Is this the sprinkling of good the fascists do in between all the destruction?
Or is it just a shakedown
This is an obvious shakedown because they haven’t given trump a golden trophy yet.
To me this sounds like a fundamental problem with their business model. Private vehicles used for public transportation by people who aren’t well-trained commercial drivers.
I have always thought it was sketchy that we let random people in the US be commercial drivers for Uber without forcing them to get a new type of license or earn some kind of state certificate because most people are absolutely shit drivers and beyond that, there are rules for dealing with people (in this case disability stuff) that you should know if you drive the public.
Would you get in a car with that dude “Chad” who hangs out behind the bowling ally, or that chick “Tammy” who learned to drive from her highschool boyfriend who was a year or two older than her and basically got a rubber-stamped license because the US doesn’t actually take driver safety seriously?
See this is why I prefer robotaxis. At least I know I’ll get a consistent experience every time. They all drive exactly the same way and always arrive exactly at my set pickup spot. They never cancel rides because they don’t get too lazy to find the pickup spot I set. And the best part: No tipping.
Edit: Why the downvotes? Y’all have no idea what you’re missing out on. Radar-based self-driving cars are the future, whether you like it or not. As someone who has been on hundreds of rides, I can assure you that they’re they’re a hell of a lot better at driving at humans. I feel much safer in a robotaxi over an unpredictable Uber/Lyft driver.
Lemmy has a AI-Hate boner, so everytime someone talks about automation, their brains have an automatic response compelling them to downvote, not realizing that the correct reaction is not “oh no, robots are replaving us”, rather, it’s “Okay, now tax the rich and give evryone UBI”.
Jobs should be automated whenever possible, provided that it can meet safety requirements, but the profits from automation should belong to the people. In fact, people should outright (collectively) own that auto-taxi service.
Wow, I’ve only been using Lyft for a good while now and I just assumed Uber took disabled riders as serious as they do.
I’m not disabled or have a service animal, but Lyft makes it very visible on the app that if you are one/have one, the drivers MUST be accommodating. They make it easy to report as well if they are not.
At least one company seems to care (I hope).
How that work if you have a car that won’t fit a wheelchair? Or do they make sure to only send drivers who have appropriate vehicles?
From my assumptions, the drivers see ahead of time if you use a wheelchair because the app asks you to mark yourself as a wheelchair user.
So you’d only be accepting it if you wanted to.
so what’s the real reason they’re suing uber? because it sure as fuck ain’t because they care about accessibility.
Not 100% relevant, but I recently opted into Uber Pet rides and they’re always the highlight of my day. I’ve already had a repeat rider, Chomp the lab. Just wanted to brag, I guess.
Edit: Fuck Uber though, for real.
Give chomp a pat for me please he sounds like a certified good boi
The last dog I had was a ~30 minute ride. The owner fell asleep and the dog stood on the middle console and leaned against me for pets. Admittedly not the safest, but what was I to do.
As a family who uses a non-stowable wheelchair this is why we use taxis instead, on the few occasions we can’t use our own minivan. I’m not sure how Uber could comply, but how about offering a bonus to drivers when they accept these rides? Rider could enter a code confirming the dog or wheelchair or whatever, driver gets extra 10%
If a wheelchair is non-stowable (I assume it means not able to fold?), then why is a taxi different? Or are you referring to the large taxi cabs?
In our city the taxi companies are required to have a certain percentage of accessible cabs to meet the ADA. It’s led to them having even more, as they realized how good they are for carrying luggage as well. I’m talking minivans with ramps, lowered floors, and tiedowns, so the person can ride in their wheelchair. Some don’t kneel, so the ramp is steep from the ground, but they’re fine at curbs. We’re fortunate enough to have a nice one of our own, but for a trip to the airport, or in case of a breakdown, or going somewhere with terrible parking they’re good.
That’s really nice then. I’m wondering if that’s why I rarely see any regular taxis. 90% of the ones I spot are the ones that are in between an SUV and minivan.
Accommodation requests have to be reasonable. If the wheelchair won’t physically fit in the car then you can’t force the driver to drive an accessible vehicle at all times. That would be unreadonable. Though they can’t deny rides to people if the wheelchair could fit in the trunk or whatever.
I don’t think the commenter wanted drivers to let people squeeze their wheelchairs into their tiny cars, rather that taxis are convenient because they can probably specifically request one that accommodates them. I’m guessing Uber doesn’t let you do that, but I somewhat certain Lyft let’s you notify potential drivers that you are wheelchair-bound in case their car cannot fit you.
First off, FUCK UBER… but I don’t see Uber being at any sort of fault here unless their policy is no animals, which it obviously isn’t because Uber Pet exists. Only possibly by not routing service animal rides through Uber Pet exclusively since those drivers are already expecting animals.
Do we really want to say that in order to participate in rideshare driving at all that you must allow animals in your private vehicle?
Uber drivers use their own vehicles, they are not Uber’s property or responsibility. If an owner doesn’t want animals in their vehicle, they cannot and should not be forced to. A lot of people don’t want animals in their vehicles, trained or not. They may be worried about damage from things like claws to the fabrics, etc. and don’t want to deal with that possibility, whereas the Uber Pet drivers are prepared for that.
And this doesn’t even get into the bastards that lie about their pets and “emotional support” animals being service animals causing problems for those that actually do need the assistance. There’s no penalty for lying about it, and no verification system to filter those out.
because uber needs to comply with the ada act just like any company.
Is Uber saying no? Or are drivers cancelling rides when they realize there’s an animal that wasn’t disclosed previously, and they aren’t part of Uber Pets?
Because there’s a distinct difference there.
There actually isn’t. Uber is responsible for their contractors and are liable when they fuck up. As they are the ones who hired them.
I’ve had my fair share of seeing uber drivers starting conflict when I accompany a blind person with their dog. They deserve it.
I see both sides of this. As a blind person myself, I frequently interact with people who have service dogs and such. Hell, at one point in my life, I had a girlfriend who had a service dog because she was deafblind and I have seen her be denied rides in person.
Every driver who signs up for Uber in the Terms of Service has a thing about having to accept service animals, no matter whether it’s a pet ride or not. It’s just in the account Terms of Service when you create your driver account. If you read them, you will find it.
So if you absolutely unequivocally do not want service animals in your car, you cannot drive for either of these services.
I guess you could do like the restaurant deliveries or whatever, but to take passengers, you couldn’t do it.
