from Hacker News

Uber must pay wheelchair user $35,000, provide accessible rides

by palidanx on 3/8/24, 8:30 PM with 63 comments

by teruakohatu on 3/8/24, 8:59 PM
Where I live there are few wheelchair taxis and they need to be booked in advance, sometimes months in advance if it’s a holiday. If a driver is sick most likely all their customers are staying at home. Costs are significantly subsidised and yet still there are not enough drivers.
It is hard to scale because it requires drivers with well above average patience, empathy and a caring personality. It’s not a job for profit focused individuals.
To scale it would require drivers paid a salary not paid per trip/mile. It would also require generous allowances for time (wheelchair taxi drivers are often delayed through no fault of their own).
by kevincox on 3/8/24, 9:24 PM
> B.C.’s attorney general was named as a respondent in the complaint and in its submission said that in early 2020 it implemented a 30-cent per-trip fee under the passenger transportation act or regulation as an incentive for ride-hailing apps to provide a wheelchair accessible ride option, not to exempt them from offering one.
I think this is the interesting part. Uber was paying a fee per ride (previously $0.30, recently $0.90) which was supposed to go towards providing accessible transit options. This doesn't seem like an unreasonable way to ensure that there are accessible options while not requiring every provider to make those accommodations (which can be very expensive for smaller providers as in order to reliably offer accessible transit you need capable vesicles and always have them spread out over your operating range). It seems that raising/adjusing this fee and using the proceeds to subsidize accessible transit could be a quite efficient way to ensure that this service is available and self-balancing based on the market.
by kohbo on 3/8/24, 8:54 PM
"...Uber told the 2022 hearing into Bauer’s complaint that it didn’t violate the human rights code because it’s an app and doesn’t provide a service as defined under the code."
What an argument.
by thrill on 3/8/24, 8:55 PM
'Taxi companies “100 per cent support that Uber should also provide (wheelchair accessible vans) because why not?”'
Because the drivers own the vehicles not Uber.
by SuperNinKenDo on 3/8/24, 10:24 PM
The longer you look at it the more interesting the issue is.
The fee Uber has been paying and the assertion that it doesn't protect a company from legal liability.
The fact that what initially seems like a horrid and ridiculous argument ("we're an app!") actually unpacks to something consequential.
The fact that Uber's model ostensibly relies on personal cars being used (so who's responsible for the lack of accessible cars?).
by sevenf0ur on 3/8/24, 10:22 PM
Wow, each ride is taxed $0.90 to hopefully provide taxi companies with wheel chair accessible vehicles so they can perform rides at a loss? The city would be better off forming a non-profit and managing the rides like public transit.
by threadweaver34 on 3/8/24, 10:23 PM
Uber gonna Uber, but I'm surprised someone in management doesn't realize this is a bad look, read the tea leaves, and buy a few wheelchair taxis and have Uber-employed drivers to handle this in cities with over 100,000 people.
by webnrrd2k on 3/8/24, 10:58 PM
I'd think that Uber would just hire the wheelchair accessible taxis directly from the taxi company. Maybe the taxi company charged 3x or more for the ride, but it's still cheaper for Uber.
by primer42 on 3/8/24, 8:55 PM
> But Uber told the 2022 hearing into Bauer’s complaint that it didn’t violate the human rights code because it’s an app and doesn’t provide a service as defined under the code.
What a slimy, disgusting, in-human argument to make.
by paulpauper on 3/8/24, 8:42 PM
So much for those attention-grabbing 7-8 figure settlements that sometimes make the news. The reality is much less money. $35k so tiny can be treated as a cost of doing business.