Good point. Honestly I don't think that uber should allow drivers to use any vehicles not equipped for wheel chair transport. The discrimination and inequity, as you've noted, runs very deep with uber and indeed many other companies
I'd be surprised if it were even 1%. As far as I'm aware, stock passenger vehicles are never wheelchair accessible -- it requires some expensive aftermarket hardware to be installed.
I was thinking about "Worldwide AggreGate" or something like that when i've read your comment.
So it can really range from needing a bit of help to needing a special vehicle.
The same reason we require businesses to install wheelchair ramps.
A business has to follow all laws. If a business can't do that in a cost effective manner that is the business's problem and not the law's.
Laws also aren't always all good or all bad. Sometimes they include both positive and negative consequences. Making it more expensive to do business is a tradeoff that society has decided to accept in the name of making the world more accessible to people with disabilities.
If Uber can't afford to pay for it and/or they lose drivers because drivers refuse to pay for it, those are Uber's problems and not the law's.
It becomes a problem for the citizens when the cost of this policy causes prices to skyrocket due to artificial scarcity.
It's about kindness. These companies want to treat ALL customers as the least expensive user. Don't you realize that this demeans YOU and much s it does the disabled?
ADA exemptions exist for small companies where it would be unreasonable to bear the additional costs.
Fundamentally it's a political question of what kind of society we want, do we want one where cities have to make curb cuts in sidewalks or do we want one in which it is extremely difficult for wheelchair users to use sidewalks. The balance the US has currently settled on is that small business is largely exempt, and larger businesses must accommodate.
It should be noted that this case has not been ruled against Uber yet, and that the suit revolves around wait times, not wheelchair accessible cars.
To be honest once accessibility standards are adopted by society at large they are not very expensive in general. It is however, VERY expensive when accessible goods and services are not provided at scale.
By trying to be fair to specific groups, you tend to make things unfair for others.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/03/06/u-california-...
Haha
In DC, there's an initial fee (charged for the pickup and first 1/8 mile). Additional wait-time fees start accruing after 5 minutes. Mileage/time fees then get added by the meter as the ride progresses. This formula applies to all taxis - wheelchair or not.
Of course I don't think that the complaint here is only about wheelchairs.
Turns out that there are a lot of financial incentives available from city/state/federal governments for attaching the taxi medallion to a wheelchair-accessible vehicle.
Poor and handicap people will suffer more so from a price hike resulting from your suggestion — disabled people should just pay more because (1)they are taking up more time to service and (2)they receive benefits that everyone else doesn’t to compensate for such scenarios. The way it is currently setup is likely the most optimal configuration for all parties involved.
If we used your plan, there would be no taxis for the disabled because the costs would be prohibitive. This isn't really any different than any other similar legislation/regulation (ADA, etc).
This is 100% false because I know for a fact if there was no other taxi company providing services to the disabled I would start my own company for the disabled today.
There is a reason the ADA exists. Because before then, everyone assumed businesses would cater to disabled people because they wouldn't want to lose out on the business. But it turns out they are such a small market, it doesn't affect their bottom line.
How many markets will be too small to be worthwhile after prices increase? I would wager it would be more than the contrary
To your point that they are more financially limited — that is the reason why disability benefits exist.
You're arguing that the free market will serve disabled people. That's been tried many times, and it never works out. That's why the government mandates serving disabled people.
And let's not even talk about the ethics of suggesting that disabled people get charged more just for being disabled, something they don't have control over.
It assumes very simple cause-effect relationships by default. See "fallacy of the single cause".
It cannot be countered except by elaborating on the complexities of this particular example. Which are then promptly dismissed out of hand because they are "special cases".
And as a result, the person using this rationale never learns their lesson that, actually, the world is much more complicated than that, and this kind of simple 1-2-3 doesn't fit with basically anything except those processes which are determined primarily by averages.
Existing legislation doesn't require all vehicles, or even all commercial vehicles to be handicap accessible. Hell they don't even require that vehicles be made such that they can be converted to handicap accessible. Current legislation requires that accommodations are available, not that they are ubiquitous. We put wheelchair ramps on buildings because without them there is no way for a wheelchair bound person to get in, but it's fine if there are stairs as well.
Currently, in most cities, a certain number/% of taxis are required to be wheelchair-accessible. It's a bare minimum, usually with wait time well in excess of what the rest of us would consider reasonable (DC states it averages 45 minutes, but I can call a cab in 10-15 minutes notice or hail one on the street in less time than that).
If there was a market for equivalent service for wheelchair-bound customers, it would exist already. The market simply doesn't exist, at least not in any way that makes financial sense. So we have regulations to force it.
Having a blind family member who encounters similar issues on a daily basis, I'm totally fine with socializing the cost of her accommodations. To do otherwise would just be greedy and mean.
If you are waiting longer for a specialty service, you are in essence paying a premium for it (your time has value). If people were willing to pay more for the service, more cars would voluntarily provide the service, and they would get served faster.
I'm also fine with socializing the costs. Put a tax in place to pay for this public service. Commanding Uber to do it on their own is essentially just a regressive tax on uber customers.