[Huberis]

It's illegal to refuse anyone with a service animal. You're a cab driver, know the laws. The customer doesn't need to provide any documentation either. You as the driver are allowed to ask 2 questions.

1. Is this a service animal?
2. What service does this animal provide?

Past that if the customer says yes, you must take it regardless if he had a giraff or mouse.

Laws are laws bro. You're not exempt.

The Uber driver is not a taxi driver in the sense that (as defined by pending SB984) TNCs are not common carriers.

Strictly speaking, as a taxi driver, I do not personally need to take a passenger with any kind of animal service or otherwise. That is how my particular company operates. If a given driver is has a fear of dogs or an allergy or simply isn't comfortable with any given situation, they are not forced to accept any trip offered them. The company itself does need to find transportation for the pax and their service dog and if a driver declines a call after being told a dog is involved, dispatch simply asks the next closest driver. "How do you feel about dogs??"

The way Uber handles this, which is to put the burden on the shoulders of individual drivers is in order to stay clear of anything which could suggest that maybe just maybe Uber is in the transportation business and maybe should be thought of itself as a common carrier.

Uber's fear of regulation makes their handling of this issue a bit clunkier than one would typically expect of a TNC. The burden is on the driver.

 

[Huberis]

::face palm:: Jesus, I'm one of the few people on here who actually have a legitimate hack/limo license. I wouldn't just make this stuff up.

Look up SB984 which is working its way through Harrisburg. The first five or six pages describe the conditions which define how taxis, limos and TNC operate. Taxis are common carriers while TNCs, the document insists (for better or for worse) are not common carriers. For that reason alone, an Uber driver is not a taxi driver by another name.

As for the ADA requirements. In 16 years of taxi driving, I have never once been sent to a call and unexpectedly discovered my pax to have a dog with them, service or otherwise. The pax have always informed dispatch of their pooch. I think of myself as a bit of a dog on my best days, so it is never an issue with me. The taxi company I drive for is responsible for pairing a capable driver to the call.

My point is that regardless of the law, through proper dispatching and communication there should be no need to force any particular driver to run a call they aren't comfortable running. No one wants to be paired with a driver who is suddenly uncomfortable or distracted. Uber seems eager to distance itself from having to make individual decisions in order to fulfill ADA obligations. That seems rather clear, the burden is on the driver.

There is a certain logic behind the manner in which Uber handles the entire issue. Being a TNC driver is very casual, drivers are risking their necks and their often expensive cars. Hauling around strangers dogs is an example of a situation where it is suddenly hard to ignore the kind of wear and tear your car is subjected to. It seems likely most TNC drivers aren't going to be into allowing animals...... The TNC companies simply don't account for wear and tear to the cars. The result is Uber makes it super hard to excuse oneself from such duty or everyone would be doing it and make it impossible for them to be compliant at all........ This is a minor shortcoming.

 

[Huberis]

There's such a small chance that the bill will pass, to me it's not worth reading. It's essentially dead.

That's important, how about some references? I would like to read up on that, I haven't heard anything suggesting it is dead.

 

[Huberis]

There's such a small chance that the bill will pass, to me it's not worth reading. It's essentially dead.

regardless of the fate of the bill, if TNC drivers are not common carriers or they would be regulated by now, there would be no dcking around.

 

[Huberis]

I am not a TNC driver. I am not sure it would only encourage Uber to drop rates. Uber would need to pay the state fees which would support the regulatory commission. They would be held more accountable/transparent. I did not like the fact that 984 excused itself from pricing concerns.

The bill as it stands paves the way for the state to get control of something which is out of control, it creates an opportunity for accountability and where things go from there who knows?

The pricing concerns in my mind are a symptom of a poorly defined relationship (an abusive one) between TNC and driver. SB984 does not concern itself at all with the actual status of the drivers as independent contractors versus the employees they are treated as.

This is a big problem. One bill is not going to tame this beast. SB984 could slow this horse down and allow people to see it in a more meaningful light.

 

[Huberis]

The thing is taxis have uber style apps too, so it seems everything is heading in a linear direction. I doubt if Uber/Lyft are around in a few years there will be much difference in service (between tnc and cabs). The only advantage a taxi had is street hailing. Everything else is heading the same direction.

There is nothing special about Uber's actual app by this point. What is powerful is their ubiquity. Uber has access to what amounts to a free fleet of cars. They are able to make all kinds of decisions which effect a driver's bottom line without feeling the slightest concern for that circumstance. That is a powerful tool. Uber can simply throw cars at problems, zero concern for waste.

The taxi apps out there are pretty good all things considered. A decent taxi company of a manageable size can operate pretty efficiently. They can arguably do more with fewer cars - in my opinion. WHat they can;t do is magically conjure up scores of cars when business spikes and people are most likely to be impatient.

It isn't the app that lets Uber succeed during peak times, it is their false economy of having access to free cars. That is the crux of the biscuit.