Category: News and Views
Uber must face lawsuit claiming it snubs blind people. Uber Technologies Inc must defend against a lawsuit accusing the popular ride-sharing service of discriminating against blind people by refusing to transport guide dogs, a federal judge ruled. In a decision late Friday night, U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins in San Jose, California, said the plaintiffs could pursue a claim that Uber was a "travel service" subject to potential liability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The judge also rejected Uber's arguments that the plaintiffs, including the National Federation of the Blind of California, lacked standing to sue under the ADA and state laws protecting the disabled. Uber was given 14 days to formally respond to the complaint. The company and its lawyers did not immediately respond on Monday to requests for comment. The NFB and lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to similar requests. Worth an estimated $40 billion, Uber said it offers its mobile phone taxi-hailing service in more than 270 cities and geographic areas in 56 countries, and can charge varying prices based on demand. But the San Francisco-based company has faced complaints around the world over how it pays drivers, treats passengers and ensures safety. In the discrimination case, the plaintiffs said federal law requires operators of taxi services such as Uber to carry service animals for blind riders but that it knows of more than 40 instances in which Uber drivers refused. They cited two instances in which Uber drivers allegedly yelled "no dogs" at riders, and another where an Uber driver allegedly refused a blind woman's plea to pull over once she realized he had locked her guide dog in the trunk of his car. In seeking to dismiss the case, Uber said the individual plaintiffs were required to arbitrate their claims. Uber also said it was "on the cutting edge of expanding accessibility" for the disabled, and that claims it failed to accommodate blind people with service animals had no merit. The case is National Federation of the Blind of California et al v. Uber Technologies Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 14-04086..
as a new dog user, I have only used the company twice with my dog, and both times I had to start reciting regulation at them just to get5 a ride. let me tell you, having to do that while you are standing in the rain and the driver is sitting all dry in his car is not exactly the most fun thing to do
I don't agree with locking a dog in the trunk, that was ass hole.
But, if people are using there own private cars, I'd say they have a right to not transport anything they decide not to transport.
Taxi's and such are public cars, so should not be exzimped, but private cars, I'd say sure.
Not if you're running a business with your private car. Just like, if you use your
home for your business, and you have a blind customer, you can't deny them
their guide dog. That's why the judge ruled how he did.
I agree. These people are essentially offering a taxi service even though they are using their private cars. If they are worried about dog hair or the dog throwing up, how about keeping a couple of blankets in their trunk that they can take out and use for anyone with a guide dog to lie on.
Cody is right. These may be private cars, but the driver is making a business out of it, and needs to be aware that taking guide dogs is part of that. I agree with the judge's ruling, but don't even get me started on how a dog handler apparently was unaware that her dog got locked in the trunk. Yes, the driver was an asshole, but that's just insane on the handler's part, and makes dog users and blind people in general look like incompetent idiots. Oh well. Back to the original topic. I use Uber, but don't have a guide dog, so have never had to deal with this issue myself. Not with Uber, anyway. I did use a dog some years ago, and had this problem with regular taxis. I'm glad the judge ruled as he did, and will be interested to see where this goes.
The blind, and other people are trying to make services like Uber, and Lift, in to professional services, and that is where the problem is, and why people have so many problems using them.
When you use these services, you are nothing more than a paying hitch hiker.
The driver that pulls up to give you a ride is a private citizen willing to take a few bucks to take you with him or her, while there going someplace.
They are not professionals, so should not fall under the same rules as professionals.
Uber cannot guarantee you a safe ride, nor can they guarantee you’ll receive a specific level of service. All they can say, is someone might show up in a few minutes to allow you to rice with them.
They don’t know if that person’s driver’s license is expired.
They don’t know if that person was recently working on his or her brake system and did a poor job.
They don’t know what condition the car will be, the driving skill, or lack or driving skill of the person you decide to hop in and ride with.
The only thing they know, is they are tracking you from point A to point B, and that is mainly so they can collect their money, not for your guaranteed safety.
If it is raining, and I pull up and notice you are with a wet dog, I have the right to say, I’m sorry, I’m not willing to take your few dollars to take you with me.
If you have a bowa snake wrapped around you, I’m not taking you anyplace with me.
The people providing this are also taking a chance. They have done nothing but pick up a hitch hiker.
They are not running a business, Uber is.
If you want professional service, and you do use Uber, you need to pay for a black car.
That will be a limousine service, sub contracting to take people someplace.
This driver will be a professional, so will be prepared with blankets, or whatever for your dog, or should.
If your dog messes the car, they have professional cleaners at the garage paid to clean it.
This is why taxi drivers are complaining, because Services like Uber, are trying to pretend they are professional, and they are not at all.
It gives people a false sense of security, level of service, and rights.
They don’t have any of this.
If people understood what the service actually is, Uber would make less money possibly.
I am all for the rights of guide dog users, but I feel you are imposing on people’s rights when you try to force them to accept your dogs.
You’d not like it if that same person showed up at your house, and demanded you let them in with something you don’t want in your home.
You don’t want the law to say, no matter what, you’ve got to let them come in.
I think the ruling will be over turned based on this.
The city of Portland won't let Uber or Lift operate because they won't abide by local laws, one of them being a driving service has to take service dogs and walkers / other mobility devices used by the elderly and such. Portland enacted these laws because of problems with cabs in the 70s.
Let me put another spin on this:
If the religious can decide not to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple on religious grounds, then the same will hold true of a driver who doesn't want to take a dog in the car on the same grounds. Just sayin', the irony is there are people who would support the bakery and deny the driver. Ironic.
Basically uber are a business trying to take advantage of the fact that some people are using websites to organise carpooling trips and so on to save money on petrol.
this is exactly why they are probably going to be run out of Stockholm in the future, because there is no possible way they can abide by all the regulations placed on taxies.
I can completely understand why private drivers might not want to take a dog. They are basically their own employers trying to make a living with their own private car, while uber is taking some of what they ern for networking them into their service.
it's not like a professional taxi company, who often provide places to wash and vacuum cars free of charge.
actually, they are taking a large amount of what their drivers earn, considering what they provide as far as conditions, benefits and so on go.
So Lift is going to start service in Portland.
I know people on here talk about dogs, and that's valid. States like Indiana which now allow religious objection to serve, such as wedding cakes for gay couples and dogs in transport vehicles, may be shaping some of what's going on here.
But dogs aren't the only ones being rejected: My father-in-law who now uses a walker could have been denied cab service in the 70s here in Portland, which is why Portland changed its laws.
The reason taxi companies object is not because Uber and Lift are private. After all, the taxi driver has to lease the cab every day, pay for the use of it. Taxi cab drivers are private contractors in a majority of cities. Taxi cab companies are saying that either they don't have to abide by the rules, or the competitors do.
Consider if you have two similar restaurants. One gets an exemption so that it doesn't have to meet local health codes, while the other has to. The one with the exemption isn't paying a license fee -- which covers the cost of inspections, citations, etc. The one who has to abide by local health codes is going to object.
What the food industry has done is get several foods declared "carnival food". If all you do is carry hot dogs, popcorn, and a few other food items, you don't need a license in many places. But if you carry any opened containers such as jars of condomenbts, you pay and you get inspected.
In the case of Portland, the city originally asked that Uber and Lift settle to abide by local ordinances that the taxi cabs have to. The reason is Uber and Lift would otherwise get an unfair advantage, putting taxi drivers out of business and returning to the problems they had in the 70s. This is way bigger than guide dogs.
I don't know what agreement was come to for Lift, but Lift starts serving Portlanders tomorrow, Friday April 24, 2015.
Taxi cab drivers, who lease their cab for a few hundred dollars a day, have to clean the cab after dog hair or puke or whatever. They have to take the ride which may not make them a whole lot of money after gas and expenses and waiting for another ride. Remember taxicab fares are fixed. So the cab driver who got paid $30 to transport me out to outser Southeast 122nd for field exercises may not have made as much money as he would have driving someone to the airport where another customer or several would likely be waiting. But a taxi cab driver can't just choose not to accept the ride based on that. An Uber or Lift driver typically can choose to reject a ride like that, or charge more, because they have to drive back in to a more populated area.
There've been stories where people have been surprised at the bill, they were charged more than they would have been for a taxi because the Uber driver could elect to do so.
Taxi cab companies are quite naturally upset that these other services who also use private contractors can outcompete simply by not abiding by the same rules.
I don't know what the answer is: My nonstatist side wants to side with the likes of Uber, and yet I don't relish the thought of my father-in-law using a walker, or someone using a service dog, being left in the rain by a driver who rejects, either for the "conscientious objector" reasons of the state of Indiana or simple convenience. I fear the answers on this stuff are not so black-and-white as we might imagine.
They use their private cars?
Thanks for the information. In the future, when I move to a bigger city, I will stick with cabs then and I agree, they do have the right to say no to service animals. No, it's not right, but the way I look at it, they're the people losing money, not the cab that you can call after them.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect a company that wants to act like a taxi service to abide by the same regulations.
The problem that Sweden has with them is that they can't. It's law here that all workers be allowed to be represented by the appropriate union, and that any business serviced by that union must abide by any regulations that union has put down. For example, pay percentage, leave, etc.
Uber is not paying their drivers the amount prescribed by the taxi drivers union nor can they provide the same working conditions that Sweden expects.
Taxi drivers are also expected to take service dogs, and any animals that customers wish to bring also, unless they have a medical exemption due to alergies. However taxi drivers are not using their own personal cars, whereas Uber are.
what uber is is glorified carpooling, and perhaps needs to be put in its place. it's not a taxi service so shouldn't be allowed to operate as one.
Exactly. It, is, not, a, taxi, service.
If I was a woman and had to travel late at night, I'd not call them, Lift, or Uber.
You are a paying hitch hiker, so can, and might be picked up by anyone.
One lady in India is trying to sue, because she was raped by a driver.
That driver is not an employee, nor licensed, so she'd being made sue the person.
This is correct. Uber doesn't have any responsibility, because they are not a professional service.
You ride a taxi, even though that driver is a contractor, he, or she has a company car, and that car is set up for your safety.
They even must wear a uniform.
Here where I live, I actually save money using the professional services over Lift and Uber.
And that's just it. The reasons to use Lift and Uber are usually reasons of convenience, not price. The cabs are all busy, but the Lift and Uber services are available.
I hate to recommend a regulation, but perhaps it needs to be made clear that Uber and Lift are *not* taxi companies. You see it often: "Oh, we're gonna have a couple new cab companies in town," or people wanting to use another taxi cab company.
These days, you can use FastCab or Curb in most cities to manage your taxi cab fare, even tell the driver instructions like the fact you're blind, even schedule a ride a day ahead of time.
Town cars and limos are not taxis and everyone knows it.
So perhaps this is a truth in advertising situation, more than anything else.
Oh, and as I said, the cab is the cab driver's responsibility. Dog hair in the seat? Puke on the floor? Taxi driver must pay out of pocket to have that cleaned up just like the Uber or Lift driver does. Returning an unclean cab to the station results in paying a penalty for service. All the cab company is responsible for is the maintenance of the vehicle, the GPS and the meter hardware and software. And the way the cab company finances this is by charging the cab driver a daily leasing fee. If the driver doesn't make enough money to pay that fee, he or she's got to cough it up anyway.
Sure, but many cab drivers will charge you extra if your baby pees, or whatever.
I think it is a $50 fine here, if you deliberately mess up a cab.
I actually thing Uber has things in the apps terms of service.
The problem is, people don't read them, so are expecting things, or have expectations of service Uber doesn't actually provide, or even claim they do.
The ads are deceiving as pointed out.
You know, I'd not thought about Uber being world wide.
So, this is going to be even more difficult country to country.
Here is the India woman's story.
It is interesting.
I still think of these services exactly as I've described them, and I think others would do well to do so.
http://www.cnet.com/news/can-one-woman-change-the-way-uber-operates/
Honestly, I totally agree 100% with the Uber drivers who don't want to take blind people with service animals in their cars. If I were a driver, using my own private car, I would at the very least want to be forewarned ahead of time if someone has a guide dog. Then, I could either not take the ride at all and it can be delegated to another driver who is willing to take it, or I could take the necessary steps to ensure that your dog does not pee, throw up or otherwise make my car dirty.
At the same time, I get that some blind people like to use guide dogs for whatever reason, and that's all their choice. I'm not even going to bother getting into the debate between guide dog, cane etc. So, perhaps a compromise can be reached. Something similar to Uber putting in a thing on their app saying, "Hey, I have a service animal" that the blind person can tap when they're trying to set up a ride. That way, the driver can already know what to expect if he chooses to take that ride. At the same time however, it will be that blind person's responsibility to ensure that he did state that he has a service animal with him. If he doesn't state it and the Uber car refuses him, then I say that they're well within their rights to do so. Another option that could also be considered is to make the person with the service animal pay an extra fee to transport their service animal, but I can see all of the lobbiests crying bloody murder and other levels of unfairness for that one.
Unfortunately, I think that the courts are likely to rule in the favor of the people who are suing, which I think is ridiculous, and might spark some backlash from the Uber drivers who are pretty much already underpaid anyways. Again, it's not really fair, but well, there we have it. The pity vote almost always wins out.
I've seen people using Uber and Lyft, and all that. I didn't know they take no such simple protections, as to background check their drivers. I thought about it. But, I was hit on by a Taxi driver. How much more likely, by a Uber driver? And, all the regulations they're bypassing! I'm on the side of the drivers. However, Uber shouldn't even be running! It's closer to a dating match service, than a professional taxi service! Climb in, have a ride, come back out, nine months later, with a kid. Sorry, just the thought...
I want to know what lame-brained politician, was all right with programs like Uber. I'd just love to know. I think they should be shut down. If you want to provide a low-proffit service, get a grant, and donations. At least, you have funds to check the drivers.
Right, I can't think of anymore. This should be on the rant board. LOL
Blessings!
Sarah/HW
I don't think it is a bad service, I just think the way it is advertised, and what they are implying should be regulated.
Like that lady in India. There was no way she should have felt safe enough to go to sleep. She had just hitch hiked a ride home.
If she was told, that is what she was doing, she would have been more aware, or chosen a different service to take her home.
She felt safe, and I don't know why, because of the advertising.
With all due respect Forreal, but it's clear you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Let's start with your completely idiotic and bogus belief that Uber doesn't know, nor cares whether their driver has a valid drivers license. Take a gander at this
All Uber ridesharing and livery partners must go through a rigorous background check. The three-step screening we’ve developed across the United States, which includes county, federal and multi-state checks, has set a new standard. These checks go back 7 years, the maximum allowable by the Fair Credit Reporting Act. We apply this comprehensive and new industry standard consistently across all Uber products, including uberX.
Screening for safe drivers is just the beginning of our safety efforts. Our process includes prospective and regular checks of drivers’ motor vehicle records to ensure ongoing safe driving. Unlike the taxi industry, our background checking process and standards are consistent across the United States and often more rigorous than what is required to become a taxi driver.
What exactly is involved in Uber’s background checks?
All drivers are screened against:
•County courthouse records going back 7 years for every county of residence
•Federal courthouse records going back 7 years
•Multi-State Criminal Database going back 7 years
•National Sex Offender Registry screen
•Social Security Trace (lifetime)
•Motor Vehicle Records (historical and ongoing)
All this is an addition to a 1 million dollar insurance policy they have built in for passengers.
You also say you save more money using your cab, by average, passengers save 40 percent more money by taking a lift/ Uber, than they do from taking a taxi.
As for your opinion that there is nothing wrong with the situation, I have no argument. What you believe is what you believe, but I do take offense to inaccurate information.
Thanks so much for your post, Shane! Refreshing!
Sarah, I strongly but respectfully disagree with you on this one. It's been my experience, and that of many other people I know, both blind and sighted, that companies like Uber and Lyft often provide far better service than most taxi companies. I can certainly say that has been my own experience. I've taken Uber and Lyft in multiple cities, and each time received much better service than I ever have from cab companies in any of those cities. Drivers are much more friendly, and the very few times when I have had a complaint, Uber and Lyft have actually seemed to care about the issue. that's more than I can say for any of the times I've called in an issue to a cab company, who basically says too bad, suck it up. The price of Uber or Lyft is either lower than cabs, at most comparable. So, better service for a better or at least equal price? I'll take it. I'm glad more cities are enacting laws to make it okay for Uber and Lyft to operate.
So Sarah should car pooling be outlawed too? If you make it so general it would be illegal for me to hire a driver. We have a friend who we pay to drive us around, and we did not do a back ground check on him. So in that case I have no case to sue him no, but it shouldn't be punishable for either of us the rider or the driver by law
and no I'm not dating the driver before you ask.
In my city the reason cabs are cheaper for me is I get a discount for being blind.
This is not true for all, just my city.
I can ride on all cab services and actually do better.
Next, if you read the article about the lady in India, you'll not they failked on the background checks and such.
For this reason she's suing.
Cab company's actually test drivers, not just read paper work as to driving.
Next, these drivers have a licenses, not just some checks on them.
My statements are strong, but Uber is simply not as well set up as pprofessional services.
I personally haven't had any problems with them, but I still believe them to be as I've stated.
In other cities, money is saved, and I'd use them for this reason, but I am more careful using these type of services over cab company's.
I forgot to say, and I've said before.
I don't think services like this should go away, I just think people need to know what there getting.
I don't think there bad, just they need to say exactly what they are.
They are making money hand over fist, so obviously the public doesn't care, but the public needs to know what exactly they are doing.
I think people just assume because they called a business, there getting A and B rights. You don't, in my opinion.
Saving some money is all well and good, but you need to know why you are saving money.
I am interested how many of you that use this service daily have read the terms of service?
Here is something interesting related to this post. The driver application or advertisement to be a driver states, drive when you want, pick up who you want.
Even with this law, I wonder how many of you understand a person seeing you standing at the curb or whatever, can, and probably will simply say they didn't find you?
Here is just a piece from the terms.
Repair or Cleaning Fees.
You shall be responsible for the cost of repair for damage to, or necessary cleaning of, Third Party Provider vehicles and property resulting from use of the Services under your Account in excess of normal "wear and tear" damages and necessary cleaning ("Repair or Cleaning"). In the event that a Third Party Provider reports the need for Repair or Cleaning, and such Repair or Cleaning request is verified by Uber in Uber's reasonable discretion, Uber reserves the right to facilitate payment for the reasonable cost of such Repair or Cleaning on behalf of the Third Party Provider using your payment method designated in your Account. Such amounts will be transferred by Uber to the applicable Third Party Provider and are non-refundable.
Thought that part was interesting along with some other stuff on the website as to use of this service.
I forgot to point out about the insurance issue poster 21 is sure Uber carries across the US.
With all due respect as well back to you.
They don’t in California. I don’t know what other places they don’t.
If you ride in Denver, maybe you are covered.
Take a flight to San Francisco, and you aren’t plain and simple.
Maybe you go to London, and background checks are not required, or different types.
Maybe your driver is 21, so doesn’t have 7 years of driving records and simply hasn’t been caught yetwith his or her bad driving habits.
Again, I’m not saying these services are all bad, I said, people need to be made aware what they’re getting, and not feel safe just because the advertisement says so.
Uber and other services are only doing what is required of them, nothing more.
This is because they are not properly licensed.
Read this from Uber if you like.
Read it carefully. It makes Uber sound good, but in California, because the regulators don’t require it, they’ve relaxed all they say.
And again, this is my opinion.
http://blog.uber.com/2013/04/12/uber-policy-white-paper-1-0/
I'm with Wayne on this. And, how they can say they aren't a taxi service and still run professional, is beyond me.
I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to hire a driver if you want and can afford it. Just don't make our poor folk choices so dangerous, that you have to ride a car while hoping the driver isn't Charles Mansen, or the next Gary Ridgeway.
And, if a company is offering a service, why are they hiring drivers who don't want dog hair, or whatever in their cars?
You can't be a business, and ride the fence. If someone has the money to gas up for driving Uber clients around, they should get a car that they designate, so this isn't an issue. But, it seems these people are trying to cheat by basically taking over transportation field. After they run all the taxi companies, we'll go back to the same crummy service we used to get.
And, seems to me, they are providing the equal security checks here. But, tell that poor girl who got raped in India, that her driver had a background, and you'll meet someon who would be quite offended. So I 'm glad we protect Americans, and not other countries, when we go in with our business. Funny. I thought our ancestors came from those other countries? Or, am I mistaken? Of course, if I happen to have my facts wrong, please feel free to correct me?
Blessings!
Sarah/HW
I have to admit I’m a little surprised by some of the posts here, so much so that I felt compelled to post a response.
Uber has fundamentally changed how I socialize and move around. I live in a medium-sized city where taxis are spotty and public transportation is usable but disappointing. Previously, if I wanted to go somewhere, I grabbed a ride from a friend, wasted time on the bus or made sure to call in my nonflexible paratransit trip 24 hours ahead of time. Now, I open my phone, request a car, track its progress and go where I want to go. This costs money, of course, but it’s literally the closest I’ll ever get to owning a car without actually owning one – easier, in fact, because I don’t have to bother with parking. Uber, Lyft and similar services are liberating, and I use them several times a week.
Now, the trick is that I respect Uber for what it is: a ride-sharing service, where ordinary folks move other ordinary folks around in their own cars. I know this is fundamentally different from regular taxis, so I adjust my expectations accordingly. So it's not really going to bother me all that much if someone declines my trip for being too far or if they didn’t want a wet, smelly guide dog’s hair all over their backseat because … that’s right, it’s a service where ordinary folks move other ordinary folks around in their own car.
If you are a blind person who struggles to get out of the house and go where you want to go, and you willingly pass on ride-sharing services, then I think you’re a fool. I know blind people who won't use Lyft or Uber because it's scary, illegal, or discriminatory against their guide dogs – and these same people then struggle to go places and live fun, flexible lives.
Not having money to afford these cheaper services is one thing, but it’s irritating when the same people who happily use Be My Eyes to identify kitchen items, use readers to identify their mail or solicit volunteers to drive them around shun ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft.
The bottom line: Innovative ride-sharing services won’t completely eliminate the problems that arise from an inability to drive, but for many blind and disabled people, they will come pretty damn close.
Really? You're willing to risk safety for a freedom? That's a little too far, to me. And, what about the driver?
I know someone who can't drive taxi anymore, because some nice "passenger," shot the hell out of him. And, Uber drivers, LYFT drivers don't even have screens to protect themselves. These people are risking their safety to drive someone around for better rates. How is any of this fair?
When safety takes a second place, people start wondering if we are really able to live on our own, or be independent. We start forgetting safety, and the rights of the Blind go with it.
I don't want that. I'm in a questionable place, but I take advice on my safety, and that of others that come to visit or help. The day we forget safety, we lose what so many blind before us have worked so hard for. I don't want that.
Oh, one more thing: Be it taxi driver, or Uber, or LYFT drivers, anyone can pass a background check... If, that is, they've not been caught. So even with a taxi, I'm careful.
Blessings,
Sarah/HW
Sarah has a point. Also, I take exception to the idea that blind people are foolish if they don't use these services, or that if they don't, they'll be passing up a full, flexible life. I know many blind people who are perfectly happy using public transit as their primary mode of travel, relying on taxis only occasionally.
to be honest, I would never actually risk a service like Uber, not when I know that the other taxi providers in my city will serve me better, for more money admitedly, but I prefer to pay companies that treat their workers better.
And when you get right down to it, having a guidedog is a choice too. essential businesses are not allowed to deny them entry here, government departments, supermarkets etc, however leasure businesses absolutely are, because guidedogs are still animals. If you are blind and want to go for a night out, you are perfectly at liberty to leave your guidedog at home and use your cane, and indeed our department for the blind encourages this, because you are supposed to keep up your cane skills and failure to do so will result in you losing your dog. This means that before you go out you are expected to contact the restaurant you're eating at to ask them if they will allow your dog. most will, because Sweden is big on equality, however some will deny you on the basis of culture, the business being exceptionally small, staff members or patrons with alergies or not wanting to clean up directly after you have been there.
Uber could easily fix this by putting something in their app that says you have a service dog that you need to transport and so that people who don't want the fair don't have to take it.
If you live in an environment with exceptional public transportation or where you can walk most places, my comment obviously does not apply to you. The fact is that for many disabled people, a lack of a car is a significant barrier; and for many medium and large-sized cities, a car is often all but essential to having a good quality of life. Therefore, if you often complain about your inability to drive, live in a car-dependent area, struggle to get out or go places and intentionally avoid ride-sharing services, I think you are doing yourself a disservice.
I believe that these types of services are safe enough and worth the tradeoff – they require background checks, drivers insurance and use a community rating system. If you misbehave or abuse the system, you’ll be dealt with quickly … either by the community representatives or by other passengers, who help maintain quality through a rating system. I have had a couple of negative experiences, but I know I’ll get a resolution when I contact Uber’s support – in my experience, their customer service representatives are helpful and quick to respond. You have the right to your own feelings about safety, but remember that the next time you depend on strangers for help crossing the street or reading your mail through Be My Eyes.
Public transit is all I can afford. I hate how bad services are and can be. But, it's life, and I have to accept it. What I do not have to accept, is putting my "ass on the line," for cheap service.
You know, something to think on:
Before my friend got shot, taxi services didn't pay Labor And Industries jack spit. Now, because one of their own is having to be on disability, they now have to pay L-&-I, and on top of that, so do the drivers. What happens, when a LYFT driver, or a Uber driver gets hurt on the job? And, don't kid yourself, they are working, making money. Who will they cry to? L-&-I!
What disgusts the heck out of me, is someone who's a simpering idiot, even though the driver has paid nothing into the program, some simpering fart, will give it to them. How fair is that? You folks that are blind and work, you pay for that.
I'm saying, think yourself through, before damning those of us that don't agree with the service and it's lack of legal support. Because, it's going to bite someone in the butt. Driver, or passenger. Someone's already been raped in India. There's negatives to "cheaper ways."
Blessings,
Sarah/HW
Poster 35, I’d agree.
If I lived in a place as you do, I’d use the ride sharing services if that got me to the places I wanted to go.
You are doing this with the correct attitude, not putting your trust in them 100% just because they claim there “the safest ride on the road.”
Now, to the subject, when I worked guide dogs, I always rode the bus when traveling with my dog, unless I was in my own car, or a friends that didn’t mind my dog inside that car.
If I was going a place with someone in a car, I’d leave my dog home, and take my cane.
This would be my approach if I called a ride sharing service like Uber, Lyft, or whatever.
I understand these people are just sharing a ride, not a professional service, so they should not be expected to allow anything they don’t want.
If a female driver pulls up, and feels threatened by me, I’d expect her to decline sharing her ride with me.
The next driver, and there will be one shortly, might not feel I’m a threat, so I’ve got a ride.
Now, if I call a professional service, I expect them to take me.
If it was raining, I’d do them the respect of carrying towels and such for my service animal, or let them know I have one, but there equipped for this, and the type cars interiors are decided on for easy cleaning.
If I’m an Uber, Lyft person going to the mall, and I grab you in my new car with leather seats, I’m sorry, on a rainy day, your muddy, wet dog is not going.
I’d do you the service of telling you to schedule another.
Risking safety for freedom is the American way. I do this all the time. Only now these days do we see people pine to have safety over freedom.
Yeah, Wayne. I learned the hard way, that the outside of a person can be completely different than the wolf inside. All it takes is minor acting ability, and an intelligence to use it. Just like on here. You just don't really know if any of us are... Pardon the pun... for real.
Blessings,
Sarah/HW
i think that locally when lift comes baCk after the insurance settlement with ny state it will deffinatly be an option for me. Where I am because i don't live directly in the city a taxy is a minamum of $25 just to come get me. In order for me to take public transportation i have to transfer at our new shiney transet center where since it opened a few months ago there have been several fights and stabbings. Paratranset is an option, but only if I can get a ride. Fact is this area is very car dependent, and every form of transportation has issues. Whether it be bus, subway which we don't have, taxie other wise. I can't afford to break the bank to take taxxies a lot either. Kyle looked in to taking a taxie to and from work from our house it would be $60 a day. 360 a week. so not worth it. So right now we pay one person under the table to take us around when he can, but to fill in the gaps, you bet I'd take lift or oober.
My life is better because I have Uber as an option. That is all.
Been using uber for over a month now and so far no problems. Oh yeah I also have a
seeing eye dog. I always contact the driver and so far it's been good.
I know I've said this before, and I probably will again, but Wayne and Sarah,
you're both idiots.
Lets start with sarah, cuz she's the easiest target. You're no more or less safe
in a cab than you are in a lift or uber ride. cab drivers aren't magically
prevented from being rapists and murderers, and those screens you touted a
few posts back aren't frickin' bulletproof. Hell, most of them are there simply
because taxis used to be police cars and they never got taken out. Even in a
police car they're only there so the person in back can't strangle the cop in
front, it has nothing to do with bullets. So quit your paranoid bitching for all our
sakes.
Now then, Wayne. Now that I think about it, you're a pretty easy target to. A
little bit of information I think you should know. Uber is covered until the ADA.
They are required by the federal government to accept service animals. That's
why they're being sued, because their employees have been breaking that law.
They're in violation of the ADA. In order to be in violation of a law, Wayne, you
have to be subject to that law. That's why Canadians are not subject to our
drinking laws in Canada. Because they're in Canada.
So, all your belly-aching about how its their private car and all that, is
absolutely fucking pointless. So please stop wasting our time trying to act as if
you have an intelligent opinion on this subject. You don't, and it shows to
anyone who has any passing familiarity with the ADA.
And, as a little side note, I'm glad you don't use a guide dog anymore. If you
left him or her at home for such pathetic reasons, you didn't deserve one in the
first place.
Now, can we please all just shut up on this issue? There's nothing to discuss
here. Uber broke the law and needs to repair that damage. End of argument.
If the company is answerable to the ADA, and it broke said law, then it's open and shut. There's no need for bashing anyone, mind you.
Now, as to whether or not the ADA is perfectly valid as is, and as to whether or not a company should or shouldn't be completely beholden to it in absolutely every case...that's a whole different story.
Someone many posts back--Leo, I think it was--made a point about baking cakes in comparison to taking guide dogs in a car. A religious objection is allowed to stand in one but not in another. Personally, I think it's up to you, a potential businessperson, to realize what your religious requirements will do for your customers. For instance, if you're unable to be near dogs because they are unclean, then being a cab driver, where you may be asked to deal with them, might not be a wise choice. likewise, if you're in the business of baking wedding cakes but do not agree with same-sex marriages due to religious reasons, you've probably made some sort of mistake there. Neither is okay.
I don't think we have Lift or Uber here where I live, but it would be interesting to try.
Incidentally, I'm one of a possibly rare few who have mostly had very good service from cabs. There are only two companies here, and both of them are very large; it's only the occasional time I'll even get a cabbie who's rude, much less unsafe. I've been dropped off in the wrong place exactly once; I've been yelled at three times. I've also had cabbies knock small bits off the meter, I've had cabbies help me load groceries into and then out of their taxi before, and have actually had some really interesting chats with a few over the years. so sure, there are bad taxi drivers out there, and the bad reputation isn't completely false...but I don't think they're all bad.
In general, though, I'm in agreement with Cody's point, if not his way of delivering it. This is all very much beside the issue. If the ADA was involved, then broken, then Uber is stuck. I think the ADA could do with tweaking by the sound of it.
I also think, and this is just my opinion here, that if you're ordering a cab or any other car service of that kind, you should let them know you're blind, or that you have a dog or other mobility aid.
I'll not get in to what has happened due to the mighty ADA pushing when they really shouldn't.
It is a good thing, but sometimes they are flat wrong, and it hurts us.
As to taxis being used police cars, I don't know about your city Cody, but here, most of ours are brand new cars, trucks, and vans.
You can smell how new some are.
The ones that are not, are not old, mainly late models.
I used them frequently, in case you say, maybe I don't ride enough.
Cab company's do a better job of screening, because of their licenses.
Uber, and services like them, were set up as shared ride programs, not professional services.
I think they should be viewed as such.
Fine, ADA makes Uber agree they’ll take service dogs, but it won’t make it happen, because it is hard to enforce.
Some posters here have shown respect for others by letting them know they’ll be taking them and the guide.
I think that is a good thing.
Are you going to pay the cleaning bill that Uber puts on your credit card Cody, if you must make someone take you and your dog when that dog is wet, muddy?
Most people don't mind a dog inside their car, but reason is reasonable.
An, no, I didn't take my dog everytime I moved.
I mainly traveled by bus, train, or walked, so had no problems with it.
I also kept my dog groomed perfectly, so I'd make the smallest empact on a business I went inside, and I carried rain gear for my dogs.
That's actually a really good question, now I think about it. If your dog does some sort of damage to the upholstery of a car, or even largely impacts upholstery cleaning costs, I wonder how many guide dog owners take note of that.
It's true of people too though, I suppose, at least up to a point. We don't necessarily shed tons of wet hair if we've been out in the rain, and we don't have muddy paws, but we can have stuff on our shoes, and in rare cases we can, just like dogs can, get sick. That's unfortunate and fairly rare, especially inside a vehicle (particularly for a person), but still.
None of this makes a bit of difference regarding the ADA, of course, but it's still food for thought of a more general taste.
They are not allowed to charge you more for the dog unless the dog does
heavy damage to the car. If the dog, for examples, sheds in the car, they are
not allowed to charge for that. If the dog tears the backseat to pieces, then they
could have a suit, but shedding does not count as destruction of property.
And greg, we've had instances of Muslim taxi drivers refusing guide dogs, they
lost ehir case. Of course, in our country, if it was a christian making the claim,
they probably would have won the case, but that's a different story.
I feel I should address something that Greg said earlier. He said he doesn't feel
that attacking is necessary. Well, here's how I see the situation. I'm going to
use some horrible terms in this, and I appologize for that, but bear with me.
Across almost every post involving some sort of independence rights, when
Wayne gives his opinion, it is a stance of capitulation. This post, an earlier post
about whether blind people should be grabbed by sighted people and how we
should react, even a post about whether or not girls can invite rape. On all of
these posts, and more, wayne has given a stance in which the blind person, or
the victim in the situation, accepts their lot simply to avoid making waves. He
feels that uber drivers should be allowed to deny guide dogs because its their
own personal car and we're using a service animal. He feels we should be more
understanding when sighted people grab us without provokation because
they're trying to do their good deed for the day. So on and so forth.
Thus, I feel Wayne is, and I apologize for using this term, but Wayne is the
blind version of an uncle tom. He is willing to accept his lot, accept his place as
a second class citizen because it is easier. I will alwyas, absolutely fucking
always, attack that. So if you read a post of mine in the future that is replying
to WAyne, and you feel I'm attacking him, you know why, and you can save
yourself the time of reminding me you think I'm being an asshole. I know you
do, I don't care. I think you should be just as much of an asshole as I am for
people who harm our lives in such a way.
Here's the problem though:
Attack the stance all you want. You can rip the stance to pieces without touching the person. I suppose you might argue that the person is responsible for the stance you despise, but what of it?
Personally, if you have to resort to calling someone a fucking idiot, you're probably failing in your attempt to destroy their platform. You're deflecting attention from the excellent argument you may be using to the fact that you're name-calling and levelling personal insults at someone. Other less reputable sources will use similar tactics when their arguments don't work. Don't stoop to their level, especially if your arguments really do hold water. All it does it chip away at your credibility.
That's the reason I don't call Wayne, or anyone else, an asshole, and why I avoid personal attacks as often as I can. I'd rather rip your argument apart, if it comes to that, than attack you personally. My issue is usually with what you say, not necessarily with you as a person, since I'm not foolish enough to believe that I know most of you.
Back to the ADA thing and cleaning costs and all that, I definitely see the double standard going on. I personally don't support a Christian business being able to refuse baking a cake for a same-sex couple on religious grounds. I also don't support a Muslim cab-driver being arbittrarily able to refuse your dog because he has an issue with dogs. If you're going to drive a public car and you have a problem with animals, it is an excellent idea to consider it long and hard first.
Of course, part of the issue is that being a cab driver is something that is fairly easy to start out doing. It doesn't pay really well and it doesn't exactly have huge benefits and perks, but it puts bread on the table. Perhaps a lot of immigrants look to driving taxis for want of other jobs to do, and thus do not have the liberty to weigh the pros and cons of religion and the fact that they might have to have dogs in their vehicle.
And this is why I think absolutely any blind person with a dog should be alerting dispatch that they have a dog. Because no, the cabbie shouldn't refuse you, but if there are four available taxis and two would rather not deal with dogs if they don't have to, then you would at least try to delegate the task to someone who has less problem with it. This doesn't mean that refusal to declare a dog entitles the cabbie to refuse you, it would only be a nice thing to do. Ultimately you're still going to get where you're going, and hopefully with a driver who has little to no issue with dogs; for the few drivers who may have chosen driving cabs because they felt they had little other choice but who hate dogs, they've not been put in a difficult position.
I'm not necessarily one of those "everybody play nice" types. I sometimes think you really do have to push in order to get what you want or what you need. But I also think moderation and consideration go a long long way.
Exactly Shep.
Wayne pushes wen he needs to push.
He is not a second class anything.
But, he also uses reason and feels we get along better that way.
You will never see Wayne posting to call a person a name, because he feels it just doesn't do anything to make his point.
If you spoke to him in person, you'll notice his language is always kind, and polite.
He doesn't mind others calling him what they must, or expressing themselves in the manner they chose though.
He fills, this is just their manner of speaking, and it doesn't anger him at all.
As to a dogs hair, I'd not call that damage.
I'd personal take a dog, even on a rainy day, if I was told in advance.
They way I see the ADA and any other organization, is is sometimes reason has to be used. When we just want to be assholes, we get our law passed, then people do everything they can to duck that law, because they feel we don't give a shit about them, so why should they meet us half way.
You have a company, you buy software that isn't compatible for screen readers.
You have a service you can avoid picking up blind people, you do it as often as possible.
Now, you might have 90% drivers that won't mind doing it, but because you got pushed, you rebel, and these folks wait longer times before they get a ride they could have had anyway if they'd been reasonable.
This topic proves it.
Some posters have said they get rides without a problem, and this was before the law.
First of all, Up until recently, I did not know exactly what the ADA covers. After doing some reading I believe Uber falls under the category of a public service. Title II prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability through public services, which covers many categories including transportation. It doesn't matter if it's a private vehicle, you are working for a company providing a public service. And if you refuse to let a person in your car because of a service animal, that is discrimination and you are breaking the law, end of story.
Secondly, it doesn't matter what cab company, or any vehicle transportation you use. You could come across a cab driver that rapes you. You could come across a bus driver that refuses to leave unless you sit down after an old lady offers you a seat, and you calmly decline the offer. You could come across a conductor on a train that sexually harrases you. Are you really going to let fear dictate your life? You might live your life in fear and question everything, but life is too short for me to care. A little common sense goes a long way.
Sarah, just as a side-note, many cabs don't actually have those screens you speak of. I've seen them most commonly in the large cities like New York, some in Chicago. However, none of the cabs I saw in Denver had them, nor do they in other small to medium-sized cities. And, as I believe Cody pointed out, those screens are scant protection against a bullet. That, and most cab companies treat their drivers like shit, so it's not unique to Uber and Lyft.
Cabs are also no more safe than anything else. I once had a driver put his hands around my throat when I refused to tip him, because he'd been a jerk most of the ride. I'm not sure what would have happened, except that a cop happened on the scene as the driver tightened his hands on my neck. So, please don't talk to me about how safe cabs are. Unfortunately, living life, and traveling, means risk. If we didn't accept that, we'd never step out the door. I keep myself as safe as possible, but I refuse to live trapped in fear.
Key phrase wayne, he pushes when he needs to. Not a single word about
when others need him to. That's my problem.
And yes Greg, it probably does deflect from my arguments. But A, I'm
confident enough in my arguments that I can do both at the same time, and B I
gave up hope long ago of Wayne ever listening to a reasonable position that
disagrees with him. I chalk it up to not having the life experience. Lived
sheltered, react sheltered, that's what I say.
Wayne, sheltered? *WAYNE* sheltered? Really? How does that fucking work? An interracial individual, single father, wait, to social justice furries the term "father" doesn't count, a person who has lost their eyesight? I can't imagine how hard losing one's sight has got to be: I've had the privilege (Oops, there's that dreaded P word) of having a full lifetime to adapt ... but Wayne, An African American / First Nations person as *sheltered*? This is as good as catching the preacher who slut shames, with his pants down. I mean, Jesus Christ on a crutch, man! Wayne, of all people? Wayne disagrees with you. And just because he doesn't jump to the party line, he's allegedly sheltered? Shit, he's very resourceful on other threads for practical solutions to problems -- practical solutions, being something this slacktivist social sciences squeeze-bottle generation often isn't.
I'm guessing, and it's just a guess, in Wayne's circle of people he interacts with in life, he'd do what he could to help a fellow dog user out.
Personally, I don't know what side of the issue I come down on, never having had a dog guide myself. It seems to me there are risks in doing business, and the drivers need to take some personal ownership and responsibility, and take service dogs if that is what the law provides. I don't see Wayne opposing that, but giving dog guide users some tips about rain gear and such.
Shit, before the ADA, when I was in college and this whole "social justice" thing was pretty new -- under different terms -- me and a couple friends set up a ramp with some plywood and 2x4's so a couple people in wheelchairs could get inside the building -- to some kind of disabled rights conference, of all things. But we were the evil sinners for not fightibng the system. What? We were just helping a pair of fellow humans get out of the blinding stinging cold rain.
It's hard to do similar over the Internet, but Wayne has offered a few suggestions for people, the same attitude of resourcefulness.
Sorry, but if the choice is being a activist or getting 'er done, I'm getting 'er done. Does that mean I think it's technically right that someone is stuck out there can't get into a building cause they don't have the two good legs I have? Hell no. Or that someone is left without a ride because they use a dog? Absolutely not. But practical solutions solve problems way quicker, and dare I say humanely, than anything these social justice furries come up with and tweet about.
Cabs, or any travel I'd not call safe.
When a company advertises they are safe, people for whatever reason believe it.
That is what I am trying to convey as to that part of it.
"You know, they say they will?"
"You know, they've got insurance."
"The law says this, so no matter what, I'm exercising my rights."
One day I went to Mexico. I was told I could take my dog, because it was my right, but I ran the risk of someone trying to, or successfully taking it from me.
I left my dog with a close friend for 2 days that also had a guide, so understood how to manage mine.
On my return to San Diego, I went to Mc Donald’s to have lunch.
The manager refused to let me order, and instructed her staff not to serve me.
She called security, and asked that I be removed, because this one was inside a building that had security guards.
Security wouldn’t touch me, because as he could plainly see, my dog was perfectly clean, and well mannered.
I and the others, seeing people, quietly left.
This was a time to push, and now, you will notice signs on McDonalds concerning your guide.
I an my friends did not make a seen, nor raise our voices. We, and security explained the rules, but she refused. Note, we quietly left.
You have two situations, one was not a time to push, and the other was.
Again, reason is how I choose to view situations.
Exactly, you capitulated. It seems to be your best move. And I find your,
seemingly at least, attempted connection between you leaving and an
international franchise of restaurants acknowledging federal law rather
laughable.
And Leo. First, we're not talking about practicality, we're talking about our
rights. The fact that you would neglect your own rights in favor of ease, does
not an argument make. It does, however, sadness make. As for Wayne, it would
take a lot of explaining for me to illustrate how exactly he's sheltered. Research
the term Sambo, it will start you down the path.
Smile.
I knew you'd not believe that.
However, you don't know about me, nor who I am, and was at the time of the issue.
That is fine.
Use my post as a reference of what I think about when it is time to push an issue, and when it is time to use reason.
I trust, as you go along in life, you'll learn that pushing, and pushing, and pushing, each time you feel slighted, just won't get you as far as you think it is.
It seems like when the ADA, and organizations like this get something passed, it is a good thing, but it doesn't always work as it should.
I am willing to bet, this one doesn't.
I am also open minded enough to see others won't agree with my views and that is exactly what I write, my view.
An example of this was NFB verses ACB on the borders near light rail trains.
NFB tried to get the measure stripped, because it was the view that we should know how to travel, and didn't require the borders.
ACB thought they'd be good things to have.
To this day, these simple, cheap to add borders has not only saved the life of blind persons, but the visual as well.
Without the swearing (because I don't do that), I couldn't have said it better myself re Wayne Leo.
Cody, I'm sorry but you have no argument as far as wayne is concerned here. It's not fair to ridicule people for your own amusement, or whatever you choose to call it. I am absolutely beyond understanding why you savagely pick on people the way you do.
However, Regarding the main argument though on uber, I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Sambo is a demeaning term for African Americans. That is what I've found.
If you mean he's being something of an Uncle Tom, who are you,or I for that matter, to say as much? For all this discussion by the social justice otherkin types, talking about privilege and who can and who can't say what when and where, a fellow honk calling someone like Wayne a Sambo, from one honk to another I'm saying that's patently ridiculous. And I'm not one of these thought control types: I'm just one who walks the middle ground of reasonable most times. If I find it patently ridiculous, what must your fellows think?
Looks like a pretty degrading term.
Cody doesn't care; and he won't care in future either.
He thinks he's so wise about the world, but he's very young and has a lot to learn about social norms.
Shame really, because, like the above example where I stated I agree with his Uber argument, I agree also with some of his other arguments he puts up but, as someone else so rightly said, they fall among deaf ears, mostly, because of how he argues his points.
I've never denied you can get into trouble with a regular taxi. The only difference is, regs are set into place.
Cody, someone should tell you that words like Uncle Tom, and Sambo, I think, are crossing the line of Terms Of Service. And, I wonder when you talk like that, if you shave your head every morning. Because, you sound just like a skin-head. Basically, I don't see the point in listening to you put others down, when you can't even follow rules. When you grow up, and realize, if it isn't too late, that your words will fall on deaf ears, when you get all racist and all, you might actually become respectable. You have a long way. And, if anyone asks me what I think of you, they'll know that you have to resort to using racist terms, long gone ones, at that, to get your point across. I feel sorry that your parents never taught you that racism is wrong. Luckily, I learned that at an early age. You want sheltered, look at you. The high-and-mighty blind guy who can get trips to foreign countries, while spouting racist comments. Yeah, you look really stupid up there, on your self-made high horse. Grow up, and act as mature as you "claim," to be. Frankly, you fall quite short, these days.
Blessings!
Sarah/HW
alright guys. first, cody, you need to chill the fuck out. stating how you feel about something is fine, but attacking someone just because they do not agree with you is childish and you need to grow the hell up. anyway, uber is plenty safe. the things that happen with uber, can happen anywhere, even in a taxy. sarah, I understand your need to feel safe, but someone could get shot or raped, just by exiting his or her home. you could get shot on a bus, in a cab, or in a car driven by an uber or lift driver, it doesn't matter where you are.
Cody, I can respect that you're so sure of your arguments that you feel your position won't be compromised by acting like an ass. But unfortunately, you aren't the one who's going to decide that. The others who read your arguments and insults, not to mention the targets of said arguments and insults, are going to do that. I've been partially where you are; I can be a bit of a jerk myself when I argue sometimes.
If you make the right argument the wrong way, it's still possible for people to think you're wrong because of how you dealt with the situation. Sometimes people need to chill the hell out and listen; sometimes you, Cody, need to chill the hell out and argue (or completely ignore stuff you don't like) instead of starting fires.
You aren't going to change those zoners you think are idiots by insulting them or making fun of them. They're either going to agree with your argument and concede the point - and often you really do have good points - or they're going to dismiss what you're saying as just another Cody acid bath, no matter how valid the argument at the center of all your vitriol is.
Put another way, if you're here to argue and discuss things in a mature and relatively rational fashion, you're often doing a piss-poor job of it. If you're here to feel personally vindicated, to congratulate yourself on your inventiveness in the creation and applications of insults that bury your rhetoric, then carry on.
Going to agree here with LTE on one point. Okay, so cabs aren't perfectly safe. Neither are most things. Wwe should stop quibbling about this and focus on issues of reasonable risk. If you have a day-job that forces you to leave your house, and getting to work involves crossing a busy street on foot, you take a risk. It's reasonable, however, provided you are capable of using the skills necessary to keep yourself safe. It is possible that you can make a mistake, or that a car can run a red light and hit you. You would not, however, use this argument to avoid going to work unless your rate of success at crossing the street was low enough to seriously jeopardize your safety.
I think the same is true for things like cabs, buses, probably even Uber and Lift and stuff like that. Bad experiences are not to be ignored, but nor should they necessarily be taken as a given either. Statistically speaking, you are far more likely to get a good (or non-dangerous) cabbie than a bad or dangerous one. If you take three cabs in your life and two of them make you uncomfortable, that sucks and I do feel for you, but it's important to remember that you really did beat the odds, and should at least consider trying again if needs must. It's also very important to remember that two or three bad cabbies does not a dangerous choice make.
You know, Cody's actually a very smart guy. And I've been pissed as hell when he claimed I would leave the wife or daughter to fend for themselves after a rape.
In fact, he's too damned smart for the social justice social sciences crowd. If he ever takes up engineering, the rest of us will take up ... our hats off to him.
But these social justice people and their extreme black-and-white thinking utilize the same measures as was used against him and a shit ton of other kids I've seen, by the fundamentalists. Leave the church, head into the soft (headed) sciences side of academia, exchange one set of black and whites for another. Exchange one set of Orwellian thoughtcrimes for another. Exchange one kind of original sin for another.
Never allowed to challenge the assertion that there is collective guilt / collective responsibility, be it original sin or racial / gender guilt. Never challenge the idea that thoughts themselves are harmful.
I don't blame him. I blame us. And by "us", I mean the culture that created a religiously extremist climate, and at the same time created its inverse -- the type of social justice / thought control action we've seen since the 90s. That was just getting started when I was at college. Challenge the writing of Mao Tsetung, and you are automatically in cohoots with Wall Street, Aparthide, and anything else they could throw at you. Today, challenge any number of assertions, aqnd just like the young earthers do, you'll be accused of association with all manner of ills.
Explanations aren't excuses, but I thought one was in order. And I write this with appropriate regret: not collectively but personally having been passively accepting of what both aforementioned groups have done to kids under my own watch. It can only be rectified one person at a time, but both matrices, providing similar but competing simulations of reality, vy for as many participants as possible, to serve as human shields and cannon fodder for their causes.
Oh I agree that Cody does seem quite an inteligent guy who obviously does a lot of reading, and that is to be very much admired - at least by me.
It's that black or white attitude I can't deal with either.
Cody. That Sambo stuff is over the line. Be careful. Consider this a warning. You almost got a 2 week bann for this one. If debating is your thing, go for it. if insulting people is your thing, go for it, but slinging around racial slirs is against the rules here, and you're well aware of it. Your implication is not a nice one.
Tried Uber last night, I had to get to the outskirts of the city -- 8 miles, last night for some certification at one of our fire stations.
Add to this, the President was just coming in, and this was commuter rush hour time. Our cab companies are pretty good, we have two. But due to high demand and low cab to passenger ratios here in Portland, it takes a cab a long time to get here.
Uber arrived in six minutes and I was there in 20 or so.
also, the same drivers are allowed to drive for both Uber and Lift.
One thing, I messaged the driver telling him I'm blind. He didn't see the message and it made me wonder: how do you guys usually do that? The Curb app for cabs lets you message from within it and the cab driver gets it, I don't know if spoken or not.
I try and tell them I'm blind because it's an extremely busy area. Then they can roll down the window, call out, or say, "Hey go around the corner to that parking lot," or whatever, because they already knew I am blind, have a cane, and I usually provide them with a description of myself -- the bag I've got, etc. Since I usually use them for deployment -- orange vest, boots, cap / helmet, what have you, I'm pretty easy to see if they know what to look for. Again, mainly matters in crowded / busy areas like mine.
No complaints. Just I'm figuring you all use a different method than he "Message the Driver" button?
Oh btw unlike your cab company apps, Uber just takes from your credit card, there isn't a tip option. I felt a bit like a dick for this, because I had no small change with me. I think Uber needs to put a tip button in their app like the cab companies have, but I usually have a few singles and a five hanging around, so will just have to remember that.
Personally, I just call a cab on my phone, and when I tell them where to pick me up, I add that I'm visually impaired with a cane. Sometimes I forget, but usually at that point I'm at home and fairly visible, since I'm usually the only one obviously standing and waiting. If I'm being picked up in a crowded place, such as college or a mall or some such, I do my best to tell them every time. Usually if I do that, a driver will hail me at a distance, or will stop near me and ask my name (which I also usually give, because often they ask). I've had a hitch only a few times, and then only if I've forgotten to tell them I'm blind or when there are multiple places to be picked up and a driver has gotten confused. I have never used an app to call a cab; phone is good enough for me.
Mr. Forereel. you said that California does not offer the 1 million dollar insurance policy?
Your information is once again wrong, if you'd like, you can skip right to the last sentence.
Since February 2013, Uber has offered ridesharing as the lowest-cost, most reliable on-demand transportation alternative. Bringing uberX with ridesharing to market in the U.S. has also required robust insurance coverage. Uber’s best-in-class insurance coverage for ridesharing in the U.S. includes as of July 14, 2014:
•$1 million of liability coverage per incident. Uber holds a commercial insurance policy with $1 million of coverage per incident. Drivers’ liability to third parties is covered from the moment a driver accepts a trip to its conclusion. This policy is expressly primary to any personal auto coverage (However it will not take precedence over any commercial auto insurance for the vehicle). We have provided a $1 million liability policy since commencing ridesharing in early 2013.
•$1 million of uninsured/underinsured motorist bodily injury coverage per incident. In December 2013, we also added uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. In the event that another motorist causes an accident with an uberX vehicle and doesn’t carry adequate insurance, this policy covers bodily injury to all occupants of the rideshare vehicle. This is important to ensure protection in a hit and run.
•Contingent comprehensive and collision insurance. If a ridesharing driver holds personal comprehensive and collision insurance this policy covers physical damage to that vehicle that occurs during a trip up to the actual cash value of the vehicle, for any reason, with a $1,000 deductible.
•No fault coverage (e.g., Personal Injury Protection) is provided in certain states at similar levels as limos or taxis in those cities.
•$50,000/$100,000/$25,000 of contingent coverage between trips.** During the time that a ridesharing partner is available but between trips, most personal auto insurance will provide coverage. However the driver is also backed by an additional policy that covers driver liability for bodily injury up to $50,000/individual/accident with a total of $100,000/accident and up to $25,000 for property damage. This policy is contingent to a driver’s personal insurance policy, meaning it will only pay if the personal auto insurance completely declines or pays zero. This policy meets or exceeds the requirements for 3rd party liability insurance in every state in the U.S.
As for you constantly bringing up India as your posterchild for bad service, I cannot argue. All I can debate is what happens in the states, and according to this nice statement posted by Uber, the entire United States is covered.
If you read the pages I provided, directly from Uber's news page, they state, California doesn't require it, so they don't have it there.
I just read on their page.
Lately, they have also stopped service in Kansas over some regulations they do not wish to uphold.
Cody, you need help. No offense.
All I'm going to say, is if you're just going to quote a website, just say to go there. And, the obvious rings true to me. If a company "Does not have to," provide something, it will not. If it wants to work with the states that require certain things, it will. If not, it won't contract or get a license to provide or, the equivelent.
And, again, if I ask for a quote, then share it. Please don't waste time that we could be useing to do something pointless, by asking us to read something pointless?
Blessings,
Sarah/HW
Leo, I'm not sure why the driver didn't get your message about being blind. I've used both Uber and lyft, and texted drivers to let them know I'm blind, and in all but one case, they've gotten the message, and responded with something like "OK," or, Thanks," or whatever. So yeah, you did the right thing by sending a message, maybe the problem was on the driver's end. I don't know. But if you use Uber in the future, I'd do the same thing.
If I had one complaint about Uber, it's that they don't allow tipping from within the app. Lyft allows this, and I wish Uber would follow suit. Hopefully someday they will.
I think the tip is already included in your fair.
The once or twice I used it, that is what I saw anyway.
Then it's one skinny little tip. I just paid less than a cab ride to get all the way out there to the fire station. I would actually like it if there was a tip button. Sometimes drivers go the extra mile and deserve a little extra.
I just have family and friends in the service industry so guess I feel strongly about that. Tips can be the difference between whether some of them pay the rent or not.
I agree, people in the service industry should be tipped.
But, I believe Uber includes a fair tip so that they do get one.
You know, I think anyone who does their best, should be tipped. I got family who think different, but I don't have to agree with them. And, whether you tip someone or not, they get taxed for it.
I think even I would tip a good Uber driver, or LYFT driver. Even with my concerns about the services. If they treated me right... Well, it's the right thing to do. At least, in my thoughts.
This could seriously become a new topic, in the future. Tip, or not? But, bet you guys hashed this out before, too. LOL
Anyway, if I ever get time, I might ask for curiosity's sake.
Blessings!
Hot Wheels
I believe in tipping someone if they've provided good service. If Uber does include a tip in the fare, then it's a lousy one, and the good drivers deserve better. So, even though it means I have to deal with making sure I have cash, I do keep small bills on me when I use Uber so that I can tip the drivers, unless they really suck. That's why I wish Uber would follow Lyft's example and allow one to add a tip from inside the app. I also leave feedback for the driver, because not only do they see it, but so does Lyft or Uber HQ. In the very few cases where I had a bad experience with a driver, someone from Uber has contacted me to ask about my experience, and what could be done to improve the service. I also know that drivers who get good feedback can get commendations, so that's why I leave it.
When I take cabs here in Canada, I either bring cash to pay that way, or I use my debit card with one of their mobile interact machines. People have said all sorts of bad things about those, but I have never yet been scammed; heaven knows they have the opportunity, too, but every time I go in a cab, I check shortly afterword to see that the amount quoted to me on the meter was the amount charged to my debit card. I've never had an issue with this. These machines also have a tip option; some drivers, when helping with the machine, will blaze right past this and not give me a chance to tip them even if I was going to, but it's quite easy to deal with. In any event, the machine is fairly easy to use, and I've basically memorized the order of the prompts and the layout of the buttons so I know what I'm doing with very minimal help nowadays. Do Uber and Lift and stuff absolutely require that you set up a credit or debit card through the app and pay that way? Or can you just pay them using mobile debit or cash if you wish? And if the latter is possible, why does it matter if there's no tip option in the app? Could you not just pay whenever you get where you're going using whatever card you fancy, and add a tip manually?
Uber and Lift only let you pay through the app, the driver never sees the credit card. This is marketed as for customer safety and Uber / the drivers not being liable.
Now I love that idea. Not easy for people without cards unless they can use pay pal.
We apparently have Uber out there; not tried them yet myself.b
PayPal works with it last I checked.
I set mine up with Apple Pay however to see how it works. Lol
I wish I had Uber where I live right now. As it stands, I don't even have a reliable taxi service, so I'd take Uber over nothing at all. I don't travel with a dog these days because I don't have one, but it would be annoying as hell if a driver chose not to take me because of my service animal.
To those of you who don't agree that the drivers shouldn't discriminate against dog users, say what you will, but consider the following:
Most of us who chose to have a guide do need to use it as a primary mode of mobility at this point.
Most of us prefer to navigate streets and buildings with one versus the cane, and some of us really have to do so. If we've been afforded the opportunity to use a guide, why should we inconvenience ourselves just to make it a little more comfortable for someone else. We're not using volunteer drivers when wee choose to use uber; we pay for the service fair and square, just like anyone else. It's supposed to cater to the convenience of those who choose it as a mode of transportation, and it puts some money in the pocket of the drivers; it's a win-win deal.
Secondly, whoever decides not to bring their dog with them so that they don't inconvenience someone else probably shouldn't use a dog in the first place. I understand if you don't want to bring a dog to a loud concert event, if you only go to one once or twice a year, or if you choose not to bring him or her to an amusement park when you visit one annually or whatever. those environments are far too unfamiliar for most guides to want to bother with taking them for that one day or for infrequent occasions. But if you go somewhere routinely, and routinely you'd like to use Uber, why the heck would you want to leave your dog behind for those trips? At that point, having the dog would be, well, pointless.
I don't care whether Uber is a taxi service or not. I know it isn't; but it is a service nonetheless. It's a business, and the people who drive their cars to provide this service are doing so with the intention of financial gain. I don't care if they get paid ten dollars per ride or fifty; they choose to use their cars to offer a service. In that case, they shouldnt' get to pick and choose who they offer this service to. As long as the customer is willing to pay and does not pose a danger to the driver, it's wrong not to take him or her.
To take that one step further, plenty of people use Uber to transport their sick kids when no other means of transportation is available. Many of my blind mom friends ride with their kids often, as a matter of fact. A sick kid is bound to cough and sneeze and cry and maybe even smell; he's even apt to puke all over the car and through a tantrum. Should the driver pass up on the mom with the sick kid too? After all, the same concerns that they have for the dog can be attributed to driving with the kid. What about carseats? Should drivers discriminate against people riding with kids because they have to take the time to buckle a carseat and then take it back out of the car after the trip? That's a hassle too, isn't it?
It all comes down to education and premeditation, folks. Drivers signing up to offer this service should notice that Uber is listed as compliant with ADA, and they should gain some semblence of a clue that, hey, I might need to drive a blind person with a dog, or a mom wtih a sick kid, or a sick person in general... do I really want to do that?
Everyone goes into it for a quick buck without thinking, and that's where the problems arise.
The blind dog handler should also practice responsible dog ownership and keep himself and his dog well-groomed, as well as keep a few portable cleaning supplies in a bag so they can clean up any messes the dog might leave behind.
call me nuts or say I'd cramp your style, but when I was a dog user, I always carried a small towel with me in case it rained and the dog got wet, and I always carried a pack of wet wipes in case I had to wipe down someone else's property after my dog made it less than spotless.
A little consideration on both parts goes a hell of a long way.
And the fact remains that, when a person is going into business by way of working with people and serving the general public, he should go into it with the idea in mind that the general public may include a wide range of people. It's ridiculously ignorant to go into business with the idea of making money by serving others, and then picking and choosing who they're going to serve as an afterthought. That sort of ignorance shouldnt' be condoned, period.
I can see your point, but again, this is a shared ride service.
Even Uber in the advertisement states the driver drives when they want, and picks up who they want.
I believe they put that in the add, because they are looking for people willing to share the ride for a few bucks, not make it a job or living like a taxi.
When I worked dogs, I took public transit mainly, so about 85% of the time, I had my dog with me for the abilities it provided.
But, again, I had times when it was best to leave it home.
I also did lots of walking to places, because it was simply easier to do so with a dog over a cane, and I enjoyed the exercise.
Most times when I'd use a service like this, I'd be traveling to some evening event, like a concert, so due to the noise, would prefer to leave my dog.
Some times it wasn't the noise, but the amount of people that were going to be in a small car.
So, I have stated that due to Uber being a shared service, and not actually a professional job for the people willing to share a ride, they should be allowed, s Uber states in the add, to choose who they take.
I could more agree with this if Uber were the only means of traveling for the blind, like if we had no taxi service, buses, trains, or whatever in the area, but mostly this is not the case.
Next, I could agree if Uber hired drivers and provided cars for them to use on the job, or told them up front, this was like a taxi service.
Wayne, what you might use Uber for is not why others might need it. It's great that you live somewhere where you're fortunate enough to walk to places, but that's not ofsen the case in Ameriaa, especially suburban america. Most of the drivers who take uber passengers go into is as a side job, and that contributes to a person's living. They don't just make pocket change from their travels. And again, it all comes down to education and forethought. If I'm going to let someone refuse to serve me based on whether I have a dog with me or not, I should also have the right to refuse to pay on the basis of someone being a douchbag. lol Either they want my money or they don't.
I love that Bernadetta; If only we can use that. :)
I've lived in both: places with no transportation, and places where I can walk everywhere.
This Uber business is the same old problem other industries have had. Should a private landlord be required to accept people with kids? At one time, this was not the case, and similar arguments to Wayne's were put forth as to why kids might be a nuisance to the private owner of property. (Duh, you don't rent from the government for a space to live in.)
It's a problem, and those of us that have lived in areas with little to no transportation understand this. Changes like this are made for the least fortunate, not the most heavily resourced. So it basically doesn't matter that I living where I do can either walk or bus / train / trolley nearly anywhere. Although even here I still have to use a cab to get places outside the zones.
What really matters is the people living where there isn't any transit, and this country is full of vehicle-friendly pedestrian-hostile places to live.
Thank you for summing up my point so concisely, leo. I live in hell as far as transportation is concerned. And now, in order for my son to go to a school we really want him to attend, I'm preparing to move even farther into the depths of transportation hell. I know you understand this predicament perfectly, Leo, as I remember you moved to a place that lacked trasportation for the sake of your child's education as well.
Yep; Uber may be a simple convenience to some, but to those of us who grasp at straws to get anywhere, it, and services like it are more a lifeline than just a casual ridesharing service. but the point is, we aren't hanging on the uber drivers' car bumpers, grappling for a free ride. We're more than willing to pay. lol. And so, if we pay, and they want us to, they should serve accordingly.
Nuff said. lol.
Someone will gladly take your money. Some will refuse base on this is my personal car, not a company car.
As I said many many posts ago, it's actually pretty open and shut.
If the company is bound to the ADA and is supposedly compliant, but also says it's a ride-sharing service where drivers are using their own cars and expecting to pick and choose their customers, this is a conflict, and in that case the law wins easily.
If I made a company and blatantly stated that I was only going to make hats for white people, first of all I'd get laughed at and sneered at and shouted as, as well I should. Second of all, if my company was bound to follow any anti-discrimination law, then no matter what I'm saying in my paperwork or mission statement, I have to follow the law.
It doesn't matter what Uber says it wants to do. If they're bound to the ADA, then the only thing that matters is what Uber -has to do. Wants have nothing to do with it.
Bernadetta is pretty much spot on here. If you aren't comfortable with that, then don't drive for Uber. You, as a person, have every right in the world to put whoever you want in your car, assuming they're willing of course, and drive them places. You also have every right to refuse someone a ride if they ask for it. But the instant you start working for a business, even if that business is just a loose conglomeration of other like-minded individuals, you're bound to that business, and your own personal rights, as concerns your ability to accept or refuse rides in the context of your business, no longer apply.
I also want to clarify something. I don't think anyone's saying that leaving the dog home regularly is a good idea. At worst, what I'm saying is that you don't have to take the dog absolutely everywhere you go. If you're headed to a friend's place where there aren't any dogs and where your friend has an allergy, or if you're just taking a ten-minute trip to the corner store for essentials, stuff like that...you shouldn't feel guilted into leaving the dog behind, but nor should you bring the dog just on simple damned principles. And, of course, loud places like concerts are a whole different case. You guide-dog users have learned how to be proficient with a cane for many very good reasons; one of them is the judicious use of said cane if the situation suggests it.
hello folks. I am a major fan of Uber and Lyft. They have gotten me out of a few binds and were a whole lot cheaper then the cab companies. I have defended Lyft and Uber at a city councel hearing. I don't think people taking Lyft or Uber should have to take Guide dogs if they don't want to. First, a driver may have had a bad experience with service animels. Second, what if someone is out in the rain and doesn't want there car dirty and wet inside from the dog? This is a biger issue then dogs. Many state and city governments want Uber and Lyft out of there aeria. They will use this dog issue as part of there major objective. This is why I am against the rulling the judge made. That said though. I do think we dhould educate the drivers about service animels. If the driver doesn't want to pick you up with your dog. Then raight that driver low or email support at Lyft or Uber. If enough people complained that driver might not be able to worke for Lyft or Uber.
Well that has been resolved.
It looked like they are trying to become a cab service.
They are even talking putting their own cars on the street.
It is getting interesting.
Well, they are doing just fine. And, the taxi companies are all taken over by Corperations. What's the difference?
Blessings,
Sarah
I hope Uber doesn't become another cab service. That's the last thing we need. Uber was suppose to get away from the trudissionaly way of doing things.
I agree. It's a great service, and my experience has been of clean, usually new vehicles, and polite drivers. They want your return business!
Taking my dog hasn't been an obstacle, but in part, that may be due to living in a small city, and after a few months knowing the same few drivers.
Seems like the worry of sick and/or filthy dogs is very exaggerated! How often is a well cared-for dog really going to be sick in a car, on a short trip? In nearly 20 years of being a guide dog handler, this has never happened to me! Never on a bus, never in a taxi. If the dog is wet or has muddy paws, the dirt left will be on the floor, where a person's muddy shoes would be, too. No one says humans shouldn't ride in these cars on a rainy day! Silly.
And, it's not any less safe than any other mode of transportation, in my opinion. Waiting at bus stops with panhandling bums, late in the evening seems more of a risk, but I also take that risk, when necessary; lots of blind people do, and no one suggests we stop using public transportation! This Uber is just something new, unknown to a lot of people, so it takes time to become familiar and comfortable with it, maybe. No reason to be unduly fearful.