the carpark, he could easily have been hit by a car. (He will regularly walk out in front of cars if you don't watch him because he can't see.)

My point is, just because somebody can walk, it does not mean they are not impaired or caring for somebody who is.

Re:I still think we need more handicapped spaces

[dgatwood]

Nope! Your logic is faulty, as access to the parking spots needs to be 24x7 regardless of any shopping habits

Access to some spots needs to be 24x7 (or at least during business hours), but not necessarily the same number at all times. An ideal approach would recognize these patterns (if they, in fact, exist) and do something sensible, such as having certain parking places that are handicapped-only during specific times of day, plus others that are handicapped-only all the time.

but even aside from that, they make sense when you realize that the handicapped often need bigger spots due to wheelchairs.

This is one way in which the current laws are, IMO, broken. Lots of folks who are not wheelchair-bound, but merely have difficulty getting around (e.g. folks with walkers, canes) qualify for handicapped permits. Requiring all of the handicapped spots to be wheelchair-accessible makes little sense. There should really be a percentage that is proportional to the percentage of handicapped people who are wheelchair-bound (except that this would mean most stores would have zero, so it should probably have a lower limit in addition to the percentage).

Re: I still think we need more handicapped spaces

[Anonymous Coward]

Handicapped parking isn't just for people with bad legs. Many people cannot walk long distances due to heart or lung problems that would have no impact on them getting into or out of any vehicle.

Re: I still think we need more handicapped spaces

[Anonymous Coward]

1 legged man with a sports car here. Why shouldn't I be able to own a sports car and be disabled at the same time?

Re:I still think we need more handicapped spaces

[dgatwood]

The laws are based on the number of parking places. If we're going by federal law that would mean your Home Depot has between 550 and 600 parking places. How big is this store?

Re: I still think we need more handicapped spaces

[I'm New Around Here]

And you are among the small fraction of people driving a sports car with a valid reason to use the handicap space.

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[cayenne8]

Geez.....

So, we now have to ruin it for the majority, just because a small minority can't use "X" service?

Please get real, there are alternatives, PLENTY of public transportation that we've all already paid out taxes for.....

Man, I'm all for helping people, but it's getting fucking ridiculous....what's next, suing magazines for not being in braille too for blind folks? Suing Apple for iPods that deaf people can't use?

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[MightyMartian]

I doubt Uber has $7 that isn't money it owes to the banks and investors.

Watching the left...

[Bartles]

...being forced to live in the world they created is so entertaining.

Re:Watching the left...

[Grishnakh]

Which "left" are you talking about? There's leftists who hate Uber and Lyft because they're "stealing" from the "hard working taxi drivers", but there's no shortage at all of Millennial liberals who happily use these services because they provide a better and cheaper service than the nasty old cabs. In short, the left isn't united on this issue at all. Further, Travis Kalanick and his cronies at Uber don't seem like a bunch of leftists at all, they seem like Ayn Rand-loving objectivists.

It's supposed to be ride sharing not buy a ride to

[Anonymous Coward]

It's supposed to be ride sharing not buy a ride of a certain type to share so the parent company can meet a quota

I'm all for helping those with a disability have as a normal life but this is just a bit too far for me..
And I hate uber for their business tactics

Perhaps someone can sue eBay...

[Type44Q]

Perhaps someone can sue eBay; surely there aren't enough eBay sellers selling wheelchairs. Hell, sue the car manufacturers; not enough people are buying wheelchair-accessible vehicles. Sue the government! Wheelchair-accessible vehicles should have been mandated by law.

Re: I'm in a wheelchair too

[Type44Q]

I'm struggling to think of any for-profit organization, privately-owned or publically-traded, that possesses assets not owned by its owners...

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[Anonymous Coward]

Great ideas! I'm deaf myself, how much do you think I can sue Apple for?

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[Anonymous Coward]

Please get real, there are alternatives, PLENTY of public transportation that we've all already paid out taxes for.....

We're also paying taxes to fund the Courts, as well as other agencies of government that are charged with enforcing conditions so that businesses can operate in the first place.

Let's put aside whether or not it is "fair" for Uber to have to provide (more) accessible services. Do other similar businesses have to conform to those standards? (In other words, are there regulations in effect that say that they have to do this, and are those regulations enforced?)

I ask this because if there ARE regulations that say Uber needs to be doing this (or more of this), and they're not, then that's unfair to the businesses that are actually trying to meet those regulations. In which case, yes, Uber deserves to be slapped for Ubering regulations.

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[Anonymous Coward]

hey now, this is just ONE MORE way uber is trying to skirt around existing laws that other transportation companies abide by. so why should this one be different? fuck 'em. string 'em up by their dicks and let the money shake loose from their pockets.

fyi: in many places, taxi cabs are required to provide accessible vehicles on request; and in ALL areas taxi drivers are required to assist the disabled, including stowing and retrieving chairs, walkers, and other mobility aids if they fit in the vehicle (which all but motorized ones would in virtually any vehicle). they also cannot refuse service or otherwise discriminate against mobility impaired riders provided that their vehicle can in some way accommodate them, nor can they charge extra, either.

and btw, magazines (and books) ARE, for the most part, available in braille, and in audio format. AND this is paid partially by your taxes.. that should get you really riled up. muuhahahaha.

Re: I'm in a wheelchair too

[sexconker]

Owned by != owed to.

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[Anonymous Coward]

Geez.....

So, we now have to ruin it for the majority

-

This is the credo of the SJW.

Re: I'm in a wheelchair too

[MightyMartian]

Indeed, equity!=debt

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[godel_56]

In Australia the cab companies and owners also get a government subsidy to provide wheel chair accessible vehicles.

Are they going to do the same for Uber drivers? I don't think so.

ADA is abused

[Balthisar]

I'm not posting sarcastically. The market will address this. Or government feel-good programs. We spend ridiculous amounts of money to accommodate handicaps because we believe the word "handicap" is evil, yet we make no special accommodations for, e.g., stupid people. I sympathize with the differently-abled -- I really and truly do! -- but the economic well-being of an Uber driver trumps your claim to universal access to someone else's private property. By being a dick and suing, you're ruining someone's life. And face it, someone making a living from Uber is just as disadvantaged as you, otherwise he'd be an engineer or marketing executive or doctor or something (allowing that some people really do just like to be Uber drivers, or are earning "extra" money). By complaining about equal access, you're fucking up someone's life.

Re:ADA is abused

[fluffernutter]

People who stand up for the disabled are DICKS! Yeah!

Re:ADA is abused

[techno-vampire]

I have a bad habit of not proof reding

Well, if you're that dyslexic, you should just hire yourself a poorfraeder.

Re:ADA is abused

[Balthisar]

Drink chloroform. -_-

But then that would make me differently abled, or possibly dead. And then I wouldn't be able to contribute positively to society, and then be a drain instead.

Look, we've got to recognize that you can't make everyone happy. The world isn't fair nor perfect. I don't have a 200 IQ, so I can't be a Wall Street quant and make millions. I'm differently abled, so what fucking special accommodation are you going to make for me?

Re:ADA is abused

[Gravis Zero]

Perhaps you should take your own advice.

Look, we've got to recognize that you can't make everyone happy. The world isn't fair nor perfect.

So suck it up and comply with federal regulations. :)

Re:ADA is abused

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Uber is a... $70 billion.... company. I understand when people don't want to impose on a small business. But Uber can afford to get some handicap accessible vehicles going.

Re:ADA is abused

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, we've got to recognize that you can't make everyone happy.

Fair enough. Given the alternatives, I believe you're the one who should end up unhappy. The reason is the degree of unhappiness; if handicap access laws exist and are enforced, the consequences for you will be minimal: your right wing boner won't be satisfied, you will get blue right wing balls and complain on the internet about the evil gummint. No biggie - in reality your quality of life won't be significantly affected. If however handicap access laws aren't there, the quality of life of people who do need them will be hugely decreased. I think making life a little easier for folks who have already got a lousy deal matters more than ideology.

Re:ADA is abused

[viperidaenz]

They may be "worth" $70b, but they are still running at a loss.
They don't have $70b sitting in their bank account.

Re:ADA is abused

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, he/she/it/whatthefuckever should get a lawyer to sue everyone who makes any kind of word-processor or even pens and paper to pay for it too?

Re:ADA is abused

[Anonymous Coward]

The disabled aren't in need of an equal opportunity. They can already ride in an Uber car, without their wheelchair, if they want. What they do want is equity, a special concession on the part of Uber, to provide transport of both them and their wheelchair. To elevate the disabled to the metaphorical heights of their peers.

The two things are not the same.

Re:ADA is abused

[WaffleMonster]

People who stand up for the disabled are DICKS! Yeah!

Many of them are in fact dicks suing people with the sole intention of helping themselves to other peoples money rather than helping other people. I'll leave the insane trend line of ADA suits speak for itself.

There is now such a sprawling population of dicks looking to cash out on ADA suits I now assume anyone filing ADA suit is a dick until evidence is presented to the contrary. It's much easier that way. The default assumption is way more often to be right than wrong.

Re:ADA is abused

[WaffleMonster]

Yeah, how can the disabled be so selfish as to demand equal opportunities!

Life isn't equal. People are not equal. There is no such thing as an equal opportunity that does not involve taking. Demanding others take a course of action to accommodate you at their own expense is inherently a selfish act.

There are limits to human generosity.. to how far people individually and by extension as a society are willing to go out of their way to accommodate others. Rampant abuse of ADA by lawyers is only making things worse for the disabled by pushing public sentiment in the wrong direction chipping away at legitimacy of ADA itself.

Voices of the disadvantaged seeking help are being drowned out by an emerging industry of assholes gaming the system with an objective function of self enrichment. The rate of increase of ADA lawsuits is both comical and unsustainable.

Re:ADA is abused

[rossz]

yet we make no special accommodations for, e.g., stupid people.

You should check out some of the warning labels on common products telling people not to do seriously stupid shit.

Re:ADA is abused

[Opportunist]

We should remove those stickers, create a "thou shalt not be stupid" law and let the problem sort itself out.

Re:ADA is abused

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're a dick until evidence is presented to the contrary.

What can Uber do?

[GlennC]

Uber is dependent on people using their own cars. Most people don't have wheelchair accessible cars, and those who do aren't likely to be willing to use that vehicle to drive some random stranger around.

If the Equal Rights Center is that upset, perhaps they can provide vehicles and drivers and create their own service instead of pointing fingers and filing lawsuits.

Re:What can Uber do?

[Ichijo]

Uber is dependent on people using their own cars. Most people don't have wheelchair accessible cars, and those who do aren't likely to be willing to use that vehicle to drive some random stranger around.

Why wouldn't Uber drivers be willing to drive random strangers around?

Re:What can Uber do?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Glenn is saying that if someone has a wheelchair accessible vehicle, they are likely to be using it for themselves/family rather than driving for Uber.

Re:What can Uber do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not both?

Re:What can Uber do?

[Kjella]

Why wouldn't Uber drivers be willing to drive random strangers around?

People with wheelchair accessible cars aren't likely to be Uber drivers because:

a) They're already helping someone in a wheelchair
b) It's a terrible taxi except when you're in a wheelchair
c) They don't get paid any extra for the car or lift time

Even entire fleets of taxis usually only have one on stand-by for when they need it, it's dysfunctional the rest of the time. It's a dead loss they eat to comply with accessibility laws, not anything anyone would do voluntarily.

Re: What can Uber do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Came here to say this. A law like this would Force small businesses to pay exorbitant costs to provide accommodations like wheelchair ramps, which is totally unfair to the business owner. OP and I say, let them eat cake!

Re:What can Uber do?

[Enigma2175]

c) They don't get paid any extra for the car or lift time

But the summary says "They also had to pay twice as much in fares, according to the ERC's study."

If the fare is paying more doesn't the driver get more? I was under the impression the driver got a portion of the fare. So either the driver isn't getting paid more or the fare isn't increased, either your statement or the summary are wrong.

Aiming too low

[argStyopa]

The ERC should sue the entire world for not being hand-accessible!

I mean, it really isn't - mountains, rivers, beaches - all that crap should be mandated to be accessible.

It's almost like being handicapped sucks, and means you can't do most of the things un-handicapped people can do.

That's it. Confirmed. This is just a shakedown

[Anonymous Coward]

Taxi licenses and monied interests are the reason why Uber is being shat on from a great height.

I mean it was possible that some of the shit they've gotten was deserved, but if they keep getting yet more whooshed goalposts of what they're mandated to do, that option rapidly disappears.

And if a car cannot physically take a wheelchair user then it's not Uber or the person not employed by Uber in a non-specifically-designed car used in a not-specifically-requested request pick-up fault that the ride was not able to complete.

If I book a "real taxi" then if I do not point out how many people there are or the need for wheelchair access, then the taxi company can be completely exonerated of any wrongdoing if they turn up with a vehicle that cannot take on the commission, because the fault would be mine. Meanwhile if I DO state the specific needs and they turn up without suitable transport, they ARE culpable for failing to supply the contracted service. And I'm pretty sure that the Yellow Cab style taxis would not be faulted for being non-wheelchair-friendly, because that is the format of the vehicle they use. And that transport of the disabled like this is done by different formatted cabs that re minivan or similar (even bespoke) configuration.

But if it's Uber, suddenly they have to make everyone who signs up to be notified of a pickup on the off-chance that they can take it, has a vehicle that is far more general purpose for public transport than even the fucking public transport they replace???

No, that's when it becomes clear this is an attempt to shut down competition for the entrenched power base and the cash injection to the city that selling the franchises provide.

Re:That's it. Confirmed. This is just a shakedown

[Anonymous Coward]

Taxi licenses and monied interests are the reason why Uber is being shat on from a great height.

Uber stuck it's nose in mob business.

Re:That's it. Confirmed. This is just a shakedown

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I think Uber didn't agree to some odious secret government snooping program and are now being taken down. Did you see the article earlier about the feds using some cell intercepter to send a fake Lyft car full of cops to some criminal who requested it? I think we'll find in some future leaks that Uber refused to play a long with some overreaching government program, but Lyft did, and now Uber is paying the price.

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[FatdogHaiku]

While the DOJ does have a mediation program to informally resolve ADA complaints, the normal course of action is to sue in order to force compliance...
otherwise law makers would have had to create the disability police.
A group of lawyers passed a law the requires lawyers to enforce it!
What are the odds?

Someone has to pay for it

[OrangeTide]

A van with a wheel chair lift and suitable harness is about $50k ($35k van + $15k conversion). And it gets terrible gas mileage. So if I were to use my sister's wheelchair-accessible van for Uber, I would realistically have to charge significantly more before I could even break even. Since Uber sets the prices and drivers voluntarily accept the price, there is nothing I can do. And since Uber would get their pants sued off them if they charged 2x for a wheelchair van, there is not much Uber can do either.

If on the other hand the government or charities were willing to compensate wheelchair accessible van drivers on top of what Uber already pays, that would be something very interesting. Of course ADA only provides a way to sue businesses who do not comply with draconian rules, the Act does not offer any solutions to the problems that handicapped people face.

Re:Someone has to pay for it

[Swave An deBwoner]

Other taxi services have the same cost issues you describe and yet they somehow manage to deal with them lawfully.

Uber could just raise all their rates a wee bit to cover this; they managed to raise prices for "surges", didn't they?

Re:Someone has to pay for it

[Anonymous Coward]

Those vehicles are fleet cars and Yellow Cabs (and city equivalents) do not have wheelchair compatible fleet cars anyway. Uber is some car owning joe blow signing up for agreeing to an on-demand service, not someone signing up for driving asa sole business. that is why uber can get better coverage in many cases where there is not enough business to make it profitable: the car and driver are doing something else and merely detour for a pickup.

Uber don't own the cars, they don't own the drivers, they don't sign up or answer specific calls for demands from X to Y, and if you ask uber for a lift from X to Y and nobody is willing to do that route, then you don't get your offer.

And taxi firms who have a fleet including special access vehicles get tax breaks and law excuses to run them. Remember, if you have taxi lanes, an Uber "taxi" can't use it. That specific driver needs the access permit.

So the difference, at base, is that there is a company owning the fleet that have some (note SOME) suitable for wheelcairs, and they get paid extra for it.

Uber does none of that and get no payment or breaks.

Re:Someone has to pay for it

[Swave An deBwoner]

I don't own a liquor store but I take payment from people who want to buy gin and send a liquor store owner over to hand it to them. I pay the liquor store owner a percentage of what the customer paid me. Therefore I can connect junior high school students with gin; I'm not bound by the laws regarding the sale of liquor to minors.

Thanks for the tip. I think I'll be able to buy that new house after all.

/s

Re:Someone has to pay for it

[Anonymous Coward]

> Of course ADA only provides a way to sue businesses who do not comply with [its] rules, the Act does not offer any solutions to the problems that handicapped people face.

Um. I guess you don't know shit about shit. One of the requirements for someone found to be out of compliance with the ADA is to _come into compliance_.

That's... like... _the_ fucking solution to the problems that handicapped people face.

Idiot.

@Swave And deBwoner:
> Other taxi services have the same cost issues you describe and yet they somehow manage to deal with them lawfully.

> Uber could just raise all their rates a wee bit to cover this...

No. The thing about Uber is that it uses just-in-time staffing. (c.f. "Gig Economy") The thing about paratransit is that it is (comparatively) rarely used. This means that Uber would need to guarantee that there'd be a paratransit vehicle and a qualified driver on hand at any time. Because of both the fairly significant fuel cost delta on this vehicle vs. a regular vehicle, and the requirement that it be readily available for a highly irregular demand, it would not be used for regular rides.

Realistically, Uber would have to purchase enough of these vehicles to meet predicted demand and employ enough qualified personnel to crew those vehicles. That's just not part of the "rideshare" business model.

Moreover, If your local taxi company doesn't operate paratransit vehicles, why on _earth_ would you expect Uber or Lyft to do so?

Re:Someone has to pay for it

[Anonymous Coward]

since your goal was to facilitate to a known illegal transaction, the least you'd get is "accessory to the crime". in most states, they are "tough on drugs" laws that they can hit you with and you're in jail for life.

Re:Someone has to pay for it

[Anonymous Coward]

As the other AC says, you are now an accessory. Note that you have to have a license to buy liquor for sale for a start. Nothing requires you to buy a license to taxi people around. That license has agreements, so you'd be in contravention of that agreement too.

Uber do not get the same rights as official taxi ranks and they cost less which is the only reason why they get selected, after all, this is like just asking someone in a town if they'll put you up for a night in a makeshift one-off B&B. You'd not do that if you had an alternative or if it weren't much cheaper.

The other difference here is that there's no specific request to ask for certain facilities when you book a taxi. When I book an actual taxi, I HAVE TO ASK FOR WHEELCHAIR ACCESS. If I do not, it's my fault it is incompatible.

And as to the regulation, would it be fine if Uber just bought 2% of their fleet with wheelchair access capability and let the people choose whether they take that car out or not? Because that is all Uber can do: make available the cars on a lease basis. If nobody chooses those cars, then nobody is at fault and nobody can be made to pay for the breech because there isn't one.

If Uber were known not to have this, then they don't get the taxi lanes, they don't park in taxi waiting lines, they don't get to claim expenses of the car as tax deductible, and they won't supply wheelchair compatible cars, so you can just go with a taxi which DOES have wheelchair compatible cars and there's no risk in getting it wrong.

Your problem then reduces to "What if Uber becomes the only taxi option?" in which case the problem is in the provision of public services, not Uber.

Re:Someone has to pay for it

[AmiMoJo]

I know someone with a converted van (or people carrier as we call them) and he says that the lift makes little difference. It doesn't weigh more than the couple of seats it replaces.

Re:Someone has to pay for it

[fropenn]

Spend a couple of weeks exclusively using a chair and see if the rules still seem draconian to you.

Re:Someone has to pay for it

[Anonymous Coward]

Other taxi services have the same cost issues you describe and yet they somehow manage to deal with them lawfully.

Uber could just raise all their rates a wee bit to cover this; they managed to raise prices for "surges", didn't they?

Are you sure about that? Name a taxi service that complies with all of the complaints here. I doubt you can find one.

Re:Someone has to pay for it

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber should pay their drivers more for wheelchair-accessible trips. That is their responsibility as a business, to ensure compliance with the law. It's the only way to make sure drivers with wheelchair-accessible vehicles are actually willing to do the job in their expensive gas-guzzler.
This is an expense on the business, yes. So's installing wheelchair ramps. Suck it up; every other cab company does.

Re:Someone has to pay for it

[OrangeTide]

Look, my sister has been in a wheel chair all her life. My entire family is quite familiar with how all this works. And the ADA laws often result in punishments to businesses that do not comply, but offer no solution to the problems the handicap face every day. It's better than nothing, but it is draconian in the very original sense of the word.

Re:Someone has to pay for it

[OrangeTide]

We have one. it has the floor lowered and there is a steel plate. It depends on how you do the conversion. My sister has no real mobility so she needs something with enough room around it for a nurse to get in and out of the back of the van.

Full size vans in general are pretty heavy and don't get great fuel mileage. When you add a top on them for the headroom they get even slower.

Re:Someone has to pay for it

[Swave An deBwoner]

As the other AC says, you are now an accessory. Note that you have to have a license to buy liquor for sale for a start. Nothing requires you to buy a license to taxi people around. That license has agreements, so you'd be in contravention of that agreement too.

On the contrary, in NYC one cannot lawfully "taxi people around" as a vocation without a taxi license; the driver must be licensed and the car itself must be licensed as a "for hire vehicle".

Uber do not get the same rights as official taxi ranks and they cost less which is the only reason why they get selected, after all, this is like just asking someone in a town if they'll put you up for a night in a makeshift one-off B&B. You'd not do that if you had an alternative or if it weren't much cheaper.

Again, not quite. It's more like paying some guy in a storefront to hook me up with someone who will put me up for a night. That's covered under "hotels" in my part of the woods.

And as to the regulation, would it be fine if Uber just bought 2% of their fleet with wheelchair access capability and let the people choose whether they take that car out or not? Because that is all Uber can do: make available the cars on a lease basis. If nobody chooses those cars, then nobody is at fault and nobody can be made to pay for the breech because there isn't one.

Then Uber would be a transportation company, not a technology company, and they would be fully bound by the usual regulations regarding "vehicles for hire".

Re:Someone has to pay for it

[Swave An deBwoner]

Uber should pay their drivers more for wheelchair-accessible trips. That is their responsibility as a business, to ensure compliance with the law. It's the only way to make sure drivers with wheelchair-accessible vehicles are actually willing to do the job in their expensive gas-guzzler.
This is an expense on the business, yes. So's installing wheelchair ramps. Suck it up; every other cab company does.

Spot on! Thank you.

Re:Someone has to pay for it

[jbengt]

Note that you have to have a license to buy liquor for sale for a start. Nothing requires you to buy a license to taxi people around.

bullshit

Re:Someone has to pay for it

[OrangeTide]

Um. I guess you don't know shit about shit. One of the requirements for someone found to be out of compliance with the ADA is to _come into compliance_.,

Show me where in the ADA that it plans to build wheel chair ramps, elevators, lifts, restrooms, etc? No where. it had no provisions for providing anything to anyone. It only provides a way for the government to fine and for handicapped people to sue. Suing doesn't suddenly build a bathroom, suing providers monetary compensation to an individual. But it's an entire community that is affected.

So yea, I guess I "don't know shit about shit". You fucking loser.

Re:Someone has to pay for it

[Anonymous Coward]

or make government pay separately extra for every mile driven to persons providing those services to Uber, not ask business to pay for it because that will be just indirect additional government tax, INDIRECT TAX IS EVIL make government pay for accessibility for buildings/vehicles/any company out of sales and salary tax they already collect and spend less on military or whatever, and kill ADA/replace it with other law that makes government responsible and not companies/persons

Re: There are too many jobs still left in the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

What about Muslims who want bacon? If your catering company won't cater to Muslims who want bacon, your argument falls apart. But if you do cater to pork-eating Muslims, you've just violated one of Mohamed's ten commandments. Either way, you're not getting off this planet alive.

Huh?

[rsilvergun]

We hate Uber and want it shut down for it's illegal misclassification of workers and want expanded public transportation systems with full accessibility. We're the ones that pushed for those laws in the first place. We're perfectly OK with living in that world? If you're gonna troll can you please put a little more effort into it?

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

We're perfectly OK with living in that world?

No, you're obviously not OK, because you keep complaining about everything and everyone.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

"We"? You mean those who live in a fantasy land of infinite resources?

I've got good friends who are wheelchair bound

[rsilvergun]

The Market wasn't addressing it, that's why there's a law. It wasn't worth the cost. And we aren't fucking up anyone's life. The costs were minimal and affordable. Mostly making bathrooms accessible and adding ramps. They went down even more as new buildings made them standard. But it's still a cost, and if you're a big corp that money could buy the owner their third or fourth summer home. I guess if only having two or three summer homes counts as a fucked up life, well, sign me the hell up for a fucked up life.

Re:I've got good friends who are wheelchair bound

[Balthisar]

This is a new day and age, though. We're all politically correct, and don't have to be sued because my 2005 Honda Civic can't accommodate your wheelchair. Maybe someone else can help you, or you can call the local government dial-a-ride, who definitely can. Want to bring your dog, but I'm Muslim and don't want filth if my car? Get another driver who doesn't care, but why sue me? There are other options.

Re:I've got good friends who are wheelchair bound

[Gavagai80]

You're making the argument from personal ignorance and not reading the summary. This complaint isn't about people's cars they use for Uber. It's about Uber's own owned car fleet that they rent to drivers. While I tend to think the ADA is too much of a burden, lying about the issue at hand doesn't help.

Re:I've got good friends who are wheelchair bound

[laughingskeptic]

Uber X Fleet cars still are not owned by Uber, they are owned by individuals and small businesses who loan cars to drivers. If we define 2% as insignificant and it costs 10k to adopt a 30k vehicle, then a fleet owner must have (N + 1/3) / N 50/3 = 17 vehicles before they reach this point. There may not be any Uber X Fleet owners that meet this criteria.

Re:I've got good friends who are wheelchair bound

[laughingskeptic]

Arrgghhh forgot all the less than greater thans would be stripped. The number is still 17.

Re:I've got good friends who are wheelchair bound

[Visarga]

So you propose that Uber drivers invest from their bountiful accounts into special modifications for their personal cars, that they use for personal purposes most of the time? Won't that make Uber close shop because nobody can afford it or want to mess with their cars?

I have another idea: how about you or someone with your views make a new company that caters for people with special needs? You could get appropriate cars right from the beginning.

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[fluffernutter]

Why would the Australian government give transportation subsidies to Uber? After all they're just a technology company.

It's another symptom

[rsilvergun]

of Uber being an illegal taxi company. You don't get to say "We're an app!" and get out of complying with laws. If you did we'd be a lawless society.

Re:It's another symptom

[Opportunist]

Last time I checked you're still allowed to leave. Since you're obviously someone who earns a lot of money, presumably because you have a skill that is high in demand, it should be trivial to find a jurisdiction that is to your liking that will also welcome you with open arms.

You're missing the point

[rsilvergun]

perhaps intentionally. The point is they have a right to take part in society. Mountains and Rivers aren't society. Public Transportation is.

Re:You're missing the point

[roman_mir]

Nobody is preventing a legless invalid from having the right to participating in society. A right is protection against government oppression. Are the disabled oppressed by the government and are not legally allowed to take a bus?

You are never talking about rights, you are talking about entitlements, call things what they are and then you will understand that the demands put forward by the disabled are not about their rights, it is about their entitlement to live their lives paid for by the rest of the people who have absolutely *nothing* to do with them. To force everybody else to pay for their transportation, parking, special toilets, whatever it is.

A business that believes it will have a good chunk of the disabled patron its establishment does not need any laws or lawsuits to create accessible environment at an extra expense to the business.

However a business that does not want to deal with this will not be frequented by the disabled and that is the end of it. That business should not be forced to cater to the disabled no matter what you believe.

I think USA economy is falling apart and your ideology is the reason for it, it should fall apart, the flood of failure is needed sometimes to wash away the ruins that caused it.

Re:You're missing the point

[LeftCoastThinker]

No, they are disabled, and as such have limitations, including, potentially, limitations in participating in society. That we as a society want to help them out and make their lives a little better only reflects our morality, not the rights of the disabled. In America you have equal opportunity, but what you make of it based on you ability is up to you... The ADA completely ignores this which is why it is a draconian piece of garbage that needs to be repealed.

Re:You're missing the point

[viperidaenz]

Uber isn't public transport either. It's private transport.

They're not a bus company
They're not a shuttle company
They're not even a taxi company

Re:You're missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

They're just an internet taxi company.

Re:You're missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if these progressives think that the millions of people that die when our economy collapses is already made up for by all the feel-good stuff the progressives did to make it collapse.

Re:You're missing the point

[jbengt]

A right is protection against government oppression.
You are never talking about rights, you are talking about entitlements . . .

You do not know what either of those mean.
The USA government was founded on enlightenment principals of unalienable natural rights. Though the Declaration of Independence invokes rights and the Bill of Rights prohibits the USA government from infringing on them, the rights themselves are not protections against government oppression, they are unalienable natural rights
Entitlements is an overused, politically charged word that sounds like the privileges of the nobility, but when it comes to government budgets, it only refers to the "Title" or section of the law that requires the government to do something, whether separately budgeted or not.

Re:You're missing the point

[squiggleslash]

Every time I read something about something Trump has done, I think "Oh my God, there cannot be a worse, more obnoxious, more "The world revolves around me", person than Trump".

Then I read your comments.

Then I think "No, I still think Trump is the worst, but with sociopaths like roman_mir around, it's not surprising he can get away with it."

Re:You're missing the point

[squiggleslash]

They're a taxi company. They can pretend they're not, they can misuse the term "Ride sharing" as much as they want, they can haggle about legal definitions and local regulations, but they're still a service where you hire a car and driver to take you from A to B. In other words, they operate a taxi service.

Re:You're missing the point

[roman_mir]

Don't worry, 'troll' moderation will take care of it and will hide it from your eyes, wouldn't it? My other comments in this thread are already at -1, so you don't have to read any of it, go on your merry way.

As to being a 'sociopath', with the society that I observe around me it is very easy not to like it one bit. What is there to like? Religions? To me religions are collectivist mobs just as much as democratically elected politicians that got elected by promising theft and destruction of individual freedoms. Should I like the government systems that are constantly waging wars and murder and maim individuals and economies? What is there to like in this collective?

I like individuals, I like individual entrepreneurs or researchers, I like individuals who stand up against the collective, I like people that do what they must on their own without bothering with the public opinion.

So yes, I don't like the so called 'society' but I am a humanist because I see the value of individuals when they are acting on their own, in their own self interest working for themselves.

Trump is a toy, hopefully he can be used for the good of humanism and for destruction of the collective.

Re:You're missing the point

[viperidaenz]

yeah, and craigslist is an online retail store.

Re:It's supposed to be ride sharing not buy a ride

[fluffernutter]

The problem is, if they lift the regulation for Uber, then they need to lift the regulation for all transportation companies so that they can compete on an even playing field. Then it is questionable whether there will be enough services that remain.

What about Uber WAV Wheel chair accessible vehicle

[ProfBooty]

Uber rolled out Uber WAV 2 years back that allows you to use their app to connect with Taxi companies that offer wheel chair service.

https://www.uber.com/blog/wash...

What the fuck are you talking about?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the world the RIGHTWING created. Sure, some leftwingers complained, but they didn't have power. The right wing did. They created this world, this scenario.

FFS, even if you were insane enough to think that the democrats were left wing, it's been fairly close 50:50 left:right, and both have created this world.

But because you're fucking butthurt and retarded due to bigoted blind political ideology, you "think" (if such a word could be used) that this was all done by leftists.

WHO THE FUCK WAS SHRUB, RETARD?!?!?

PS I also posted "@07:58PM (#54708873) " and like to add to that because I can't edit and it is just as germane here: this is not a complaint by "SJW"s, but brought about by taxi companies and the sellers of the licenses to shut down Uber, and those are, if anything, rightwing, conservative corporatist entities. This situation is created by the right wing, and this event is CAUSED by the rightwing. There's fuck all left wing in this scenario. It isn't even ADA's fault, since laws are written for sane rational people, not lunatics or the criminally greedy assfucks who will search and search until they find a way to use and abuse the law to their ends. And for them, if it hadn't been possible to do it with ADA, they'd have found some other rule or law or nit pick to make it about.

Re:What the fuck are you talking about?

[Anonymous Coward]

Adderal much?

Re:What the fuck are you talking about?

[Anonymous Coward]

Meaningless often?

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[Ichijo]

Please get real, there are alternatives, PLENTY of public transportation that we've all already paid out taxes for.....

I don't like paying taxes, so making it easier for the disabled to switch from public transportation to Uber sounds like a very good idea to me!

Repeal the ADA

[LeftCoastThinker]

ADA needs to be completely repealed. It is a massive drain on businesses and nothing but a lawsuit mine for lawyers. If a business doesn't serve you as a disabled person, go elsewhere or make a request to the business... Most businesses are happy to make reasonable accommodations but the ADA puts a gun to their heads about it and lets stupid stuff like this Uber suit run rampant...

Re:Repeal the ADA

[OYAHHH]

Obviously you haven't benefitted from the law. As someone who has you have no idea what you are talking about.

Re:Repeal the ADA

[Anonymous Coward]

So when the company I work at has to have 1 cripple shitter in each bathroom (taking up space for urinals and shitters of the non-cripples) how does that help ANYONE?

I work in a factory and absolutely ZERO cripples would EVER be hired. EVER. Yet we have to have shitters for them.

Tell me again how the ADA is a good thing and benefiting anyone when retarded rules like the above are enforced.

Re:Repeal the ADA

[djinn6]

So if a law benefits you personally, it's automatically a good law?

Re:Repeal the ADA

[LeftCoastThinker]

This is not the 1970s. Most people want reasonable accommodations to be made for disabled, and goodwill and public opinion is a powerful thing for businesses, but making allowances for disabled people is a drain on business and lawsuits especially can force businesses to shut down entirely, putting employees out of work. Is that right? Is your right to conveniently attend a movie theater more important than an movie employees job (or the owner's livelihood)? Hell, I don't even go to the movies any more because it's so much nicer to just watch in the comfort of my own home where I can pause, adjust the volume, and tell people to shut up if they are too noisy. But the ADA puts your convenience of going to the movies above the right of a citizen to run their business as they see fit or the employees right to their job because an ADA lawsuit (often frivolous/trivial) can crush a business and leave employees out of work.

There are unintended consequences to every law and the ADA has some really negative impacts on especially small businesses and their employees.

- Have you ever considered how many people your ADA accommodations have caused to be laid off because of additional operating expenses or lawsuits that had massive legal fees?
- Have you ever researched how many people have been laid off when the small business that they worked at shut down due to massive ADA legal fees?
- I wonder how many little kids have been hit and killed in the grocery store parking lot because a pregnant mother of 4 had to park 1/2 mile away because the first 20 spaces, 18 vacant, were marked handicap only?
- I wonder how many non-disabled elderly have died from heart attacks while hiking across a parking lot because all the close spots were disabled?
- Deaf firefighters are now putting their lives, the lives of their fellow firefighters and the public at large in danger because they are incapable of hearing danger or readily communicating with the general public...

The list goes on. No doubt that the ADA is good for the you as a disabled person, but at what cost? Disabled people do not have more inherent rights to special accommodation than any other citizen to their job or other inherent rights (I checked, it's not in the constitution). The ADA is a form of reverse discrimination, where healthy people are discriminated against in favor of the disabled. We passed the law originally to try and help the disabled, but at this point it is basically nothing more than a payout for ADA career lawyers who make their living suing businesses who have their toilet stall 3" too narrow or pull up bar 1" taller than code or BS like this suit against Uber. The reality is that having a fleet of disabled accessible vehicles is unreasonable on it's face because the fleet doesn't exist, and if it did it would be significantly more expensive than the standard Uber vehicle to own and operate (so the driver would need a larger fee for handicapped accommodation, also illegal per the ADA) and often disabled accessible vehicles are further modified to meet the disabled person's specific needs. I am surprised that the ADA scam lawyers haven't sued GM and Ford yet for not making all vehicles standard disabled accessible, but I guess that might be a bridge too far even for them.

We go a long way in our society to try and help out those less fortunate, including the disabled. But make no mistake, we are helping you out, it is not your right, so don't bite the hand that feeds you, and don't forget that you are benefiting from the charity of the rest of society, ADA law or not. There has been a lot of ungratefulness in the last 20 years by all the special interests towards the average, normal citizen who runs a business and works for a living, and many people are sick of it. (Don't believe me, check out the last election.)

Re:Repeal the ADA

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem with the ADA is that it's become an ambulance chaser's gold mine and it's far too easy to abuse.

There are lawyers out there whom all they do is walk into mom and pop boutiques in order to fish for ADA violations, then shake the owners down for a settlement lest they risk having to go to court and losing.

Re:Repeal the ADA

[Anonymous Coward]

but making allowances for disabled people is a drain on business and lawsuits especially can force businesses to shut down entirely

Good, if you can't be bothered to make room for those accommodations like everyone else find another line of work. No one's forcing you to operate an illegal business.

I can't believe in the 21st century we're arguing whether the disabled deserve a dignified life.

Re:Repeal the ADA

[fropenn]

There are many people who are not the intended audience for the law who have still benefited from the law. For example, if you are carrying a large package, the door opener buttons and wider door openings are a direct benefit. Sidewalk cutouts are great when you are riding a bicycle or pushing a stroller. Closed captioning makes it easy to view a TV program when sound is a problem (like at work). The list goes on. So don't think only people in wheelchairs have benefited from the law.

Re:Repeal the ADA

[JesseMcDonald]

So don't think only people in wheelchairs have benefited from the law.

If that were true people would implement these changes on their own even without the law. The law exists specifically because the benefits you list are not deemed to be worth what they cost unless the government forcibly externalizes the cost of dealing with disabilities onto the non-disabled.

Re:Repeal the ADA

[david_thornley]

- I wonder how many little kids have been hit and killed in the grocery store parking lot because a pregnant mother of 4 had to park 1/2 mile away because the first 20 spaces, 18 vacant, were marked handicap only?

If the parking lot extends half a mile, providing access to another 18 spaces is going to do almost nothing to help her.

- I wonder how many non-disabled elderly have died from heart attacks while hiking across a parking lot because all the close spots were disabled?

As far as the close spots being already filled? If there's a serious chance that excessive walking is going to cause a heart attack, the old guy needs to get a handicapped parking permit, because that is a disability, and then with the ADA the old person can park close.

lawyers who make their living suing businesses who have their toilet stall 3" too narrow or pull up bar 1" taller than code

The rules are well known. If a business owner can't be bothered to hire people who can follow simple instructions, why should the business continue to exist? The same attitude towards electrical work or plumbing or natural gas would result in safety problems.

The reality is that having a fleet of disabled accessible vehicles is unreasonable on it's face because the fleet doesn't exist,

Nobody's talking about a large fleet of accessible vehicles. If they don't exist, then it's Uber's responsibility to provide some.

(so the driver would need a larger fee for handicapped accommodation, also illegal per the ADA)

The law says the passenger can't be charged more, not that the driver can't be paid more.

hidden, unfair taxation

[ooloorie]

I think it's perfectly fine for society to decide to pay for special services for the handicapped. But politicians are cowards, so instead of paying for the cost of providing these services out of the general fund and raising taxes on everybody, they impose regulations; it seems so harmless: just tell people to run their business a bit differently and be nice to those poor suffering people with disabilities.

But here is absolutely no logical reason why transportation companies should bear the full cost of making provisions to transport people in wheelchairs. The decision to provide these services to people with disabilities is something the entire nation has made, so the entire nation should pay for it, out of taxes.

But, of course, it's not just politicians that like to hide taxes via regulations, many of the companies being regulated like it too: they pass on the costs to their customers (as a consumption tax, mostly hurting lower income people), while at the same time creating massive barriers to entry for competitors. And that's what you're seeing with this attack on Uber: once you start down the path of illogical and unfair regulations, they take on a life of their own and spiral out of control.

Re:hidden, unfair taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

Politicians aren't cowards, they're telling you common goods are bad for you, and you're convinced by their ideology, bought by corporate lobbyists.

Re:hidden, unfair taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

Politicians aren't cowards, they're telling you common goods are bad for you, and you're convinced by their ideology, bought by corporate lobbyists.

Do you even bother to read something before you respond? Knee-jerk idiocy like yours is responsible for helping those very corporate lobbyists you are complaining about. The problem is YOU.

Re:hidden, unfair taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's perfectly fine for society to decide to pay for special services for the handicapped. But politicians are cowards, so instead of paying for the cost of providing these services out of the general fund and raising taxes on everybody, they impose regulations; it seems so harmless: just tell people to run their business a bit differently and be nice to those poor suffering people with disabilities....But here is absolutely no logical reason why transportation companies should bear the full cost of making provisions to transport people in wheelchairs. The decision to provide these services to people with disabilities is something the entire nation has made, so the entire nation should pay for it, out of taxes.

This is how the left works. It's called the "free lunch" principle. Government in their minds exists to let them impose their ideology on everybody else - and to make somebody else pay for it.

But everybody in society pays when the legal profession is unethical - and that, ultimately, is what this is all about. By making this a matter of lawsuit and not ordinary civil or criminal penalties, the lawyers writing the law and the lawyers judging and bringing cases under the law, and the lawyers making campaign contributions to politicians to support such laws - all of those people have all violated the right to ethical practice of law (a 9th Amendment right). Instead of Tort Reform, we have ever greater levels of Tort Abuse. So this ends up being an illegal cash grab in violation of the highest law in the land.

There are all kinds of costs associated with many of the policies imposed by the left, causing all kinds of negative social and economic consequences. Somehow the left never seems to understand that good intentions do not mean we will get good results - they keep repeating the same mistakes, with bad outcomes, and never learn from their mistakes. It's insane. The highest costs of their blunders fall on the small business, and the low income worker. Doubtless some suicides result from people losing their jobs as a result of abusive lawsuits - these are individuals that have done nothing wrong, and they aren't the people making the decisions - they are simply victims of excessive government and unethical practice of law. Similarly, this kind of thing leads to high stress, depression, mental illness, and an increased rate of accidents on the highways and other places. This means laws intended to protect those with disabilities are causing death and increasing the rate of disability.

The government policy actually has the opposite effect of it's intentions!

I favour government support for those with disabilities - but it has to be implemented in a competent, ethical manner - and right now it isn't. The taxpayer should be directly paying the extra cost of providing support for disabilities, with nothing hidden, and no attempt at a free lunch. The government should be working with businesses to help them meet the requirements - and providing the extra money needed - instead of being a tool of an unethical legal profession. If you want the rich to pay more, putting hidden taxes on businesses is not the right way to do things - support massive reform of the tax system, so we can turn it into a simple progressive system not riddled with loopholes.

Re:hidden, unfair taxation

[david_thornley]

they pass on the costs to their customers

Businesses try to set their prices according to the supply and demand curves. They almost never have the opportunity to pass increased costs to the customer, no matter how much they complain about it.

Re:hidden, unfair taxation

[ooloorie]

Businesses try to set their prices according to the supply and demand curves. They almost never have the opportunity to pass increased costs to the customer, no matter how much they complain about it.

I assume that you are reasoning that companies set the price according to the equilibrium price where supply and demand meet? That kind of reasoning fails on multiple grounds. A simple error in your (implicit) reasoning is that higher costs from regulations shift the supply curve towards higher prices.

Here's what really happens. Supply and demand curves actually describe the aggregate behavior of buyers and sellers entering and leaving a market (not the price setting behavior of individual companies). When companies pass on the costs of increased regulations, the supply curve shifts towards higher prices, demand decreases, and some suppliers exit the market. The equilibrium price increases (although not as much as costs, even though each company passed on the full costs), and buyers substitute other goods.

Incidentally, in the case of Uber and transportation companies, costly regulations cause consumers to substitute private automobiles, probably not what is intended.

Re:hidden, unfair taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

But here is absolutely no logical reason why transportation companies should bear the full cost of making provisions to transport people in wheelchairs. The decision to provide these services to people with disabilities is something the entire nation has made, so the entire nation should pay for it, out of taxes.

But there is absolutely no logical reason why the tax-payer should bear the full cost of making provisions to transport people in wheelchairs. The decision to provide these services to people with disabilities is something any entrepreneur may make and the willing users of these services should pay for it.

What you're proposing is a charity to support the disabled but where contributions to the charity are mandatory and enforced on a national scale! Monsterous!

Re:hidden, unfair taxation

[david_thornley]

I did oversimplify. Regulations that cause one-time costs do not normally shift the supply curves, and handicapped accommodations tend to be one-time costs. If regulations drive too many businesses to close (which is an empirical question), that can shift the supply curves.

In general, though, "passing the cost on to the consumer" is a PR move by the price setters.

Re:hidden, unfair taxation

[ooloorie]

Regulations that cause one-time costs do not normally shift the supply curves, and handicapped accommodations tend to be one-time costs.

Your argument here isn't that businesses don't pass on those costs, it's simply that those costs are negligible when amortized over time. In addition to being irrelevant to what we have been discussing, that argument is also wrong: handicapped accommodations are ongoing costs, whether it is the opportunity cost for handicap parking, or the cost of operating expensive handicap vehicles and charging regular prices for them.

In general, though, "passing the cost on to the consumer" is a PR move by the price setters.

Proof by vigorous assertion!

Re:hidden, unfair taxation

[david_thornley]

Okay, get out your basic microeconomics book. Look at price-setting. Fixed costs do not change optimum prices. If a rational business could raise prices and get more money out of its customers, it would already have done so. The price for optimal profit minus certain fixed costs is the price for optimal profit minus different fixed costs. It doesn't matter whether the fixed costs are negligible or sizable: they don't affect the optimum price. If you are still unclear on this concept, ask specific questions.

Not all accommodations are ongoing costs. Install a conforming bathroom or a curb cut and that's up-front non-recurring costs.

Re:hidden, unfair taxation

[ooloorie]

Okay, get out your basic microeconomics book. Look at price-setting. Fixed costs do not change optimum prices.

Yes, but changes in the cost structure do change the optimum price for everybody.

Not all accommodations are ongoing costs.

But many are.

I'm sorry, but your arguments are ludicrous.

Re:hidden, unfair taxation

[david_thornley]

Yes, but changes in the cost structure do change the optimum price for everybody.

Changes in the marginal cost per unit sold change the optimum price. Changes independent of the number of units sold do not. Those costs determine how profitable the business is. A business may go from sufficiently profitable or insufficiently profitable because of such changes, and then the business will go away. When that happens, it may cause a change in the supply curve, but that's indirect.

Fixed costs can be ongoing costs. If it costs $3K/month to keep the business running independent of how much is sold, and that goes to $3.5K, that will not itself affect the supply curve.

Why not create a positive incentive?

[swb]

The ADA is like a forced subsidy. The market won't address it, because there's not enough handicapped people for it to be profitable to cater to them (and they probably tend to be low income, too). The incentive is to not get sued, not to help handicapped people.

Since a forced subsidy is like a tax, why not just have a direct tax and use the tax money to provide positive incentives to provide rides to the handicapped? At least this way, helping handicapped people is profitable and provides a direct incentive to do so. The "negative incentive" of being sued just becomes something people try to avoid or cheat on.

The ADA outsources the cost of accommodation to private entities *and* the cost of enforcement to handicapped people who have to file lawsuits to get meaningful enforcement. It ends up being a subsidy to trial lawyers.

Re:Why not create a positive incentive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since a forced subsidy is like a tax, why not just have a direct tax and use the tax money to provide positive incentives to provide rides to the handicapped?

Thats not how progressives operate. They dont want to "provide an incentive" ... they want to send men with guns.

Re:Why not create a positive incentive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because liberal @ssh@ts talk the talk but don't walk the walk. They want YOU to help, and YOU to pay YOUR fair share, while THEY get a free ride.

Re:It's supposed to be ride sharing not buy a ride

[ooloorie]

What isn't questionable that by keeping the regulations, existing transportation companies have created massive barriers to entry and are forcing existing riders to pay inflated prices in order to support those with disabilities. In addition, those regulations are a hidden, regressive form of taxation.

There is no logical reason why someone running a bus company or a taxi company should have to pay for services to the disabled; if we want to support the disabled with subsidized transportation, then we should pay for that out of tax dollars directly. Once we do that, your logic ("if they lift the regulations for Uber, then...") evaporates.

Re: I'm in a wheelchair too

[h33t l4x0r]

Corporations are people too. They need some walking around money.

Waaaaa!

[Anonymous Coward]

"My driver can't understand sign language, I want money. My barista won't take bitcoin, I want a few millions US dollars. My laptop doesn't have braille built into it, I want a payout."

There are plenty of things in what we like to call the "real world" that don't support everyone under the sun. Companies can't realistically service every possible individual, at least not in a cost effective way. While they should take reasonable steps to do so, adding a $10-20k device to a bunch of vehicles to service a handful of people on occasion isn't that.

Simple: See Taxis

[s.petry]

Taxi services are not required to provide wheel chair accessibility in their cars, nor are limousine services. It is an unnecessary regulatory burden on those services to create such a regulation. This is yet another example of shit lawyers attempting to steal money. California has some very despicable lawyers who make their living by putting people out of business with bogus ADA lawsuits. http://www.adaabuse.com/

Re:It's supposed to be ride sharing not buy a ride

[fluffernutter]

So you want the disabled to pay for 'premium' services, while most of them cannot work and are just trying to get by. The government can't pay for it, because so many complain when their taxes go up or are used for a service that has no value to them. Charities are ill-equipped to run a full transport operation. So America turns their backs on these people. Pathetic.

Grow up

[Anonymous Coward]

Not every service is compatible for every person

Re:It's supposed to be ride sharing not buy a ride

[ooloorie]

The government can't pay for it, because so many complain when their taxes go up or are used for a service that has no value to them.

But they are paying for it, and in a very inefficient and regressive way. The fact that people like you are either too dumb to figure that out or deliberately lie to the American people about that doesn't change the economic facts.

So you want the disabled to pay for 'premium' services

No, I want tax payers to continue to pay for it, just more efficiently, more fairly, and more accountably. And preferably in a way that doesn't hurt the disabled, which is what ADA actually has done.

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[Trogre]

So, we now have to ruin it for the majority, just because a small minority can't use "X" service?

Congratulations, you've caught on to how litigation in a modern politically correct society works.

So "they" ruin public education videos....

[Anonymous Coward]

So I cant stand uber.... But.... I cant stand cucks ruining free educational videos for the "disabled".... Now they are doing the same for uber... This shit is getting ridiculous.

Let me get this straight

[viperidaenz]

They're suing a private company for charging more to use a low-demand, high cost service?

Wheel chair accessible vehicles cost more to buy, more to maintain and cost more to run (assuming a typical van outfitted with wheel chair ramps uses more fuel and an an average car).

I'm all for accessibility, but you have to be reasonable. Wheel chair conversions cost between $10k and $20k according to 1800wheelchair.com. On top of that you have to buy a big van and you lose the passenger capacity advantage a van has.

Gig economy

[Anonymous Coward]

... Uber to integrate wheelchair accessible cars ...

Uber is running a de facto taxi service via their own car fleet, so Uber should be held responsible to society. If Uber were smart, they would avoid the cost of compliance by ordering a proper taxi for such customers.

The big question is: What happens when transport exists only in the gig economy? A single 'contractor' can't afford to install a wheelchair ramp when he doesn't get a fixed percentage of the fare.

Re:ADA was a huge waste

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't speak to your town, but as someone who takes the bus regularly, I see a -lot- of wheelchair users using the bus relative to the ratio of healthy : disabled people. Especially for the less rich disabled folks public transportation is a major way of getting around.
 
And yes, they use the curb cutouts too.

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding? Fuck those in wheelchairs amiright? They can pay more than the rest of us and wait a lot longer.

The reason these laws exist is to allow them the simple dignity the rest of you take for granted.

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[Anonymous Coward]

How does this "ruin" anything for the majority?

Re:ADA was a huge waste

[Anonymous Coward]

A waste? Are you saying that human dignities are worthless and that the only measure of worth is economic?

What about regular taxis?

[no1nose]

I don't see wheelchair ramps on the taxi's in my cities. What do disabled people do there?

Re:What about regular taxis?

[Rockoon]

They make sure a ride that can accommodate them comes. Double standards. Its what progressives do.

Re: What about regular taxis?

[Anonymous Coward]

The taxi company owns a limited number of accessible vans. These are in such high demand that they aren't ever sent to pick you up, since you have average abilities.

Re:ADA was a huge waste

[zippthorne]

The next time I see someone with a wheelchair using one of the curb cuts in my town, will be the first.

If it's anything like my town, it's because they built the sidwalks through the telephone poles, so the poles are in the middle of the sidewalks and sometimes there is a stone wall on the side creating a narrow passage and sometimes the pole is in the middle of the cuts themselves.

Re: I'm in a wheelchair too

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing scream let me out like the underprivileged using the legal system to whine.

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[Crashmarik]

Please get real, there are alternatives, PLENTY of public transportation that we've all already paid out taxes for.....

I don't like paying taxes, so making it easier for the disabled to switch from public transportation to Uber sounds like a very good idea to me!

You must have just fallen off the turnip truck, if you think reducing the need for government will actually reduce your taxes.

Re:Simple: See Taxis

[Anonymous Coward]

are you sure? In Orlando,Fl taxi companies are required to have a certain % of their fleet wheelchair accessible. London it's 100%.

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[grep -v '.*' *]

Suing Apple for iPods that deaf people can't use?

Ha!! I read that as: "Suing Apple for iPods that dead people can't use?"

I was wondering if that was yet another microagression- thing now or some other offensive offense.

Random Link

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[Opportunist]

Do what everyone does, pull a number out of your ass and go with it.

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[Opportunist]

Because at some point it becomes more sensible to just end the service altogether than to jump through more and more insane hoops.

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[jandersen]

Man, I'm all for helping people, but it's getting fucking ridiculous....what's next, suing magazines for not being in braille too for blind folks? Suing Apple for iPods that deaf people can't use?

Whether disabled people in America should receive help or not is up to the conscience of the American people, I suppose, but there are obvious differences between being able to use a magazine or an iPod, and being able to use what is in most places considered essential, public services, such as taxis. And yes, taxis are regarded as delivering "essential, public service" in many if not most cities in the world. As far as I know, in most of UK, taxies are allowed to use the designated bus-lanes, whereas other drivers are fined for doing so - so, taxis have a somewhat privileged status. They are also, very often, used as a kind of "almost ambulance" by local authorities, to transport the sick and disabled, who don't require a full ambulance. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a registered taxi company to be able to fulfill that part of their obligations, by having facilities for transporting disabled people.

contest of being stupid this week

[Anonymous Coward]

ok, i was wrong, contest of being stupid this week, get to whole new level

Outsource

[Chrisq]

Our local taxi companies "outsource" requests for a wheel-chair accessible vehicle by putting the booking through to single a company which has wheelchair-accessible vehicles. This is evidently good enough to comply with the UK disability legislation. I guess (but don't know) that they have to charge the customer the same rate that they would have been charged by the original company, so maybe the local companies have to pay something to the company with wheelchair accessible vehicles, who will often have to travel further to pick up the customer, will have higher vehicle overheads, etc.

Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see this on city buses/subways, etc....but NOT on taxis (which don't meet this requirement either) or Uber.

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[Anonymous Coward]

If they're just a technology company then why are they being sued for not providing wheelchair accessible transportation?

Re:Simple: See Taxis

[AmiMoJo]

It is an unnecessary regulatory burden

Who decides that?

Seems like society has a whole has decided that the burden of having disabled people unable to use public transport is greater than the relatively small burden to taxi companies to provide a few accessible vehicles. If the taxi company disagrees it can go somewhere else, but it won't because the cost is relatively small (the vehicle modifications are not expensive and often subsidised anyway).

This is just another example of Uber trying to dodge the laws that all other taxi companies have to play by.

That london stat is only for black cabs.

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's a bespoke fleet with many perks. AFAIK, Uber and similar do not get to use the taxi rank unless that specific driver has bought the license to do so and basically registered as a taxi driver AS A FULL JOB.

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[Rockoon]

And yes, taxis are regarded as delivering "essential, public service" in many if not most cities in the world.

So essential the the government enforces artificial scarcity at the request of the taxi companies.

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[I'm New Around Here]

Are you kidding? Fuck those in wheelchairs amiright? They can pay more than the rest of us and wait a lot longer.

The reason these laws exist is to allow them the simple dignity the rest of you take for granted.

The simple dignity of having someone else cart their asses around town for money?

Re:It's supposed to be ride sharing not buy a ride

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you hate handicapped people?

The wheelchair users also have another right

[Anonymous Coward]

The right to call someone else.

Re:ADA was a huge waste

[I'm New Around Here]

Interesting list you have there. Let me add some to it.

Derwin Brown was killed by a Democrat rival.

After defeating Dorsey in the August 2000 Democratic primary, Brown announced that he would clean up corruption and fire 38 of the department's 700 deputies. ...
Dorsey, who in 1996 became the first African American to be elected sheriff in DeKalb, ....

Re:There are too many jobs still left in the USA

[Visarga]

> There shouldn't be any income or wealth taxes,

Then you shouldn't be expecting police, healthcare, public education or military protection. You can build a house made of money bricks that you saved and be safe inside.

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[jbengt]

Please get real, there are alternatives, PLENTY of public transportation . . .

So, by that logic, a restaurant shouldn't have to have accessible facilities because there's plenty of McDonald's out there?

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe because they want the handicap access in the Uber fleet?

An Impossible Task

[jasontromm]

How would Uber meet any standard that might be imposed by the courts? UberX drivers use their own cars to transport passengers. Is Uber going to pay for people to buy new cars/vans or upgrade their current transportation? Uber drivers are independent contractors, not employees. Any goal to provide X number of accessible vehicles would be unrealistic.

Re:An Impossible Task

[Swave An deBwoner]

One possible solution: Uber can order an accessible taxi from some real taxi service, have it sent to pick up and transport the customer, and yet charge the customer the standard Uber rate for the ride. With the usual time and "lowest price" guarantees just like every other customer receives.

Re:An Impossible Task

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what, I see where this all might just happen, you know, because humanity in general is a bunch of nice guys who look out for each other.

Re:An Impossible Task

[david_thornley]

Uber has been known to buy cars and lease them to drivers. They can toss a few handicap-accessible vans in there.

Uber drivers are independent contractors, not employees.

Don't be so sure. That's been argued a lot, and it will continue to be since Uber drivers are close to the dividing line.

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[cayenne8]

So, by that logic, a restaurant shouldn't have to have accessible facilities because there's plenty of McDonald's out there?

Well, I think it *should* be up to the restaurant owner....if he wants the business, then he'll make the place accessible.

But a thing like this can kill a small business like a restaurant starting out.

They may be starting the place in a building that wasn't originally built for a kitchen and access....maybe a private home at one time.

Doing all the stuff to put in ramps and legal sign offs for it, could be the $$$ difference between being able to afford to open or not.

So, no, I don't think it should be forced upon private businesses.....any govt facility, yes, but not private businesses.

Re:ADA was a huge waste

[jbengt]

How is a curb cut any problem to you? It costs almost nothing if you do it when putting in a new curb or making major street repairs.
Most accessibility requirements are actually minor conveniences for non-disabled people, like automatic faucets, automatic doors, lever handles instead of knobs, elevators, etc. Most of the codes only require creating accessibility during new construction or major remodeling. (YYMV, depending on how important the facility is to the public) The only improvements that cost serious money even in new construction are elevators.
If you are running a public accommodation, you are required to accommodate the public, not just those people you want to. Also, don't forget, you are very likely to become disabled yourself, especially if you live long enough.

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah fuck those cripples! If they wanted a car service they should use their goddamn legs like I do!

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't provide services to everyone, including the disabled, you don't deserve to be in business, period. Let the guys who can make those arrangements and survive be the ones to stay in business, not some asshole trying to cut corners.

How we are judged as a society is how we treat those least fortunate like the disabled.

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[JudgeFurious]

Thank you! I am now looking for representation for a class action lawsuit I'm filing on behalf of the 100 billion currently deceased people who cannot experience the simple dignity of using an Apple iPod.

Re:There are too many jobs still left in the USA

[roman_mir]

Then you shouldn't be expecting police, healthcare, public education or military protection.

- why would I expect something that I am actively against in the first place?

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[Anonymous Coward]

guess to who costs of those measures will be passed to?

Prejudice...

[Anonymous Coward]

Racism, sexism, homophobia, hyper-exploitative work practices, wage theft, fraud, now the disabled. Wow, big gubbermint creates all this red tape, rules and regulations that stop job creators from innovating. /End sarcasm

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[liquid_schwartz]

The reason these laws exist is to allow them the simple dignity the rest of you take for granted.

The problem is deciding where to draw the line. Based on your tone it sounds like you're in the camp of no cost is too high. Not unlike advocates for having the mentally retarded have a full time aid in school leaving the normal and gifted kids, who will fund the disabled kid for life, with *far* fewer resources.

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[Grishnakh]

So we should only have businesses which are big corporate chains? We should only have restaurants that are corporate chains like McDonalds and Applebees? Some guy who wants to take over an 100+-year-old building in a commercial historic district and make it into a restaurant shouldn't be allowed to do that?

I'm always astounded when liberals advocate for the elimination of small business and for everything to be run by big corporations.

Here on the east coast, there's a bunch of "old towne" places where there's lots of tiny little restaurants in old buildings, where it'd be simply impossible to make them wheelchair-accessible without tearing down the building, which is probably illegal because these are all historic districts. Georgetown in DC, Old Towne Alexandria, downtown Philly are some examples. And they're all chock-full of liberal Millennials these days too. Is your answer to this to tear down all the historic districts because those old buildings aren't wheelchar-accessible?

Re:It's supposed to be ride sharing not buy a ride

[Grishnakh]

Why do disabled people *need* to use this particular service? As long as the municipality provides some kind of accessible transportation service, isn't that good enough? Are disabled people entitled to access to every kind of service out there?

For instance, look at rickshaws. In a lot of US cities, you can hire some guy who's peddling a little 3-wheel contraption to take you and your date around the city, perhaps from a far-away parking lot into a trendy urban district where there's no inexpensive (or maybe available) parking. These rickshaws do especially well during special events when the traffic is high and maybe streets are blocked off. There's no way that a rickshaw is wheelchair-accessible. Are you saying this option simply shouldn't exist?

What about horse-drawn carriages? In many cities, you can hire these too. There's obviously no way a wheelchair is getting in one of those. Should these all be illegal?

What about canoes and kayaks? In NYC's Central Park, you can stand in line and rent a canoe by the hour, and paddle around the big lake in the park. I think it's pretty obvious that canoes are not in any way wheelchair-accessible. Should rental canoes and kayaks be banned?

For Uber, remember that Uber is not like a traditional taxi company: it doesn't own any vehicles. The vehicles are owned by the drivers. So how is Uber supposed to make sure that drivers buy special wheelchair-accessible vans? And for them to have completely identical service times, that means that ALL their vehicles have to be this way. Do the existing taxi companies even do this? I don't think so. If you have to wait longer to get a wheelchair van from the taxi company, then they're not meeting this requirement either.

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[sgladfelter]

There are minimum conformance standards in our society for good reasons. Some are enforced through regulatory inspections, some through the courts. The fact that you hung a shingle doesn't give you the right to discriminate against classes of people, or skirt other regulatory mandates. The fact that you said a business owner should get to choose which laws they want to follow is childish.

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[sgladfelter]

To be clear on this. It is not legal in the US to bake shit in your Kitchen at home and sell it commercially. Not in any jurisdiction I want to visit, anyway.

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[sgladfelter]

Every continuously operated establishment that did not meet ADA standards when it was passed was grandfathered. Even public buildings at the time. I seriously doubt there's many public buildings that haven't upgraded at this point, but I'm sure there are many, many grandfathered establishments that still do not meet the requirements of the 30 year old legislation.

I have never heard of or seen a historic building that couldn't be modified to meet the requirements of the ADA, but if one existed it would probably be granted an exemption by the local building department. Demolition is usually pursued when its the cheapest option, not when its the only option.

Re: I'm in a wheelchair too

[Anonymous Coward]

Close the food trucks!

The counter is too high to reach from my wheelchair so I am humiliated and my rights violated because they don't provide a lift or a ramp so I can get a taco just like,everyone else!

Re:It's supposed to be ride sharing not buy a ride

[fluffernutter]

If Uber wanted to run rickshaws, horse-drawn carriages, canoes and kayaks then I'm sure they would get an exemption for those modes of transportation. As it turns out, automobile transportation tends to be a lot more important in terms of city planning, so that is what the rules are around. Uber is an automobile transportation company so must follow the same rules as other automobile transportation companies in the sense of fairness. It's up to Uber how they make their business model work with the market, and if they were allowed to use 'we don't own cars' as an excuse, after seeing the break Uber gets, all the other companies would find excuses in order to compete on even footing and we would be back to square one anyway.

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[mysidia]

Let's put aside whether or not it is "fair" for Uber to have to provide (more) accessible services. Do other similar businesses have to conform to those standards?

The "most similar" businesses as transport companies are not really comparable to Uber, because those businesses own the vehicles, Or if they use 3rd party contractors, then they contract an entire fleet, And yes, Title III Americans with Disabilities act requires transportation companies to have "Accessible vehicles" available under some circumstances. And while there is no requirement that transportation companies have to provide the same wait time for the arrival of an accessible vehicle --- they are not allowed to require an extra fee from the user for the cost of removing barriers.

Uber is a bit different, because they are essentially acting as a middleman ---- Uber does not own any cars or employ the drivers. The individual drivers are businesses, but the individual drivers are also likely so small a business that they are exempt from the ADA ---- an individual Uber driver could legitimately make the argument that it would be fiscally irresponsible for them to spend $50,000 to outfit their car for wheelchair access. To be honest.... the only way it will be possible is if Uber provides them financial benefits to more than compensate for the added capital outlay and expensive frequent maintenance required.

Because the law says Uber cannot charge extra fees to the disabled user for barrier removal, then that means they must charge EVERY user of Uber extra fees to compensate.

Re:It's supposed to be ride sharing not buy a ride

[Grishnakh]

Maybe the other car-based companies should be excluded from this silly law then too. If transportation for wheelchair-bound people (who don't have their own car for some reason) is a problem, I think it'd be a lot cheaper for the city to just supply their own special wheelchair vans, on call just for these people, than to require ever car-based private business to cater to them.

What about black cars? Are limo companies required to also cater to wheelchair users? I don't think so. I've never seen a limo or a town car that was set up for wheelchairs. So why should Uber be different? Uber is really, fundamentally, an app company that coordinates black-car livery service; the cab companies are just mad because they got the cost of black-car service *below* the cost of cabs. But part of that can be blamed on the government and its onerous regulation, such as requiring wheelchair service, and also limiting the number of cabs artificially. Get rid of that stuff and the costs will come down. And for the wheelchair users, just provide them special government-provided van service either for free or for no more than bus fare. That's supposed to be the whole job of government here, after all: to provide for people who fall through the cracks. You can even pay for this service with a special tax on transportation, so that both Uber/Lyft and the cab companies and the other black-car and limo livery companies ALL have to chip in and pay for it, rather than requiring them to mess around with buying their own vans and dealing with that.

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[mysidia]

If they're so essential, and Uber is a threat, then create a tax on ridesharing services and use the proceeds to subsidize accessible transportation (Including accessible transportation via ridesharing).

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[mysidia]

that still do not meet the requirements of the 30 year old legislation.,

And then we have new establishments like Slashdot.org which requires answering a "CAPTCHA" which is deliberately obfuscated text inaccessible to people who are blind and deaf... It is almost as if they are TRYING to keep disabled people out of the community, so that they cannot comment on articles like this one.

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[david_thornley]

Uber is not just a middleman. Uber runs the system. Uber tries to pass itself off as something other than a transportation company, while running a transportation company.

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[mysidia]

Uber is not just a middleman. Uber runs the system.

I would call them an intermediary for services.... similar to how physical goods are sold through eBay.

What do you mean by "Uber runs the system?"

They provide an app that matches drivers with prospective passengers, mediates the relationships, and
processes the payments.

Re:Simple: See Taxis

[s.petry]

Seems like society has a whole has decided that the burden of having disabled people unable to use public transport is greater than the relatively small burden to taxi companies to provide a few accessible vehicles.

Well there is a mighty big flaw in your logic isn't there? Uber is not a tax payer funded public transportation system. Nor it it a Taxi service bound by the same regulations. Uber and Lyft are both free market responses to an overtly corrupt system. Good for them!

Have any doubts, go try to start a cab company. If you don't like that idea, go find out how many payouts you need to make to get a medallion for any of those same corrupted Taxi companies in NYC, LA, etc...

Re:Simple: See Taxis

[AmiMoJo]

Uber operates in our society under our rules at our pleasure. We get to decide what its obligations are regarding things like tax, safety and disabled users.

If they disagree that's fine, they can fuck off and stop using our roads. I'm sure the market will build some for them.

Re:ADA was a huge waste

[james_gnz]

Interesting list you have there. Let me add some to it. ...

OK. So let's look into the Republicans, Mark Hasse and Mike McLelland:

Mark Hasse was shot and killed while walking in the 100 block of East Grove Street in Kaufman...
the bodies of Kaufman County Criminal District Attorney Michael "Mike" McLelland, 63, and his wife Cynthia, 65, were found in their home...
Eric Lyle Williams and his wife Kim Lene Williams[7] were arrested for all three murders.
Kaufman County murders

What are Eric Williams' political affiliations?

[Williams] argued at pretrial hearings that he was the victim of a political vendetta. He'd supported McLelland's opponent, Rick Harrison, he said. Williams signed a campaign flier ... raising doubt about [McLelland's] Republican credentials during McLelland's unsuccessful 2006 run for district attorney.
Eric Williams, Suspect in Kaufman County Killings

It looks like both the Republicans on the list were killed by another Republican. So which statement does all of this best support?

Leftists now shooting Congressmen in the streets for being Republican.

or

I suspect this is something of an over-generalisation.

Re:ADA was a huge waste

[I'm New Around Here]

I mean no offense but you missed HBI's original point, and my point as well.

HBI's sig, as you quote, is saying that now leftists are specifically targeting Republican party members. Elected officials in this case.

Your response seems to cloud the issue, mentioning that more Democrat officials have been killed than Republicans. My point was that in those cases I mentioned, the killers were fellow Democrats. So they were cases of leftists targeting other leftists. The victims were not killed for their political views.

Showing that the Republicans on your list were also killed by members of their own party doesn't change either HBI's point, that now leftists are specifically targeting rightists, nor my point that previously leftists were the ones targeting other leftists.

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[david_thornley]

They also impose requirements on drivers and decide on the prices. When I sell through eBay, I describe the item and set the price (the minimum price or the buy-it-now price or both), and eBay does not (last I sold anything) handle the money.

Re:I'm in a wheelchair too

[mysidia]

When I sell through eBay, I describe the item and set the price

You describe the item, But eBay sets requirements regarding what you can and cannot sell and restrictions on how you can settle the transaction -- for example eBay forces you to adhere to their processes and you are contractually prohibited against using eBay to find a buyer and then sell outside eBay, they also charge eBay fees based on the price and provide terms restricting what you can charge for additional services such as shipping.
eBay sets requirements regarding payment method, and you're required to accept PayPal which is owned by the same company as eBay. If a buyer claims they didn't get what they thought they'd get, then eBay or PayPal will decide what happens to the money.

Re:ADA was a huge waste

[james_gnz]

I don't think I was clouding the issue, I think I was looking for support for the claim, although perhaps I need to back up, and ask what you think the claim even means.

"Leftists now shooting Congressmen in the streets for being Republican." suggests to me reports rolling in month after month of Republican congressmen shot by left wingers, and I expect I would have heard if this was the case. Does it suggest less to you?

Thinking about the bare minimum the statement could possibly mean, surely there must be at least two left wingers who shot Republican congressmen, and at least two Republican congressmen who were shot (since plurals were used in both cases)? "Now" implies recent. This is a less clear-cut term, but is it reasonable to say it would be stretching the definition of "now" in this context to refer to more than the last decade?

I had done a quick Internet search and found a couple of Republicans assassinated in the last 5 years, and thought that might have been what the claim was based on, but it turns out they were assassinated by another Republican.

Doing another search, I find Steve Scalise shot (but not killed) by James Hodgkinson. (I'm sure this was big news in the USA, but as I've previously said, I don't live in the USA.) Were there more shootings, or do you think this one alone justifies the claim?

If there was one Democrat congressman shot by a Republican, would you take it as sufficient basis for the claim "Right wingers now shooting Congressmen in the streets for being Democrats.", or would you think it was an over-generalisation?

Re:ADA was a huge waste

[I'm New Around Here]

OK. I understand what you meant now. Does one guy/event make it a trend?

I'll say that it doesn't seem to be just one guy, or just one event. There have been several attacks on Trump supporters. And that is from last year. Here is a newly updated list. It notes at the start

Amid this backdrop, The Huffington Post publishes an article calling for the execution of Trump and “everyone assisting his agenda.”

The situation has gone from beating - many attacks over many months - to shooting. We will have to see if it is the only one.

Re:ADA was a huge waste

[james_gnz]

Damn, that was depressing reading. At least the Huffington Post article was pulled, I guess. I note though that the compilers of the list specifically decided to look for violence from only one side, which I think is unfortunate, because it will necessarily paint a one-sided picture, whether or not the violence is actually one sided.

I'm not very well informed about news from other countries, and didn't know about any of this stuff. I did follow the USA election though, and recall something about a group calling themselves the 1%, or similar, who, I think, were calling for violence if the election was rigged, and that in combination with, I believe, Donald Trump suggesting that if he didn't win the election, then it must be rigged, sounded like bad news to me.

Also, I think that what I was responding to, "Leftists now shooting Congressmen in the streets for being Republican. Just wait till we start shooting back.", is also bordering on a call for violence, and while that's not as bad as actual violence, or a direct call for violence, it's still not a particularly good thing, and I don't think it's unreasonable to call it out.

I wonder if there's any increase of support on the left (or in the Supreme Court, if the decision can be revisited there) for allowing peaceful secession. If it can't be achieved through the Supreme Court, it might be done through a constitutional amendment, with sufficient support. I dunno.

Re:ADA was a huge waste

[I'm New Around Here]

I've been saying for quite a while that we're heading towards another civil war in the US. And I don't mean like when the USSR collapsed, where it seemed one day it was there and the next we had the Commonwealth.

No. When we get to the tipping point, it is going to be more like Bosnia and Serbia. There will be a cleansing that will practically wipe our country away. And the 'practically' is no sure thing; I can see China leading a UN peacekeeping force, and then staying like the US did after WWII.

Re:Simple: See Taxis

[Anonymous Coward]

i don't mind if government (you call it society) decides to pay for all cars and all buildings to have accessibility features (or to pay from federal budget to all people building or driving to add accessibility futures to their vehicles) , i even think they should do that because its part of what i call social services,

but they should pay for that to be added not ask for company or person to pay for that, because if TAXI company or building will raise its prices for renting cars or flats or office space, it is form of indirect tax, i want government to pay that from (direct) taxes i already pay like sales tax, import duty, salary tax, indirect tax is EVIL because i cannot see it and thus cannot control it or refuse to pay it if i disagree

Re:Simple: See Taxis

[s.petry]

Uber operates in our society under our rules at our pleasure. We get to decide what its obligations are regarding things like tax, safety and disabled users.

If they disagree that's fine, they can fuck off and stop using our roads. I'm sure the market will build some for them.

We (Society) did give them money and allow the to operate. Society sanctioned them without issue. YOU on the other hand differ from society and wish to have control over other people, or give that control to people YOU like and who YOU believe acts in YOUR interests, not caring if Society benefits at all.

You are an authoritarian, and promote authoritarianism. The US is not supposed to be such a system, and by our Constitution should protect Society from people like you. If you enjoy authoritarianism so much, GTFO and live in one!