> Should they forced to shuttle around drunken and incontinent people too?

Holy red herring, Batman. Are you serious equating drunk people with disabled people who need physical accommodations? The ADA does not have anything to say about mandating accommodations for drunk people.

Separately, people who are incontinent actually, you know, do things to manage their condition (like wear adult diapers as necessary). They aren't just randomly shitting everywhere. Your contrived examples are just downright offensive.

I didn't read it as fully a red herring.

1. It was in response to the poster that put forward a proposition that any and all passengers must at all times be taken; let's not take the response fully out of context just to attack it with outrage.

Similarly, I charitably assumed by "drunk & incontinent" they mean, literally and as written, "those who are irresponsibly drunk to the point of losing control over their bodily functions"; not those who may have a permanent and manageable/managed medical issue.

2. In practical terms, if I may be blunt and practical for a second, a e.g. service animal shepherd: a) Legally and morally SHOULD be allowed b) ...Yet is absolutely equivalent to a vomiting drunk in terms of cleanup expenses (and in some ways worse - follow-up passengers may have severe allergy issues, or even the driver themselves!)

There's no easy "win" here. We have to acknowledge the necessity of regulating/providing for all; but also the non-zero impact on the actual real live person driving the car. They are human too!

> Yet is absolutely equivalent to a vomiting drunk in terms of cleanup expenses

I know which I'd rather clean up after

Besides the point.

I may rather clean up after a service animal; but it might well take me far longer, and thus incur a higher real cost on business - it's all very circumstantial. There are shepherds (a common service animal) that will saturate a closed vehicle with hair in 2 minutes - front, back, between the seats, under the carpet, on the ceiling, everywhere. And the hair gets tangled in the fabric weave so you need special rotary brushes or hours of painstaking manual work to remove. Whereas some vomits, disgusting as they are, are 3 min with a cloth and bucket.

Anyhoo - point being, there are desirable things we as society want to see; but we shouldn't be blind as to impact/cost that those goals have on those who are on point to actually enact them; and at the very least they should have our empathy, if not ideally an attempt to compensate/accommodate/compromise.

Thanks for the context

It stopped being their personal property the moment they started using it to run a business. Now its business property. They don't have to allow unruly/drunk/etc customers, but there are grounds its not ok to discriminate on when running a business.

In this case, I think people need to realize what they are signing up for. If you deliver pizza it's a given you will start reeking of pizza. Uber is notoriously used for designated driving, and anyone surely knows by adult hood that having diarrhea isn't a matter of if, it's a matter of when, and basic probability would tell you eventually will get a customer with diarrhea or someone who is about to throw up their tequila. Luckily Uber has some protections for you in the cleaning fee charged to the offending customer, but with Uber's excellent way around lobbying, that's about all the protections to your vehicle you can ask for with this gig.

Uber and taxi drivers are allowed to refuse drunk passengers, but they are not allowed to refuse passengers with disabilities (thanks to the ADA). It's a completely different situation.

This is not the only issue. It is an extension to a bigger issue, cancelling rides.

There are many time I have Uber driver cancelling my ride from the airport because my destination is not the big metro center, rather, just outside of it. The driver was quick to accept the request, then called and then cancel the ride. Of course, the driver would said the customer "request the cancellation".

This wasted so much of people's time.

Please don't tell with all those smart people Uber have in their payroll couldn't figure out this. Or they simply ignore it.

This wastes time and cost 5$. More than once a driver has not been able to find me at the airport (despite me giving directions as to where I am) and then cancelled the ride. This weekend I needed a ride after I missed a flight, the driver shows up and after 15 minutes of me walking around the garage looking for them the ride is cancelled and I get a 5$ charge. I’m sure you can dispute this, and they’ll likely side with you, but it’s 5$ and I’d bet they bet on most people thinking their time is worth more than 5.

I dispute this every time it happens, because it counts against your rider score and can stop you from getting rides in the future, or doom you to being matched with low-ranked drivers.

This should be easily solved if the system were working correctly. That is independent contractors were able to make bid on ride request. Undesirable destination? Customer just has to offer price someone is willing to offer a service at. At some price point someone is willing to do the job.

The whole point of granting taxi medallions in the first place was to provide a semi-monopoly on the service, in return for requiring taxi drivers to act like a public utility. There’s a societal benefit to being able to get a ride from wherever, to wherever for a pre-determined fare, without having to worry that your destination is a “bad neighborhood” or your skin is the wrong color or your guide dog might not be allowed.

We should not let ride sharing services just gut this aspect of hired car service.

So we should ban them from operating without medals? You can't have it both ways... And I don't understand why shouldn't free market apply to them as well. Or maybe start applying it to all labour. Demand that all workers can be hired at certain price level for any job...

You CAN have it both ways. We can still hold the business to requirements that we set, that represent a baseline of public acceptability, with or without medallions.

"The free market" isn't an answer to everything. We decide as a society that some forms of market pricing are not allowed. For instance, I can not pay children to work for me. I can not pay a woman less than a man. I can not pay an old person less than a younger one. I can not refuse service to someone who has a disability. These are social choices that we make, and I would argue that we SHOULD make, to restrict the free market in ways that benefit society as a whole.

Good point. Please note that I wrote: "There's nothing wrong with needing some special accomodations". I did not say you need to accomodate everything.

If someone is drunk enough that he's going to piss and throw up in the car, it might be a better idea to call an ambulance instead.

But to be honest, if you are in the transportation business, someone is going to fuck up your car sooner or later, and you really need to take potential cleaning costs into account. That's just part of the job.

Don't want your car to get dirty from driving people? Then don't offer to drive people.

Because the Americans With Disabilities Act tells them they have to.

ADA also says these accommodations need to be readily achievable. Considering the income level of people working at rideshares, it's really not achievable and extremely unfair.

Uber has tens of billions of dollars. They have to be able to achieve it, as this ruling shows. They cannot violate the ADA. Playing the whole contractor charade may help them to get around minimum wage laws but it's not gonna help them get around the ADA.

Saying that Uber doesn't have to comply with ADA because they pay their employees (sorry, contractors) nowhere near enough money seems like one of those "two wrongs don't make a right" situations.

I think the ADA would argue that allowing these people to enter your car is perfectly achievable. If you throw up in an Uber you get billed a cleaning fee.

We’re talking about letting a guide dog into your vehicle. It’s not like they were asked to transport toxic waste - it’s a guide dog. How is that remotely unfair??

If they're ferrying passengers for compensation then they absolutely should follow the law (including ADA). If they don't want to deal with all types of passengers then they don't have to be in that business.

I’m wondering if you’re trying to make a different point than the one I seem to think you made. To me, it sounds like you’re comparing people who choose to become intoxicated with differently abled people. If I choose to get so drunk that I’m vomiting, kick my dumb ass out of your vehicle. But if I’m sight impaired and have a guide dog?? If you kick me out of the vehicle, you’re not only an asshole but you’re an asshole who deserves to lose everything you worked for!

I must have read your comment wrong. Sorry if I misrepresented you, but I can’t figure out where I’ve gone wrong.