Hacker News Reader

Comment by OJFord | Hacker News Reader

> The apps need a way for me to say "I have a carseat" or "I have a service animal"

In the UK (and EU?) those are 'protected characteristics' that it'd be illegal to discriminate against. I suppose you could ask 'for information purposes', but you'd have to be prepared to defend yourself, proving that it didn't affect the service received.

> and then give a bonus to the driver for picking me up.

Like that. Of course people are free to think 'this driver was an unusually nice guy to me and went above and beyond to help with my wheelchair', or whatever, but it absolutely couldn't be required of the customer. You can't have a 'parent or guide dog user' surcharge.

View on HN

This attitude that everything is the service providers problem is why service for the disabled is shitty. It does take longer to get into a car, etc, and that does cost a hungry driver more money.

The extra cost should be born by society, which is where the requirement comes from. If we think the disabled should ride for the same price we should make that part of medical coverage and pay the driver for the extra time spent.

As is, any sensible driver will ditch these fares with any means possible. More work, less money, and generally bitchier customers. The next time your fare comes up they'll pull over and take a bathroom break rather than responding.

If we want something, we have to pay for it, not try to stick someone else with the bill.

> This attitude [...] is why service for the disabled is shitty.

Is 'this attitude' mine (GP's)? As far as I'm aware I simply described the legal reality.

The point is that the driver may not 'ditch these fares', and that Uber (et al.) simply bares any difference as the cost of doing business.

They are not allowed, by law, to discriminate between a disabled passenger who 'takes too long', an able-bodied speedy passenger, and an able-bodied passenger who 'takes too long' for unforeseeable reasons, so it is just what it is (the 'forseeable' as the 'unforseeable').

It's society's attitude. That we can fix a problem by making it someone else's problem. In the end it costs all of us more because we're still stuck fixing it but also dealing with the consequences of bad and badly enforced laws.

We want a minimum wage so we go after the only person paying someone, the boss, and demand that they pay more. If instead we paid a (temporary) UBI to bring up the compensation it wouldn't all fall on the business owner and we wouldn't have to force them to do it.

We want morbidly obese people to be welcome on airplanes but we forbid the airline from charging them for all the seats they consume.

If we want people to pick up the disabled, and not shirk the task, then we shouldn't stick them with the cost.

We should act like adults and pay (directly) for what we want, what we feel is right - trip subsidies for medical reasons.

As far as I can tell a business is allowed to have a surcharge for carseats and dogs. However it seems reasonable that those should be waived for people who need either because of a disability (at least that seems like a 'reasonable accommodation').

Of course without anything in place there is effectively no accommodation whatsoever which seems to be one of the things that lead to this penalty (with probably more to come if more people are treated badly because of a disability).

Being a dog owner isn't a protected characteristic, requiring a guide dog is.

I am (only infinitesimally less than) 100% sure you cannot have a guide dog surcharge in the UK. (Nor can you refuse them.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com