Slashdot Mirror
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."
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?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I'm struggling to think of any for-profit organization, privately-owned or publically-traded, that possesses assets not owned by its owners...
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.
Owned by != owed to.
Geez.....
So, we now have to ruin it for the majority
-
This is the credo of the SJW.
Indeed, equity!=debt
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
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.
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
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.
-Styopa
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?
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
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.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
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?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Why would the Australian government give transportation subsidies to Uber? After all they're just a technology company.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
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.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
perhaps intentionally. The point is they have a right to take part in society. Mountains and Rivers aren't society. Public Transportation is.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
People who stand up for the disabled are DICKS! Yeah!
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
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...
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I have a bad habit of not proof reding
Well, if you're that dyslexic, you should just hire yourself a poorfraeder.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
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?
--Jim (me)
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.
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!
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
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.
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.
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.
Corporations are people too. They need some walking around money.
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. :)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Obviously you haven't benefitted from the law. As someone who has you have no idea what you are talking about.
Caution: Contents under pressure
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.
This space intentionally left blank
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/
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
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.
This space intentionally left blank
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.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
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.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
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.
They may be "worth" $70b, but they are still running at a loss.
They don't have $70b sitting in their bank account.
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.
Arrgghhh forgot all the less than greater thans would be stripped. The number is still 17.
So if a law benefits you personally, it's automatically a good law?
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.
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.
How does this "ruin" anything for the majority?
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.
I don't see wheelchair ramps on the taxi's in my cities. What do disabled people do there?
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.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
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.
are you sure? In Orlando,Fl taxi companies are required to have a certain % of their fleet wheelchair accessible. London it's 100%.
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.
-- Will program for bandwidth
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
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
Because at some point it becomes more sensible to just end the service altogether than to jump through more and more insane hoops.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
We should remove those stickers, create a "thou shalt not be stupid" law and let the problem sort itself out.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
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.
My thoughts exactly on the situation.
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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?
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
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,
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Good job stereotyping the handicapped as not working, indeed as not normal at all.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
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.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
> 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.
So, by that logic, a restaurant shouldn't have to have accessible facilities because there's plenty of McDonald's out there?
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.
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.
"Politicians always tell the truth, when they're calling each other liars."
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.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
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.)
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.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
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.
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
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.
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.
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.
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.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If the parking lot extends half a mile, providing access to another 18 spaces is going to do almost nothing to help her.
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.
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.
Nobody's talking about a large fleet of accessible vehicles. If they don't exist, then it's Uber's responsibility to provide some.
The law says the passenger can't be charged more, not that the driver can't be paid more.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
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).
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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?
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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.
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...
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
And you are among the small fraction of people driving a sports car with a valid reason to use the handicap space.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
OK. So let's look into the Republicans, Mark Hasse and Mike McLelland:
What are Eric Williams' political affiliations?
It looks like both the Republicans on the list were killed by another Republican. So which statement does all of this best support?
or
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.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
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.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
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?
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.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
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.
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.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
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!
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.