General Discussion

Gormy Cuss

(30,884 posts)

4. Right, it's all a big plot to make the unregulated "ride-sharing" services look bad.

Wed Sep 10, 2014, 11:29 AM

Sep 2014

Refusing rides to people who use service animals (never mind putting the service animal in the trunk) is an ADA violation that would land a cab company in hot water. A private individual can refuse to give anyone a ride. An independent contractor working for a taxi service can't. So the question becomes, why should the so-called ride sharing companies be exempt? They're not really "ride sharing" after all. They're cars for hire.

Ride sharing companies also aren't covered by the same liability coverage regs. When an Uber driver plowed into a child who was crossing legally in a crosswalk with her mother, Uber claimed they had no liability because the driver didn't have a passenger in his car even though the driver was on his way to pick one up. Had that happened with a cab, the company would have been liable and had the insurance to cover the claim.

You want to support a business like that, it's your capitalist right to do so.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

43 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Uber sued for (drivers) allegedly refusing rides to the blind and putting a dog in the trunk [View all] FrodosPet Sep 2014 OP

Good...I keep hearing more and more about how awful this company is... joeybee12 Sep 2014 #1

I would not use Uber or any other similar service. MineralMan Sep 2014 #2

Uber drivers get kicked out if their average rating falls below 4 stars. Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #26

Ha! Seems like a huge push out there to denigrate Uber. I wonder who is behind this propaganda? Pisces Sep 2014 #3

Right, it's all a big plot to make the unregulated "ride-sharing" services look bad. Gormy Cuss Sep 2014 #4

That was 1 car, not the business model. Pisces Sep 2014 #9

The fatality in San Francisco was part of the business model. Gormy Cuss Sep 2014 #19

I guess you don't have any friends who are vision impaired. Starry Messenger Sep 2014 #6

Well the Taxi companies here in Portland regularly refuse service to people with Service Dogs dilby Sep 2014 #7

And those people have recourse, don't they. I heard about that one case, which ended with apologies Bluenorthwest Sep 2014 #8

That is a clear violation of the ADA. Someone should sue. n/t pnwmom Sep 2014 #22

This is FAR bigger than Uber FrodosPet Sep 2014 #15

obviously if you have had good luck with them, those blind people must be confused CreekDog Sep 2014 #27

I just told this story about the dog in the trunk to my former-cabbie husband. Starry Messenger Sep 2014 #5

You don't have to accept the ride. There is not a gun to your head. If someone tried to put my dog Pisces Sep 2014 #10

Is that you, Ron Paul? Starry Messenger Sep 2014 #12

I am not going to put my dog in the trunk and accept a ride to prove a point. Are you crazy. Pisces Sep 2014 #16

I guess you missed the part of the article where it's happened Starry Messenger Sep 2014 #17

Again, I ask the question: Fire the bad drivers or close down a company? Seems you are advocating Pisces Sep 2014 #18

You're the only one suggesting they close down UBER. People are saying UBER should follow the law pnwmom Sep 2014 #23

It seems like you have something personal against cabs. Starry Messenger Sep 2014 #36

You are carrying this to an extreme FrodosPet Sep 2014 #25

so you're blaming the blind person for what the Uber driver did? CreekDog Sep 2014 #28

The blind passenger didn't SEE the dog being put in the trunk. And one who did refuse pnwmom Sep 2014 #13

I would sue anybody's ass for putting my dog in the truck of a car. That said, magical thyme Sep 2014 #11

People with disability dogs aren't required to get prior approval. Other people are required to pnwmom Sep 2014 #14

This is truth FrodosPet Sep 2014 #21

The ADA requires all private businesses that serve the public, including UBER, pnwmom Sep 2014 #20

In 1999 Danny Glover filed a taxi discrimination claim in New York City.... Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #24

ADA and allergies to dog dander. Interesting paradox. NYC_SKP Sep 2014 #29

Same conflict with religion FrodosPet Sep 2014 #30

I agree with you. Religion shouldn't give one an affirmative right over another's rights. NYC_SKP Sep 2014 #31

It has been well established for the transportation industry. pnwmom Sep 2014 #32

Smell and shed and accidents are a different matter.... NYC_SKP Sep 2014 #33

It was someone responding to me who had personal experience. pnwmom Sep 2014 #37

I didn't say service dogs, I said they can disallow or charge additional fees for dogs, period. NYC_SKP Sep 2014 #38

They CANNOT. Service dogs or other service animals must be allowed without any extra fee. pnwmom Sep 2014 #39

The company is required to make reasonable accommodations for both. Gormy Cuss Sep 2014 #34

This is my understanding of it, that's the policy for, say, classrooms or offices. NYC_SKP Sep 2014 #35

The US Justice department statement specifically addressed private taxi cabs pnwmom Sep 2014 #40

Yes, I've read it. It's still a paradox between different people under ADA. (nt) NYC_SKP Sep 2014 #41

Does the ADA cover allergies? I wasn't aware of that. pnwmom Sep 2014 #42

Yes, it does. Difficult to manage, you betcha! NYC_SKP Sep 2014 #43