[Nfbmo] {Spam?} Re: {Spam?} Re: Deputies: Uber driver refused ride to blind man, serv...

DanFlasar at aol.com DanFlasar at aol.com
Sat Jul 9 03:08:23 UTC 2016

I agree that everyone should be  covered by the ADA, but as a former cabbie 
in Chicago, there are a few things to  remember:
            Cab  drivers who own their own cabs still drive them as part of 
an established  company - for example, Yellow or Checker cabs, and so are 
governed by all the  policies, rules and regulations of the parent  company.  
  Such drivers do not use their cab for personal  use, unlike Uber drivers. 
 The reason a driver might want to own their own  cab is to increase their 
share of the fare.  In effect, the company driver  pays the parent company 
rental for the cab they use that day.  There might  be rental agencies that 
would be willing to rent a car for commercial use, but  all the rental car 
agreements I've ever signed exclude use of the car for  commercial (ie, taxi) 
        There are no doubt cabbies who  do refuse to pick up passengers 
based on all kinds of reasons - including  allergies, discrimination or any 
other issue they can come up with, but in doing  so, they are violating any of 
a number of laws, including the ADA.
     Uber and Lift, due to their unique business  nmodel, escape the 
scrutiny that cab companies are subject to, and in doing so,  are problenatic in 
fitting the legal definition of being a public common  carrier.
      When I referred to insurance, I was  speaking only for damage to the 
cab and the other vehicle.  Different  jurisdictions have different rules 
for personal injury insurance  requirements.  I know that Uber provides no 
insurance of any sort for their  contracted drivers - it's all on the driver.
        I'm glad to see that there has  been a successful suit against Uber 
(and if anyone has a link, I'd appreciate  it), and I hope they live up to 
it.  But don't be surprised if Uber finds  it problematic to enforce that 
rule - their drivers are not employees, have no  right to negotiate their 
working conditions, much less form a union.    It's good news that Uber has been 
slapped down in court.  Don't be  surprised if they appeal.
         If you're going to get  into the business of providing taxi 
service, you best be prepared to pick up all  fares, after all, that's how you 
make your money.  When I drove a cab,  I picked up anyone, no matter when, 
where or who, but it wasn't my car, and took  no financial risks.   
    I stand by my original post - the unique business  arrangement Uber has 
with their drivers might make it problematic for the  company to demand 
that it's drivers adhere to the requirements of the  ADA.   I hope these 
companies change their policies to ensure a  profitable - and safe - means of 
public transportation, for everyone concerned,  including the driver. 
In a message dated 7/8/2016 7:17:37 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
nfbmo at nfbnet.org writes:

Not really.  Many cab drivers drive their own vehicle. The alternative is
usually one of  renting a car by the day which eats into the driver's  

The same type of issues with dog guides come up  with regular cab companies
too. The difference is that the regular cab  driver sometimes will just be a
no show as they keep driving. Others are  more bold and site allergies,
religion, or fear of dogs as why they can't  take you in their car.

I don't even think the cab companies all cover  injury to the driver or

Discrimination is very real and  it must be addressed when it occurs.
Regulations don't always ensure  non-discrimination or passenger safety.

Programs like Uber and  lift are newcomers I'm glad we have as 
options. Let's  address the problem drivers and hold Uber responsible for
carrying out the  settlement they have recently agreed upon. Let's not
conclude that the  service as a whole is problematic. I get really weary of
people trying to  justify why someone discriminated against one of  us.


-----Original  Message-----
From: Nfbmo [mailto:nfbmo-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Dan  Flasar via
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 2:12 PM
To:  nfbmo at nfbnet.org
Cc: DanFlasar at aol.com
Subject: [Nfbmo] {Spam?} Re:  Deputies: Uber driver refused ride to blind
man, service dog

And  this is exactly the problem with Uber, or Lift or any other service  
puts all the risk on the 'contractor' (Uber drivers are not  considered  
employees, legally).   A cab driver drives for  a company vehicle,  carries 
company insurance, is paid a salary and  receives all tips on top of  that. 
The more they drive, the  nore they make, at little personal  risk.
Uber drivers pay for everything themselves (gas,  insurance,  maintenance
), provide their own vehicle, and are not allowed to   accept tips.  If an
Uber driver gets in an accident, it's tough luck  for  the driver - he is 
everything.  If a cab driver is in an  accident, the  company bears the cost
- the driver is out nothing,  though he could lose his job  if he is at

So this is the problem - a cab is just as much a public conveyance  as  a
bus or a train or a plane - there are hard fought laws that  guarantee the
right of people to bring their service dogs into such  vehicles.

But when it's your own car, that's something  quite  different.  Unlike a
cabbie, an Uber driver DOES take his  car home, and if  a family member is
allergic to dog fur, that's a  legitimate concern.

Right now, the status of  Uber drivers  is in legal limbo - they are
not considered to be  employees of the company, do  not have assigned 
have no  benefits whatsoever, and can refuse to take on  riders for their 
own  reasons.    

Full disclosure, Uber is  just the latest  example of the eroding
status of workers  rights.  Uber has been thrown out  of cities and 
all  over the world, primarily because it's business  model is designed  to
the  'public' part of 'public   transportation').    I hope Uber is taken 
court over  this  issue .  Uber has had many challenges to it's  business
model in the last  few  years - they were thrown out of  Austin, Texas
because they refused to  comply with state law that all  cab drivers have
their fingerprints scanned for  criminal  records.  Right now they skirt
public safety laws via their   business mnodel - courts may help to sort 
And of  course, not all Uber drivers will refuse to allow a  service dog
in  their vehicle, but it appears that right now, they are under no   legal
obligation to do so.
This case could be  a  game-changer.


In a message  dated 7/8/2016 6:29:19 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
nfbmo at nfbnet.org  writes:

His  daughter is allergic to dogs, so he didn't want  to allow a service dog
in his   vehicle.



We   have all heard stories of drivers refusing service to dog handling  
on  the grounds they are allergic or fear dogs. But Uber  introduces a new
wrinkle  into this battle. Since they use their own  private cars, they can
claim that  relatives are allergic to dogs to  refuse service.

This is not something  to be overlooked in light  of the proposed settlement
with Uber now pending in  the  court.


Daniel   Garcia

Nfbmo   mailing   list
Nfbmo at nfbnet.org
To   unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info  for

Nfbmo  mailing  list
Nfbmo at nfbnet.org
To  unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for  

Nfbmo  mailing  list
Nfbmo at nfbnet.org
To  unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for  

More information about the NFBMO mailing list