A federal lawsuit has been filed in California against the ride-sharing company, Uber, for allegedly refusing to carry service dogs for blind passengers and in one case putting a dog in the trunk of a vehicle without the owner's knowledge,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/09/10/uber-sued-for-allegedly-refusing-rides-to-the-blind-and-putting-a-dog-in-the-trunk/
Of course, there is something missing in the Washington Post coverage. This is a recurring problem in many cities where taxi drivers have refused to carrying dogs-service or otherwise. The reason is that the drivers (Muslims) consider dogs to be unclean and offensive.
I say tough. If you want to be a cab driver or driver of any public conveyance, you are required to carry service dogs. Bus drivers cannot deny admittance to a service dog. Why should anyone else? We haqve laws in place to insure equal access for the handicapped and they should be enforced. If being around dogs offends your sensitivities, religious or otherwise, get another job.
One of the problems with Uber's entire model is they recruit people to use their own personal vehicles, many of them just taking an occasional ride if they're going the same way.
ReplyDeleteThe truth is, doing your own thing freely with a minimum of regulation poses massive problems. This is one of them. Hey, I just wanted to pick up a little spare cash taking a rider I got off this cool app. I don't want dogs in my car.
Uber did recognize they would have to vet drivers... cars in safe running order, criminal background checks, etc. But the more they move along, the more regulatory issues they run into. Legitimate regulatory issues. Their drivers might as well just become cabbies. But then they have to pay the full cost of getting into the industry.
Of course if we shrink government until it is small enough to drown in a bathtub, anything goes, and if a driver doesn't want a dog in the car, they just drive off in a cloud of dust.
If Uber wants to run a company, they have to be subject to certain regulations, no?
ReplyDelete