News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Battle for the Internet. Parent comment

Re:Battle for the Internet by JoeAltmaier on Wednesday July 12, 2017 @09:09AM (#14752168)
Nit: the NYC taxi rules make no mention of race in their rules. They cover in depth payment, route selection, luggage etc but nothing about race. They have a lengthy list of acceptable reasons not to accept a passenger, many of which could be used to reject outright any person hailing the cab that the driver personally did not want to carry.

Unless the racism occurred against a disabled person, it seems totally possible for a taxi driver to freely discriminate in their selection of passengers.

So 'illegal' seems a strong word.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Battle for the Internet by andrewla on Wednesday July 12, 2017 @12:22PM (#14753830)
The rules are actually pretty strict for what can constitute legal refusal of a fare [1]. 54-20(b)(2), "The Passenger is carrying or is in possession of any article, package, case or container which the Driver reasonably believes will cause damage to the Vehicle" and 54-20(b)(9) "The passenger is disorderly or intoxicated" are really the only rules that have a subjective component.

[1] http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/downloads/pdf/rule_book_current_..., see S 54-20

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Battle for the Internet by JoeAltmaier on Thursday July 13, 2017 @10:25AM (#14761480)
...and yet, it's only four letters to spell 'race'. And its not there, anywhere. So easy to have said 'drivers will not discriminate on the basis of race, religion' or some such. And they didn't say it.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Battle for the Internet by rmc on Friday July 21, 2017 @11:26AM (#14821270)
However, if the law says "You must pick up a passenger under [SMALL LIST OF EXCPETIONS]", then you basically are banned from excluding people on the basis of their race, right?

*(NB I'm not USAian, and don't know much about US taxis)

[ Parent | on HN ]