Also, the change I'm proposing changes the fee structure as well. I'm sure they do deep analysis any time they change the fee structure. It would probably take a ton of effort to add what I suggest.
I think they should do it, but it probably doesn't come up often enough to be worth it.
> I think they should do it, but it probably doesn't come up often enough to be worth it.
That's the thing, it's not worth it to the people that are not affected by these situations. To those that are, it's life changing. Which is part of the reason ADA appears to side so heavily with those with disabilities. A tiny inconvenience to a driver means a blind person can make it to work on time. The driver should of course be compensated for their time and any cleanup required should also be covered - that's a no brainer.
Totally understand the fear of dogs or allergies, but people systematically abuse those situations which further reduces ease of access for those with real disabilities. Emotional support animals on planes for example - plenty of people need them but a lot of others just used it to get their animal on the plane.
This feels like a misrepresentation of the kind of effort required. For a company of Uber's scale such an effort barely registers. And they could go live with the change in selected markets in the interest of minimizing it even further. But at the end of the day this isn't a matter of effort but of reward, and Uber probably sees none.
You have that backwards. For a company of Uber's scale, this is a major initiative. For a small company they can just code it up and put it in the app.
Uber has all the resources needed to implement this, they don't need to outsource, they don't need to commission studies, they have all they need upfront because it's the same skills and resources that make them money now. If they saw an opportunity they wouldn't have left money on the table.