# Uber Denies Ride to Woman in Labor



## JimS

Uber Denies Ride to Woman in Labor

So much of the story is so sensationalized. Who has a $13 cancellation fee? Oh - I guess New York did before the rate cuts. Who loses $1000 per day if they can't drive?

---

Photograph by Paul Bradbury - Getty Images/Caiaimage

*An Uber driver left a woman in labor stranded on the sidewalk. Her baby is okay, but the family is fuming at how the company acted.*

The baby was early, but the first time parents were ready. They summoned the birthing coach, grabbed the overnight bag, and stepped out the door of their New York apartment for a three mile ride to the delivery room. The Uber arrived, but then came the hitch.

Instead of taking David Lee and his wife to the hospital, the Uber driver balked because the expectant mother retched on the sidewalk. He informed them he would lose $1,000 a day if Lee's wife became sick in the car and, what's more, told them no other driver would accept a woman in labor as a passenger.

coach explained to the driver that Lee's wife would not be sick again, and the couple pleaded with the driver, assuring him they would pay for any cleaning for his car. Please, just take us to the hospital, they said. But the driver would not budge.

Instead, he drove away - but not before charging them $13 for his lost time. Lee and his wife in labor, along with the birthing coach, were left standing on a Manhattan sidewalk.

The couple's predicament may be a cautionary tale for other expectant parents who plan to use Uber or another car service to get to the hospital. But it also raises important questions of how anti-discrimination laws should apply to a generation of companies that prefer to style themselves as tech platforms rather than transportation services.

Fortunately, in the case of Lee and his wife, the day ended happily: they summoned another Uber car, which whisked them without incident to the hospital where a healthy baby boy was born a few hours later.

The ordeal with the first Uber driver on that brisk November morning is just a receding memory for the new parents. But Lee, a 37-year-old lawyer, and his wife (who did not want to be named) remains miffed at the ride-hailing company.

"I don't blame Uber for one driver's poor actions, since bad apples can appear in any organization, but I do think that when a company has a culture of bullying their way past laws and regulations, as Uber seems to do, they begin to think they can act with impunity in anything," said Lee.

In response to his complaints, Uber eventually refunded the $13. But Lee is frustrated that the company would not acknowledge any wrongdoing by Uber or by the driver.

He also feels the company stymied his attempt to identify the driver. While the trip record in Uber's app shows a driver's first name, Lee says when he asked the company for more information in order to pursue a complaint with New York's taxi regulator, a representative refused, citing a driver privacy policy. When Lee rebutted that driver licensing is a matter of public record, the company stopped replying to his emails. (He later learned driver details can be found in the email receipt sent to users after a trip).

In response to questions from Fortune, an Uber spokesperson initially said the company does not discuss individual driver incidents, and cited a privacy policy. The company also provided the following statement:

"Denying service to a passenger in labor is unacceptable: it goes against our code of conduct and the standard of service our riders rely on. We extend our deepest apologies to both riders and have taken action to respond to this complaint. We are glad that the rider's next driver was professional and courteous."

"Babies born on New York City sidewalks"

What happened to Lee and his wife can, for the most part, be chalked up to bad luck. After all, most New York City car drivers- Uber or otherwise-would have rushed to help a woman in labor. Indeed, taxi-based births are not unheard of in the Big Apple.

But Lee's experience also raises familiar questions about whether Uber should be doing more to educate its drivers about their legal responsibilities. Those responsibilities don't just relate to safe driving, but to civil rights as well.

According to Emily Martin, the general counsel of the National Women's Law Center in Washington, DC, city and state laws in New York forbid drivers from refusing women in labor.

"Uber drivers are bound by the same public accommodation laws that prohibit New York City taxi drivers and car services from discriminating on the basis of pregnancy when deciding who they will pick up-and those laws are a good thing, as they help ensure that not many babies end up being born on New York City sidewalks."

The issue of how public accommodation laws apply to Uber also surfaced last year after disabled passengers sued the company and its competitor, Lyft, for denying services to passengers with wheelchairs and service dogs. Meanwhile, feminist icon Gloria Steinhem recently included better treatment of the disabled by Uber as one of her ten Christmas wishes.

It appears Uber is taking some of the criticism to heart. In response to a question about whether it educates its drivers about public accommodation issues, the company pointed to its non-discrimination policy and code-of-conduct to say it is setting expectations that refusal of service based on identity will not be tolerated.

Uber added that, anytime a rider reports discrimination, the company will investigate and, in some cases, terminate its relationship with the driver.

Make sure to subscribe to Data Sheet, Fortune's daily newsletter on the business of technology.

As for Lee, he agrees Uber is bound by public accommodation laws, but also questioned whether the company is committed to ensuring its drivers abide by them. He also fears that some groups will be affected more than others when Uber fall short.

"Uber should have clarified their policies on drivers and women in labor, and confirmed that the driver received appropriate disciplinary action," said Lee. "I'm fortunate enough to know my rights and have access to resources, but I feel for the person who is not as lucky."


----------



## rtaatl

Yeah, it's a little cold but placing such a burden on an Uber driver isn't fair. If the baby is so important to her than she could have dialed 911 and been in the care of medical professionals. People are cheap and lazy these days.


----------



## Slon

Epic article - best part:


> While the trip record in Uber's app shows a driver's first name, Lee says when he asked the company for more information in order to pursue a complaint with New York's taxi regulator, a representative refused, citing a driver privacy policy


If they want to be able to complain to a regulator, they should have called a cab and paid the higher price. What did they do instead? They summoned another Uber...

Sounds like another case of people wanting steaks for the price of hot dogs.


----------



## TimFromMA

You thought pukers were bad, can you imagine the mess if a woman gives birth in you car? 

$100 cleaning fee wont cut it.


----------



## Disgusted Driver

I love it how they say they will pay if anything happens and you know that they run out the door and screw you when they get to the hospital. Retching and water breaking is going to be more than a $200 cleanup and isn't that the cap?

All I can say is glad it wasn't me, don't need my leather messed up.


----------



## ColoradoFuber

I wonder how much she was prepared to tip?


----------



## Vox Rationis

Let's not forget that should anything at all go wrong on that trip and any harm at all comes to that lady and her precious baby, the under-insured "partner" is on the hook for liabilities that will surely ruin him. 

They want this poor "partner" to shoulder all kinds of personal risk for a couple of dollars. Yet they can't be bothered to call up an ambulance or a real livery service with the proper coverages. Wow. 

And notice Fortune didn't bother pointing out how pervasive this very real insurance problem is.


----------



## Slon

ColoradoFuber said:


> I wonder how much she was prepared to tip?


Tip is included in the UberAmbulance services.


----------



## grayspinner

Honestly - having birthed 4 babies, I can say that the driver should have taken her. 

It was only 3 miles & the likelihood that she would have delivered in the car or even been sick again was pretty darn low. 

He could have at least asked how far apart her contractions were and gotten a good feel for how close to delivery she might have been. 

Most women labor for hours. 

Most women who have hospital births go there in the earlier stages of labor. Her being sick is actually a sign of early labor. 

Most women don't have their waters rupture until delivery 

And the uterus does an amazing job of protecting the fetus - the likelihood of something going wrong during transport is pretty much non-existent. 

The driver was an ass. 

I guess none of you guys drove your wives to the hospital to give birth? You all called ambulances because transport by car would be dangerous & messy? Yeah right


----------



## Vox Rationis

H


grayspinner said:


> Honestly - having birthed 4 babies, I can say that the driver should have taken her.
> 
> It was only 3 miles & the likelihood that she would have delivered in the car or even been sick again was pretty darn low.
> 
> He could have at least asked how far apart her contractions were and gotten a good feel for how close to delivery she might have been.
> 
> Most women labor for hours.
> 
> Most women who have hospital births go there in the earlier stages of labor. Her being sick is actually a sign of early labor.
> 
> Most women don't have their waters rupture until delivery
> 
> And the uterus does an amazing job of protecting the fetus - the likelihood of something going wrong during transport is pretty much non-existent.
> 
> The driver was an ass.
> 
> I guess none of you guys drove your wives to the hospital to give birth? You all called ambulances because transport by car would be dangerous & messy? Yeah right


How is the driver supposed to know any of this?

Not that it matters. This is not the driver's wife. This is a stranger in a commercial interaction that the driver reasonably assumes presents a non-accpetable risk to his personal property and his financial health.

If getting to the hospital is that important, maybe a licensed cab or an ambulance is better than some sub-minimum wage sucker with his personal vehicle. Maybe.


----------



## grayspinner

How are they supposed to know? Good lord, have we become this ignorant of the most basic of human experiences that the norms of childbirth are some mystery?


----------



## Vox Rationis

grayspinner said:


> How are they supposed to know? Good lord, have we become this ignorant of the most basic of human experiences that the norms of childbirth are some mystery?


Well, apparently we're dumb enough to think we should call an uninsured stranger to come take care of our medical emergency with his personal vehicle for almost zero compensation.


----------



## ABC123DEF

grayspinner said:


> How are they supposed to know? Good lord, have we become this ignorant of the most basic of human experiences that the norms of childbirth are some mystery?


You may have birthed 4 children...but you have to realize that a lot of us have no clue about female child-bearing functions...nor do all of us have children.


----------



## grayspinner

FormerCapitalist said:


> Well, apparently we're dumb enough to think we should call an uninsured stranger to come take care of our medical emergency with his personal vehicle for almost zero compensation.


Um, childbirth is rarely a medical emergency. Using an ambulance would be ridiculous.

Look, I get the rates are too low & people ought not be driving for such low rates. That's a valid thing.

Thinking it's not normal to use regular transportation to travel to the hospital when in labor is thr ridiculous part.


----------



## grayspinner

ABC123DEF said:


> You may have birthed 4 children...but you have to realize that a lot of us have no clue about female child-bearing functions...nor do all of us have children.


See, that's pretty weird to me.

You don't have younger siblings & never saw your mother pregnant? Or aunts? No older siblings who are already parents? No friends?

Your mother never had her friends over for coffee & conversation turned to childbirth? You've never heard tales of your own birth, your siblings, cousins?

How do you make it to adulthood & not have known someone who reproduced?

Don't they teach anything useful in sex ed at least?


----------



## Vox Rationis

grayspinner said:


> Um, childbirth is rarely a medical emergency. Using an ambulance would be ridiculous.
> 
> Look, I get the rates are too low & people ought not be driving for such low rates. That's a valid thing.
> 
> Thinking it's not normal to use regular transportation to travel to the hospital when in labor is thr ridiculous part.


Childbirth has for most of human history been a very dangerous event for both mother and child. Under the ideal conditions provided by a modern medical facility or with the presence of trained professionals, we have the luxury of thinking it's no big deal. A moving car is step away from these ideal conditions.

It is more than reasonable for an uninsured stranger to refuse to transport this woman. Uber drivers already shoulder tremendous risk transporting without proper insurance people who aren't puking, bleeding, and in the process of ejecting a tiny human being from inside them.


----------



## Vox Rationis

grayspinner said:


> See, that's pretty weird to me.
> 
> You don't have younger siblings & never saw your mother pregnant? Or aunts? No older siblings who are already parents? No friends?
> 
> Your mother never had her friends over for coffee & conversation turned to childbirth? You've never heard tales of your own birth, your siblings, cousins?
> 
> How do you make it to adulthood & not have known someone who reproduced?
> 
> Don't they teach anything useful in sex ed at least?


You are moving the goalposts here. We all know that babies come out of vaginas in a flood of blood and bodily fluids and sometimes the mother's excrement. We get that this happens after semen is deposited in the vagina about 36 weeks before.

What no one can reasonably be expected to know is how complicated a birth is going to be. What we all do know is that none of us has the insurance to cover the results of any complications that could happen in our personal vehicles that we've let out to cheap ass strangers who want to find a bargain basement way to get to the hospital.


----------



## TimFromMA

Bottom line is that someone having a medical emergency needs to call 911 not Uber.


----------



## garrobitoalado

Bottom line.. if you're in labor and don't have a car.. dial 911.. Uber is not guarantee to act as paramedic... Honestly I would dial 911 and explain they why it's not a good idea call Uber under that circumstance


----------



## Slon

garrobitoalado said:


> Bottom line.. if you're in labor and don't have a car.. dial 911.. Uber is not guarantee to act as paramedic... Honestly I would dial 911 and explain they why it's not a good idea call Uber under that circumstance


No listen - check this out. UberAmbulance. You get random strangers to drive you to the hospital and try to keep you alive during the ride - all for the fraction of the cost of a regular ambulance!

Interested investors are welcome to PM me.


----------



## Disgusted Driver

grayspinner said:


> See, that's pretty weird to me.
> 
> You don't have younger siblings & never saw your mother pregnant? Or aunts? No older siblings who are already parents? No friends?
> 
> Your mother never had her friends over for coffee & conversation turned to childbirth? You've never heard tales of your own birth, your siblings, cousins?
> 
> How do you make it to adulthood & not have known someone who reproduced?
> 
> Don't they teach anything useful in sex ed at least?


Weird or not: I was the youngest, Aunts were all old, I nor my siblings ever had children and my mom wasn't one for stories. I know it's not like TV portrays it but I haven't the foggiest idea of what the stages of delivery are. Didn't come from the most socially well adjusted family.

I know only too well how often people promise to make good if there's a problem but never make good. How many of you have been told you would be tipped if you stop at the drive in and then the darlings hop out of the car with a thank you for a tip.

Not sure how I would have handled it but I do have an old blanket in the trunk for "special occasions"


----------



## nighthawk398

I can say the one time I had a person husband order an uber to have his wife taken to rehab, I cancelled as well, I did not want to deal w


Slon said:


> No listen - check this out. UberAmbulance. You get random strangers to drive you to the hospital and try to keep you alive during the ride - all for the fraction of the cost of a regular ambulance!
> 
> Interested investors are welcome to PM me.


I won't be signing up, I actually had a husband call me once from out of town who ordered an uber to take his drunk wife to rehab, umm....no thanks


----------



## ColoradoFuber

Slon said:


> No listen - check this out. UberAmbulance. You get random strangers to drive you to the hospital and try to keep you alive during the ride - all for the fraction of the cost of a regular ambulance!
> 
> .


If you die durning the ride no tip is required


----------



## howo3579

How did he charge them $13? If i were the driver i'd have taken her. But if I have known this couple would try to make this a news and start law suit I would have told them to call an ambulance.


----------



## cleansafepolite

JimS said:


> Uber Denies Ride to Woman in Labor
> 
> So much of the story is so sensationalized. Who has a $13 cancellation fee? Oh - I guess New York did before the rate cuts. Who loses $1000 per day if they can't drive?


Give birth in my car=automatic 1 star....unless you name the child after me.


----------



## negeorgia

grayspinner said:


> Um, childbirth is rarely a medical emergency. Using an ambulance would be ridiculous.
> 
> Look, I get the rates are too low & people ought not be driving for such low rates. That's a valid thing.
> 
> Thinking it's not normal to use regular transportation to travel to the hospital when in labor is thr ridiculous part.


Having had my second son birthed in an ambulance, I am grateful for the mindset to have called an ambulance that morning.


----------



## negeorgia

I file this under we all can cancel any request for any reason we want to, only 'do not charge rider' would be my go to. I don't yet know what I will do in that situation. I have taken 2 ride requests to ER. One was a concussion from a fall 2 days prior and one in back pain. I offered last night, after someone said they had severe abdominal pain. Something she ate did not agree with her. She puked and got 2 stars. Car was stopped and she leaned out the door.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

grayspinner said:


> Don't they teach anything useful in sex ed at least?


The only thing that they teach in public school these days is that the only thing that you need is good self esteem. This is why everyone, even those who do not play sports, gets a trophy. Participation trophies were bad enough. Now they give out non-participation trophies.


----------



## BurgerTiime

Uber drivers aren't a getaway car, roadside assistance, mobile drive through, transportation for a drug deal, hotel on wheels (for sex), a drive by, aiding and abbeding a felon, a limo, a party bus, or an ambulance! Call 911


----------



## Charlie_Hustle206

TimFromMA said:


> Bottom line is that someone having a medical emergency needs to call 911 not Uber.


Correct! Some cheap MF's


----------



## RamzFanz

FormerCapitalist said:


> Let's not forget that should anything at all go wrong on that trip and any harm at all comes to that lady and her precious baby, the under-insured "partner" is on the hook for liabilities that will surely ruin him.
> 
> They want this poor "partner" to shoulder all kinds of personal risk for a couple of dollars. Yet they can't be bothered to call up an ambulance or a real livery service with the proper coverages. Wow.
> 
> And notice Fortune didn't bother pointing out how pervasive this very real insurance problem is.


$1,000,000 is under insured? Or is this just an anti-Uber bumper sticker quote you throw out there?


----------



## Vox Rationis

RamzFanz said:


> $1,000,000 is under insured? Or is this just an anti-Uber bumper sticker quote you throw out there?


Don't have the proper commercial insurance and see how it goes when something goes wrong.

Let me guess. You're making life-changing money and are about to put me in my place.


----------



## Bill Collector

cleansafepolite said:


> Give birth in my car=automatic 1 star....unless you name the child after me.


Didn't someone in India recently name the baby "Uber" who was actually born inside the car? Ambulance was slow to come and Uber driver showed up fast apparently. No mention of tip in that case.


----------



## Charlie_Hustle206




----------



## Another Uber Driver

BurgerTiime said:


> Uber drivers aren't a getaway car, roadside assistance, mobile drive through, transportation for a drug deal, hotel on wheels (for sex), a drive by, aiding and abbeding a felon, a limo, a party bus, or an ambulance! Call 911


...........been a while since you drove for Uber, -eh?


----------



## BurgerTiime

Another Uber Driver said:


> ...........been a while since you drove for Uber, -eh?


Yup


----------



## tohunt4me

JimS said:


> Uber Denies Ride to Woman in Labor
> 
> So much of the story is so sensationalized. Who has a $13 cancellation fee? Oh - I guess New York did before the rate cuts. Who loses $1000 per day if they can't drive?
> 
> ---
> 
> Photograph by Paul Bradbury - Getty Images/Caiaimage
> 
> *An Uber driver left a woman in labor stranded on the sidewalk. Her baby is okay, but the family is fuming at how the company acted.*
> 
> The baby was early, but the first time parents were ready. They summoned the birthing coach, grabbed the overnight bag, and stepped out the door of their New York apartment for a three mile ride to the delivery room. The Uber arrived, but then came the hitch.
> 
> Instead of taking David Lee and his wife to the hospital, the Uber driver balked because the expectant mother retched on the sidewalk. He informed them he would lose $1,000 a day if Lee's wife became sick in the car and, what's more, told them no other driver would accept a woman in labor as a passenger.
> 
> coach explained to the driver that Lee's wife would not be sick again, and the couple pleaded with the driver, assuring him they would pay for any cleaning for his car. Please, just take us to the hospital, they said. But the driver would not budge.
> 
> Instead, he drove away - but not before charging them $13 for his lost time. Lee and his wife in labor, along with the birthing coach, were left standing on a Manhattan sidewalk.
> 
> The couple's predicament may be a cautionary tale for other expectant parents who plan to use Uber or another car service to get to the hospital. But it also raises important questions of how anti-discrimination laws should apply to a generation of companies that prefer to style themselves as tech platforms rather than transportation services.
> 
> Fortunately, in the case of Lee and his wife, the day ended happily: they summoned another Uber car, which whisked them without incident to the hospital where a healthy baby boy was born a few hours later.
> 
> The ordeal with the first Uber driver on that brisk November morning is just a receding memory for the new parents. But Lee, a 37-year-old lawyer, and his wife (who did not want to be named) remains miffed at the ride-hailing company.
> 
> "I don't blame Uber for one driver's poor actions, since bad apples can appear in any organization, but I do think that when a company has a culture of bullying their way past laws and regulations, as Uber seems to do, they begin to think they can act with impunity in anything," said Lee.
> 
> In response to his complaints, Uber eventually refunded the $13. But Lee is frustrated that the company would not acknowledge any wrongdoing by Uber or by the driver.
> 
> He also feels the company stymied his attempt to identify the driver. While the trip record in Uber's app shows a driver's first name, Lee says when he asked the company for more information in order to pursue a complaint with New York's taxi regulator, a representative refused, citing a driver privacy policy. When Lee rebutted that driver licensing is a matter of public record, the company stopped replying to his emails. (He later learned driver details can be found in the email receipt sent to users after a trip).
> 
> In response to questions from Fortune, an Uber spokesperson initially said the company does not discuss individual driver incidents, and cited a privacy policy. The company also provided the following statement:
> 
> "Denying service to a passenger in labor is unacceptable: it goes against our code of conduct and the standard of service our riders rely on. We extend our deepest apologies to both riders and have taken action to respond to this complaint. We are glad that the rider's next driver was professional and courteous."
> 
> "Babies born on New York City sidewalks"
> 
> What happened to Lee and his wife can, for the most part, be chalked up to bad luck. After all, most New York City car drivers- Uber or otherwise-would have rushed to help a woman in labor. Indeed, taxi-based births are not unheard of in the Big Apple.
> 
> But Lee's experience also raises familiar questions about whether Uber should be doing more to educate its drivers about their legal responsibilities. Those responsibilities don't just relate to safe driving, but to civil rights as well.
> 
> According to Emily Martin, the general counsel of the National Women's Law Center in Washington, DC, city and state laws in New York forbid drivers from refusing women in labor.
> 
> "Uber drivers are bound by the same public accommodation laws that prohibit New York City taxi drivers and car services from discriminating on the basis of pregnancy when deciding who they will pick up-and those laws are a good thing, as they help ensure that not many babies end up being born on New York City sidewalks."
> 
> The issue of how public accommodation laws apply to Uber also surfaced last year after disabled passengers sued the company and its competitor, Lyft, for denying services to passengers with wheelchairs and service dogs. Meanwhile, feminist icon Gloria Steinhem recently included better treatment of the disabled by Uber as one of her ten Christmas wishes.
> 
> It appears Uber is taking some of the criticism to heart. In response to a question about whether it educates its drivers about public accommodation issues, the company pointed to its non-discrimination policy and code-of-conduct to say it is setting expectations that refusal of service based on identity will not be tolerated.
> 
> Uber added that, anytime a rider reports discrimination, the company will investigate and, in some cases, terminate its relationship with the driver.
> 
> Make sure to subscribe to Data Sheet, Fortune's daily newsletter on the business of technology.
> 
> As for Lee, he agrees Uber is bound by public accommodation laws, but also questioned whether the company is committed to ensuring its drivers abide by them. He also fears that some groups will be affected more than others when Uber fall short.
> 
> "Uber should have clarified their policies on drivers and women in labor, and confirmed that the driver received appropriate disciplinary action," said Lee. "I'm fortunate enough to know my rights and have access to resources, but I feel for the person who is not as lucky."


Hell I would have delivered the baby if need be.
Emt-b,c.n.a.,1 1/2 year L.P.N. school.
Kind of cold blooded to just drive off.


----------



## tohunt4me

The husband just happened to be a lawyer . .


----------



## Vox Rationis

tohunt4me said:


> Hell I would have delivered the baby if need be.
> Emt-b,c.n.a.,1 1/2 year L.P.N. school.
> Kind of cold blooded to just drive off.


Maybe. But kinda dumb to call Uber for your wife in labor.


----------



## Baron VonStudley

If a Manhattan Lawyer can't afford a private car service in NYC then what the hell am I doing trying to scrape making money driving obnoxious entitled people 1 mile? I am very happy ir turned out well for the baby and the Mom, this kind of stress is not good for her, but her husband is an AssHat Tell me if someone cancelled an appointment with his law office he would charge them, and for that matter he never turned away a case even though they were very needy and deserving? I guarantee even if he does some pro bono work he can pick and choose his customers as a contractor just like Uber driver can. As far as making $1000 a day that's fantasy. The driver who DID take them to the hospital doersn't even get his / her name in the article so EF that


----------



## maui

Cancel - Do Not Charge Rider.

I would have refused. 

If there is traffic, she gives birth early, etc. Sorry. I can not covered, nor do I want the responsibility. My risk of being sued for what ever reason far outreaches the $7 fare for the ride. 

What a jackhole to call an Uber instead of a cab or ambulance.


----------



## Vox Rationis

maui said:


> Cancel - Do Not Charge Rider.
> 
> I would have refused.
> 
> If there is traffic, she gives birth early, etc. Sorry. I can not covered, nor do I want the responsibility. My risk of being sued for what ever reason far outreaches the $7 fare for the ride.
> 
> What a jackhole to call an Uber instead of a cab or ambulance.


A million times this!


----------



## ABC123DEF

Slon said:


> No listen - check this out. UberAmbulance. You get random strangers to drive you to the hospital and try to keep you alive during the ride - all for the fraction of the cost of a regular ambulance!
> 
> Interested investors are welcome to PM me.


It's already here, bub. You and your investors are late to the party. You snoozed...you loozed.


----------



## Slon

ABC123DEF said:


> It's already here, bub. You and your investors are late to the party. You snoozed...you loozed.


Crap. Do any of you guys happen to know which law firm Uber works with? I'm pretty sure they could find a way for me to sue them for stealing my idea form a few days ago last year.


----------



## ABC123DEF

You gotta find that niche and get in where you fit in QUICK, Slon!


----------



## RamzFanz

You have to be some kind of dumb to take an UberX while in labor.


FormerCapitalist said:


> Don't have the proper commercial insurance and see how it goes when something goes wrong.
> 
> Let me guess. You're making life-changing money and are about to put me in my place.


No, I'm just pointing out that your statement was factually incorrect. On a trip I have $1,000,000 in commercial liability coverage and also collision up to the value of my vehicle less the $1,000 deductible since I have collision on my personal policy. That is, in fact, proper commercial insurance.


----------



## negeorgia

Thanks for posting the Jimmy video. I also watched his first trip as a driver; it has the 'ping' like when I first started!!!


----------



## melxjr

Mad at Uber, because that's what an ambulance is for. They have proper gear, staff, sirens, communication to heads up the hospital of the emergency. People are just seriously that stupid and cheap.


----------



## melxjr

negeorgia said:


> Thanks for posting the Jimmy video. I also watched his first trip as a driver; it has the 'ping' like when I first started!!!


Jimmy is the man, great guy in real life.


----------



## Ara

rtaatl said:


> Yeah, it's a little cold but placing such a burden on an Uber driver isn't fair. If the baby is so important to her than she could have dialed 911 and been in the care of medical professionals. People are cheap and lazy these days.


100% you right this story only uber advertise that's it ....


----------



## Huberis

Zero communication. The app lacks a brain behind it. Uber is not a common carrier for one. By ordering through the app, there is zero opportunity for human input. A human dispatcher could have gently suggested an ambulance, might have been able to select a driver more or less suited to the task at hand. As taxi companies automate, they are less ale to be proactive. There are liability issues.

If a driver feels what is going on in the back is a distraction and preventing their ability to drive safely, they shouldn't take them. The next driver was cool with the situation, that is life, it doesn't necessarily mean the first driver wasn't professional. The drivers are being sent into a situation without any warning and that is not professional whatsoever. 

In 15 years I have never had a woman in labor in my taxi. I have had a guy going through heroin withdrawal and various people in psychotic episodes. This was New York wwhere there are over 21,000 registered Uber drivers. It is not reasonable to assume all of them need to be able to handle such an instance given the overall lack of formality or structure. 

Time for Uber Ambulance.


----------



## negeorgia

Not mad at Uber, they provide the opportunity, for the pax and driver. Not surprised that a driver would exercise their right to reject request.


----------



## Gemgirlla

rtaatl said:


> Yeah, it's a little cold but placing such a burden on an Uber driver isn't fair. If the baby is so important to her than she could have dialed 911 and been in the care of medical professionals. People are cheap and lazy these days.


Totally agree.


----------



## Gemgirlla

FormerCapitalist said:


> H
> 
> How is the driver supposed to know any of this?
> 
> Not that it matters. This is not the driver's wife. This is a stranger in a commercial interaction that the driver reasonably assumes presents a non-accpetable risk to his personal property and his financial health.
> 
> If getting to the hospital is that important, maybe a licensed cab or an ambulance is better than some sub-minimum wage sucker with his personal vehicle. Maybe.


In most other cities people have their own cars and the husband/partner would drive them to the hospital. I wonder if taxis in NYC typically take expectant mothers to the hospital when contractions start? I would love to hear from any cabbies on here.


----------



## CCW

Guys, a question, if I am the 1st Uber driver, once I got to them, can I call 911 for them without their permission and once ambulance load them up, I would just follow the ambulance to hospital? 

They pay or their health insurance pay for the ambulance(i.e 9miles, 15 minutes, $1,772.42) and they also pay me the Uber fair (~$7)?


----------



## jaxbeachrides

This is why regular NYC taxicabs have plastic seats. Why did they not just take a cab? EZ wipe with lysol and its a done deal. You can do anything you want and it wipes off no problems.


----------



## DexNex

grayspinner said:


> Honestly - having birthed 4 babies, I can say that the driver should have taken her.
> 
> It was only 3 miles & the likelihood that she would have delivered in the car or even been sick again was pretty darn low.
> 
> He could have at least asked how far apart her contractions were and gotten a good feel for how close to delivery she might have been.
> 
> Most women labor for hours.
> 
> Most women who have hospital births go there in the earlier stages of labor. Her being sick is actually a sign of early labor.
> 
> Most women don't have their waters rupture until delivery
> 
> And the uterus does an amazing job of protecting the fetus - the likelihood of something going wrong during transport is pretty much non-existent.
> 
> The driver was an ass.
> 
> I guess none of you guys drove your wives to the hospital to give birth? You all called ambulances because transport by car would be dangerous & messy? Yeah right


If it was only 3 miles away, and you are so sure nothing else would have happened, maybe she would have enjoyed the fresh air during a casual walk.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

grayspinner said:


> See, that's pretty weird to me.
> 
> You don't have younger siblings & never saw your mother pregnant? Or aunts? No older siblings who are already parents? No friends?
> 
> Your mother never had her friends over for coffee & conversation turned to childbirth? You've never heard tales of your own birth, your siblings, cousins?
> 
> How do you make it to adulthood & not have known someone who reproduced?
> 
> Don't they teach anything useful in sex ed at least?


All I heard from anyone was how my mother almost died having me and was in labor for 2 days.

Then how my sister almost popped out on the way to the hospital and was born before getting to the correct room whatever that was. While mom was being told not to worry it would be a while still.

I don't have any close friends with children and have not discussed their childbirth experiences with acquaintances.

I don't know why any driver would be required to take someone who is in labor any more than anyone else. Pregnancy is not covered under the ADA as a disability.

And if the kid is born we don't have a car seat so what then? If we have an accident and the newborn goes flying out the window?

I've seen kittens born and I wouldn't want THAT in my car. Although my seat cover and blankets would probably protect things. Doubt if they would for a human birth.

Oh and I worked in a neonatal research lab. I've collected blood samples from placentas. A more revolting, bloody thing I've never seen.

Childbirth in my car for maybe a $2.44 trip? And I'm supposed to deal with that?

What if the mom has hepatitis or HIV? If a hospital worker catches it they're covered. Uber driver? They probably can't afford Obamacare.

How much would it cost to clean that sort of bio hazard out of my car? Would the smell EVER come out?

If I think someone is going to make a mess in my car I will cancel.

If it's an emergency call an ambulance. If it's not call someone who gets paid enough to deal with it.

They probably only called the uber to avoid messing up their own car anyway.


----------



## Demon

negeorgia said:


> I file this under we all can cancel any request for any reason we want to, only 'do not charge rider' would be my go to. I don't yet know what I will do in that situation. I have taken 2 ride requests to ER. One was a concussion from a fall 2 days prior and one in back pain. I offered last night, after someone said they had severe abdominal pain. Something she ate did not agree with her. She puked and got 2 stars. Car was stopped and she leaned out the door.


No. You can't cancel for any reason you want.


----------



## negeorgia

Demon said:


> No. You can't cancel for any reason you want.


My fingers can touch, Cancel: 'Do not charge rider' for any request that I have accepted.


----------



## negeorgia

negeorgia said:


> My fingers can touch, Cancel: 'Do not charge rider' for any request that I have accepted.


I can also shove my finger up my nose and force a nose bleed... Text to pax: I just got a nose bleed, I'm sorry, but I have to cancel your request at no charge.


----------



## negeorgia

I cannot comprehend feeling so entitled as to forcing someone that does not want me or my destination or more than 3 of my friends in their personal car. Getting scamed with a cancel fee is a different issue.


----------



## DudeCity

Huberis said:


> Zero communication. The app lacks a brain behind it. Uber is not a common carrier for one. By ordering through the app, there is zero opportunity for human input. A human dispatcher could have gently suggested an ambulance, might have been able to select a driver more or less suited to the task at hand. As taxi companies automate, they are less ale to be proactive. There are liability issues.
> 
> If a driver feels what is going on in the back is a distraction and preventing their ability to drive safely, they shouldn't take them. The next driver was cool with the situation, that is life, it doesn't necessarily mean the first driver wasn't professional. The drivers are being sent into a situation without any warning and that is not professional whatsoever.
> 
> In 15 years I have never had a woman in labor in my taxi. I have had a guy going through heroin withdrawal and various people in psychotic episodes. This was New York wwhere there are over 21,000 registered Uber drivers. It is not reasonable to assume all of them need to be able to handle such an instance given the overall lack of formality or structure.
> 
> Time for Uber Ambulance.


100% correct there r people with various phobias .............FUBER TRAIN UR DRIVERS FIRST...........say that guy went

into a Panic attack and had bad accident what lies next to that poor unborn baby. Think a little U stupid Mr. Lawyer if I were

u would have planned the hospital transport well in advance. Calling a 2001 ( the worst u could get ) Fuber car that a serious

joke bud.


----------



## Demon

negeorgia said:


> My fingers can touch, Cancel: 'Do not charge rider' for any request that I have accepted.


And in some cases face legal consequences for doing so.


----------



## scrurbscrud

I'll guarantee you if I pulled up to a pax puking on the sidewalk, pregnant or not, there ain't going to be that pax in my ride, period. And yeah, if that warrants a cancel fee, I'd try to get that as well.

Uber drivers ARE entitled to pax who are ready, willing and able to take a ride. Able does NOT include puking prior to entry. The driver who turned down the fare probably already learned this fairly simple lesson the hard way. So have I. And that's just puking.

You don't get to use me for putting birthing sac water, blood and possible placenta all over the back seat/floor. Sorry. That's what ambulances and/or cabs are for.

Pretty sure with a attorney pax the driver would pay hell trying to get a cleaning fee as well. Or, if another health issue was involved, a hazmat team restoration/certification fee.

Ridiculous.

*If there is one little pleasure in the Uber driver life it's turning down pax with trouble stamped across the ride before it starts.*

If Uber was thinking this through,* they could install a driver/pax agreed to emergency surge fare*, maybe with prearranged legal notation set in the user agreement that provides further legal insulation and enhanced cleaning services charges to pax for drivers, and I'm sure that for a 3X or a 4X surge, she may have been whisked off speedily. Expecting drivers to go above and beyond is just asking for trouble in today's world. And if Uber was REALLY thinking we'd have this option for DRUNKS as well.

Everyone knows that no good deed goes unpunished. The driver that did drive these people probably got a 1 star because the pax were mad at Uber and the first driver. And sure as hell NO tip.


----------



## Realityshark

They should have called an ambulance. It's sad enought that uber thinks it's ok for people to puke in our cars. Do they expect us to clean up after-birth and placenta from our backseats as well?

The driver should have called an ambulance to cover his ass. If the story is true, he's an idiot. The parents should have called an ambulance to make sure that they had a qualifed medical professional taking care of the birth. Give me a break. Loser parents.....Their kid doesn't stand a chance.

This story typifies so much that is wrong with people in our society. Screw up, take no responsibility and blame someone else for being insane.


----------



## oobaah

Realityshark said:


> ... The parents should have called an ambulance to make sure that they had a qualifed medical professional taking care of the birth. Give me a break. Loser parents.....Their kid doesn't stand a chance...


I would bet my $1.5B lotto winnings that these parents are millenniums, plus they had helicopter parents too...

wonder if their parents were there to show them how to make babies....smdh


----------



## Demon

negeorgia said:


> I can also shove my finger up my nose and force a nose bleed... Text to pax: I just got a nose bleed, I'm sorry, but I have to cancel your request at no charge.


And you can also face legal consequences for doing so.


----------



## Lack9133

Slon said:


> Epic article - best part:
> 
> If they want to be able to complain to a regulator, they should have called a cab and paid the higher price. What did they do instead? They summoned another Uber...
> 
> Sounds like another case of people wanting steaks for the price of hot dogs.


Yea right. They wouldn't be getting in my cab either.


----------



## ATX 22

RamzFanz said:


> $1,000,000 is under insured? Or is this just an anti-Uber bumper sticker quote you throw out there?


Yes. In the vehicle for hire business this is minimal coverage. I carry that much on my policy plus a $5 million umbrella.


----------



## negeorgia

Demon said:


> And you can also face legal consequences for doing so.


Service Animal. What else? Please educate me.


----------



## negeorgia

scrurbscrud said:


> I'll guarantee you if I pulled up to a pax puking on the sidewalk, pregnant or not, there ain't going to be that pax in my ride, period. And yeah, if that warrants a cancel fee, I'd try to get that as well...


Pax hiding from pinpoint and their text and phone for over 5 minutes, yes; if it takes 5 minutes for them to comprehend UberX doesn't roll for more than 4, yes. Seeing a puker upon arrival, pulling away and hiding from them for 5 minutes, not for me. Hearing their destinations, pulling away and hiding from them for 5 minutes, not for me. If I can figure out the pinpoint is off, they do answer and I am close, I go get them, I don't hide from them for 5 minutes. If the pinpoint is way off and they made no effort to reach me and I reach them... If surging I cancel no fee (cause surge maybe gone in 5 minutes). If no surge, I wait for them to cancel or after 5, I cancel because they let me drive to the wrong spot without letting me know better.


----------



## negeorgia

Demon said:


> And you can also face legal consequences for doing so.


Not now, I have a headache?


----------



## scrurbscrud

negeorgia said:


> Pax hiding from pinpoint and their text and phone for over 5 minutes, yes; if it takes 5 minutes for them to comprehend UberX doesn't roll for more than 4, yes. Seeing a puker upon arrival, pulling away and hiding from them for 5 minutes, not for me. Hearing their destinations, pulling away and hiding from them for 5 minutes, not for me. If I can figure out the pinpoint off, they do answer and I am close, I go get them, I don't hide from them for 5 minutes. If the pinpoint is way off and they made no effort to reach me and I reach them... If surging I cancel no fee (cause surge maybe gone in 5 minutes). If no surge, I wait for them to cancel or after 5, I cancel because they let me drive to the wrong spot without letting me know better.


Yes a million things may have been running through that first drivers head.

One might even think that the "lawyer" may have had more than adequate time to at least CALL the driver in advance and explain the situation?! Could have saved themselves some frustrations. But no, it's always the "drivers fault."


----------



## HiFareLoRate

It was a lose-lose situation for the driver.
IMO, he did the right thing.
The law where you can't forbid a woman in labor transportation should only be applied to those who are medically trained to do so in cases of liability.

Plus, this saves the burden of not having her baby named "Uber" after what happened in India last year.


----------



## UberEricLong

Everyone who is siding with the pregnant couple are COMPLETELY wrong! First, let me state the obvious. Uber is not an ambulance or medical service and should not be treated as such. Uber drivers are not trained or prepared for medical emergencies. If you are experiencing a medical emergency, call 911 not Uber! And yes, active labor, where water has broken, cervix is dilating, and the patient is vomiting, could most certainly be considered a medical emergency.

Aside from the obvious, the next biggest consideration for the driver is risk. What are the insurance ramifications if something goes wrong on the trip to the hospital? If you believe Uber absolves the driver of any liability, I can assure you that is most definitely not the case. At best, the drivers liability is covered up to $1,000,000. It is possible to imagine a scenario were that amount could easily be exceeded. This is especially true when one considers the pax is in active labor with a newborn baby on the way, possibly in your back seat (I'm not even going to mention that fact that in this instance her husband was an attorney).

Additionally, the driver is providing this service in their own personal vehicle. Uber does not own the car, nor the government or even the public. The driver does, it’s our private property and our prerogative to decline a ride if we are not comfortable. In this situation I would be hesitant to invite someone who is puking and leaking (for lack of a better term) bodily fluids into my back seat. From a safety perspective, how do I know the person doesn’t have aids, hepatitis or some other communicable disease? We are not properly equipped or trained to deal with biohazards such as blood, vomit and other bodily fluids. Most of us have families to think about as well. I use my car to drive my kids to school in the morning. Do I want them, or even other passengers, coming in contact with some other person’s bodily fluids if it could have been avoided? I think not!

The last point I’ll briefly touch on is loss of compensation. It is true that Uber will reimburse drivers something if vomit or other fluids need to be cleaned up. However, that compensation does not cover the down time or loss of income from not being able to drive. Some of us have bills that must be paid and families that must be fed. With the recent rate cuts, making a decent living is already next to impossible. Some of us simply can not afford the downtime.

Now having said all that, I personally would have helped the pax and given them a ride. I carry a puke bucket in the back of my van along with some towels in case of an emergency (in 500 trips I’ve only had to use it once). I believe in serving others and when we are driving, that’s what we are doing. We help to keep the roads safe by giving the drinkers a ride home, we help families get to and from the airport or even help grannies get their groceries home from the market. We are providing a valuable service by helping others.

The bottom line is this. People use Uber all the time for things other than its intended purpose and the additional burden/risk always gets absorbed by the drivers. Ultimately it should be up to the driver then to decide what is or isn’t an acceptable level of risk/inconvenience without fear of losing their job or public shaming.


----------



## negeorgia

Some people take their canceled request for rideshare too personal. I frankly, was eventually thankful someone finally said no, I will not loan you any more money. It began my journey to stop buying stuff with other people's money and the results have been fantastic. There is nothing on this silly planet I want bad enough to borrow to get.


----------



## ChicagoHeat12

grayspinner said:


> Honestly - having birthed 4 babies, I can say that the driver should have taken her.
> 
> It was only 3 miles & the likelihood that she would have delivered in the car or even been sick again was pretty darn low.
> 
> He could have at least asked how far apart her contractions were and gotten a good feel for how close to delivery she might have been.
> 
> Most women labor for hours.
> 
> Most women who have hospital births go there in the earlier stages of labor. Her being sick is actually a sign of early labor.
> 
> Most women don't have their waters rupture until delivery
> 
> And the uterus does an amazing job of protecting the fetus - the likelihood of something going wrong during transport is pretty much non-existent.
> 
> The driver was an ass.
> 
> I guess none of you guys drove your wives to the hospital to give birth? You all called ambulances because transport by car would be dangerous & messy? Yeah right


Well I suppose you'd pay that drivers legal bill in the event that the "rarely happens" event happens? I doubt it. She should have called an ambulance if that baby meant anything at all to her. I mean seriously, who'd trust the life of an unborn child in the hands of a person driving for minimum fare?


----------



## Slon

UberEricLong said:


> everyone who is siding with the pregnant couple are COMPLETELY wrong! First, let me state the obvious. Uber is not an ambulance or medical service and should not be treated as such. Uber drivers are not trained or prepared for medical emergencies. If you are experiencing a medical emergency, call 911 not Uber! Aside for the obvious, the next biggest consideration for the driver is risk. What are the insurance ramifications if something goes wrong on the trip to the hospital? If you think Uber has the driver covered, I can assure you that is not the case. Additionally, I'm providing this service in my own personal vehicle. Uber does not own the car, I do. It's my prerogative to decline a ride if I'm not comfortable. In this situation I would not be inclined to invite someone who is puking and leaking (for lack of a better term) bodily fluids into my back seat. How do I know if the person has aids or hepatitis? How do I protect myself in case I come in contact with their fluids? I have a family to think about as well. I mean, I have to drive my kids to school in the morning in that same car. Do I want them coming in contact with some strangers bodily fluids? I think not! Bottom line is people use Uber all the time for things other than its intended purpose and the burden/risk always gets absorbed by the drivers.


Blood is considered bio-hazardous. It would not be unreasonable to reupholster/replace any surface that comes in contact with blood. The cost of that may be enough to total a car. I'm sure Uber would be happy to cover it - right after you pay the $1k deductible.


----------



## ZXY

I don't blame the driver honestly. What he did may not have been exactly moral but he is totally right, that woman threw up on the sidewalks and he is worried she might throw up again, this time in his car. If she does it is an extreme inconvenience to clean up as well as an economic loss. So screw that and screw them for attempting to make this man out to be a monster and have him reprimanded. It's his perogative to pick your cheap ass up and if he doesn't call another uber.

Now me, if I was in the same situation would not have reacted like that and would have taken the woman but obviously I'm just a nicer guy than this driver lol but he still isn't wrong for what he did. Shame on the media and pundits trying to spin this story .


----------



## MikesUber

I'm with the vast majority here, if anything is coming out of you, any fluids whatsoever or chance of it you're not getting in my freshly vacuumed and Armor-All'd car lol sorry brah


----------



## Aga Muhlach

ABC123DEF said:


> You may have birthed 4 children...but you have to realize that a lot of us have no clue about female child-bearing functions...nor do all of us have children.


And all we know how to do is making the babies and thoroughly enjoying the process.


----------



## Jam Val

I don't get it. No one can force me to do anything and I shouldn't have my livelyhood threatened because I refused a ride to a woman who desperately need medical attention. I would have been scared. I don't want her or her unborn babies lives in my hand. Why? Because I'm not a goddamn medical professional. If I had a normal pregnant woman in my car and she happened to go into labor while in my car, then I'm pulling over and calling an ambulance. Don't ask us to do things we are uncomfortable with and understand if we say no.


----------



## hotrodzoomguy

FormerCapitalist said:


> Well, apparently we're dumb enough to think we should call an uninsured stranger to come take care of our medical emergency with his personal vehicle for almost zero compensation.


Not uninsured


----------



## Blah

grayspinner said:


> How are they supposed to know? Good lord, have we become this ignorant of the most basic of human experiences that the norms of childbirth are some mystery?


*I took courses in biology, physiology, human anatomy and I can't answer the statements you made below. I'm not being a smart ass but seriously I don't know any of these statements you made below.*

*Replies below*

_Honestly - having birthed 4 babies, I can say that the driver should have taken her.

It was only 3 miles & the likelihood that she would have delivered in the car or even been sick again was pretty darn low._
*How would he know that? I know the distance is short but how long was she in labor? Also What is the typical birth time? Does the water break when about to give birth or few hours before. My only reference is movies and friends.*
_
He could have at least asked how far apart her contractions were and gotten a good feel for how close to delivery she might have been._
*I know what contractions are, but I don't know what is the rule of contractions. I seriously don't know. *
_
Most women labor for hours._
*Most planes never crash. But some do. And I am an unluckly individual. I had a friend who's labor time was 30 minutes. Seriously. She was 24 at the time.*
_
Most women who have hospital births go there in the earlier stages of labor. Her being sick is actually a sign of early labor._
*I did not know any of this. I also would not have guessed at all being sick is an sign of early labor. I could have guess a million times and would have not have guessed right.*
_
Most women don't have their waters rupture until delivery_
*I did not know this at all. Movies always show water break, then it's an hour rush to the hospital. How are we suppose to know that? *
_
And the uterus does an amazing job of protecting the fetus - the likelihood of something going wrong during transport is pretty much non-existent._
*But it can happen. What if it does? Who is liable? *
_
The driver was an ass._
*I would have given the ride but would have been pissed off as hell. They should have made a plan on how to get to the hospital before hand. It's like people going to the airport with their child, but doesn't want to bring a car seat. They assume we provide one. They assume Uber could accommodate. It's the assumption that bothers me and they had all that time to check with Uber before the flight. Same with these parents. They should have a game plan and dot all I's and crossed all T's. Never assume. *
_
I guess none of you guys drove your wives to the hospital to give birth? You all called ambulances because transport by car would be dangerous & messy? Yeah right_
*I would drive my wife bc I already know the situation ahead of time. Plus why would my wife sue me if something happens? They expected way too much from the driver. *_
_
*The moral is... plan ahead when the before the pregnancy happens. They just assumed too much which is annoying. * 
*
If my wife is pregnant we would have a drill on what to do if something happens. Contacts, rides, if im present, if im not present, have bags ready etc...*


----------



## big daddy matt

Slon said:


> Tip is included in the UberAmbulance services.


I think that's how she got preggers in the first place...heyyyyyy ohhhhhhh


----------



## Slon

big daddy matt said:


> I think that's how she got preggers in the first place...heyyyyyy ohhhhhhh


My understanding is that a full ride is required - not just the tip.


----------



## UBERBUS_LA

Go UberAmbulance!!!


----------



## Demon

negeorgia said:


> Service Animal. What else? Please educate me.


All of the things you can't discriminate on in public accomodations.


----------



## jfr1

There's a lot of fail in this thread.

1. In my limited understanding, giving birth does not automatically mean medical emergency. Most situations see somebody drive the expentant mother to the hospital.

2. A "birthing coach" was present when this occurred. Given that nobody has a car in New York, I think he/she would've been more than qualified to make a determination as to whether a taxi/uber was sufficient to get to the hospital, or an ambulance was required.

3. Uber drivers in NY are licensed and insured by very similar standards to taxis. They also have to play by the same rules with regard to fare refusals.

4. Yeah. The ride had the potential to make a mess of the driver's car... That's what goes with the territory / privilege of being a for-hire driver, using public streets to make money.

5. What do you guys reasonably expect them to do? Child birth can begin at any moment over a multi-week span, have a black car parked outside their building 24/7 just in case?


----------



## Demon

UberEricLong said:


> everyone who is siding with the pregnant couple are COMPLETELY wrong! First, let me state the obvious. Uber is not an ambulance or medical service and should not be treated as such. Uber drivers are not trained or prepared for medical emergencies. If you are experiencing a medical emergency, call 911 not Uber! Aside for the obvious, the next biggest consideration for the driver is risk. What are the insurance ramifications if something goes wrong on the trip to the hospital? If you think Uber has the driver covered, I can assure you that is not the case. Additionally, I'm providing this service in my own personal vehicle. Uber does not own the car, I do. It's my prerogative to decline a ride if I'm not comfortable. In this situation I would not be inclined to invite someone who is puking and leaking (for lack of a better term) bodily fluids into my back seat. How do I know if the person has aids or hepatitis? How do I protect myself in case I come in contact with their fluids? I have a family to think about as well. I mean, I have to drive my kids to school in the morning in that same car. Do I want them coming in contact with some strangers bodily fluids? I think not! Bottom line is people use Uber all the time for things other than its intended purpose and the burden/risk always gets absorbed by the drivers.


First let me say I'm not an Uber driver, or a driver of any kind. I don't like what Uber has done in entering markets and I believe they have bullied their way in and as a corporation are totally unethical. I find Uber and the legal process that surrounds them fascinating and that is why I'm here.

That being said, the driver is completely in the wrong for his actions.

1. The driver was legally required to transport this woman to a hospital. 
2. This was not a medical emergency. 
3. It's an Uber driver's job to take people from point A to point B. That's what this couple was asking the driver to do, his job.

Uber has ****ed over everyone in this situation. They ****ed over the driver because they didn't educate him on how to handle this situation, and now they'll probably deactivate him. Not to mention any legal consequences he may face for what he chose to do. They ****ed over the passenger because they tried to cover up what they did.


----------



## jfr1

ChicagoHeat12 said:


> Well I suppose you'd pay that drivers legal bill in the event that the "rarely happens" event happens? I doubt it. She should have called an ambulance if that baby meant anything at all to her. I mean seriously, who'd trust the life of an unborn child in the hands of a person driving for minimum fare?


So, how should pregnant women get around in NYC?


----------



## negeorgia

Demon said:


> First let me say I'm not an Uber driver, or a driver of any kind. I don't like what Uber has done in entering markets and I believe they have bullied their way in and as a corporation are totally unethical. I find Uber and the legal process that surrounds them fascinating and that is why I'm here.
> 
> That being said, the driver is completely in the wrong for his actions.
> 
> 1. The driver was legally required to transport this woman to a hospital.
> 2. This was not a medical emergency.
> 3. It's an Uber driver's job to take people from point A to point B. That's what this couple was asking the driver to do, his job.
> 
> Uber has ****ed over everyone in this situation. They ****ed over the driver because they didn't educate him on how to handle this situation, and now they'll probably deactivate him. Not to mention any legal consequences he may face for what he chose to do. They ****ed over the passenger because they tried to cover up what they did.


Accepting a 'request' is not guaranteeing a completed trip. Pax that ask me to break rules of too many riders, for example. Unruly pax can make a driver decide to end trip prematurely. If your stance is 100% correct, there would be no cancel button.


----------



## grayspinner

Blah said:


> *I took courses in biology, physiology, human anatomy and I can't answer the statements you made below. I'm not being a smart ass but seriously I don't know any of these statements you made below.*
> 
> *Replies below*
> 
> _Honestly - having birthed 4 babies, I can say that the driver should have taken her.
> 
> It was only 3 miles & the likelihood that she would have delivered in the car or even been sick again was pretty darn low._
> *How would he know that? I know the distance is short but how long was she in labor? Also What is the typical birth time? Does the water break when about to give birth or few hours before. My only reference is movies and friends.*
> _
> He could have at least asked how far apart her contractions were and gotten a good feel for how close to delivery she might have been._
> *I know what contractions are, but I don't know what is the rule of contractions. I seriously don't know. *
> _
> Most women labor for hours._
> *Most planes never crash. But some do. And I am an unluckly individual. I had a friend who's labor time was 30 minutes. Seriously. She was 24 at the time.*
> _
> Most women who have hospital births go there in the earlier stages of labor. Her being sick is actually a sign of early labor._
> *I did not know any of this. I also would not have guessed at all being sick is an sign of early labor. I could have guess a million times and would have not have guessed right.*
> _
> Most women don't have their waters rupture until delivery_
> *I did not know this at all. Movies always show water break, then it's an hour rush to the hospital. How are we suppose to know that? *
> _
> And the uterus does an amazing job of protecting the fetus - the likelihood of something going wrong during transport is pretty much non-existent._
> *But it can happen. What if it does? Who is liable? *
> _
> The driver was an ass._
> *I would have given the ride but would have been pissed off as hell. They should have made a plan on how to get to the hospital before hand. It's like people going to the airport with their child, but doesn't want to bring a car seat. They assume we provide one. They assume Uber could accommodate. It's the assumption that bothers me and they had all that time to check with Uber before the flight. Same with these parents. They should have a game plan and dot all I's and crossed all T's. Never assume. *
> _
> I guess none of you guys drove your wives to the hospital to give birth? You all called ambulances because transport by car would be dangerous & messy? Yeah right_
> *I would drive my wife bc I already know the situation ahead of time. Plus why would my wife sue me if something happens? They expected way too much from the driver. *
> 
> *The moral is... plan ahead when the before the pregnancy happens. They just assumed too much which is annoying.
> 
> If my wife is pregnant we would have a drill on what to do if something happens. Contacts, rides, if im present, if im not present, have bags ready etc...*


So a little FYI for you & for the others here who know so very little about childbirth

- labor takes a long time in general. Like hours to days. Sure, there are some outliers that have extremely short labors, but that is very rare & those women are usually in a great deal of pain & not interested in going anywhere.

- Early labor can start & stop and last for days. Women can & do go about their normal life in very early labir.

-once contractions are 3-5 minutes apart regularly & lasting about a minute, active labor is starting and this is the point most women who are giving birth in a hospital will travel there. At this point, it is unlikely labor will stop, but delivery is still usually at least several hours away.

- when contractions are less than a minute apart, transition is beginning and delivery is close.

-delivery can still take awhile - mine were all very quick & about 15 minutes, some women can spend a few hours in this stage. THIS is the messy stage.

- like I said earlier, most women don't have their water break till delivery is occurring. Occasionally it'll happen at the beginning of labor, but that is not as common. It's also not a flood & women have products to keep this from being messy during transport.

-it is really nothing like they show on tv (unless you watch Call the Midwife - that's pretty accurate)

- most women travel to the hospital using whatever their normal mode of transportation might be. So for many, that means their private cars, but for those who live in the city & rely on public transportation that means a taxi or an uber. Heck, I'm sure there are plenty of women who have to take a bus or subway. Think of how rarely you hear of babies being born on public transportation compared to the annual birth rate - that's how unusual it is.

-there is generally no reason to rush to the hospital. But if there is, women know - you can tell when delivery is imminent.

-the only reason a woman would travel by ambulance to deliver is if something was very wrong. That is not at all even remotely the normal method of transportation.

-oh & the throwing up - labor is painful. Some people respond to pain by vomiting. Generally women that experience this do so as active labor is beginning & then you sorta adjust to the pain. Kinda like how some folks will vomit after breaking a bone.


----------



## negeorgia

I am glad I called an ambulance as my 2nd son was birthed in the back of one.


----------



## Slon

grayspinner said:


> So a little FYI for you & for the others here who know so very little about childbirth
> 
> - labor takes a long time in general. Like hours to days. Sure, there are some outliers that have extremely short labors, but that is very rare & those women are usually in a great deal of pain & not interested in going anywhere.
> 
> - Early labor can start & stop and last for days. Women can & do go about their normal life in very early labir.
> 
> -once contractions are 3-5 minutes apart regularly & lasting about a minute, active labor is starting and this is the point most women who are giving birth in a hospital will travel there. At this point, it is unlikely labor will stop, but delivery is still usually at least several hours away.
> 
> - when contractions are less than a minute apart, transition is beginning and delivery is close.
> 
> -delivery can still take awhile - mine were all very quick & about 15 minutes, some women can spend a few hours in this stage. THIS is the messy stage.
> 
> - like I said earlier, most women don't have their water break till delivery is occurring. Occasionally it'll happen at the beginning of labor, but that is not as common. It's also not a flood & women have products to keep this from being messy during transport.
> 
> -it is really nothing like they show on tv (unless you watch Call the Midwife - that's pretty accurate)
> 
> - most women travel to the hospital using whatever their normal mode of transportation might be. So for many, that means their private cars, but for those who live in the city & rely on public transportation that means a taxi or an uber. Heck, I'm sure there are plenty of women who have to take a bus or subway. Think of how rarely you hear of babies being born on public transportation compared to the annual birth rate - that's how unusual it is.
> 
> -there is generally no reason to rush to the hospital. But if there is, women know - you can tell when delivery is imminent.
> 
> -the only reason a woman would travel by ambulance to deliver is if something was very wrong. That is not at all even remotely the normal method of transportation.
> 
> -oh & the throwing up - labor is painful. Some people respond to pain by vomiting. Generally women that experience this do so as active labor is beginning & then you sorta adjust to the pain. Kinda like how some folks will vomit after breaking a bone.


Nobody cares how birth works. It's my car. I don't want some strangers nasty baby juice in MY car because we both know full well that Uber will not make it right. It's also a relatively nice car because that's what Uber requires and not a nasty beat up retired police car that has probably had far worse crap (probably literal crap) on the nasty vinyl back seats.
It's simply NOT worth the risks for us no matter what fine points about the intricacies of child birth you make because Uber will NOT take care of us on the off chance that something doesn't go as planned and you know it!


----------



## Montgomery

jfr1 said:


> What do you guys reasonably expect them to do? Child birth can begin at any moment over a multi-week span, have a black car parked outside their building 24/7 just in case?


Calling an ambulance doesn't seem reasonable enough?


----------



## negeorgia

Nothing goes according to plan. It goes better or worse than planned. Sometimes a lot better or a lot worse. ---- Dave Ramsey.


----------



## jfr1

Montgomery said:


> Calling an ambulance doesn't seem reasonable enough?


Like anyone who understands how the process works, child birth is not always a medical emergency.

Most get driven to hospital by a friend/family member. When there isn't access to that, the backup is not an ambulance.


----------



## jfr1

Slon said:


> Nobody cares how birth works. It's my car. I don't want some strangers nasty baby juice in MY car because we both know full well that Uber will not make it right. It's also a relatively nice car because that's what Uber requires and not a nasty beat up retired police car that has probably had far worse crap (probably literal crap) on the nasty vinyl back seats.
> It's simply NOT worth the risks for us no matter what fine points about the intricacies of child birth you make because Uber will NOT take care of us on the off chance that something doesn't go as planned and you know it!


That's all well and good until you realize that NY is unlike most Uber markets. In NY, Uber is practically a taxi, at least when it comes to rules around fare refusals and such. You surrender the choice of who to let in when you license your car with the taxi bureau.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Blah said:


> *I took courses in biology, physiology, human anatomy and I can't answer the statements you made below. I'm not being a smart ass but seriously I don't know any of these statements you made below.*
> 
> *Replies below*
> 
> _Honestly - having birthed 4 babies, I can say that the driver should have taken her.
> 
> It was only 3 miles & the likelihood that she would have delivered in the car or even been sick again was pretty darn low._
> *How would he know that? I know the distance is short but how long was she in labor? Also What is the typical birth time? Does the water break when about to give birth or few hours before. My only reference is movies and friends.*
> _
> He could have at least asked how far apart her contractions were and gotten a good feel for how close to delivery she might have been._
> *I know what contractions are, but I don't know what is the rule of contractions. I seriously don't know. *
> _
> Most women labor for hours._
> *Most planes never crash. But some do. And I am an unluckly individual. I had a friend who's labor time was 30 minutes. Seriously. She was 24 at the time.*
> _
> Most women who have hospital births go there in the earlier stages of labor. Her being sick is actually a sign of early labor._
> *I did not know any of this. I also would not have guessed at all being sick is an sign of early labor. I could have guess a million times and would have not have guessed right.*
> _
> Most women don't have their waters rupture until delivery_
> *I did not know this at all. Movies always show water break, then it's an hour rush to the hospital. How are we suppose to know that? *
> _
> And the uterus does an amazing job of protecting the fetus - the likelihood of something going wrong during transport is pretty much non-existent._
> *But it can happen. What if it does? Who is liable? *
> _
> The driver was an ass._
> *I would have given the ride but would have been pissed off as hell. They should have made a plan on how to get to the hospital before hand. It's like people going to the airport with their child, but doesn't want to bring a car seat. They assume we provide one. They assume Uber could accommodate. It's the assumption that bothers me and they had all that time to check with Uber before the flight. Same with these parents. They should have a game plan and dot all I's and crossed all T's. Never assume. *
> _
> I guess none of you guys drove your wives to the hospital to give birth? You all called ambulances because transport by car would be dangerous & messy? Yeah right_
> *I would drive my wife bc I already know the situation ahead of time. Plus why would my wife sue me if something happens? They expected way too much from the driver. *
> 
> *The moral is... plan ahead when the before the pregnancy happens. They just assumed too much which is annoying.
> 
> If my wife is pregnant we would have a drill on what to do if something happens. Contacts, rides, if im present, if im not present, have bags ready etc...*


I have a biology degree and I don't know most of that crap either.

I also trained to be an EMT many years ago. Decided against it. Don't like sick people. But I never had to deal with a woman giving birth. The paramedics I knew HATED that happening and said it terrified them more than any other call. They would always go lights and siren even if the birth didn't seem imminent just to avoid the kid being born in the ambulance.

My sister came out the moment my mom got to the hospital. By ambulance. At least they didn't rely on gps to get her there, and no long hauling!


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

grayspinner said:


> So a little FYI for you & for the others here who know so very little about childbirth
> 
> - labor takes a long time in general. Like hours to days. Sure, there are some outliers that have extremely short labors, but that is very rare & those women are usually in a great deal of pain & not interested in going anywhere.
> 
> - Early labor can start & stop and last for days. Women can & do go about their normal life in very early labir.
> 
> -once contractions are 3-5 minutes apart regularly & lasting about a minute, active labor is starting and this is the point most women who are giving birth in a hospital will travel there. At this point, it is unlikely labor will stop, but delivery is still usually at least several hours away.
> 
> - when contractions are less than a minute apart, transition is beginning and delivery is close.
> 
> -delivery can still take awhile - mine were all very quick & about 15 minutes, some women can spend a few hours in this stage. THIS is the messy stage.
> 
> - like I said earlier, most women don't have their water break till delivery is occurring. Occasionally it'll happen at the beginning of labor, but that is not as common. It's also not a flood & women have products to keep this from being messy during transport.
> 
> -it is really nothing like they show on tv (unless you watch Call the Midwife - that's pretty accurate)
> 
> - most women travel to the hospital using whatever their normal mode of transportation might be. So for many, that means their private cars, but for those who live in the city & rely on public transportation that means a taxi or an uber. Heck, I'm sure there are plenty of women who have to take a bus or subway. Think of how rarely you hear of babies being born on public transportation compared to the annual birth rate - that's how unusual it is.
> 
> -there is generally no reason to rush to the hospital. But if there is, women know - you can tell when delivery is imminent.
> 
> -the only reason a woman would travel by ambulance to deliver is if something was very wrong. That is not at all even remotely the normal method of transportation.
> 
> -oh & the throwing up - labor is painful. Some people respond to pain by vomiting. Generally women that experience this do so as active labor is beginning & then you sorta adjust to the pain. Kinda like how some folks will vomit after breaking a bone.


Public transportation has plastic/vinyl seats. This is one of the reasons why. I dont want to rely on a woman guessing when the baby will be born or if her "products" will keep her from being "messy" during transport.

It would not be safe for me to drive her as I'd be watching the back seat, worried about messes the entire time. Plus if the kid comes out I'd have to kick them out since I have no car seat.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

jfr1 said:


> That's all well and good until you realize that NY is unlike most Uber markets. In NY, Uber is practically a taxi, at least when it comes to rules around fare refusals and such. You surrender the choice of who to let in when you license your car with the taxi bureau.


If someone is vomiting when you show up I would hope you can refuse them. Or if you (as an untrained person) think an ambulance is needed.

Or do you transport people who CLEARLY need an ambulance? Who decides that when you cut your hand off on a table saw and are spurting blood that maybe a taxi is not the best choice, especially in traffic?

If the driver thought "Medically I think this pax needs an ambulance" and it turns out he was right but he picked them up anyway and they died on the way, would he be liable?

Anyway I'm in houston. Most pax here take uber so they can drink, not because they don't have a car. But I bet some would call uber in this case, just to avoid mess in their own car.


----------



## jfr1

Fuzzyelvis said:


> If someone is vomiting when you show up I would hope you can refuse them. Or if you (as an untrained person) think an ambulance is needed.
> 
> Or do you transport people who CLEARLY need an ambulance? Who decides that when you cut your hand off on a table saw and are spurting blood that maybe a taxi is not the best choice, especially in traffic?
> 
> If the driver thought "Medically I think this pax needs an ambulance" and it turns out he was right but he picked them up anyway and they died on the way, would he be liable?
> 
> Anyway I'm in houston. Most pax here take uber so they can drink, not because they don't have a car. But I bet some would call uber in this case, just to avoid mess in their own car.


I wouldn't. That person may be vomitting, but they still need to get wherever they're going.

As for the need for an ambulance, as has been mentioned MANY times, a woman giving birth does not need an ambulance. Furthermore, it's not the Uber driver's job to determine whether an ambulance is neccessary. He's not a doctor. That's up to a doctor, and in absence of that, the patient. In this case, there was a birthing coach who would've likely made that determination.

As for liability, i'd say he's more likely to be found liable if something goes wrong as a result of the fare refusal, as he was in no position to make that medical assessment.

Obviously, this falls out of the norm for Uber rides, but having to deal with things 'out of the norm' is part of the territory of getting to make money transporting people.


----------



## Vox Rationis

jfr1 said:


> I wouldn't. That person may be vomitting, but they still need to get wherever they're going.
> 
> As for the need for an ambulance, as has been mentioned MANY times, a woman giving birth does not need an ambulance. Furthermore, it's not the Uber driver's job to determine whether an ambulance is neccessary. He's not a doctor. That's up to a doctor, and in absence of that, the patient. In this case, there was a birthing coach who would've likely made that determination.


"That person may be vomitting [sic], but they still need to get wherever they're going."

"That person may be bleeding profusely, but they still need to get wherever they're going."

"That person may have had a bowel movement in his pants , but they still need to get wherever they're going."

"That person may be obnoxiously inebriated, but they still need to get wherever they're going."

Do you see where I'm going with this?

There are reasonable parameters beyond which a driver doesn't have to give a hoot whether or not someone wanting a ride gets to where they want to go.

I don't care how MANY times it's said by the few obstinant people on this board. Anyone needing to get to a hospital quickly can reasonably be said to have something that can be called a medical emergency. There are specialized vehicles for whisking people to hospitals quickly. We call them ambulances.

You can argue all you want that a woman with contractions doesn't NEEEEED and ambulance. But an ambulance is still a better choice than an Uber ride for both the woman and the driver. It takes a special kind of callous disregard to want to get into a minimum wage stranger's vehicle when there is a chance you are going to spray blood, afterbirth, placenta, urine, and feces all over it.


----------



## Slon

jfr1 said:


> That's all well and good until you realize that NY is unlike most Uber markets. In NY, Uber is practically a taxi, at least when it comes to rules around fare refusals and such. You surrender the choice of who to let in when you license your car with the taxi bureau.


I'm not a taxi. I can't accept street hails and I don't get tips. I can't use taxi waiting lines. I don't have commercial insurance. I am not using a company owned car. I don't have a 1 million dollar medallion bolted to the hood of my car. I can go on and on and on about the benefits and protections taxis have that are not extended to us.

It's absurd to expect drivers to put their livelihood at risk to follow regulations that Uber is busy trying to bypass. You want Uber to do exactly what taxi cabs do? Fine. Give us taxi cab fares and taxi cab insurance where we are covered 100% by Uber with no deductible and then I'll drive a bleeding crackhead to the end of the world.


----------



## jfr1

Vox Rationis said:


> "That person may be vomitting [sic], but they still need to get wherever they're going."
> 
> "That person may be bleeding profusely, but they still need to get wherever they're going."
> 
> "That person may have had a bowel movement in his pants , but they still need to get wherever they're going."
> 
> "That person may be obnoxiously inebriated, but they still need to get wherever they're going."
> 
> Do you see where I'm going with this?
> 
> There are reasonable parameters beyond which a driver doesn't have to give a hoot whether or not someone wanting a ride gets to where they want to go.
> 
> I don't care how MANY times it's said by the few obstinant people on this board. Anyone needing to get to a hospital quickly can reasonably be said to have something that can be called a medical emergency. There are specialized vehicles for whisking people to hospitals quickly. We call them ambulances.
> 
> You can argue all you want that a woman with contractions doesn't NEEEEED and ambulance. But an ambulance is still a better choice than an Uber ride for both the woman and the driver. It takes a special kind of callous disregard to want to get into a minimum wage stranger's vehicle when there is a chance you are going to spray blood, afterbirth, placenta, urine, and feces all over it.


Absolutely... I just don't agree. People with all of the "symptoms" above need a way to get from point A to point B.

An ambulance is not always the best way to go about it, in fact, in most cases, it's not the best way. Needing to get to a hospital relatively quickly does not neccessarily constitute a medical emergency. A medical emergency is where serious body harm has a reasonable chance of occur without immediate medical attention.

That's where for-hire transportation comes in. 99percent of the rides will not have these types of circumstances, but having that industry enables those people to get the ride they need.


----------



## Vox Rationis

jfr1 said:


> Absolutely... I just don't agree. People with all of the "symptoms" above need a way to get from point A to point B.
> 
> An ambulance is not always the best way to go about it, in fact, in most cases, it's not the best way. Needing to get to a hospital relatively quickly does not neccessarily constitute a medical emergency. A medical emergency is where serious body harm has a reasonable chance of occur without immediate medical attention.
> 
> That's where for-hire transportation comes in. 99percent of the rides will not have these types of circumstances, but having that industry enables those people to get the ride they need.


I appreciate the respectful tone of your disagreement. I really do.

But no business lets customers come in any condition and behave however they want. "No shirt, no shoes, no service." It's okay to have standards of behavior and presentation for your customers. If someone is going to damage your physical business assets, you have every right to tell them to take their business elsewhere.

In order to ride in my car, you cannot be bleeding, defecating, vomiting, or abusive to me. If you are, you need to pay me enough to be your friend (which is prohibitively expensive) or have friends and family willing to transport you under these conditions. Or maybe find another transportation service whose prices reflect that they can put up with a lot more crap than I can afford to.

And I want to insert here that Slon's last post is worth reading at least twice.


----------



## jfr1

Vox Rationis said:


> I appreciate the respectful tone of your disagreement. I really do.
> 
> But no business lets customers come in any condition and behave however they want. "No shirt, no shoes, no service." It's okay to have standards of behavior and presentation for your customers. If someone is going to damage your physical business assets, you have every right to tell them to take their business elsewhere.
> 
> In order to ride in my car, you cannot be bleeding, defecating, vomiting, or abusive to me. If you are, you need to pay me enough to be your friend (which is prohibitively expensive) or have friends and family willing to transport you under these conditions. Or maybe find another transportation service whose prices reflect that they can put up with a lot more crap than I can afford to.
> 
> And I want to insert here that Slon's last post is worth reading at least twice.


I think what one needs to appreciate, is that driving for hire isn't just a business, it's a public service too.

You want the privilge of being able to make money ferrying people around on the public roads? You have to put up with the crap sometimes as a result.


----------



## Vox Rationis

jfr1 said:


> I think what one needs to appreciate, is that driving for hire isn't just a business, it's a public service too.
> 
> You want the privilge of being able to make money ferrying people around on the public roads? You have to put up with the crap sometimes as a result.


My family has a shipping business. We rely on public roads to conduct this business. Yet we don't have to put up with crap from customers. You are really shoehorning here. Using public roads? That is not a leg I'd put any weight on as an argument for having to act like a charity.

But if you think this is a public service, then this argument is really over. I don't debate biology with creationists and I won't debate whether or not this is a public service. You seem to have my car confused with the city bus. If that's your belief, I'm guessing you also take issue with my argument that Uber drivers should actually net a profit.


----------



## Demon

negeorgia said:


> Accepting a 'request' is not guaranteeing a completed trip. Pax that ask me to break rules of too many riders, for example. Unruly pax can make a driver decide to end trip prematurely. If your stance is 100% correct, there would be no cancel button.


I never claimed that accepting a request is guaranteeing a completed trip. I only claimed that what the driver did was illegal and against what he had already agreed to do. The driver was the only one who broke the rules here, not the passengers.


----------



## Demon

Vox Rationis said:


> My family has a shipping business. We rely on public roads to conduct this business. Yet we don't have to put up with crap from customers. You are really shoehorning here. Using public roads? That is not a leg I'd put any weight on as an argument for having to act like a charity.
> 
> But if you think this is a public service, then this argument is really over. I don't debate biology with creationists and I won't debate whether or not this is a public service. You seem to have my car confused with the city bus. If that's your belief, I'm guessing you also take issue with my argument that Uber drivers should actually net a profit.


I agree with you, there is no debate, once you became an Uber driver you became a public accommodation. Uber drivers should make a profit. And I'm sure your shipping business has to follow some regulations while using public roads.


----------



## Demon

Vox Rationis said:


> "That person may be vomitting [sic], but they still need to get wherever they're going."
> 
> "That person may be bleeding profusely, but they still need to get wherever they're going."
> 
> "That person may have had a bowel movement in his pants , but they still need to get wherever they're going."
> 
> "That person may be obnoxiously inebriated, but they still need to get wherever they're going."
> 
> Do you see where I'm going with this?
> 
> There are reasonable parameters beyond which a driver doesn't have to give a hoot whether or not someone wanting a ride gets to where they want to go.
> 
> I don't care how MANY times it's said by the few obstinant people on this board. Anyone needing to get to a hospital quickly can reasonably be said to have something that can be called a medical emergency. There are specialized vehicles for whisking people to hospitals quickly. We call them ambulances.
> 
> You can argue all you want that a woman with contractions doesn't NEEEEED and ambulance. But an ambulance is still a better choice than an Uber ride for both the woman and the driver. It takes a special kind of callous disregard to want to get into a minimum wage stranger's vehicle when there is a chance you are going to spray blood, afterbirth, placenta, urine, and feces all over it.


You're comparing apples and oranges. The bleeding person can be legally refused service, the pregnant person can't. If you're not cool with that, driving around strangers may not be for you.


----------



## Vox Rationis

Demon said:


> I agree with you, there is no debate, once you became an Uber driver you became a public accommodation. Uber drivers should make a profit. And I'm sure your shipping business has to follow some regulations while using public roads.


You're absolutely right. We have to follow traffic rules.

The shipping regulations by which we abide have nothing do with public roads.

Get it? There is no connection between earning money using the public roads and the rules of our business.



Demon said:


> You're comparing apples and oranges. The bleeding person can be legally refused service, the pregnant person can't. If you're not cool with that, driving around strangers may not be for you.


So...I can refuse someone who may be about to die if I don't take him to the hospital...but I can't refuse someone who is about to have a baby...?

Don't get me wrong. I would take neither. I would call either one an ambulance and bounce.

And don't think your tone condescension has gone unnoticed. In you Uber has _exactly_ the kind of "partner" it is looking for. I don't think I'm dumb enough, want to operate at a loss enough, want to have people mistreat me and my property enough, or lack enough pride to work for Uber.


----------



## negeorgia

Demon said:


> First let me say I'm not an Uber driver, or a driver of any kind. I don't like what Uber has done in entering markets and I believe they have bullied their way in and as a corporation are totally unethical. I find Uber and the legal process that surrounds them fascinating and that is why I'm here.
> 
> That being said, the driver is completely in the wrong for his actions.
> 
> 1. The driver was legally required to transport this woman to a hospital.
> 2. This was not a medical emergency.
> 3. It's an Uber driver's job to take people from point A to point B. That's what this couple was asking the driver to do, his job.
> 
> Uber has ****ed over everyone in this situation. They ****ed over the driver because they didn't educate him on how to handle this situation, and now they'll probably deactivate him. Not to mention any legal consequences he may face for what he chose to do. They ****ed over the passenger because they tried to cover up what they did.


OK, mister non-driver, let's say point B is a drunk wanting to be taken to his car. Should an Uber driver be deactivated for doing his 'job' and the pax gets a DUI 5 minutes later?


----------



## Demon

Vox Rationis said:


> You're absolutely right. We have to follow traffic rules.
> 
> The shipping regulations by which we abide have nothing do with public roads.
> 
> Get it? There is no connection between earning money using the public roads and the rules of our business.
> 
> So...I can refuse someone who may be about to die if I don't take him to the hospital...but I can't refuse someone who is about to have a baby...?
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I would take neither. I would call either one an ambulance and bounce.
> 
> And don't think your tone condescension has gone unnoticed. Uber has exactly the kind of "partner" it is looking for in you. I don't think I'm dumb enough, want to operate at a loss enough, or lack enough pride to work for Uber.


So a shipping truck using public roads can be any weight the business wants? The driver can drive as many hours as he wants?

Yes you can, because those are two different things.

As stated before not an Uber partner.


----------



## Guest

Demon said:


> I never claimed that accepting a request is guaranteeing a completed trip. I only claimed that what the driver did was illegal and against what he had already agreed to do. The driver was the only one who broke the rules here, not the passengers.


It's actually not illegal. IF the driver accepted the ride, he would be liable to anything happening to the pregnant woman. He is not sufficiently insured to transport pregnant people.

If the husband can't afford an ambulance then the woman might want to consider a divorce, How can she expect him to provide if he can't get an ambulance?


----------



## Demon

negeorgia said:


> OK, mister non-driver, let's say point B is a drunk wanting to be taken to his car. Should an Uber driver be deactivated for doing his 'job' and the pax gets a DUI 5 minutes later?


If the Uber driver does his job and gives the drunk person a ride, why would they be deactivated?


----------



## Demon

RevengeOfTheTrolls said:


> It's actually not illegal. IF the driver accepted the ride, he would be liable to anything happening to the pregnant woman. He is not sufficiently insured to transport pregnant people.
> 
> If the husband can't afford an ambulance then the woman might want to consider a divorce, How can she expect him to provide if he can't get an ambulance?


It is entirely illegal. That's not even up for discussion. The law expressly forbids denying a ride to a pregnant woman.

You seemed to miss the part of my previous post where I said Uber screwed over everyone. Uber should be insuring the driver so they don't have to worry about liability issues.

An ambulance doesn't factor into this at all.


----------



## Vox Rationis

Demon said:


> So a shipping truck using public roads can be any weight the business wants? The driver can drive as many hours as he wants?
> 
> Yes you can, because those are two different things.
> 
> As stated before not an Uber partner.


Dude, you are really reaching. But to answer your question, we only ship internationally and have a small truck for pickups and consolidation to forward the freight to the international shippers. So, yes, we can be on the road as much as we want.

We DO have to stop at weigh stations, but that has nothing to do with our business regs and everything to do with carrying capacities of the roads. It is a matter of regulation on all large vehicles, not directly on our shipping business. It's road rules, not shipping rules.

Edit: Checked with my father. He reminded me that the weight issue is also a road safety one involving stopping distances. STILL nothing to do with actual shipping regulations.


----------



## negeorgia

Demon said:


> I never claimed that accepting a request is guaranteeing a completed trip. I only claimed that what the driver did was illegal and against what he had already agreed to do. The driver was the only one who broke the rules here, not the passengers.


I agree the pax broke no rules and have stated many times I don't agree with the driver collecting a cancel fee on this. I am not familiar with an Uber rule that I cannot cancel a childbirth to hospital request (not saying I would). So far, I have not cancelled a request based on destination, just no shows, pinpoints off by more than 3 miles (with pax not contacting me) and pax requesting more than 4 seats in my UberX.


----------



## negeorgia

Demon said:


> It is entirely illegal. That's not even up for discussion. The law expressly forbids denying a ride to a pregnant woman.
> 
> You seemed to miss the part of my previous post where I said Uber screwed over everyone. Uber should be insuring the driver so they don't have to worry about liability issues.
> 
> An ambulance doesn't factor into this at all.


Is there a Georgia law that I Uber a pregnant lady to the hospital?


----------



## Demon

Vox Rationis said:


> Dude, you are really reaching. But to answer your question, we only ship internationally and have a small truck for pickups and consolidation to forward the freight to the international shippers. So, yes, we can be on the road as much as we want.
> 
> We DO have to stop at weigh stations, but that has nothing to do with our business regs and everything to do with carrying capacities of the roads. It is a matter of regulation on all large vehicles, not directly on our shipping business. It's road rules, not shipping rules.


And that's all that I'm saying, when you use the public roads to make money you have to follow rules.


----------



## Guest

Demon said:


> It is entirely illegal. That's not even up for discussion. The law expressly forbids denying a ride to a pregnant woman.
> 
> You seemed to miss the part of my previous post where I said Uber screwed over everyone. Uber should be insuring the driver so they don't have to worry about liability issues.
> 
> An ambulance doesn't factor into this at all.


What law is this? Everyone seems to be spitting laws.

Where I am from, good samaritan laws could go back and haunt you. If you try to be a good
samaritan and you cause further damage or injuries to the person you're helping and you're
not licensed to practice such actions, you could be charged with a crime.

Quit saying it's legal. The ADA does not cover transport of pregnant women going INTO LABOR.


----------



## Vox Rationis

Demon said:


> And that's all that I'm saying, when you use the public roads to make money you have to follow rules.


No, don't please don't try to pull a fast one here.

The point was about having to become a public service and pick up women in labor BECAUSE rideshare uses public roads (like there's some private option).

The argument was that use of public roads turned a rideshare driver into a quasi public servant.

Now you're turning it into some very vague pablum about having to follow rules to make money.

Please.

You have lost the argument and now are saying the equivalent of, "If you want to make money at the office, you have to avoid getting arrested for running red lights." While true, it has nothing to do with what we're talking about.


----------



## Guest

Vox Rationis said:


> No, don't please don't try to pull a fast one here.
> 
> The point was about having to become a public service and pick up women in labor BECAUSE rideshare uses public roads (like there's some private option).
> 
> The argument was that use of public roads turned a rideshare driver into a quasi public servant.
> 
> Now you're turning it into some very vague pablum about having to follow rules to make money.
> 
> Please.


Demon was trumped and now tries to back out. He claims it is illegal to deny transporting a
woman who is in labor. That is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard.

Take this man off the road. He'll be the one pod racing through the streets hailing people
to the hospitals.


----------



## Vox Rationis

RevengeOfTheTrolls said:


> Demon was trumped and now tries to back out.


Glad I'm not the only one who noticed. I appended my last post to reflect that.

_You have lost the argument and now are saying the equivalent of, "If you want to make money at the office, you have to avoid getting arrested for running red lights." While true, it has nothing to do with what we're talking about._



> Take this man off the road. He'll be the one pod racing through the streets hailing people
> to the hospitals.


That gave me a genuine laugh. Thank you.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

jfr1 said:


> I think what one needs to appreciate, is that driving for hire isn't just a business, it's a public service too.
> 
> You want the privilge of being able to make money ferrying people around on the public roads? You have to put up with the crap sometimes as a result.


PRIVILEGE???
ROFLMFAO


----------



## negeorgia

BTW,this is issue has had a final word in my house. My wife said I better not refuse to take a pregnant lady to the hospital. So grateful for a woman in my life that also knows, 'It's just a car'. I would never recommend anyone Uber with a car payment or with a car they need.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Demon said:


> It is entirely illegal. That's not even up for discussion. The law expressly forbids denying a ride to a pregnant woman.
> 
> You seemed to miss the part of my previous post where I said Uber screwed over everyone. Uber should be insuring the driver so they don't have to worry about liability issues.
> 
> An ambulance doesn't factor into this at all.


There may be local ordinances forbidding denying service to a pregnant woman. But pregnancy is not considered a disability so it's not covered under the ADA.

It is not mentioned in the Houston ordinance do far as I remember. In the many places Uber is operating illegally anyway, adding that to the mix means nothing because the pax in these markets are hiring illegal transportation anyway.

Plus, ADA laws are that you can't refuse someone BECAUSE of a disability. Not that you can't AT ALL. If someone is vomiting then that would be reason enough for me. If they are abusive, drunk etc etc same thing.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Demon said:


> If the Uber driver does his job and gives the drunk person a ride, why would they be deactivated?


Well they'll be sued by the family of the drunk and whoever he hits for one.

I have refused several rides to drunks going to pick up their car. It's one more reason I don't start the trip without a destination.


----------



## Vox Rationis

negeorgia said:


> BTW,this is issue has had a final word in my house. My wife said I better not refuse to take a pregnant lady to the hospital. So grateful for a woman in my life that also knows, 'It's just a car'. I would never recommend anyone Uber with a car payment or with a car they need.


It's the nice, noble thing to do, but not the smart thing to do.

And it's not about her being pregnant, just so I'm clear. It's about the imminent ejection of the baby from her body along with blood, afterbirth, and excrement, as well as the risk of having a newborn baby coming out of a woman who is in a vehicle under my control.


----------



## jfr1

Vox Rationis said:


> My family has a shipping business. We rely on public roads to conduct this business. Yet we don't have to put up with crap from customers. You are really shoehorning here. Using public roads? That is not a leg I'd put any weight on as an argument for having to act like a charity.
> 
> But if you think this is a public service, then this argument is really over. I don't debate biology with creationists and I won't debate whether or not this is a public service. You seem to have my car confused with the city bus. If that's your belief, I'm guessing you also take issue with my argument that Uber drivers should actually net a profit.


Use of the public roads gives government the right to regulate your business, and if appropriate, make your business a public service.

Obviously, shipping goods does not fall within the traditional definition of a public service. Moving people around absolutely does fall within the realm of a public service...right alongside the bus which is not appropriate for many situations.

Those are the rules that apply to new York drivers.


----------



## CityGirl

Vox Rationis said:


> It's the nice, noble thing to do, but not the smart thing to do.
> 
> And it's not about her being pregnant, just so I'm clear. It's about the imminent ejection of the baby from her body along with blood, afterbirth, and excrement, as well as the risk of having a newborn baby coming out of a woman who is in a vehicle under my control.


It's an imminent medical emergency, I am not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but it's not our place to be transporting people who really do need an ambulance. Not saying she was or wasn't *that* imminent, but common sense ought to prevail first in the best interest of the passenger and then ourselves.


----------



## ChicagoHeat12

jfr1 said:


> So, how should pregnant women get around in NYC?


They should get around like we all do. But a pregnant woman in active labor? Well, let's just say an idiot would use uber as a first choice. I'd call an ambulance


----------



## jfr1

Vox Rationis said:


> My family has a shipping business. We rely on public roads to conduct this business. Yet we don't have to put up with crap from customers. You are really shoehorning here. Using public roads? That is not a leg I'd put any weight on as an argument for having to act like a charity.
> 
> But if you think this is a public service, then this argument is really over. I don't debate biology with creationists and I won't debate whether or not this is a public service. You seem to have my car confused with the city bus. If that's your belief, I'm guessing you also take issue with my argument that Uber drivers should actually net a profit.


Use of the public roads gives government the right to regulate your business, and if appropriate, make your business a public service.

Obviously, shipping goods does not fall within the traditional definition of a public service. Moving people around absolutely does fall within the realm of a public service...right alongside the bus which is not appropriate for many situations.

Those are the rules that apply to new York drivers.


----------



## Vox Rationis

jfr1 said:


> Use of the public roads gives government the right to regulate your business, and if appropriate, make your business a public service.
> 
> Obviously, shipping goods does not fall within the traditional definition of a public service. Moving people around absolutely does fall within the realm of a public service...right alongside the bus which is not appropriate for many situations.
> 
> Those are the rules that apply to new York drivers.


Moving people around on a public bus falls within the realm of public service. Moving people around in my privately-owned car is a private service. Like any business, this private service is subject to regulations (in theory), but it is not public.

You seem to have some weird ideas and definitions. I admit I don't know about New York's convolutions. I spent the first 30 years of my life there and had the good sense to get out.


----------



## negeorgia

Vox Rationis said:


> It's the nice, noble thing to do, but not the smart thing to do.
> 
> And it's not about her being pregnant, just so I'm clear. It's about the imminent ejection of the baby from her body along with blood, afterbirth, and excrement, as well as the risk of having a newborn baby coming out of a woman who is in a vehicle under my control.


We all get to choose when to cancel, I like that about Uber. I had a pax ask me last week if I Ubered to meet people. I would never consider this a way to meet people, but it is interesting what other people think.


----------



## jfr1

RevengeOfTheTrolls said:


> It's actually not illegal. IF the driver accepted the ride, he would be liable to anything happening to the pregnant woman. He is not sufficiently insured to transport pregnant people.
> 
> If the husband can't afford an ambulance then the woman might want to consider a divorce, How can she expect him to provide if he can't get an ambulance?


In many cases, Uber driver aren't sufficientl insured to transport any people, yet they do it anyways. NYC does not fall within that area though -- Uber drivers there are basically cabs that you don't hail.

This is not about whether the husband could afford the ambulance, this is about whther the ambulance was the right method of transportation, and a many in this thread have pointed out, it wasn't. It's not a medical emergency. Ambulances need to be available for medical emergencies, not ferrying around people who don't have a car.


----------



## Vox Rationis

jfr1 said:


> In many cases, Uber driver aren't sufficientl insured to transport any people, yet they do it anyways. NYC does not fall within that area though -- Uber drivers there are basically cabs that you don't hail.
> 
> This is not about whether the husband could afford the ambulance, this is about whther the ambulance was the right method of transportation, and a many in this thread have pointed out, it wasn't. It's not a medical emergency. Ambulances need to be available for medical emergencies, not ferrying around people who don't have a car.


"I need to go to the hospital and get there as soon as is humanly possible so that I can be attended to by medical professionals because my current condition requires it.

"But it's not a medical emergency or anything."

If Uber drivers are indeed legally required in NYc to take on this kind of risk and potential biohazard level discharge onto their personal property, then NYC Uber drivers are even worse at decision-making than Detroit Uber drivers.


----------



## negeorgia

Demon said:


> If the Uber driver does his job and gives the drunk person a ride, why would they be deactivated?


Why would people from Phoenix be called Venetians? Why, indeed.


----------



## Demon

Vox Rationis said:


> No, don't please don't try to pull a fast one here.
> 
> The point was about having to become a public service and pick up women in labor BECAUSE rideshare uses public roads (like there's some private option).
> 
> The argument was that use of public roads turned a rideshare driver into a quasi public servant.
> 
> Now you're turning it into some very vague pablum about having to follow rules to make money.
> 
> Please.
> 
> You have lost the argument and now are saying the equivalent of, "If you want to make money at the office, you have to avoid getting arrested for running red lights." While true, it has nothing to do with what we're talking about.


You're mistaken. No one claimed Uber drivers are public servants.

Here is the point, anyone who uses public roads has to follow the rules of public roads. Anyone operating a cab in NYC (in NYC Uber drivers have to follow the same regulations as cabs) has to follow those rules.

No one is sharing a ride with Uber.


----------



## Demon

RevengeOfTheTrolls said:


> What law is this? Everyone seems to be spitting laws.
> 
> Where I am from, good samaritan laws could go back and haunt you. If you try to be a good
> samaritan and you cause further damage or injuries to the person you're helping and you're
> not licensed to practice such actions, you could be charged with a crime.
> 
> Quit saying it's legal. The ADA does not cover transport of pregnant women going INTO LABOR.


It's the law in NYC.

Good Samaritan laws don't apply in this case, and you're totally misquoting what Good Samaritan laws are.

No one has said that ADA has anything to do with pregnant women.


----------



## Guest

Demon said:


> It's the law in NYC.
> 
> Good Samaritan laws don't apply in this case, and you're totally misquoting what Good Samaritan laws are.
> 
> No one has said that ADA has anything to do with pregnant women.


Show me where that says it's the law.


----------



## Demon

RevengeOfTheTrolls said:


> Show me where that says it's the law.


http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/rules/rules.shtml


----------



## Guest

your link is a link to a page with more links.

IT is not Illegal to deny transport to someone who is in labor. Driver's are not equipped to deal with the medical situations at hand.


----------



## Demon

RevengeOfTheTrolls said:


> your link is a link to a page with more links.
> 
> IT is not Illegal to deny transport to someone who is in labor. Driver's are not equipped to deal with the medical situations at hand.


You asked and you received. All the laws are there.

Cite me anything that says it's legal for a driver to deny service to a woman who is pregnant. I'll wait.


----------



## Guest

Demon said:


> You asked and you received. All the laws are there.
> 
> Cite me anything that says it's legal for a driver to deny service to a woman who is pregnant. I'll wait.


I asked you first to show me where it says it's illegal. Quit hiding around the bush. you say it's illegal and i asked show me where it says it's illegal. Not a bunch of links for me to look for it. typical idiot who can't prove anything


----------



## Demon

RevengeOfTheTrolls said:


> I asked you first to show me where it says it's illegal. Quit hiding around the bush. you say it's illegal and i asked show me where it says it's illegal. Not a bunch of links for me to look for it. typical idiot who can't prove anything


No cite? I'm not surprised.

NYC TLC 54-20. I followed the same link I gave you.


----------



## jfr1

ChicagoHeat12 said:


> They should get around like we all do. But a pregnant woman in active labor? Well, let's just say an idiot would use uber as a first choice. I'd call an ambulance


As has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread, early stages of labour does not require an ambulance. It requires a drive to the hospital. Where that person does not have a ride to the hospital, the for hire industry comes in.


----------



## jfr1

Vox Rationis said:


> Moving people around on a public bus falls within the realm of public service. Moving people around in my privately-owned car is a private service. Like any business, this private service is subject to regulations (in theory), but it is not public.
> 
> You seem to have some weird ideas and definitions. I admit I don't know about New York's convolutions. I spent the first 30 years of my life there and had the good sense to get out.


No, it's really not. The taxi/ for hire transport service absolutely falls within the realm of public service. These industries are necessary to modern life in a big city, so much so that pretty much every municipality has highly strict laws which govern everything from pricing, supply, and in this case, fare refusals.

No, It's not owned by the government, but the government does set forth the terms for operating if you are going to do so.


----------



## jfr1

Vox Rationis said:


> "I need to go to the hospital and get there as soon as is humanly possible so that I can be attended to by medical professionals because my current condition requires it.
> 
> "But it's not a medical emergency or anything."
> 
> If Uber drivers are indeed legally required in NYc to take on this kind of risk and potential biohazard level discharge onto their personal property, then NYC Uber drivers are even worse at decision-making than Detroit Uber drivers.


You don't seem to have a very good grasp on what constitutes a medical emergency. A medical emergency occurs when there is a distinct possibility of bodily harm without immediate medical attention. This is not a person who is about to bleed to death... This is a person who will require medical attention very soon, and is unable to walk to the hospital.


----------



## Slon

jfr1 said:


> No, it's really not. The taxi/ for hire transport service absolutely falls within the realm of public service. These industries are necessary to modern life in a big city, so much so that pretty much every municipality has highly strict laws which *govern everything from pricing, supply,* and in this case, fare refusals.
> 
> No, It's not owned by the government, but the government does set forth the terms for operating if you are going to do so.


So please explain how these laws apply to regulating Uber's pricing and supply?

You can't tell us that Uber drivers can get paid less than cabs, not benefit from an artificial scarcity of cabs and not be granted any protections - but be bound by the same fare refusal laws?

Come on buddy - you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

You want same level of service as a registered and regulated taxi company - guess who you got to call? Hint: It's not Uber.


----------



## Montgomery

jfr1 said:


> Like anyone who understands how the process works, child birth is not always a medical emergency.
> 
> Most get driven to hospital by a friend/family member. When there isn't access to that, the backup is not an ambulance.


The questions was for any reasonable suggestions. While child birth may not always be a "medical emergency" as you put it, it defies logic to claim that it would be unreasonable to call an ambulance to take a woman in labor to a hospital.


----------



## kbrown

I know that Uber would never compensate us enough for that mess- AND I would lose how many days off to get the car cleaned? And- what if something happens and she starts to deliver in the back of my car? Her water breaks and the baby comes fast? Or what if it's a breach baby? Or- what if she continues to vomit inside the car? And even if they say they'll pay, will they? In the excitement of the baby being born, they rush out of the car, and they don't have time or thought processes to get my information and pay me for that. Or, they try to contact Uber, and they get the canned response "it's a cashless trip, so don't give them any money- we've got your back!", or some stupid shyte Uber likes to say. 

And what couple about to give birth says let's Uber on! and get an Uber to the hospital- we can save money! Or... we can use that new passenger code and get it for free! Bleah.

No thanks. I don't blame the driver at all. I blame the pax on this. They should have had a better plan. Call a friend. Drive yourselves. Call 911. Have your birthing coach take you. Heck, if you're gonna do Uber, why don't you just get a Hoverboard and roll down there?

Uber drivers just don't get paid enough. We aren't your ambulances. We aren't your shrinks. We aren't your besties. We aren't your deejays. We are independent drivers that take you from point A to point B and get you there in one piece without incident. If you can't get past this, then you shouldn't be riding in an Uber. Go ride Sidecar.... before they totally go out of business!


----------



## jfr1

Slon said:


> So please explain how these laws apply to regulating Uber's pricing and supply?
> 
> You can't tell us that Uber drivers can get paid less than cabs, not benefit from an artificial scarcity of cabs and not be granted any protections - but be bound by the same fare refusal laws?
> 
> Come on buddy - you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
> 
> You want same level of service as a registered and regulated taxi company - guess who you got to call? Hint: It's not Uber.


Actually... I CAN tell you that, because those are exactly the rules that bound NYC drivers. NYC relaxed the rules on supply/pricing to allow Uber in, they did not relax the rules on anything else.... the conversation wouldn't go very far anyways.

If an Uber driver doesn't like that, they are free not to drive


----------



## jfr1

Montgomery said:


> The questions was for any reasonable suggestions. While child birth may not always be a "medical emergency" as you put it, it defies logic to claim that it would be unreasonable to call an ambulance to take a woman in labor to a hospital.


Yes, it would be unreasonable if that ambulance was not medically neccessary.

The expectant mother, and her child birth coach, are far more qualified to determine whether the ambulance is medically neccessary than an Uber driver.


----------



## kbrown

A birth coach is NOT a medical professional. Neither is the mother. You never know what's going to happen. It's up to the driver to decide what he's comfortable with doing. If he's not comfortable with it, he shouldn't be obligated to do it. 

I am going to work to teach my prenatal pilates now. I'll ask those women their opinion and report back. They don't know I drive for Uber.


----------



## jfr1

kbrown said:


> A birth coach is NOT a medical professional. Neither is the mother. You never know what's going to happen. It's up to the driver to decide what he's comfortable with doing. If he's not comfortable with it, he shouldn't be obligated to do it.
> 
> I am going to work to teach my prenatal pilates now. I'll ask those women their opinion and report back. They don't know I drive for Uber.


They are by far the most qualified to make the call (versus the Uber driver), and yes, it is their call to make.

No, it's not up to the driver to decide what he's comfortable with. It's required for the driver to obey the rules regarding fare refusals, and provide service.


----------



## kbrown

Ummmmm... they might be the most qualified in that situation, *but they are not medical professionals.* And yes, we can decline rides where we aren't comfortable. As a female deiver, if I have a couple of big guys get in the car and make sexually suggestive comments, even in jest, *I have the right to decline or refuse the trip.* We are *INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS, not employees. According to the law, *the Department of Labor days that independent contractors are not obligated to do anything they don't want to do, and we can work for anyone we want. Uber screwed themselves. They can't obligate me to do a trip I don't want to do. If they do, they risk calling us employees. That's ultimately why Uber won't step in to deal with this. This is why they are being sued in several class action lawsuits. Because we are classified as independent contractors. We might be morally obligsted to do it, but we aren't legally. Uber is a pretty immoral company, and they built the monster. There will be lots of heartless Uber deivers, but Uber created this situation, and they won't dare step in and comment on it. Mark my words.


----------



## Demon

kbrown said:


> Ummmmm... they might be the most qualified in that situation, *but they are not medical professionals.* And yes, we can decline rides where we aren't comfortable. As a female deiver, if I have a couple of big guys get in the car and make sexually suggestive comments, even in jest, *I have the right to decline or refuse the trip.* We are *INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS, not employees. According to the law, *the Department of Labor days that independent contractors are not obligated to do anything they don't want to do, and we can work for anyone we want. Uber screwed themselves. They can't obligate me to do a trip I don't want to do. If they do, they risk calling us employees. That's ultimately why Uber won't step in to deal with this. This is why they are being sued in several class action lawsuits. Because we are classified as independent contractors. We might be morally obligsted to do it, but we aren't legally. Uber is a pretty immoral company, and they built the monster. There will be lots of heartless Uber deivers, but Uber created this situation, and they won't dare step in and comment on it. Mark my words.


Please understand that you're mistaken. You can't legally cancel ALL rides, there are some rides that when you accept you pretty much must complete. In this situation the driver was legally obligated to take the passenger from point A to point B. Legally, you can't cancel any ride you want. This isn't debatable.


----------



## kbrown

Demon said:


> Please understand that you're mistaken. You can't legally cancel ALL rides, there are some rides that when you accept you pretty much must complete. In this situation the driver was legally obligated to take the passenger from point A to point B. Legally, you can't cancel any ride you want. This isn't debatable.


Read again. I didn't say ALL RIDES. That is obtuse. I said we are independent contractors, and therefore, if we want to cancel a ride, we can. As independent contractors, we still have to perform work. It's straight up stupid to say otherwise. Businesses have independent contractors they work with all the time. If they refused to straight up work, they wouldn't have a job.


----------



## negeorgia

Demon said:


> Please understand that you're mistaken. You can't legally cancel ALL rides, there are some rides that when you accept you pretty much must complete. In this situation the driver was legally obligated to take the passenger from point A to point B. Legally, you can't cancel any ride you want. This isn't debatable.


I guess you are saying there are federal laws (New York laws are not nationwide). Service Animals is what Uber has informed me of. (ADA). Are you aware of some reasons that Uber has neglected to inform me of?


----------



## Demon

kbrown said:


> Read again. I didn't say ALL RIDES. That is obtuse. I said we are independent contractors, and therefore, if we want to cancel a ride, we can. As independent contractors, we still have to perform work. It's straight up stupid to say otherwise. Businesses have independent contractors they work with all the time. If they refused to straight up work, they wouldn't have a job.


I'll invite you to read my post and be more explicit, you can't cancel all types of rides. There are some rides you must pickup.


----------



## Demon

negeorgia said:


> I guess you are saying there are federal laws (New York laws are not nationwide). Service Animals is what Uber has informed me of. (ADA). Are you aware of some reasons that Uber has neglected to inform me of?


And woman in labor is another that Uber has said you must pickup.


----------



## negeorgia

Demon said:


> And woman in labor is another that Uber has said you must pickup.


I do not recall an email from Uber regarding this. I am not aware of it being a federal law or Georgia law. (BTW, I have yet to cancel a request because of destination.... I am starting to think a drunk to their car might be a reason to, but what if they are pregnant and have a service animal?)


----------



## kbrown

Demon said:


> I'll invite you to read my post and be more explicit, you can't cancel all types of rides. There are some rides you must pickup.


And that is why Uber is being sued. That makes us emplyees and not independent contractors. Hey, I'm not mad. I'll do it. Uber just needs to pay for my down tome, get me health insurance, benefits, time off with pay, etc. This is the type of work that the federal law states as an emplorlyee I am emtitled to if they are now dictating my work in that manner. Relax, folks! This just proves our case, and we will get our payouts from Uber soon!


----------



## kbrown

Demon said:


> I'll invite you to read my post and be more explicit, you can't cancel all types of rides. There are some rides you must pickup.


Ok. When I go rob a bank, imma straight up call Uber for my getaway car. You will be legally obligated to complete the trip. Hope you're not charged as an accessory after the fact!


----------



## Cooluberdriver

rtaatl said:


> Yeah, it's a little cold but placing such a burden on an Uber driver isn't fair. If the baby is so important to her than she could have dialed 911 and been in the care of medical professionals. People are cheap and lazy these days.


Amen brother amen


----------



## ginseng41

I'm a registered nurse and have assisted with many births and labors. There is one thing I know with certainty, there is no guarantee that any labor is going to be typical. I've seen labor go beginning to end in only a few hours. How on earth can an uber driver judge if delivery is eminent? Depending on time of day and where in Manhattan you're going, 3 miles could end up taking hours. Crosstown in Midtown during December could end up as a bad situation even if things were fine at the time of pick up. If the driver doesn't feel comfortable driving the passenger, why on earth would a pregnant couple even want them to drive them and their precious cargo?


----------



## jfr1

kbrown said:


> Ummmmm... they might be the most qualified in that situation, *but they are not medical professionals.* And yes, we can decline rides where we aren't comfortable. As a female deiver, if I have a couple of big guys get in the car and make sexually suggestive comments, even in jest, *I have the right to decline or refuse the trip.* We are *INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS, not employees. According to the law, *the Department of Labor days that independent contractors are not obligated to do anything they don't want to do, and we can work for anyone we want. Uber screwed themselves. They can't obligate me to do a trip I don't want to do. If they do, they risk calling us employees. That's ultimately why Uber won't step in to deal with this. This is why they are being sued in several class action lawsuits. Because we are classified as independent contractors. We might be morally obligsted to do it, but we aren't legally. Uber is a pretty immoral company, and they built the monster. There will be lots of heartless Uber deivers, but Uber created this situation, and they won't dare step in and comment on it. Mark my words.


1. They are not medical professionals, and neither is the Uber driver. They are simply far more qualified to make the determination as to what was the most appropriate method of transportation.

2. There were no medical professionals present, and therefore, it was up to the PATIENT to determine what the severity of her condition was, and whether an ambulance was required.

Your relationship with Uber, and it's contractor/employee status, has absolutely nothing to do with the rules laid out by NYC for for-hire drivers. In NYC, drivers do not have the right to refuse fares at their whim. There are specific circumstances under which a fare can be refused, and a woman going into labour is not one of them.


----------



## Demon

kbrown said:


> Ok. When I go rob a bank, imma straight up call Uber for my getaway car. You will be legally obligated to complete the trip. Hope you're not charged as an accessory after the fact!


Good luck with calling Uber. Let me know if you find a phone number for them.


----------



## Demon

ginseng41 said:


> I'm a registered nurse and have assisted with many births and labors. There is one thing I know with certainty, there is no guarantee that any labor is going to be typical. I've seen labor go beginning to end in only a few hours. How on earth can an uber driver judge if delivery is eminent? Depending on time of day and where in Manhattan you're going, 3 miles could end up taking hours. Crosstown in Midtown during December could end up as a bad situation even if things were fine at the time of pick up. If the driver doesn't feel comfortable driving the passenger, why on earth would a pregnant couple even want them to drive them and their precious cargo?


Why doesn't matter. The driver was legally obligated to take them.


----------



## MzBehavn

rtaatl said:


> Yeah, it's a little cold but placing such a burden on an Uber driver isn't fair. If the baby is so important to her than she could have dialed 911 and been in the care of medical professionals. People are cheap and lazy these days.


Exactly what I was thinking...

Also, I'm surprised that the complainer was a lawyer. He should have heard of something called the 13th Amendment, ya know the anti slavery law... There are many contracts cases that refuse to make a person perform services because of the 13th. Additionally, we have not agreed to drive anyone until we swipe the green bar, up until that point we still have the option to cancel... and contractually speaking, there was no agreement to give a ride, what we agreed to do, was drive to the location to wait and see if we are going to accept the ride.

Also, the court will weigh the driver's 13th rights against the inconvenience of the woman in labor, and the article clearly stated they got their money back, and easily got another ride, so not much in the way of damages. So, yeah, just another lawyer who was too busy to take care of his own family needs, and is fronting to save face.


----------



## MzBehavn

Demon said:


> Good luck with calling Uber. Let me know if you find a phone number for them.


Did you see that youtube about the Uber driver who literally was in this situation? He called the police and pretended he was talking to a family member, and got them caught.


----------



## Vox Rationis

RevengeOfTheTrolls said:


> Demon was trumped and now tries to back out. He claims it is illegal to deny transporting a
> woman who is in labor. That is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard.
> 
> Take this man off the road. He'll be the one pod racing through the streets hailing people
> to the hospitals.





kbrown said:


> And that is why Uber is being sued. That makes us emplyees and not independent contractors. Hey, I'm not mad. I'll do it. Uber just needs to pay for my down tome, get me health insurance, benefits, time off with pay, etc. This is the type of work that the federal law states as an emplorlyee I am emtitled to if they are now dictating my work in that manner. Relax, folks! This just proves our case, and we will get our payouts from Uber soon!





kbrown said:


> Ok. When I go rob a bank, imma straight up call Uber for my getaway car. You will be legally obligated to complete the trip. Hope you're not charged as an accessory after the fact!





ginseng41 said:


> I'm a registered nurse and have assisted with many births and labors. There is one thing I know with certainty, there is no guarantee that any labor is going to be typical. I've seen labor go beginning to end in only a few hours. How on earth can an uber driver judge if delivery is eminent? Depending on time of day and where in Manhattan you're going, 3 miles could end up taking hours. Crosstown in Midtown during December could end up as a bad situation even if things were fine at the time of pick up. If the driver doesn't feel comfortable driving the passenger, why on earth would a pregnant couple even want them to drive them and their precious cargo?


Most of us here get this. There are a couple of people who keep trying to apply taxi laws to Uber and who keep trying to pretend that hailing an Uber was somehow a good idea by the expectant parents or fair to the driver.

Uber's entire success is based on breaking laws and daring municipalities and entire national governments to call them on it (and on hoping their partners aren't very good at math). If NYC really wants to apply taxi cab rules to people in their personal vehicles without affording them artificial taxi scarcity, wage protections, etc, then driving Uber in NYC really is a bad idea. If you are forced to let people bleed and defecate in your personal vehicle for less than minimum wage, then you really should reconsider being a rideshare driver in that municipality.

For all the sophists who are arguing points of law: Uber is the option these cheapskates pick precisely because it skirts or outright breaks laws and so can offer regulation-free pricing. The cheap option exists because driver "partners" are desperate enough to be taking risks in order to approach profitability. So these riders really shouldn't cry when occasionally trying the cheapskate way backfires on them and the driver decides that a particular passengers presents too much risk. You want guaranteed acceptance, call a cab.


MzBehavn said:


> Exactly what I was thinking...
> 
> Also, I'm surprised that the complainer was a lawyer. He should have heard of something called the 13th Amendment, ya know the anti slavery law... There are many contracts cases that refuse to make a person perform services because of the 13th. Additionally, we have not agreed to drive anyone until we swipe the green bar, up until that point we still have the option to cancel... and contractually speaking, there was no agreement to give a ride, what we agreed to do, was drive to the location to wait and see if we are going to accept the ride.
> 
> Also, the court will weigh the driver's 13th rights against the inconvenience of the woman in labor, and the article clearly stated they got their money back, and easily got another ride, so not much in the way of damages. So, yeah, just another lawyer who was too busy to take care of his own family needs, and is fronting to save face.


Funny you should mention Abolition.

There are people here who would defend beating and killing black people if slavery were still the law.


----------



## kbrown

jfr1 said:


> 1. They are not medical professionals, and neither is the Uber driver. They are simply far more qualified to make the determination as to what was the most appropriate method of transportation.
> 
> 2. There were no medical professionals present, and therefore, it was up to the PATIENT to determine what the severity of her condition was, and whether an ambulance was required.
> 
> Your relationship with Uber, and it's contractor/employee status, has absolutely nothing to do with the rules laid out by NYC for for-hire drivers. In NYC, drivers do not have the right to refuse fares at their whim. There are specific circumstances under which a fare can be refused, and a woman going into labour is not one of them.


That's dumb. Patients often don't know what's happening during a medical emergency. Regardless, because Uber folks AREN'T medical professionals, even more reason to NOT do the trip.

It's sad you live in a clueless and dumb state like NYC when they force people to put themselves in a situation where things can go badly, especially when they're independent contractors. But regardless of that, federal law TRUMPS state law- so it would become a legal issue if this dumb couple is really stupid enough to pursue something as inane as this. Plan for the baby, not act like a bunch of cheap @sses and order an Uber when you are at your most critical time with a medical situation where you're bringing life into this world. No way would I trust that with Uber. That's dumb. It's beyond dumb.


----------



## kbrown

Demon said:


> Why doesn't matter. The driver was legally obligated to take them.


Quote the law, then. If they're legally obligated, you should be able to show it, not say "Uber says so".

God, you are such a sheep.


----------



## kbrown

Demon said:


> Good luck with calling Uber. Let me know if you find a phone number for them.


You know I meant I'm ordering an Uber. All those sheep out there means I could rob that bank, click the Uber request and have an Uber out front inside of a minute. Are you seriously this obtuse?


----------



## kbrown

Vox Rationis said:


> Most of us here get this. There are a couple of people who keep trying to apply taxi laws to Uber and who keep trying to pretend that hailing an Uber was somehow a good idea by the expectant parents or fair to the driver.
> 
> Uber's entire success is based on breaking laws and daring municipalities and entire national governments to call them on it (and on hoping their partners aren't very good at math). If NYC really wants to apply taxi cab rules to people in their personal vehicles without affording them artificial taxi scarcity, wage protections, etc, then driving Uber in NYC really is a bad idea. If you are forced to let people bleed and defecate in your personal vehicle for less than minimum wage, then you really should reconsider being a rideshare driver in that municipality.
> 
> For all the sophists who are arguing points of law: Uber is the option these cheapskates pick precisely because it skirts or outright breaks laws and so can offer regulation-free pricing. The cheap option exists because driver "partners" are desperate enough to be taking risks in order to approach profitability. So these riders really shouldn't cry when occasionally trying the cheapskate way backfires on them and the driver decides that a particular passengers presents too much risk. You want guaranteed acceptance, call a cab.
> 
> Funny you should mention Abolition.
> 
> There are people here who would defend beating and killing black people if slavery were still the law.


AMEN!


----------



## uberdriverfornow

So instead of calling 911 she decided to call Uber ? Since when is this a wise move ? Are we going to go faster than an ambulance ?

Not saying the driver wasn't a dbag for not calling 911 for her but to say he's technically guilty of anything is wrong.


----------



## kbrown

It's so damn sad. I'm realizing from this thread how many Uber sheep there are out there. And this is why Uber will continue to proliferate and grow. And in the meantime, they get richer.... from having $18 billion in net worth to $30 billion in net worth by the end of this year- that's what I am predicting, just by coming over to this side of the forum and looking at all these insane arguments people are doing to justify making an independent contractor do something they don't want to do or should have to do in their own personal vehicle. Sad. In the meantime, we get poorer, we put up with more, and we don't see our net worth rise one stick. 

Uber on, sheep... Uber on!


----------



## Tim In Cleveland

grayspinner said:


> Um, childbirth is rarely a medical emergency. Using an ambulance would be ridiculous.
> 
> Look, I get the rates are too low & people ought not be driving for such low rates. That's a valid thing.
> 
> Thinking it's not normal to use regular transportation to travel to the hospital when in labor is thr ridiculous part.


No way. Labor IS an emergency and an ambulance should be called. He just shouldn't have said that crud about barf and mess in his car. He should have said "I don't feel safe transporting you. What if there is a complication?". Is there actually a law saying you can't deny a woman in labor a ride? They are the cheapskates refusing to call an ambulance when it was CLEARLY needed. I would have offered to call one for them.


----------



## Demon

kbrown said:


> Ummmmm... they might be the most qualified in that situation, *but they are not medical professionals.* And yes, we can decline rides where we aren't comfortable. As a female deiver, if I have a couple of big guys get in the car and make sexually suggestive comments, even in jest, *I have the right to decline or refuse the trip.* We are *INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS, not employees. According to the law, *the Department of Labor days that independent contractors are not obligated to do anything they don't want to do, and we can work for anyone we want. Uber screwed themselves. They can't obligate me to do a trip I don't want to do. If they do, they risk calling us employees. That's ultimately why Uber won't step in to deal with this. This is why they are being sued in several class action lawsuits. Because we are classified as independent contractors. We might be morally obligsted to do it, but we aren't legally. Uber is a pretty immoral company, and they built the monster. There will be lots of heartless Uber deivers, *but Uber created this situation, and they won't dare step in and comment on it. Mark my words.*




Your words have been marked.

The company also provided the following statement:

"Denying service to a passenger in labor is unacceptable: it goes against our code of conduct and the standard of service our riders rely on. We extend our deepest apologies to both riders and have taken action to respond to this complaint. We are glad that the rider's next driver was professional and courteous."

http://fortune.com/2016/01/12/uber-pregnancy/


----------



## Demon

Tim In Cleveland said:


> No way. Labor IS an emergency and an ambulance should be called. He just shouldn't have said that crud about barf and mess in his car. He should have said "I don't feel safe transporting you. What if there is a complication?". Is there actually a law saying you can't deny a woman in labor a ride? They are the cheapskates refusing to call an ambulance when it was CLEARLY needed. I would have offered to call one for them.


1. It was not a medical emergency. 
2. As stated several times in this thread there is a law covering this. What the driver did was illegal.


----------



## Demon

negeorgia said:


> I guess you are saying there are federal laws (New York laws are not nationwide). Service Animals is what Uber has informed me of. (ADA). Are you aware of some reasons that Uber has neglected to inform me of?


I stated the reasons why Uber doesn't educate you, Uber is unethical.


----------



## Demon

kbrown said:


> Quote the law, then. If they're legally obligated, you should be able to show it, not say "Uber says so".
> 
> God, you are such a sheep.


I already cited the TLC regulation.


----------



## negeorgia

Demon said:


> I stated the reasons why Uber doesn't educate you, Uber is unethical.


I didn't ask why, I asked what other reasons, other than service animal, is it illegal to cancel a request in Georgia.


----------



## Demon

MzBehavn said:


> Exactly what I was thinking...
> 
> Also, I'm surprised that the complainer was a lawyer. He should have heard of something called the 13th Amendment, ya know the anti slavery law... There are many contracts cases that refuse to make a person perform services because of the 13th. Additionally, we have not agreed to drive anyone until we swipe the green bar, up until that point we still have the option to cancel... and contractually speaking, there was no agreement to give a ride, what we agreed to do, was drive to the location to wait and see if we are going to accept the ride.
> 
> Also, the court will weigh the driver's 13th rights against the inconvenience of the woman in labor, and the article clearly stated they got their money back, and easily got another ride, so not much in the way of damages. So, yeah, just another lawyer who was too busy to take care of his own family needs, and is fronting to save face.


This is some of the worst logic that has been presented on this thread.

Let me be very clear, the 13th Amendment has to do with slavery, not an occupation that someone voluntarily entered. By your logic a firefighter can choose not to go into a burning building to save people, because they don't feel like it and suffer no consequences. Or a worker can show up 2 hours late to work everyday and leave an hour early because that's what they feel like doing and suffer no consequences.

Contractually speaking there was an agreement to a ride because the driver had no valid reason to deny them a ride. The fact that Uber tried to cover it up doesn't bode well for them either.


----------



## Demon

negeorgia said:


> I didn't ask why, I asked what other reasons, other than service animal, is it illegal to cancel a request in Georgia.


The basics, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, race.


----------



## Demon

kbrown said:


> You know I meant I'm ordering an Uber. All those sheep out there means I could rob that bank, click the Uber request and have an Uber out front inside of a minute. Are you seriously this obtuse?


I'm not the one being obtuse. I'm guessing you're an Uber driver, can you say with all certainty that you've never given a ride to someone who didn't have anything illegal on them?

I'm not so sure you would know someone had just robbed a bank. I mean I guess if you saw them running out of the bank with sacks with a $ on them you could probably assume they robbed the bank and would be legally allowed to deny them. But how often does that happen?

Of course none of that has to do with the topic of the thread.


----------



## Demon

kbrown said:


> That's dumb. Patients often don't know what's happening during a medical emergency. Regardless, because Uber folks AREN'T medical professionals, even more reason to NOT do the trip.
> 
> It's sad you live in a clueless and dumb state like NYC when they force people to put themselves in a situation where things can go badly, especially when they're independent contractors. But regardless of that, federal law TRUMPS state law- so it would become a legal issue if this dumb couple is really stupid enough to pursue something as inane as this. Plan for the baby, not act like a bunch of cheap @sses and order an Uber when you are at your most critical time with a medical situation where you're bringing life into this world. No way would I trust that with Uber. That's dumb. It's beyond dumb.


No one was forced to do anything. The driver voluntarily signed up to be a hired driver in NYC. There is no federal law that would cancel out the NYC TLC regulation.


----------



## Cou-ber

rtaatl said:


> Yeah, it's a little cold but placing such a burden on an Uber driver isn't fair. If the baby is so important to her than she could have dialed 911 and been in the care of medical professionals. People are cheap and lazy these days.


Have you been to NY? Have you done labor? A woman about to give birth is lazy? And from what sky are you pulling cheap from? There is no talk of economics from which to pull this conclusion.

And 20 people liked this?? Probably 20 people still driving..


----------



## Vox Rationis

Cou-ber said:


> Have you been to NY? Have you done labor? A woman about to give birth is lazy? And from what sky are you pulling cheap from? There is no talk of economics from which to pull this conclusion.
> 
> And 20 people liked this?? Probably 20 people still driving..


Right. How dare they call this clearly stupid couple "lazy"!

I think they got the "cheap" from the fact that they went with the cheapest option instead of an ambulance or even a cab.

Hope that helps clear things up.


----------



## Demon

Vox Rationis said:


> Right. How dare they call this clearly stupid couple "lazy"!
> 
> I think they got the "cheap" from the fact that they went with the cheapest option instead of an ambulance or even a cab.
> 
> Hope that helps clear things up.


Yup, they're stupid. The guy graduated from law school, passed the bar and got hired at a NYC law firm. The guy sounds like an idiot to me.


----------



## ginseng41

The thing is, a layman seeing a woman in labor who is actively throwing up could easily think it's a medical emergency. A passenger coming to the car, stating she's in labor and asking for a ride is going to appear quite different than one who is throwing up. If someone comes to my car gushing blood I see that as an emergency and I'll call 911 as I can't provide the support needed to safely get the person to the hospital, especially in nyc traffic (assuming for the sake of argument that it was during a high traffic time ). There is definitely no law stating we should drive someone somewhere if it's putting their safety at risk.


----------



## kbrown

Demon said:


> Your words have been marked.
> 
> The company also provided the following statement:
> 
> "Denying service to a passenger in labor is unacceptable: it goes against our code of conduct and the standard of service our riders rely on. We extend our deepest apologies to both riders and have taken action to respond to this complaint. We are glad that the rider's next driver was professional and courteous."
> 
> http://fortune.com/2016/01/12/uber-pregnancy/


That's still stupid. They don't have a codex for Uber that says you must take pregnant women in labor to the hospital. I'm sure they would have an Uber service for that, in fact. Uber-tots? Uber-afterbirth? Puh-LEEZE! They only said it because of the negative attention. Uber has no scruples. Go on, sheep. keep proving my point. Bleat away!


----------



## kbrown

Demon said:


> 1. It was not a medical emergency.
> 2. As stated several times in this thread there is a law covering this. What the driver did was illegal.


How do you know it wouldn't have turned into one, sheep?


----------



## kbrown

Demon said:


> 1. It was not a medical emergency.
> 2. As stated several times in this thread there is a law covering this. What the driver did was illegal.


Provide the LAW, please.


----------



## kbrown

Demon said:


> I already cited the TLC regulation.


A regularion isn't necessarily a law. Again, sheep- *quote the law.*


----------



## kbrown

Demon said:


> This is some of the worst logic that has been presented on this thread.
> 
> Let me be very clear, the 13th Amendment has to do with slavery, not an occupation that someone voluntarily entered. By your logic a firefighter can choose not to go into a burning building to save people, because they don't feel like it and suffer no consequences. Or a worker can show up 2 hours late to work everyday and leave an hour early because that's what they feel like doing and suffer no consequences.
> 
> Contractually speaking there was an agreement to a ride because the driver had no valid reason to deny them a ride. The fact that Uber tried to cover it up doesn't bode well for them either.


 That is not good logic, sheep.

1)firefighters are not independent contractors. That's a dumb example.

2) People who have jobs with set hours are EMPLOYEES. We are not employees. We are independent contractors. Do you not understand the difference? In fact, Uber regularly brags that drivers are happy because they can set their own hours.

3)Uber says once you start the ride, you are legally obligated to complete it. This driver didn't start the ride. So they are no reasons why he should take that ride.


----------



## kbrown

Demon said:


> Yup, they're stupid. The guy graduated from law school, passed the bar and got hired at a NYC law firm. The guy sounds like an idiot to me.


Dumb people get professional degrees.


----------



## Cou-ber

Vox Rationis said:


> Right. How dare they call this clearly stupid couple "lazy"!
> 
> I think they got the "cheap" from the fact that they went with the cheapest option instead of an ambulance or even a cab.
> 
> Hope that helps clear things up.


Yah, so stupid they made a law to protect pregnant women in labor. Don't see one protecting arsehole uber drivers with no sense and no balls, do you, ace?


----------



## Cou-ber

Vox Rationis said:


> Right. How dare they call this clearly stupid couple "lazy"!
> 
> I think they got the "cheap" from the fact that they went with the cheapest option instead of an ambulance or even a cab.
> 
> Hope that helps clear things up.


You're still driving, aren't you? Poser.


----------



## Cou-ber

Tim In Cleveland said:


> No way. Labor IS an emergency and an ambulance should be called. He just shouldn't have said that crud about barf and mess in his car. He should have said "I don't feel safe transporting you. What if there is a complication?". Is there actually a law saying you can't deny a woman in labor a ride? They are the cheapskates refusing to call an ambulance when it was CLEARLY needed. I would have offered to call one for them.


Duh.

Clearly stated in the article is the fact that there is an existing law that requires a taxi to transport a pregnant woman in labor.

You may submit your apology now and publicly recognize the jerk you were being trying to flex on me and others.

Why don't you little dogs just stay on the porch where you belong?


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

kbrown said:


> That's still stupid. They don't have a codex for Uber that says you must take pregnant women in labor to the hospital. I'm sure they would have an Uber service for that, in fact. Uber-tots? Uber-afterbirth? Puh-LEEZE! They only said it because of the negative attention. Uber has no scruples. Go on, sheep. keep proving my point. Bleat away!


It's true that had he taken her and had a wreck due to the commotion in the back seat distracting him, uber would have said he should have called an ambulance.

I just had a thought: what if the driver were one of those people who pass out when they see blood? Then it would be irresponsible of him to TAKE the trip.


----------



## Cou-ber

kbrown
Uber, like any business entity, has a code of conduct and standards of operations and because it has some of our country's best lawyers, it is a company well aware of the dangers, implications and consequences of denying service to any group or subgroup of our population and, despite your obvious mommy issues, a pregnant woman in labor, is part of our population. If you are a transportation for hire vehicle in New York City and most other US cities, you may not discriminate and deny service to a woman in labor or any other member of anther group--homosexual, transvestite, Muslim, kkk member, Westboro Church, Black Panthers, La Leche League, atheist, Bally's Health Club or member of Hair Club of America. It is called discrimination and, bbaaaaaahhhaaaaahhhhaaaaa, Uber would have a policy on it because even though some of its drivers are mostly stupid, it is not.

Get it?


----------



## Cou-ber

kbrown said:


> Dumb people get professional degrees.


No, dumb people drive for Uber. I submit you as case in point.


----------



## jfr1

kbrown said:


> That is not good logic, sheep.
> 
> 1)firefighters are not independent contractors. That's a dumb example.
> 
> 2) People who have jobs with set hours are EMPLOYEES. We are not employees. We are independent contractors. Do you not understand the difference? In fact, Uber regularly brags that drivers are happy because they can set their own hours.
> 
> 3)Uber says once you start the ride, you are legally obligated to complete it. This driver didn't start the ride. So they are no reasons why he should take that ride.


What many in this thread don't seem to grasp, is that the type of relationship between Uber and driver has absolutely nothing to do with this case/topic/discussion.

Uber drivers (and vehicles) in NYC are licensed by a body called the TLC. If you try to perform Uber-Type activities without this license, there are very harsh penalties for doing so. When a driver signs gets themselves and their vehicle licensed, they become subject to rules which apply to the industry. The 13th amendment is not relevant here.

One of the terms that they must abide by, is not refusing fares, unless a specific set of circumstances occur. Being uncomfortable, a pregnant woman, does not fall within those parameters.

This isn't "if NYC wants to do that". This is what NYC does. Yes, you can accuse all NYC drivers of being idiots, reality these types of occurrences will be rare, amongst a market that probably sees more demand than anywhere else in the country.


----------



## select_this

to put the pressure of taking a woman in labor to the hospital on an uber driver is silly and shows poor judgement and lack of planning on the husbands side. the uber driver may arrive at the pickup location sooner but will take longer to get to the hospital because they have to wait for red lights, traffic etc. Not to mention all the what ifs that can happen during the ride. Why would anyone take this much chance on such a precious thing as a baby in the hands of a total stranger?? something this important should not be placed on someone that is not trained for such a situation like an ambulance driver is.


----------



## jfr1

kbrown said:


> That's dumb. Patients often don't know what's happening during a medical emergency. Regardless, because Uber folks AREN'T medical professionals, even more reason to NOT do the trip.
> 
> It's sad you live in a clueless and dumb state like NYC when they force people to put themselves in a situation where things can go badly, especially when they're independent contractors. But regardless of that, federal law TRUMPS state law- so it would become a legal issue if this dumb couple is really stupid enough to pursue something as inane as this. Plan for the baby, not act like a bunch of cheap @sses and order an Uber when you are at your most critical time with a medical situation where you're bringing life into this world. No way would I trust that with Uber. That's dumb. It's beyond dumb.


Given that this was NOT a medical emergency requiring an ambulance, what do you believe the couple should have done?

Call me crazy, but if I had a pregnant wife, at some point in the 8 months leading up to birth, I'd ask a medical professional whether or not I call 911 when she starts going into labour. If the answer was no, usually takes a couple hours, then an Uber/cab is the most logical choice if I did not own a vehicle.


----------



## Cou-ber

select_this said:


> to put the pressure of taking a woman in labor to the hospital on an uber driver is silly and shows poor judgement and lack of planning on the husbands side. the uber driver may arrive at the pickup location sooner but will take longer to get to the hospital because they have to wait for red lights, traffic etc. Not to mention all the what ifs that can happen during the ride. Why would anyone take this much chance on such a precious thing as a baby in the hands of a total stranger?? something this important should not be placed on someone that is not trained for such a situation like an ambulance driver is.


That's a lovely opinion and all but the law states otherwise so this is moot.


----------



## select_this

seriously? all the people saying it was not a medical emergency know this how?? how do you know how far along the woman was?? how would the driver know this and how would you know that complications can not happen??


----------



## jfr1

kbrown said:


> That's dumb. Patients often don't know what's happening during a medical emergency. Regardless, because Uber folks AREN'T medical professionals, even more reason to NOT do the trip.
> 
> It's sad you live in a clueless and dumb state like NYC when they force people to put themselves in a situation where things can go badly, especially when they're independent contractors. But regardless of that, federal law TRUMPS state law- so it would become a legal issue if this dumb couple is really stupid enough to pursue something as inane as this. Plan for the baby, not act like a bunch of cheap @sses and order an Uber when you are at your most critical time with a medical situation where you're bringing life into this world. No way would I trust that with Uber. That's dumb. It's beyond dumb.





Vox Rationis said:


> Most of us here get this. There are a couple of people who keep trying to apply taxi laws to Uber and who keep trying to pretend that hailing an Uber was somehow a good idea by the expectant parents or fair to the driver.
> 
> Uber's entire success is based on breaking laws and daring municipalities and entire national governments to call them on it (and on hoping their partners aren't very good at math). If NYC really wants to apply taxi cab rules to people in their personal vehicles without affording them artificial taxi scarcity, wage protections, etc, then driving Uber in NYC really is a bad idea. If you are forced to let people bleed and defecate in your personal vehicle for less than minimum wage, then you really should reconsider being a rideshare driver in that municipality.
> 
> For all the sophists who are arguing points of law: Uber is the option these cheapskates pick precisely because it skirts or outright breaks laws and so can offer regulation-free pricing. The cheap option exists because driver "partners" are desperate enough to be taking risks in order to approach profitability. So these riders really shouldn't cry when occasionally trying the cheapskate way backfires on them and the driver decides that a particular passengers presents too much risk. You want guaranteed acceptance, call a cab.
> 
> Funny you should mention Abolition.
> 
> There are people here who would defend beating and killing black people if slavery were still the law.


In NYC, taxi laws are uber laws. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Uber is simply a very quick and convenient way to order a vehicle without having to hail one on the side of the road.


----------



## Cou-ber

select_this said:


> seriously? all the people saying it was not a medical emergency know this how?? how do you know how far along the woman was?? how would the driver know this and how would you know that complications can not happen??


It is unimportant that you have decided being a dirtbag chump to a woman in labor is okay but the LAW says otherwise. What do you not get???


----------



## jfr1

select_this said:


> seriously? all the people saying it was not a medical emergency know this how?? how do you know how far along the woman was?? how would the driver know this and how would you know that complications can not happen??


We don't.

What we do know, is that the Uber driver was in no such position to make that determination (as he is not s medical professional), and that a woman who had been pregnant for the last 8 months, alongside her trusted birth coach, were both more qualified to, and legally entitled to make that determination.


----------



## select_this

I dont get why you are a dirtbag cheap chump that didnt plan ahead for your wife to have a safe ride to the hospital and decided to put her life and your babies life in jeopardy and put the burden of getting her to the hospital on someone that is going to make $4 on this ride and has no medical training, even if the law says he has to


----------



## jfr1

select_this said:


> I dont get why you are a dirtbag cheap chump that didnt plan ahead for your wife to have a safe ride to the hospital and decided to put her life and your babies life in jeopardy and put the burden of getting her to the hospital on someone that is going to make $4 on this ride and has no medical training, even if the law says he has to


Given that this was not a medical emergency requiring an ambulance (assume they had asked the relevant questions beforehand, and the birth coach who was present was sufficiently competent), how would you suggest they do better "planning ahead".


----------



## select_this

so obviously driver is not equipped to make that determination but not obvious that even though the pregnant woman and her birth coach know how far along she is know for fact that no complications can arise??


----------



## jfr1

select_this said:


> so obviously driver is not equipped to make that determination but not obvious that even though the pregnant woman and her birth coach know how far along she is know for fact that no complications can arise??


They don't. Every time an Uber driver picks up a rider, he/she does so with the risk that the person in their back seat could have a heart attack and die.

If complications arise, then a determination can be made as to whether those complications require immediate medical attention and an ambulance. Simply being pregnant and vomitting does not. It requires imminent medical attention, not immediate.


----------



## select_this

your statement about risk of someone dying in your backseat every time is silly at best. 

ok so if you dont know and you are so inclined to take such a chance on something that important with a complete stranger that is not trained than I guess Uber is for you


----------



## DudeCity

Slon said:


> I'm not a taxi. I can't accept street hails and I don't get tips. I can't use taxi waiting lines. I don't have commercial insurance. I am not using a company owned car. I don't have a 1 million dollar medallion bolted to the hood of my car. I can go on and on and on about the benefits and protections taxis have that are not extended to us.
> 
> It's absurd to expect drivers to put their livelihood at risk to follow regulations that Uber is busy trying to bypass. You want Uber to do exactly what taxi cabs do? Fine. Give us taxi cab fares and taxi cab insurance where we are covered 100% by Uber with no deductible and then I'll drive a bleeding crackhead to the end of the world.


Oh ya ppl wt u have to say for this ?


----------



## jfr1

select_this said:


> your statement about risk of someone dying in your backseat every time is silly at best.
> 
> ok so if you dont know and you are so inclined to take such a chance on something that important with a complete stranger that is not trained than I guess Uber is for you


What do you suggest is the better alternative for a couple who lives in NYC, likely doesn't have a car, and has been informed that an ambulance should not be called?


----------



## jfr1

DudeCity said:


> Oh ya ppl wt u have to say for this ?


Don't like rules in NYC? Don't drive in NYC.


----------



## select_this

where did you read that they were informed that an ambulance should not be called? since when is a woman in labor not a medical emergency anyway??


----------



## jfr1

select_this said:


> where did you read that they were informed that an ambulance should not be called? since when is a woman in labor not a medical emergency anyway??


I didn't. That's an assumption I'm making based on what a reasonable person who is pregnant for 8 months and a professional birth coach would do.

Like you've read from many people in this read with experiences around birth. It takes many hours from when labor begins. The general recommendation is that you get driven to the hospital by the husband or whatever. A medical emergency is when bodily harm is likely to occur without the presence of a medical professional. That's not likely to occur when the baby is hours away.


----------



## select_this

theres no complications that arise ever and premature births and no taxi births occur and it makes sense to take such a chance. the story could very easily read woman in labor loses child in uber ride as a result of complications. theres no way taking an uber for a woman going into labor could make sense, I give up on this thread.


----------



## Vox Rationis

Cou-ber said:


> No, dumb people drive for Uber. I submit you as case in point.


And unloved women stay up late and fill a thread with ad hominem insults because pathetic online tantrums are all they have when they can't win an argument.


----------



## JJ/Uber/Miami

I would not have taken her either. When you drive for Uber, ALL the liability is on you. Just not worth the potential financial ruin if something tragic should happen, because Uber would surely find some loophole to not make them responsible. Their so-called insurance coverage is bulls**t.

Besides, there are a million cabs on the street in NYC. Why not hail one of them? Too cheap to pay higher rates to get your pregnant wife to the hospital? Plus I'm sure the cab would have the proper insurance in place should something happen.

I'm with the driver all the way. However, I would have paused long enough to call an AMBU for them.....


----------



## jfr1

select_this said:


> theres no complications that arise ever and premature births and no taxi births occur and it makes sense to take such a chance. the story could very easily read woman in labor loses child in uber ride as a result of complications. theres no way taking an uber for a woman going into labor could make sense, I give up on this thread.


Seems to be 2 underlying g issues here.

1. Refusal to accept that an ambulance is not necessarily required. If you don't believe the people here with experience to back this up...Google it. Go to webmd, whatever baby forums are out there. You'll get your answer.

2. Inability to suggest an alternative other than an Ambulance.


----------



## jfr1

JJ/Uber/Miami said:


> I would not have taken her either. When you drive for Uber, ALL the liability is on you. Just not worth the potential financial ruin if something tragic should happen, because Uber would surely find some loophole to not make them responsible. Their so-called insurance coverage is bulls**t.
> 
> Besides, there are a million cabs on the street in NYC. Why not hail one of them? Too cheap to pay higher rates to get your pregnant wife to the hospital? Plus I'm sure the cab would have the proper insurance in place should something happen.
> 
> I'm with the driver all the way. However, I would have paused long enough to call an AMBU for them.....


Uber drivers in NYC are required to have basically the same insurance as taxis. From a practical standpoint, they're basically cabs that you obtain through different means.


----------



## JJ/Uber/Miami

jfr1 said:


> Uber drivers in NYC are required to have basically the same insurance as taxis. From a practical standpoint, they're basically cabs that you obtain through different means.


Thanks for the info and I'll take your word for that since I know nothing about NYC law. However, just because someone is required to have insurance doesn't mean they actually do, hence the fortune insurance companies make from Uninsured Motorist add-ons. It's a sobering reality in this country.

Being underinsured was probably the case with this driver (who knows), but as an Independent Contractor, he is allowed to refuse a ride for whatever reason. And in this case, having a potential explosion of blood and other bodily fluids all over his vehicle was a pretty good excuse in my opinion.


----------



## Vox Rationis

Cou-ber said:


> You're still driving, aren't you? Poser.


No. If you'd read my posts instead of jumping in here like a boor, you might have known that

I read up on you a couple days ago. I believe you had the dead father who "raised the Exxon Valdez" while you were some angry Greenpeace daughter, no?

Either way, you seem like a pretty awful person.


----------



## jfr1

JJ/Uber/Miami said:


> Thanks for the info and I'll take your word for that since I know nothing about NYC law. However, just because someone is required to have insurance doesn't mean they actually do, hence the fortune insurance companies make from Uninsured Motorist add-ons. It's a sobering reality in this country.
> 
> Being underinsured was probably the case with this driver (who knows), but as an Independent Contractor, he is allowed to refuse a ride for whatever reason. And in this case, having a potential explosion of blood and other bodily fluids all over his vehicle was a pretty good excuse in my opinion.


They are required to go through an entire regulatory on boarding process to be an Uber driver, and have their vehicle licensed with TLC plates. At some point in there, I'm sure that proof of insurance was shown.

And for the 1000th time, his status as an independent contractor does not allow him to refuse rides. It may prevent Uber from forcing him to provide rides, but it does not exempt him from the laws regarding for-hire drivers, which he would be licensed as. Those laws provide only specific situations where a ride can be refused... Impending birth is not one of them.


----------



## JJ/Uber/Miami

kbrown said:


> It's so damn sad. I'm realizing from this thread how many Uber sheep there are out there. And this is why Uber will continue to proliferate and grow. And in the meantime, they get richer.... from having $18 billion in net worth to $30 billion in net worth by the end of this year- that's what I am predicting, just by coming over to this side of the forum and looking at all these insane arguments people are doing to justify making an independent contractor do something they don't want to do or should have to do in their own personal vehicle. Sad. In the meantime, we get poorer, we put up with more, and we don't see our net worth rise one stick.
> 
> Uber on, sheep... Uber on!


Well said K. I agree 100% !!!


----------



## JJ/Uber/Miami

ginseng41 said:


> I'm a registered nurse and have assisted with many births and labors. There is one thing I know with certainty, there is no guarantee that any labor is going to be typical. I've seen labor go beginning to end in only a few hours. How on earth can an uber driver judge if delivery is eminent? Depending on time of day and where in Manhattan you're going, 3 miles could end up taking hours. Crosstown in Midtown during December could end up as a bad situation even if things were fine at the time of pick up. If the driver doesn't feel comfortable driving the passenger, why on earth would a pregnant couple even want them to drive them and their precious cargo?


Exactly.....very well said Gin !!!!


----------



## Demon

select_this said:


> where did you read that they were informed that an ambulance should not be called? since when is a woman in labor not a medical emergency anyway??


Since it hasn't been deemed that by medical professionals.


----------



## Demon

kbrown said:


> That is not good logic, sheep.
> 
> 1)firefighters are not independent contractors. That's a dumb example.
> 
> 2) People who have jobs with set hours are EMPLOYEES. We are not employees. We are independent contractors. Do you not understand the difference? In fact, Uber regularly brags that drivers are happy because they can set their own hours.
> 
> 3)Uber says once you start the ride, you are legally obligated to complete it. This driver didn't start the ride. So they are no reasons why he should take that ride.


1. Uber drivers aren't independent contractors either. You keep calling me a sheep but you're the one on here repeating exactly what Uber told you.

2. See #1. You are an employee.

3. There are legal reasons why he was required to take the ride along with Uber's company policy.


----------



## Demon

select_this said:


> to put the pressure of taking a woman in labor to the hospital on an uber driver is silly and shows poor judgement and lack of planning on the husbands side. the uber driver may arrive at the pickup location sooner but will take longer to get to the hospital because they have to wait for red lights, traffic etc. Not to mention all the what ifs that can happen during the ride. Why would anyone take this much chance on such a precious thing as a baby in the hands of a total stranger?? something this important should not be placed on someone that is not trained for such a situation like an ambulance driver is.


As another poster has asked, since this was not a medical emergency, what should the husband have done?


----------



## Demon

kbrown said:


> Provide the LAW, please.


I've already cited it.


----------



## JJ/Uber/Miami

jfr1 said:


> They are required to go through an entire regulatory on boarding process to be an Uber driver, and have their vehicle licensed with TLC plates. At some point in there, I'm sure that proof of insurance was shown.
> 
> And for the 1000th time, his status as an independent contractor does not allow him to refuse rides. It may prevent Uber from forcing him to provide rides, but it does not exempt him from the laws regarding for-hire drivers, which he would be licensed as. Those laws provide only specific situations where a ride can be refused... Impending birth is not one of them.


I'm sorry, but if his status as an IC does not allow him to refuse rides, then what does?? And the logic seems to be somewhat convoluted....please explain the difference between not being forced to provide rides and the law pertaining to for hire drivers.

If the rules of these 2 entities differ, which one must the driver abide by ??


----------



## Demon

JJ/Uber/Miami said:


> I'm sorry, but if his status as an IC does not allow him to refuse rides, then what does?? And the logic seems to be somewhat convoluted....please explain the difference between not being forced to provide rides and the law pertaining to for hire drivers.
> 
> If the rules of these 2 entities differ, which one must the driver abide by ??


The logic is perfectly clear.

If you voluntarily choose to be a hired driver in NYC you must abide by the rules the TLC has set forth. The TLC clearly explains under what circumstances you may refuse a ride. If after reviewing the rules you feel you can't meet them, voluntarily choose another occupation.

As I stated before, if one doesn't want to run into burning buildings, one shouldn't choose to be a firefighter.


----------



## JJ/Uber/Miami

Demon said:


> The logic is perfectly clear.
> 
> If you voluntarily choose to be a hired driver in NYC you must abide by the rules the TLC has set forth. The TLC clearly explains under what circumstances you may refuse a ride. If after reviewing the rules you feel you can't meet them, voluntarily choose another occupation.
> 
> As I stated before, if one doesn't want to run into burning buildings, one shouldn't choose to be a firefighter.


So are you saying that Uber is actually being regulated in NYC?? If so, that's great and about time, but it's news to me.


----------



## jfr1

JJ/Uber/Miami said:


> I'm sorry, but if his status as an IC does not allow him to refuse rides, then what does?? And the logic seems to be somewhat convoluted....please explain the difference between not being forced to provide rides and the law pertaining to for hire drivers.
> 
> If the rules of these 2 entities differ, which one must the driver abide by ??


The only thing that allows him to refuse rides, is a specific set of circumstances, things like an unruly passenger, or having accepted another request.

His status as an IC can make it difficult for Uber, the company he contracts with, to force him to accept a ride. His status as a licensed for hire driver means that he cannot refuse a ride such as this one. He must abide by both sets of rules.

So basically, uber may not be able to require him to provide the ride, but the NYC TLC does.


----------



## jfr1

JJ/Uber/Miami said:


> So are you saying that Uber is actually being regulated in NYC?? If so, that's great and about time, but it's news to me.


Yes, heavily.

They have basically the same rules as taxis (at least with regard to refusalS). They strong armed Uber knowing that they're the biggest market in the US for that industry.. So thing that more municipailties could take a hint from.


----------



## JJ/Uber/Miami

RamzFanz said:


> You have to be some kind of dumb to take an UberX while in labor.
> 
> No, I'm just pointing out that your statement was factually incorrect. On a trip I have $1,000,000 in commercial liability coverage and also collision up to the value of my vehicle less the $1,000 deductible since I have collision on my personal policy. That is, in fact, proper commercial insurance.


I'm curious about a couple of things --

1. Will your personal policy pay out if you are driving for Uber at the time of the loss ??

2. Do you make enough in fares driving for Uber to justify the added expense of a commercial policy?

A $1000 seems a lot of money to sacrifice when driving for peanuts. Then again, you could be in a market where profit is still possible. If you are, good for you !!!


----------



## JJ/Uber/Miami

jfr1 said:


> Yes, heavily.
> 
> They have basically the same rules as taxis (at least with regard to refusalS). They strong armed Uber knowing that they're the biggest market in the US for that industry.. So thing that more municipailties could take a hint from.


WOW. Thanks for schooling me on TNC laws in NYC jf. Hopefully they will become ubiquitous and Uber can go suck the big one.


----------



## Cou-ber

JJ/Uber/Miami said:


> I would not have taken her either. When you drive for Uber, ALL the liability is on you. Just not worth the potential financial ruin if something tragic should happen, because Uber would surely find some loophole to not make them responsible. Their so-called insurance coverage is bulls**t.
> 
> Besides, there are a million cabs on the street in NYC. Why not hail one of them? Too cheap to pay higher rates to get your pregnant wife to the hospital? Plus I'm sure the cab would have the proper insurance in place should something happen.
> 
> I'm with the driver all the way. However, I would have paused long enough to call an AMBU for them.....


He's a lawyer. Sure his choice for uber was a time factor.

You would have broken the law. Simple as that.


----------



## Cou-ber

select_this said:


> where did you read that they were informed that an ambulance should not be called? since when is a woman in labor not a medical emergency anyway??


Ugh get over this already. It's labor not arterial bleeding, not a GSW, not a heart attack or s stroke. Simple labor that millions of women experience daily. It takes a long azz time to shift bones 10 cm. until a woman gets that far it's some pain and that's about all. Biggest risks are during delivery and until a woman's contractions are within certAin parameters any doctor will advise a woman to stay comfortable where she is and they can monitor for a bit.

You act like labor is the Hindenberg of medical conditions. Get over your Hollywood understanding of the world. Now you're just being annoying.


----------



## Cou-ber

JJ/Uber/Miami said:


> So are you saying that Uber is actually being regulated in NYC?? If so, that's great and about time, but it's news to me.


Totally regulated in Houston and Seattle too. Many cities actually. How were you not aware?


----------



## Cou-ber

select_this said:


> I dont get why you are a dirtbag cheap chump that didnt plan ahead for your wife to have a safe ride to the hospital and decided to put her life and your babies life in jeopardy and put the burden of getting her to the hospital on someone that is going to make $4 on this ride and has no medical training, even if the law says he has to


Seems you've now found your life's purpose. Congratulations.


----------



## JJ/Uber/Miami

Cou-ber said:


> He's a lawyer. Sure his choice for uber was a time factor.
> 
> You would have broken the law. Simple as that.


Sorry, I don't buy that excuse, especially since cabs are ubiquitous in NYC.

As for breaking the law, in that situation I would take my chances. I would rather suffer a monetary fine than be held liable for tens of thousands of dollars if something actually did happen to that woman while in my personal vehicle. While I have all the compassion and sympathy in the world for anyone in that predicament, it was obviously not an emergency in their minds since they did not summon an ambulance equipped with medical professionals should something unexpected happen.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one Cou.....


----------



## Cou-ber

Vox Rationis said:


> No. If you'd read my posts instead of jumping in here like a boor, you might have known that
> 
> I read up on you a couple days ago. I believe you had the dead father who "raised the Exxon Valdez" while you were some angry Greenpeace daughter, no?
> 
> Either way, you seem like a pretty awful person.


Stalk much?

Yep I am an awful person. I just want workers to be treated fairly and be given a living wage and you opt to ditch pregnant woman in the gutters because you have no balls.

Little boy or girl whatever you are- I shyt bigger than you. Mind your mouth and stop stalking. You've not interested me to explore your shallow depths further.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

O


Demon said:


> The logic is perfectly clear.
> 
> If you voluntarily choose to be a hired driver in NYC you must abide by the rules the TLC has set forth. The TLC clearly explains under what circumstances you may refuse a ride. If after reviewing the rules you feel you can't meet them, voluntarily choose another occupation.
> 
> As I stated before, if one doesn't want to run into burning buildings, one shouldn't choose to be a firefighter.


Obviously the problem here is that NYC is a special case and most drivers here are not IN NYC. Here in Houston I do not believe the ordinance mentions pregnancy or labor regarding TNC vehicles. I don't know if the taxi portion of the vehicles for hire section does.

Uber's press that the require drivers to pick up pregnant women is BS. Never have they mentioned them until now. They do have a paragraph in our TOS about disabled and service animals, but pregnancy dies not fall under that.

So my take woukd be if you're a NYC TNC driver then you have to take her. Unless you can refuse vomiting pax, in which case that would be reasonable in this case.

(I can refuse a disabled person or a minority if I pull up and they are acting strangely or abusively--I just can't refuse BECAUSE of their protected status. Seems if vomiting is something to refuse for then the pregnancy would be beside the point.)

So here, legally, I do t think I would be required to take her. In NYC I would.

The insurance is something else and is why many drivers are more cautious than a cab. Uber covers the pax much better than us or our vehicle. I don't know if NYC requires VEHICLE coverage or just pax in their commercial insurance. What is the deductible?

Certainly outside of NYC a baby born in your car would be a nightmare because of the cost you would incur.

Lastly, what CAN a driver, TNC or taxi, refuse? He may not be a medical professional but if IN HIS NON MEDICAL OPINION an ambulance is better, can he refuse and call one?

For instance, someone has fallen off a ladder and is unconscious and should be put on a backboard with a cervical collar but their husband wants to put them in his car, what should he do?


----------



## Cou-ber

JJ/Uber/Miami said:


> Sorry, I don't buy that excuse, especially since cabs are ubiquitous in NYC.
> 
> As for breaking the law, in that situation I would take my chances. I would rather suffer a monetary fine than be held liable for tens of thousands of dollars if something actually did happen to that woman while in my personal vehicle. While I have all the compassion and sympathy in the world for anyone in that predicament, it was obviously not an emergency in their minds since they did not summon an ambulance equipped with medical professionals should something unexpected happen.
> 
> We will just have to agree to disagree on this one Cou.....


Then you'd be subject of this suit too. This isn't open for debate. It's the law. Break it or follow it. That basic. Opinions here are irrelevant. Laws are not optional. How we feel about them aren't important once established; we don't get to pick the ones we like to follow at leisure. I don't care if you disagree with the logic behind this or any other law, it is what it is. Driver is required to take her. After, driver can go through the process of changing this law and more power to him if he does.

Finally, I lived in north Jersey most of my life. When did you last try to hail a cab in NYC?

A similar issue came up in a Houston thread about this but with a different medical issue...the uber was the closest transport to the pax so the rider opted for this.

Do an experiment from your location. Call an ambulance company and ask them how long it will be are for an ambulance to arrive to your location that very second. Then open rider app and see how long the stomata is for an UberX.

If you want to play, please give your city and the two estimates.

I just tried here in Houston and here is what I got-

UberX-3 minutes
Ambulance-12


----------



## Demon

Fuzzyelvis said:


> O
> 
> Obviously the problem here is that NYC is a special case and most drivers here are not IN NYC. Here in Houston I do not believe the ordinance mentions pregnancy or labor regarding TNC vehicles. I don't know if the taxi portion of the vehicles for hire section does.
> 
> Uber's press that the require drivers to pick up pregnant women is BS. Never have they mentioned them until now. They do have a paragraph in our TOS about disabled and service animals, but pregnancy dies not fall under that.
> 
> So my take woukd be if you're a NYC TNC driver then you have to take her. Unless you can refuse vomiting pax, in which case that would be reasonable in this case.
> 
> (I can refuse a disabled person or a minority if I pull up and they are acting strangely or abusively--I just can't refuse BECAUSE of their protected status. Seems if vomiting is something to refuse for then the pregnancy would be beside the point.)
> 
> So here, legally, I do t think I would be required to take her. In NYC I would.
> 
> The insurance is something else and is why many drivers are more cautious than a cab. Uber covers the pax much better than us or our vehicle. I don't know if NYC requires VEHICLE coverage or just pax in their commercial insurance. What is the deductible?
> 
> Certainly outside of NYC a baby born in your car would be a nightmare because of the cost you would incur.
> 
> Lastly, what CAN a driver, TNC or taxi, refuse? He may not be a medical professional but if IN HIS NON MEDICAL OPINION an ambulance is better, can he refuse and call one?
> 
> For instance, someone has fallen off a ladder and is unconscious and should be put on a backboard with a cervical collar but their husband wants to put them in his car, what should he do?


Uber has a section in their code of conduct that says drivers & passengers must show kindness. I'm guessing Uber is throwing the pregnancy thing under that. Is "kindness" a vague term? Absolutely! That goes back to my original point about how Uber doesn't educate anyone on how to handle situations and screws over drivers.

In NYC the reasons a hired driver can refuse a ride fit on the head of a pin. Obviously if a passenger presents a safety risk to the driver, or if they ask to go somewhere outside the city and the driver is coming to working 12 hours nonstop. Basically if a passenger wants to go anywhere in the city, you're taking them.


----------



## Cou-ber

I was in a car accident at my 26th week of pregnancy and an ambulance came and checked my vitals and determined I Should be taken to the hospital. I did not disagree. I knew however that an ambulance co-pay would set me back $500. I asked the ambulance if he would get me to the hospital that much more quickly than a private car and he admitted no. I knew I was in no immediate danger an opted to wait at the scene for my ride. 

If this makes me cheap, ok, then I'm cheap. Economics aren't a factor here and the moronic poster intent on this audience accepting this couple is for some reason is not at all relevant to the incident and the rules governing it. Fine, they are cheap, satisfied? Move on. Doesn't matter if it's the Princess of Kent or an indigent, if she's pregnant and you're on duty you take that azz or be subject to suit. 

Dayam.


----------



## Cou-ber

Vox Rationis said:


> And unloved women stay up late and fill a thread with ad hominem insults because pathetic online tantrums are all they have when they can't win an argument.


6 am is being up late? It's called morning and why do you think I was up, friend, if not to get loved?

Dumass. Throwing Latin around and being a punk pryck is a waste of valuable time given the issues we both currently face with rate cuts. Take your venom to Uber and shut your shyte down with me. You're a little fish here.


----------



## JJ/Uber/Miami

Cou-ber said:


> Then you'd be subject of this suit too. This isn't open for debate. It's the law. Break it or follow it. That basic. Opinions here are irrelevant. Laws are not optional. How we feel about them aren't important once established; we don't get to pick the ones we like to follow at leisure. I don't care if you disagree with the logic behind this or any other law, it is what it is. Driver is required to take her. After, driver can go through the process of changing this law and more power to him if he does.
> 
> Finally, I lived in north Jersey most of my life. When did you last try to hail a cab in NYC?
> 
> A similar issue came up in a Houston thread about this but with a different medical issue...the uber was the closest transport to the pax so the rider opted for this.
> 
> Do an experiment from your location. Call an ambulance company and ask them how long it will be are for an ambulance to arrive to your location that very second. Then open rider app and see how long the stomata is for an UberX.
> 
> If you want to play, please give your city and the two estimates.
> 
> I just tried here in Houston and here is what I got-
> 
> UberX-3 minutes
> Ambulance-12


I'm not urging your points about what the law is Cou. They are what they are. My point is that I can understand the perspective of the Uber driver in refusing the fare.

If they want to sue me for breaking the law, so be it. In the end that lawsuit will most likely cost me a lot less than being sued for a major injury or death resulting from me panicking and driving like a maniac because I have someone in my vehicle in labor.

In a private car, you can't expect other vehicles to pull over and clear a path for you the way they do for emergency vehicles (unless there is a police escort), so even in your estimation of time calculating an Uber vs. Ambulance, the AMBU would be the better option because of LAWS requiring civilian vehicles to yield to emergency ones. Plus they get to bypass red lights. Ubers do not.

I highly respect your views, but again we will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Demon

JJ/Uber/Miami said:


> I'm not urging your points about what the law is Cou. They are what they are. My point is that I can understand the perspective of the Uber driver in refusing the fare.
> 
> If they want to sue me for breaking the law, so be it. In the end that lawsuit will most likely cost me a lot less than being sued for a major injury or death resulting from me panicking and driving like a maniac because I have someone in my vehicle in labor.
> 
> In a private car, you can't expect other vehicles to pull over and clear a path for you the way they do for emergency vehicles (unless there is a police escort), so even in your estimation of time calculating an Uber vs. Ambulance, the AMBU would be the better option because of LAWS requiring civilian vehicles to yield to emergency ones. Plus they get to bypass red lights. Ubers do not.
> 
> I highly respect your views, but again we will have to agree to disagree.


Wait a second, you're justifying the Uber driver breaking the law, but turn around and say people will follow the law of letting an ambulance through. You just made the case that people should will follow the law when it's convenient for them to do so.

Then you bring up the money issue. Even if Uber didn't deactivate this guy the driver should be expecting a complaint to be filed on him with the TLC and his commercial driving license will be revoked so his driver as a hired driver in NYC will be done.


----------



## JJ/Uber/Miami

Demon said:


> Wait a second, you're justifying the Uber driver breaking the law, but turn around and say people will follow the law of letting an ambulance through. You just made the case that people should will follow the law when it's convenient for them to do so.
> 
> Then you bring up the money issue. Even if Uber didn't deactivate this guy the driver should be expecting a complaint to be filed on him with the TLC and his commercial driving license will be revoked so his driver as a hired driver in NYC will be done.


I'm not justifying anything or saying people will follow the law. I said people are more likely to get out of the way for an emergency vehicle because it is the law. Granted some dont, but they certainly will not extend that deference to an Uber car that looks like any other vehicle, even if there's an emergency going on inside it.

I don't know what planet you live on, but on Earth people ARE selfish and do exactly what is convenient to them, especially when it will cost them money. Even if this driver is deactivated or his license revoked, he can find other means of making money. But in the end, he's not out of pocket thousands of $$$ because of a liability lawsuit that would have ruined him financially.

He has to worry about his livelihood and feeding his family first. I know that sucks, but those are the cards we are dealt sometimes.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Cou-ber said:


> Totally regulated in Houston and Seattle too. Many cities actually. How were you not aware?


Depends on your definition of "totally regulated." NYC is more stringent than Houston, no idea about Seattle.


----------



## Cou-ber

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Depends on your definition of "totally regulated." NYC is more stringent than Houston, no idea about Seattle.


Maybe so. I don't really care. I've taken enough abuse from uber. I don't need to take it here from others being similarly abused. And, in the event Uber slacks off, my deadbeat exes have the next spot in line. The close and coveted 3rd in line is not one who steals my ideas to pawn off for kudos as his own. That's for sure.


----------



## Demon

JJ/Uber/Miami said:


> I'm not justifying anything or saying people will follow the law. I said people are more likely to get out of the way for an emergency vehicle because it is the law. Granted some dont, but they certainly will not extend that deference to an Uber car that looks like any other vehicle, even if there's an emergency going on inside it.
> 
> I don't know what planet you live on, but on Earth people ARE selfish and do exactly what is convenient to them, especially when it will cost them money. Even if this driver is deactivated or his license revoked, he can find other means of making money. But in the end, he's not out of pocket thousands of $$$ because of a liability lawsuit that would have ruined him financially.
> 
> He has to worry about his livelihood and feeding his family first. I know that sucks, but those are the cards we are dealt sometimes.


What lawsuit would he have faced for picking up the mother and driver her to the hospital like the very next Uber driver did?

He'll might face suit for not picking them up plus and fines the TLC levies on him.


----------



## JJ/Uber/Miami

Demon said:


> What lawsuit would he have faced for picking up the mother and driver her to the hospital like the very next Uber driver did?
> 
> He'll might face suit for not picking them up plus and fines the TLC levies on him.


Are you kidding me?? Do you know what country you're in? The United States is the most litigious nation on Earth. Our court system is bogged down with lawsuits of all kinds, many of them frivolous. I guarantee you if something had happened to that woman or baby while in that Uber, that driver would be up s**t creek.

Why do you think Good Samaritan Laws were enacted? Because even though people do good deeds out of the kindness of their hearts (and sometimes risk their own lives while at it), they STILL get sued by the a**holes they dared to help if an injury occurred.

Maybe in NYC he will get in trouble for refusing the ride, but I have to ask myself if I were in the same situation which would I prefer--having to pay fines or facing a potential lawsuit for personal injury/death ??

Hmmmm.....let me see.

I'll take the fines, thank you !!!!!


----------



## UberXTampa

I had people trying to go to emergency using uber. 
I had a few of such people. 

First time I am saying it here: 
In 23 years I had only 1 accident and it was when I was driving uber pax to the ER. I got screwed and costed me $3k, all out of pocket. 
Don't do it if you can avoid it. 
We are not trained nor covered for things that may go wrong during such risky pax deliveries.


----------



## jfr1

JJ/Uber/Miami said:


> Are you kidding me?? Do you know what country you're in? The United States is the most litigious nation on Earth. Our court system is bogged down with lawsuits of all kinds, many of them frivolous. I guarantee you if something had happened to that woman or baby while in that Uber, that driver would be up s**t creek.
> 
> Why do you think Good Samaritan Laws were enacted? Because even though people do good deeds out of the kindness of their hearts (and sometimes risk their own lives while at it), they STILL get sued by the a**holes they dared to help if an injury occurred.
> 
> Maybe in NYC he will get in trouble for refusing the ride, but I have to ask myself if I were in the same situation which would I prefer--having to pay fines or facing a potential lawsuit for personal injury/death ??
> 
> Hmmmm.....let me see.
> 
> I'll take the fines, thank you !!!!!


That's what insurance is for...


----------



## JJ/Uber/Miami

UberXTampa said:


> I had people trying to go to emergency using uber.
> I had a few of such people.
> 
> First time I am saying it here:
> In 23 years I had only 1 accident and it was when I was driving uber pax to the ER. I got screwed and costed me $3k, all out of pocket.
> Don't do it if you can avoid it.
> We are not trained nor covered for things that may go wrong during such risky pax deliveries.


Thank you Tampa. That is exactly my point, but these people don't seem to get it. The liability is just too great in an Uber vs. A Taxi. They can talk about NYC laws and regulations til the cows come home, that driver is screwed either way.

He chose not to take the woman and everyone is on his case about legalities, plus he gets bad press. If he had taken the woman and an accident occurred, there would be this headline or something similar--

"Pregnant Woman Seriously Injured/Killed While Riding in Uber"

The whole situation is a double-edged sword. Either way, the driver gets blamed and sued.


----------



## jfr1

JJ/Uber/Miami said:


> Thank you Tampa. That is exactly my point, but these people don't seem to get it. The liability is just too great in an Uber vs. A Taxi. They can talk about NYC laws and regulations til the cows come home, that driver is screwed either way.
> 
> He chose not to take the woman and everyone is on his case about legalities, plus he gets bad press. If he had taken the woman and an accident occurred, there would be this headline or something similar--
> 
> "Pregnant Woman Seriously Injured/Killed While Riding in Uber"
> 
> The whole situation is a double-edged sword. Either way, the driver gets blamed and sued.


The liability argument doesn't really hold when you suggest a taxi. They both have commercial insurance in NYC.


----------



## JJ/Uber/Miami

jfr1 said:


> That's what insurance is for...


True, you would think insurance would be relevant in this situation, and in a perfect world it would be, but we are talking about Uber here.

You know perfectly well what their first response would be in these cases. You're not brand new. That driver knew it too, that's why he refused and took off. I ain't mad at him !!!


----------



## jfr1

JJ/Uber/Miami said:


> True, you would think insurance would be relevant in this situation, and in a perfect world it would be, but we are talking about Uber here.
> 
> You know perfectly well what their first response would be in these cases. You're not brand new. That driver knew it too, that's why he refused and took off. I ain't mad at him !!!


Not sure what Uber has to do with his insurance claim.... that's between him and his commercial insurance provider.

If he's not comfortable with his insurance coverage carrying paying passengers (unknown to him), then he shouldn't be turning on Uber in the 1st place.


----------



## JJ/Uber/Miami

jfr1 said:


> Not sure what Uber has to do with his insurance claim.... that's between him and his commercial insurance provider.
> 
> If he's not comfortable with his insurance coverage carrying paying passengers (unknown to him), then he shouldn't be turning on Uber in the 1st place.


Did you ever think that maybe he is NOT carrying commercial insurance? Just because it's the rule/law does not mean it is being abided by. Plenty of people drive dirty everyday, even those in business. That would be even more of a reason for him denying service.


----------



## Demon

JJ/Uber/Miami said:


> Are you kidding me?? Do you know what country you're in? The United States is the most litigious nation on Earth. Our court system is bogged down with lawsuits of all kinds, many of them frivolous. I guarantee you if something had happened to that woman or baby while in that Uber, that driver would be up s**t creek.
> 
> Why do you think Good Samaritan Laws were enacted? Because even though people do good deeds out of the kindness of their hearts (and sometimes risk their own lives while at it), they STILL get sued by the a**holes they dared to help if an injury occurred.
> 
> Maybe in NYC he will get in trouble for refusing the ride, but I have to ask myself if I were in the same situation which would I prefer--having to pay fines or facing a potential lawsuit for personal injury/death ??
> 
> Hmmmm.....let me see.
> 
> I'll take the fines, thank you !!!!!


So again I ask, if the driver had picked up the woman and drove her to the hospital like the very next Uber driver did, what would his liability be?

If your premise is that anything could go wrong at any time, you shouldn't think it's ok for people to pick up complete strangers in their personal vehicles and drive them to an unknown destination with shaky insurance for barely minimum wage.


----------



## Demon

UberXTampa said:


> I had people trying to go to emergency using uber.
> I had a few of such people.
> 
> First time I am saying it here:
> In 23 years I had only 1 accident and it was when I was driving uber pax to the ER. I got screwed and costed me $3k, all out of pocket.
> Don't do it if you can avoid it.
> We are not trained nor covered for things that may go wrong during such risky pax deliveries.


I'm curious to know how you were screwed and why your commercial insurance made you pay 3K out of pocket?


----------



## Demon

JJ/Uber/Miami said:


> Did you ever think that maybe he is NOT carrying commercial insurance? Just because it's the rule/law does not mean it is being abided by. Plenty of people drive dirty everyday, even those in business. That would be even more of a reason for him denying service.


Again, then he would be denying service to everyone and what's the point of having the app on if you're just going to deny everyone?


----------



## jfr1

JJ/Uber/Miami said:


> Did you ever think that maybe he is NOT carrying commercial insurance? Just because it's the rule/law does not mean it is being abided by. Plenty of people drive dirty everyday, even those in business. That would be even more of a reason for him denying service.


No. Proving that you have commerical insurance is undoubtedly part of the driver onboarding process with the TLC.

Furthermore, while I'm sure it's possible to find your way around this requirement until you get caught, that exposes you to all sorts of liability regardless of who you're transporting.


----------



## JJ/Uber/Miami

Demon said:


> So again I ask, if the driver had picked up the woman and drove her to the hospital like the very next Uber driver did, what would his liability be?
> 
> If your premise is that anything could go wrong at any time, you shouldn't think it's ok for people to pick up complete strangers in their personal vehicles and drive them to an unknown destination with shaky insurance for barely minimum wage.


But there lies the difference. Picking up complete strangers and giving them rides is completely different from PAID rides. There is a reason why Uber requires personal policies. In the latter case, personal insurance would cover passengers.

I'm not going to argue with you about this subject any longer, as I have a date to get ready for. If you choose to work for Uber and pick up riders in potentially dangerous situations such as labor and don't care about liability, good for you. You're a wonderful human being.

But I will not fault a driver who chooses not to put himself in that situation, no matter what the law says. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. He screwed either way.


----------



## JJ/Uber/Miami

Demon said:


> Again, then he would be denying service to everyone and what's the point of having the app on if you're just going to deny everyone?


He didn't deny EVERYONE, he denied a woman in labor, which has a higher than normal percentage of causing a hazard/accident while in transport. The stress factor alone means a driver is not using complete concentration while driving. This is not so with the regular, run-of-the-mill passenger.


----------



## JJ/Uber/Miami

jfr1 said:


> No. Proving that you have commerical insurance is undoubtedly part of the driver onboarding process with the TLC.
> 
> Furthermore, while I'm sure it's possible to find your way around this requirement until you get caught, that exposes you to all sorts of liability regardless of who you're transporting.


Very true, but if that is the case in this situation, I wouldn't like my odds with a woman in labor either. Much easier to get caught. I'm just sayin !!!!


----------



## MzBehavn

Demon said:


> This is some of the worst logic that has been presented on this thread.
> 
> Let me be very clear, the 13th Amendment has to do with slavery, not an occupation that someone voluntarily entered. By your logic a firefighter can choose not to go into a burning building to save people, because they don't feel like it and suffer no consequences. Or a worker can show up 2 hours late to work everyday and leave an hour early because that's what they feel like doing and suffer no consequences.
> 
> Contractually speaking there was an agreement to a ride because the driver had no valid reason to deny them a ride. The fact that Uber tried to cover it up doesn't bode well for them either.


If you think that was my logic, then you completely misunderstand, or you don't understand the basic principals of Contract law. Which given how you defined what a contract is it is pretty clear you have no legal training.

If you think there was a contract established, then I challenge your assumption with what is the consideration for driving to a persons location? Answer there is no consideration, therefore a court would say, no contract formed until you agree to take the rider (by swiping the green bar). Up until that point you are looking at an illusory promise, not an actual contract.

In the Supreme Court case _Baily v. State of Alabama_ the court clearly stated "The words involuntary servitude have a "larger meaning than slavery""... "by prohibiting that control by which the personal service of one man is disposed of or coerced for anther's benefit which is the essence of involuntary servitude." that word coerced conversely means, the person performing the service, has to agree to the work. If that work is not agreed to, then it is a form of involuntary servitude (slavery).

I have the Supreme Court supporting my position, what do you have to support your position?

We are not employees, we are private individuals, we can not be forced to do something we don't want to, without due process of law.


----------



## jfr1

MzBehavn said:


> If you think that was my logic, then you completely misunderstand, or you don't understand the basic principals of Contract law. Which given how you defined what a contract is it is pretty clear you have no legal training.
> 
> If you think there was a contract established, then I challenge your assumption with what is the consideration for driving to a persons location? Answer there is no consideration, therefore a court would say, no contract formed until you agree to take the rider (by swiping the green bar). Up until that point you are looking at an illusory promise, not an actual contract.
> 
> In the Supreme Court case _Baily v. State of Alabama_ the court clearly stated "The words involuntary servitude have a "larger meaning than slavery""... "by prohibiting that control by which the personal service of one man is disposed of or coerced for anther's benefit which is the essence of involuntary servitude." that word coerced conversely means, the person performing the service, has to agree to the work. If that work is not agreed to, then it is a form of involuntary servitude (slavery).
> 
> I have the Supreme Court supporting my position, what do you have to support your position?
> *
> We are not employees, we are private individuals, we can not be forced to do something we don't want to, without due process of law.*


You may be private individuals (thereby preventing Uber from forcing you to provide service), but in New York, you're municipallly licensed drivers who are required to provide service except in a few specific circumstances.


----------



## JJ/Uber/Miami

jfr1 said:


> You may be private individuals (thereby preventing Uber from forcing you to provide service), but in New York, you're municipallly licensed drivers who are required to provide service except in a few specific circumstances.


OK Uber Drivers, there we have it. You people obviously need to STOP driving in Detroit (.30 a mile, need I say more?) and NYC, since you are by LAW forced to drive people in dangerous situations and have not the option of refusing.

Your designation of independent contractors means d**k, so if you have to abide by the same laws as cabs, demand to have the same rights as cabs, especially when it comes to street hails. You cannot be bound by different rules from different entities simultaneously, so f**k Uber. If they try to deactivate you, cite NYC regulations and sue their asses off !!!!


----------



## jfr1

JJ/Uber/Miami said:


> OK Uber Drivers, there we have it. You people obviously need to STOP driving in Detroit (.30 a mile, need I say more?) and NYC, since you are by LAW forced to drive people in dangerous situations and have not the option of refusing.
> 
> Your designation of independent contractors means d**k, so if you have to abide by the same laws as cabs, demand to have the same rights as cabs, especially when it comes to street hails. You cannot be bound by different rules from different entities simultaneously, so f**k Uber. If they try to deactivate you, cite NYC regulations and sue their asses off !!!!


If an Uber driver wants permission to accept street hails, he requires a taxi medallion, which costs many hundred thousand dollars. Otherwise, he's a "livery car", which can accept only calls.

As for the "you cannot be bound by different rules from different entities simultaneously", yes you can. As a citizen, you are bound by municipal, state, and federal laws every day. You enter into a contract or agreement with somebody, you're bound by the terms of that contract as well.

Not sure why you're suggesting that somebody should sue Uber in this case...


----------



## UberXTampa

Demon said:


> I'm curious to know how you were screwed and why your commercial insurance made you pay 3K out of pocket?


In Tampa UberX has no commercial insurance. I had liability. I was under the impression that I am covered if anything happens when I have pax in the car. I was told that uber will cover only if I had full coverage. I know, I should have read all the fine print. Pages and pages of it. But on this one, I dropped the ball and assumed I was covered. I ended up being out of commission, paid out of pocket for my repairs.


----------



## JJ/Uber/Miami

jfr1 said:


> If an Uber driver wants permission to accept street hails, he requires a taxi medallion, which costs many hundred thousand dollars. Otherwise, he's a "livery car", which can accept only calls.
> 
> As for the "you cannot be bound by different rules from different entities simultaneously", yes you can. As a citizen, you are bound by municipal, state, and federal laws every day. You enter into a contract or agreement with somebody, you're bound by the terms of that contract as well.
> 
> Not sure why you're suggesting that somebody should sue Uber in this case...


Excuse me, but that is pure BS. I am NOT bound by a contract that is deemed to be in direct conflict with municipal, state or federal laws. If that were the case, people would get away with Usury everyday of the week. As for your other argument, I don't know of any state or federal laws (outside the Marijuana conflict) that deliberately contradict each other, as state lawmakers do follow federal guidelines in their drafting of such.

There are laws governing what is acceptable in a contract, or it can be voided by a court of law. Uber is already inundated with lawsuits across this country because of their direct defiance pertaining to labor laws. Try that novice legal crap on somebody who doesn't know better.


----------



## jfr1

JJ/Uber/Miami said:


> Excuse me, but that is pure BS. I am NOT bound by a contract that is deemed to be in direct conflict with municipal, state or federal laws. If that were the case, people would get away with Usury everyday of the week. As for your other argument, I don't know of any state or federal laws (outside the Marijuana conflict) that deliberately contradict each other, as state lawmakers do follow federal guidelines in their drafting of such.
> 
> There are laws governing what is acceptable in a contract, or it can be voided by a court of law. Uber is already inundated with lawsuits across this country because of their direct defiance pertaining to labor laws. Try that novice legal crap on somebody who doesn't know better.


That's correct. If a term of a contract is in direct contradiction with the law, then you may be exempt from that part of the contract without voiding the entire contract.

That being said, there's no contradiction here. Uber says you should provide the ride, although they may not be able to force you to. The law says you must provide the ride.


----------



## JJ/Uber/Miami

jfr1 said:


> That's correct. If a term of a contract is in direct contradiction with the law, then you may be exempt from that part of the contract without voiding the entire contract.
> 
> That being said, there's no contradiction here. Uber says you should provide the ride, although they may not be able to force you to. The law says you must provide the ride.


As I have learned, nothing is ever clear when it comes to Uber. They do/say whatever benefits them, to the detriment of the driver. However, there is still a contradiction in that the Uber contract states you can accept/reject which rides you choose, which is in opposition to NYC saying you must accept the ride by law. Anyway, I'm just glad that I am not in the NYC market.

I'm off to bed. Take care jf.....


----------



## jfr1

JJ/Uber/Miami said:


> As I have learned, nothing is ever clear when it comes to Uber. They do/say whatever benefits them, to the detriment of the driver. However, there is still a contradiction in that the Uber contract states you can accept/reject which rides you choose, which is in opposition to NYC saying you must accept the ride by law. Anyway, I'm just glad that I am not in the NYC market.
> 
> I'm off to bed. Take care jf.....


That really isn't in contradiction with the law. They're not requiring you to violate the law, simply giving you an option that the law doesn't permit.


----------



## Demon

JJ/Uber/Miami said:


> As I have learned, nothing is ever clear when it comes to Uber. They do/say whatever benefits them, to the detriment of the driver. However, there is still a contradiction in that the Uber contract states you can accept/reject which rides you choose, which is in opposition to NYC saying you must accept the ride by law. Anyway, I'm just glad that I am not in the NYC market.
> 
> I'm off to bed. Take care jf.....


The Uber code of conduct doesn't say you can reject any ride you choose. Maybe it said that in 2013 before Uber got smart, but it doesn't now. If it did say that you could refuse someone service based on the fact that they have a service animal, and that would be illegal.


----------



## Demon

MzBehavn said:


> If you think that was my logic, then you completely misunderstand, or you don't understand the basic principals of Contract law. Which given how you defined what a contract is it is pretty clear you have no legal training.
> 
> If you think there was a contract established, then I challenge your assumption with what is the consideration for driving to a persons location? Answer there is no consideration, therefore a court would say, no contract formed until you agree to take the rider (by swiping the green bar). Up until that point you are looking at an illusory promise, not an actual contract.
> 
> In the Supreme Court case _Baily v. State of Alabama_ the court clearly stated "The words involuntary servitude have a "larger meaning than slavery""... "by prohibiting that control by which the personal service of one man is disposed of or coerced for anther's benefit which is the essence of involuntary servitude." that word coerced conversely means, the person performing the service, has to agree to the work. If that work is not agreed to, then it is a form of involuntary servitude (slavery).
> 
> I have the Supreme Court supporting my position, what do you have to support your position?
> 
> We are not employees, we are private individuals, we can not be forced to do something we don't want to, without due process of law.


You have nothing supporting your case.

You seem to be confused by the word involuntary. No one forced anyone to be a Uber driver. people chose to be a Uber driver, that makes it voluntary, the opposite of involuntary. You then go on to wrongly assert that if you voluntarily choose a job, you can pick & choose which parts of the job you perform with no consequences. I already gave the example of a firefighter who doesn't want to run in a burning building. Is anyone going to hold a gun to his head to make him? No. But you better believe there are going to be consequences for not performing the job he voluntarily chose. The same thing holds true for an Uber driver who voluntarily chose their job. If you illegally refuse service no one is going to hold a gun to your head but there will be consequences.


----------



## JJ/Uber/Miami

Demon said:


> The Uber code of conduct doesn't say you can reject any ride you choose. Maybe it said that in 2013 before Uber got smart, but it doesn't now. If it did say that you could refuse someone service based on the fact that they have a service animal, and that would be illegal.


Let me clarify that statement. I meant accept/reject fares that are NOT protected by the ADA. As far as I know, women in labor are not a protected class, but blind folks with service dogs are. This drivers decision had nothing to do with age, race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc. Rather, he made his decision based on the liability that could be incurred transporting a person in a medical emergency.

In other places outside NYC, he would be within his rights to reject that ride.


----------



## JJ/Uber/Miami

Demon said:


> You have nothing supporting your case.
> 
> You seem to be confused by the word involuntary. No one forced anyone to be a Uber driver. people chose to be a Uber driver, that makes it voluntary, the opposite of involuntary. You then go on to wrongly assert that if you voluntarily choose a job, you can pick & choose which parts of the job you perform with no consequences. I already gave the example of a firefighter who doesn't want to run in a burning building. Is anyone going to hold a gun to his head to make him? No. But you better believe there are going to be consequences for not performing the job he voluntarily chose. The same thing holds true for an Uber driver who voluntarily chose their job. If you illegally refuse service no one is going to hold a gun to your head but there will be consequences.


Wrong Sparkles. Your argument is flawed in that the Uber relationship is an IC, while the Firefighter is an EMPLOYEE. They are bound by two different sets of rules. Just ask the IRS.....


----------



## Demon

JJ/Uber/Miami said:


> Wrong Sparkles. Your argument is flawed in that the Uber relationship is an IC, while the Firefighter is an EMPLOYEE. They are bound by two different sets of rules. Just ask the IRS.....


Uber drivers are not independent contractors.


----------



## Demon

JJ/Uber/Miami said:


> Let me clarify that statement. I meant accept/reject fares that are NOT protected by the ADA. As far as I know, women in labor are not a protected class, but blind folks with service dogs are. This drivers decision had nothing to do with age, race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc. Rather, he made his decision based on the liability that could be incurred transporting a person in a medical emergency.
> 
> In other places outside NYC, he would be within his rights to reject that ride.


I'm not so sure that they would.


----------



## JJ/Uber/Miami

Demon said:


> Uber drivers are not independent contractors.


I know that in REALITY Uber drivers are not IC's, but in Uber Theory and definition you are. Just ask those 1099's you'll be receiving in a couple of days.


----------



## sellkatsell44

Huh, so what happens if she never barfed on the street, was by herself and halfway to the hospital, was about to or did barf in his car so he kicked her out

The head of the baby started coming out


?


----------



## Demon

JJ/Uber/Miami said:


> I know that in REALITY Uber drivers are not IC's, but in Uber Theory and definition you are. Just ask those 1099's you'll be receiving in a couple of days.


I'm not a driver.


----------



## JJ/Uber/Miami

jfr1 said:


> That really isn't in contradiction with the law. They're not requiring you to violate the law, simply giving you an option that the law doesn't permit.


----------



## JJ/Uber/Miami

Demon said:


> You have nothing supporting your case.
> 
> You seem to be confused by the word involuntary. No one forced anyone to be a Uber driver. people chose to be a Uber driver, that makes it voluntary, the opposite of involuntary. You then go on to wrongly assert that if you voluntarily choose a job, you can pick & choose which parts of the job you perform with no consequences. I already gave the example of a firefighter who doesn't want to run in a burning building. Is anyone going to hold a gun to his head to make him? No. But you better believe there are going to be consequences for not performing the job he voluntarily chose. The same thing holds true for an Uber driver who voluntarily chose their job. If you illegally refuse service no one is going to hold a gun to your head but there will be consequences.


----------



## MzBehavn

Demon said:


> You have nothing supporting your case.
> 
> You seem to be confused by the word involuntary. No one forced anyone to be a Uber driver. people chose to be a Uber driver, that makes it voluntary, the opposite of involuntary. You then go on to wrongly assert that if you voluntarily choose a job, you can pick & choose which parts of the job you perform with no consequences. I already gave the example of a firefighter who doesn't want to run in a burning building. Is anyone going to hold a gun to his head to make him? No. But you better believe there are going to be consequences for not performing the job he voluntarily chose. The same thing holds true for an Uber driver who voluntarily chose their job. If you illegally refuse service no one is going to hold a gun to your head but there will be consequences.


You must be a little confused. I'm using the wording and reasoning from the Supreme court. But just to go a little further, because you insist on comparing apples to oranges, so I'll try to help you. You are comparing people who are actual employees, you need to look at this as the contractors we are. So, let's look at a contractor and your analogy. A contractor (someone who decides to build or repair buildings) made a choice to be a contractor, but they did not make a choice to do every single person's job that came their way. A firefighter is not an appropriate example, because it is not analogous to what we do. A firefighter gets paid regardless of running into a burning building, we do not, therefore, we are closer to a contractor.

I also, never said anything about not having consequences, what I have said was nobody can force you to perform a service. The courts are filled with contract breaches, and I spent a good 6 months studying them. No one can walk away from a contract without threat of damages. What I said in my initial post was this is an illusory promise, Uber set it up this way. But until we accept the ride we are not contractually held to anything.

Also, the person you are claiming has all the rights, would need to prove that there is actual discrimination (see I studied this area of law too). 1 time this happens does not make a discrimination. That person would need to prove that there is no other reasonable explanation for that person not accepting that ride. And for the record, I would have to turn down a ride like that, because of my condition, and the risk it would place everyone in.

Bottom line, the lawyer husband was wrong, and is looking to save face with his wife. He should have secured more reliable transportation. He can't prove discrimination, because the very next person who he called, took them... That is why this is in the news, not there is no law suit. Do you mean to tell me, that the lawyer didn't initially think sue? He probably went to his friends, and tried to talk one of them into representing him, and they laughed at him.


----------



## Demon

MzBehavn said:


> You must be a little confused. I'm using the wording and reasoning from the Supreme court. But just to go a little further, because you insist on comparing apples to oranges, so I'll try to help you. You are comparing people who are actual employees, you need to look at this as the contractors we are. So, let's look at a contractor and your analogy. A contractor (someone who decides to build or repair buildings) made a choice to be a contractor, but they did not make a choice to do every single person's job that came their way. A firefighter is not an appropriate example, because it is not analogous to what we do. A firefighter gets paid regardless of running into a burning building, we do not, therefore, we are closer to a contractor.
> 
> I also, never said anything about not having consequences, what I have said was nobody can force you to perform a service. The courts are filled with contract breaches, and I spent a good 6 months studying them. No one can walk away from a contract without threat of damages. What I said in my initial post was this is an illusory promise, Uber set it up this way. But until we accept the ride we are not contractually held to anything.
> 
> Also, the person you are claiming has all the rights, would need to prove that there is actual discrimination (see I studied this area of law too). 1 time this happens does not make a discrimination. That person would need to prove that there is no other reasonable explanation for that person not accepting that ride. And for the record, I would have to turn down a ride like that, because of my condition, and the risk it would place everyone in.
> 
> Bottom line, the lawyer husband was wrong, and is looking to save face with his wife. He should have secured more reliable transportation. He can't prove discrimination, because the very next person who he called, took them... That is why this is in the news, not there is no law suit. Do you mean to tell me, that the lawyer didn't initially think sue? He probably went to his friends, and tried to talk one of them into representing him, and they laughed at him.


You might want to do more studying.

Uber drivers are no independent contractors. Feel free to say they are a million times but it won't make it so. To be an independent contractor you need to be in control of the working environment. Uber drivers don't control price. Uber does that. Uber drivers are monitored as they work through the rating system. Uber drivers have to accept a certain percentage of rides. In short, they don't fit the definition the IRS has set forth for an independent contractor.

When you turned down the passenger you'd be in violation of the law and the Uber code of conduct. The lawyer likely filed a complaint with the TLC and the driver likely suffered some consequence. The driver broke the law, plain & simple.


----------



## DriverX

grayspinner said:


> Honestly - having birthed 4 babies, I can say that the driver should have taken her.
> 
> It was only 3 miles & the likelihood that she would have delivered in the car or even been sick again was pretty darn low.
> 
> He could have at least asked how far apart her contractions were and gotten a good feel for how close to delivery she might have been.
> 
> Most women labor for hours.
> 
> Most women who have hospital births go there in the earlier stages of labor. Her being sick is actually a sign of early labor.
> 
> Most women don't have their waters rupture until delivery
> 
> And the uterus does an amazing job of protecting the fetus - the likelihood of something going wrong during transport is pretty much non-existent.
> 
> The driver was an ass.
> 
> I guess none of you guys drove your wives to the hospital to give birth? You all called ambulances because transport by car would be dangerous & messy? Yeah right


Yeah the driver could have been more sympathetic and done the right thing, but who dials an uber to deliver a child!? Of course people would driver their own wives to deliver their baby but some randoms baby is a huge liability. Uber is not a emergency medical service, EMS is for that, I don't care if your having contractions or dying of a bullet wound call a friggin ambulance or have a friend drive you!

Blaming some uber schlep because your cheap ass won't buy a car or call an ambulance is ******ed and shows what a complete lack of respect you have for the life of your child.


----------



## Douglas

So after reading the article, I'm curious about one important thing...
3 people approaching the vehicle, all of a sudden one vomits outside, was it ever made clear to the driver that the woman is in labor?

I ask because I don't know of any driver that would refuse to take someone to the hospital...I mean there have been many new and bad additions to the TLC license pool since Uber came around, but isn't it possible that this one sided story is a little "one-sided?" Not trying to defend this guy, because if he did refuse this woman knowing she was in labor, he deserves the fines and disaplinary action he will receive from the TLC.

FYI: here are the regulations on refusing a passenger in NYC

§55-20

Operations - Refusing Passengers

Must Not Refuse Passengers.

(1) A Driver who has been dispatched must not refuse, by words, gestures, cancellation of such dispatch, or any other means to provide transportation to a person who has prearranged the trip with a destination within the City of New York, the counties of Westchester or Nassau or Newark Airport.


(2) A Driver who has been dispatched must not refuse, by words, gestures or any other means to provide transportation to a Person with a Disability or any Service Animal accompanying the person.

(3) A Driver must not refuse to transport any Person with a Disability or any guide dog accompanying such person.

(b) Justification for Refusal. Justifiable grounds for refusing transportation services are the following:


(1) The Passenger is carrying, or is in possession of any article, package, case or container that the Driver reasonably believes will cause damage to the interior of the For-Hire Vehicle, impair its efficient operation, or stain or foul the interior. This does not include wheelchairs or other mobility aids used by disabled persons.

(2) The Passenger is escorted or accompanied by an animal that is not properly or adequately secured in a kennel case or other suitable container. This provision will not apply to service animals accompanying People with Disabilities.

(3) The Passenger is intoxicated or disorderly. (Caution: Drivers must not refuse service solely because a disability results in annoying, offensive, or inconvenient behavior.)

(4) If the Driver has asked the Passenger to stop smoking in the Vehicle and the Passenger has refused to stop, the Driver may discharge the Passenger. The Driver must, however, discharge the Passenger at a safe location.

§55- 20(a)(1)&(2)

Fine: First Violation: $200- $350
Second Violation within 36 months: $350 - $500

Appearance REQUIRED

§55-20(a)(3)

Fine: $5,000 and revocation

Appearance REQUIRED


----------



## Uberwagoner

I think the facts are lacking in the story to determine if the cancelation was due to knowledge of the labor state or if it was the vomiting on the sidewalk. If I saw the vomiting I would not let the pax in and drive off. However, I have had jerky drunks before and value my vehicle cleanliness over their ride request. 

I would have called 911 for them as I have birthed livestock before. Sudden complications in animal deliveries is one thing. In humans it is a different story to have it happen. The liability is too great to chance it in an urban environment. 

If it were in the middle of nowhere with medical facilities or medical response far away, I would still call 911 but do what was needed until help arrived. When trained professionals are far away the choices and liability are different.


----------



## steel108

Demon, please stfu. You are a legitimate idiot. If it's illegal like you say then show me the headlines of the Driver being arrested. I'll bet you can't bc ITS NOT ILLEGAL YOU IDIOT. It might against some regulation but it's nota crime you pompous moron. Please don't act like you have an IQ above 10 because your arguments prove otherwise. Please don't reproduce; that is the only contribution you can make in this world.


----------



## JJ/Uber/Miami

Demon said:


> You might want to do more studying.
> 
> Uber drivers are no independent contractors. Feel free to say they are a million times but it won't make it so. To be an independent contractor you need to be in control of the working environment. Uber drivers don't control price. Uber does that. Uber drivers are monitored as they work through the rating system. Uber drivers have to accept a certain percentage of rides. In short, they don't fit the definition the IRS has set forth for an independent contractor.
> 
> When you turned down the passenger you'd be in violation of the law and the Uber code of conduct. The lawyer likely filed a complaint with the TLC and the driver likely suffered some consequence. The driver broke the law, plain & simple.


WTF are you talking about ?? YOU may not see Uber drivers as IC's, but for all legal intents and purposes, drivers are independent contractors. If that were not so they would be having taxes taken out of their pay, using Uber vehicles instead of their own, and not be entirely responsible for their own expenses. Plus they would be receiving W-2's instead of 1099's.

If drivers are NOT independent contractors, somebody needs to send the memo to the powers that be at Uber and the IRS, cause they don't know it yet !!!!


----------



## JJ/Uber/Miami

steel108 said:


> Demon, please stfu. You are a legitimate idiot. If it's illegal like you say then show me the headlines of the Driver being arrested. I'll bet you can't bc ITS NOT ILLEGAL YOU IDIOT. It might against some regulation but it's nota crime you pompous moron. Please don't act like you have an IQ above 10 because your arguments prove otherwise. Please don't reproduce; that is the only contribution you can make in this world.


Thank you Steel. Couldn't have said it better myself !!!!


----------



## Slon

Douglas said:


> (b) Justification for Refusal. Justifiable grounds for refusing transportation services are the following:
> 
> 
> (1) The Passenger is carrying, or is in possession of any article, package, case or container that the Driver reasonably believes will cause damage to the interior of the For-Hire Vehicle, impair its efficient operation, or stain or foul the interior. This does not include wheelchairs or other mobility aids used by disabled persons.
> 
> (2) The Passenger is escorted or accompanied by an animal that is not properly or adequately secured in a kennel case or other suitable container. This provision will not apply to service animals accompanying People with Disabilities.
> 
> (3) The Passenger is intoxicated or disorderly. (Caution: Drivers must not refuse service solely because a disability results in annoying, offensive, or inconvenient behavior.)
> 
> (4) If the Driver has asked the Passenger to stop smoking in the Vehicle and the Passenger has refused to stop, the Driver may discharge the Passenger. The Driver must, however, discharge the Passenger at a safe location.
> §55- 20(a)(1)&(2)
> 
> Fine: First Violation: $200- $350
> Second Violation within 36 months: $350 - $500
> 
> Appearance REQUIRED
> 
> §55-20(a)(3)
> 
> Fine: $5,000 and revocation
> 
> Appearance REQUIRED


I think the highlighted passages could be used to justify the refusal. Finally, the fine seems less than the cost of cleaning up the potential mess in your car.


----------



## Demon

steel108 said:


> Demon, please stfu. You are a legitimate idiot. If it's illegal like you say then show me the headlines of the Driver being arrested. I'll bet you can't bc ITS NOT ILLEGAL YOU IDIOT. It might against some regulation but it's nota crime you pompous moron. Please don't act like you have an IQ above 10 because your arguments prove otherwise. Please don't reproduce; that is the only contribution you can make in this world.


So by your logic running red lights, speeding are legal because you don't get arrested for them. There are plenty of things that are illegal but will get you a ticket, not arrested.


----------



## Demon

Slon said:


> I think the highlighted passages could be used to justify the refusal. Finally, the fine seems less than the cost of cleaning up the potential mess in your car.


It couldn't. 
The fine and the loss of income are less than keeping your ability to work?


----------



## Demon

JJ/Uber/Miami said:


> WTF are you talking about ?? YOU may not see Uber drivers as IC's, but for all legal intents and purposes, drivers are independent contractors. If that were not so they would be having taxes taken out of their pay, using Uber vehicles instead of their own, and not be entirely responsible for their own expenses. Plus they would be receiving W-2's instead of 1099's.
> 
> If drivers are NOT independent contractors, somebody needs to send the memo to the powers that be at Uber and the IRS, cause they don't know it yet !!!!


Uber has several pending lawsuits regarding this issue.

You seem to want to pick and choose when you call driver independent contractors and when you call them employees. They don't meet the legal definition of an independent contractor.


----------



## Slon

Demon said:


> It couldn't.
> The fine and the loss of income are less than keeping your ability to work?


You don't even drive. You really have no idea what you are talking about - why are you even here?

There is NO loss of ability to work for first offense. The fine is less than the potential cost of cleaning up a car turned ER room.

Go away. Nobody wants to read your drivel.


----------



## Demon

Slon said:


> You don't even drive. You really have no idea what you are talking about - why are you even here?
> 
> There is NO loss of ability to work for first offense. The fine is less than the potential cost of cleaning up a car turned ER room.
> 
> Go away. Nobody wants to read your drivel.


Über called the act "unacceptable". It's likely they deactivated the driver.


----------



## Douglas

Slon said:


> I think the highlighted passages could be used to justify the refusal. Finally, the fine seems less than the cost of cleaning up the potential mess in your car.


The larger issue would be if they file calling it an ADA issue, which would be the other fine of $5,000 plus revocation of the TLC license. And if you have a TLC license in NYC you know that you are guilty unless you can prove you are innocent with the "tribunal" they use to enforce your regulations. But the "tribunal" is really only there for the money, so if the driver hires a good lawyer he may walk out with a fine...but there is absolutely no corruption in the NYC T&LC


----------



## Slon

Douglas said:


> The larger issue would be if they file calling it an ADA issue, which would be the other fine of $5,000 plus revocation of the TLC license. And if you have a TLC license in NYC you know that you are guilty unless you can prove you are innocent with the "tribunal" they use to enforce your regulations. But the "tribunal" is really only there for the money, so if the driver hires a good lawyer he may walk out with a fine...but there is absolutely no corruption in the NYC T&LC


It's not an ADA issue! Pregnancy is not a disability!


----------



## Slon

Demon said:


> Über called the act "unacceptable". It's likely they deactivated the driver.


Uber will call anything it can blame on the driver "unacceptable" what's your point?


----------



## Douglas

Slon said:


> It's not an ADA issue! Pregnancy is not a disability!


i agree, but the article implies that the couple may try to push that...


----------



## Slon

Douglas said:


> i agree, but the article implies that the couple may try to push that...


And a driver got sued for 5 mil for getting beat up on camera and another got sued for kicking a drunk guy out of his car who then broke into someones house and got shot....an attempt to sue does not constitute a just cause on the part of the plaintiff or a wrong doing on the part of the defendant.


----------



## JJ/Uber/Miami

Demon said:


> Uber has several pending lawsuits regarding this issue.
> 
> You seem to want to pick and choose when you call driver independent contractors and when you call them employees. They don't meet the legal definition of an independent contractor.


Are you mental??

I am NOT picking and choosing to call anyone anything. Uber and the government are, and they say we are IC's. I don't care how many lawsuits are PENDING, as of now Uber drivers are legally classified as independent contractors. When the lawsuits are settled hopefully that will change, but it hasn't yet. If it has, please clue in the rest of the world, Oh Special One !!!!


----------



## ATX 22

Demon said:


> And that's all that I'm saying, when you use the public roads to make money you have to follow rules.


Why? Uber gets away with breaking the established rules all the time.


----------



## Demon

Slon said:


> Uber will call anything it can blame on the driver "unacceptable" what's your point?


The one I clearly stated in the previous post.


----------



## JJ/Uber/Miami

Demon said:


> Uber has several pending lawsuits regarding this issue.
> 
> You seem to want to pick and choose when you call driver independent contractors and when you call them employees. They don't meet the legal definition of an independent contractor.


They don't meet the legal definition of EMPLOYEES either. Now what genius ?!?!


----------



## Slon

Demon said:


> The one I clearly stated in the previous post.


I'm supposed to read your mind? Is it that you are GUESSING that they deactivated the driver? You don't know what they did.

Why are you here if you aren't a driver?


----------



## JJ/Uber/Miami

Slon said:


> I'm supposed to read your mind? Is it that you are GUESSING that they deactivated the driver? You don't know what they did.
> 
> Why are you here if you aren't a driver?


Come on Slon. With a name like 'Demon', you know he/she is here to troll. Don't let it bother you. I for one am enjoying the back and forth debate with it. Let's keep going.....


----------



## jfr1

Uberwagoner said:


> I think the facts are lacking in the story to determine if the cancelation was due to knowledge of the labor state or if it was the vomiting on the sidewalk. If I saw the vomiting I would not let the pax in and drive off. However, I have had jerky drunks before and value my vehicle cleanliness over their ride request.
> 
> I would have called 911 for them as I have birthed livestock before. Sudden complications in animal deliveries is one thing. In humans it is a different story to have it happen. The liability is too great to chance it in an urban environment.
> 
> If it were in the middle of nowhere with medical facilities or medical response far away, I would still call 911 but do what was needed until help arrived. When trained professionals are far away the choices and liability are different.


Doesn't actually matter. Being sick isn't grounds for refusal of service either.


----------



## Slon

jfr1 said:


> Doesn't actually matter. Being sick isn't grounds for refusal of service either.


(3) The Passenger is intoxicated or disorderly. (Caution: Drivers must not refuse service solely because a disability results in annoying, offensive, or inconvenient behavior.)

I would say puking is grounds enough for that.


----------



## jfr1

Slon said:


> (3) The Passenger is intoxicated or disorderly. (Caution: Drivers must not refuse service solely because a disability results in annoying, offensive, or inconvenient behavior.)
> 
> I would say puking is grounds enough for that.


You'd be wrong. Intoxication is only one of the reasons that somebody may be puking. The driver would have to have substantially more than that to refuse the ride.


----------



## Slon

jfr1 said:


> You'd be wrong. Intoxication is only one of the reasons that somebody may be puking. The driver would have to have substantially more than that to refuse the ride.


It's an OR.

I don't have to prove them guilty of being drunk beyond any reasonable doubt. To me someone throwing up is pretty damn disorderly and by law I can refuse based on that. I don't care why they are puking everywhere.

The very law posted here on ride refusal allows me to refuse this ride.


----------



## jfr1

Slon said:


> It's an OR.
> 
> I don't have to prove them guilty of being drunk beyond any reasonable doubt. To me someone throwing up is pretty damn disorderly and by law I can refuse based on that. I don't care why they are puking everywhere.
> 
> The very law posted here on ride refusal allows me to refuse this ride.


Do you even grasp what disorderly means? You may not care why they are puking, but the fact that they are puking does not make them disorderly.


----------



## Slon

jfr1 said:


> Do you even grasp what disorderly means? You may not care why they are puking, but the fact that they are puking does not make them disorderly.


I know exactly what it means in legal context. I have no interest in identifying the reason for the public vomiting.


----------



## Uberwagoner

jfr1 said:


> Doesn't actually matter. Being sick isn't grounds for refusal of service either.


So a driver MUST accept someone who will vomit in their car?


----------



## Slon

Uberwagoner said:


> So a driver MUST accept someone who will vomit in their car?


Yeah - according the the people who don't actually drive


----------



## Uberwagoner

jfr1 said:


> Do you even grasp what disorderly means? You may not care why they are puking, but the fact that they are puking does not make them disorderly.


It may not make them disorderly, but it does make them have a high probability of causing damage to my vehicle. It has a leather interior which I pride myself on keeping maintained. No amount of assurances that damages will be paid for would make me budge. I have already had the fun of obtaining a damage fee through Lyft for a pax breaking a grab handle inside my car during a trip where they did a 8 pax "clown car" maneuver in a five total pax capacity vehicle.

I am not going through that again because a broken grab handle is one thing, the cost to detail vomit out of a leather interior and the wait time to get reimbursed is not worth it.

I have already made it clear that I would call 911 in such an event as the liability for something bad to happen for which I would not have proper coverage or protection clearly exists. I am not driving a woman in labor to a hospital in my car unless it is my wife or a family member. Otherwise I call the professionals for medical events. Even gunshot wound related trips I would call 911 as it is not only a professional health matter but also a law enforcement matter.


----------



## jfr1

Slon said:


> I know exactly what it means in legal context. I have no interest in identifying the reason for the public vomiting.


Then you would know that vomitting itself is not disorderly conduct.


----------



## jfr1

Uberwagoner said:


> So a driver MUST accept someone who will vomit in their car?


In New York, yes.


----------



## jfr1

Uberwagoner said:


> It may not make them disorderly, but it does make them have a high probability of causing damage to my vehicle. It has a leather interior which I pride myself on keeping maintained. No amount of assurances that damages will be paid for would make me budge. I have already had the fun of obtaining a damage fee through Lyft for a pax breaking a grab handle inside my car during a trip where they did a 8 pax "clown car" maneuver in a five total pax capacity vehicle.
> 
> I am not going through that again because a broken grab handle is one thing, the cost to detail vomit out of a leather interior and the wait time to get reimbursed is not worth it.
> 
> I have already made it clear that I would call 911 in such an event as the liability for something bad to happen for which I would not have proper coverage or protection clearly exists. I am not driving a woman in labor to a hospital in my car unless it is my wife or a family member. Otherwise I call the professionals for medical events. Even gunshot wound related trips I would call 911 as it is not only a professional health matter but also a law enforcement matter.


Sure, just realize that you would be breaking the law, and placing your TLC license at risk by doing so.

Having a high probability of vomitting in the car does not give you the right to refuse transport. It gives you the right to provide a bag. The fact that you have an "impeccably maintained leather interior" is of no concern to the passenger. Don't wan it potentially ruined? Don't license it as a TLC vehicle.

Yeah, you could call 911 on the way, and if the person wishes to transfer to an ambulance, they may do so, but you canot refuse service based on calling 911.


----------



## Slon

jfr1 said:


> Then you would know that vomitting itself is not disorderly conduct.


You're full of it. You can get kicked of a bus for vomiting - but a cab can't refuse you? Yeah right.

Stop while you're ahead - I can refuse if they have packages that may stain my interior - but not vomit. Yeah ok - logic checks out.:

(1) The Passenger is carrying, or is in possession of any article, package, case or container that the Driver reasonably believes will cause damage to the interior of the For-Hire Vehicle, impair its efficient operation, or stain or foul the interior. This does not include wheelchairs or other mobility aids used by disabled persons.


----------



## jfr1

Slon said:


> You're full of it. You can get kicked of a bus for vomiting - but a cab can't refuse you? Yeah right.
> 
> Stop while you're ahead - I can refuse if they have packages that may stain my interior - but not vomit. Yeah ok - logic checks out.


Depends on what jurisdiction you're in and what laws apply. In a New York TLC vehicle, the topic of this thread, you cannot be kicked out for that.

Logic is pretty simple.... somebody can control whether or not they bring in a leaky package. They cannot control whether or not they're puking.


----------



## Slon

jfr1 said:


> They cannot control whether or not they're puking.


 If they can't control their puking I sure as hell won't drive them.


----------



## jfr1

Slon said:


> If they can't control their puking I sure as hell won't drive them.


And you'd be breaking the law by doing so.


----------



## Slon

jfr1 said:


> And you'd be breaking the law by doing so.


Like I've said before. I'll take the chance of the $350 fine.


----------



## MzBehavn

Demon said:


> You might want to do more studying.
> 
> Uber drivers are no independent contractors. Feel free to say they are a million times but it won't make it so. To be an independent contractor you need to be in control of the working environment. Uber drivers don't control price. Uber does that. Uber drivers are monitored as they work through the rating system. Uber drivers have to accept a certain percentage of rides. In short, they don't fit the definition the IRS has set forth for an independent contractor.
> 
> When you turned down the passenger you'd be in violation of the law and the Uber code of conduct. The lawyer likely filed a complaint with the TLC and the driver likely suffered some consequence. The driver broke the law, plain & simple.


I don't completely agree with your interpretation of employee.

Also, I wouldn't be in violation, because I have a medical condition, as previously stated, anything that runs a chance of exposing me to blood, means everyone in the car is in danger. I pass out, and that is not something that anyone would argue I would have to take that kind of risk. So I'll leave the YOU, as others.

You can think your an employee all you want, we are not... Think about it... if we were, when someone gets deactivated, does uber have to pay unemployment benefits?

We are in control of the working environment, we control the car we drive, where we drive, when we drive, and who we authorize to get in our car. We can likewise determine if we are going to end the trip for what ever reason.

Controlling price is minor to the work environment, yes it would be nice if we could have some say in that, but given the totality of what we do control, the courts would view it as minor. And the rating system is a joke, but since you brought it up, It is an arbitrary distracting, make the customers feel better about themselves tool. Uber sends us a rating, which is very easy to maintain, and that is it, under the android app, we can see a little bit more of information, such as comments, or what riders indicated why they didn't give 5 stars on, but in all reality, that means nothing to us. It's so arbitrary and useless, it can't possibly be considered a control factor over the driver. There is actual so much wrong with it, that if it were brought to court, the person bringing the suit would have a very difficult time showing how it is a form of control over the driver.

Like I said before, sure, consequences were probably felt, but seriously to think we are forced to take rides that we can't/ don't feel would be worth it, would seriously need to consideration up front. Since nobody is paying us from the time we are ping'd until the pax is picked up, means this is an illusory contract.

Now, my understanding of NY law, is cabbies have medallions, and this is what contractually binds them, uber drivers don't have the same thing. I thought they couldn't pick up in downtown NY, but maybe that has changed.


----------



## Douglas

jfr1 said:


> In New York, yes.


What many of the people who are commenting on here don't realize is that the NYC TLC is infamous for allowing any complaint against a TLC licensed driver can result in suspension of the drivers For-Hire abilities in the city...this includes complaints that are not valid and have no evidence against the driver. The "tribunal" will usually take the word of the person making the complaint over the driver. 
The driver will now have to hire a lawyer (if he has had any tickets or violations in the past two years he may lose his TLC license)

Eitherway...this is a really screwed up situation. Uber doesn't charge enough to the people in NYC and then takes the 33-38% booking fee.

How does this driver make $1000 per day? I really would like to know...if you know how he does this, please share. lol


----------



## Douglas

MzBehavn said:


> Now, my understanding of NY law, is cabbies have medallions, and this is what contractually binds them, uber drivers don't have the same thing. I thought they couldn't pick up in downtown NY, but maybe that has changed.


Uber manipulates the "black car" feature here and considers it is a pre-arranged booking throughout the 5 boroughs and NJ and CT

The issue with employee and independent contractor:
•You are aware of the price structure and deductions before you ACCEPT a ride
•You have the decision to REJECT the ride
•You are not scheduled to work (you can work whenever)


----------



## jfr1

MzBehavn said:


> I don't completely agree with your interpretation of employee.
> 
> Also, I wouldn't be in violation, because I have a medical condition, as previously stated, anything that runs a chance of exposing me to blood, means everyone in the car is in danger. I pass out, and that is not something that anyone would argue I would have to take that kind of risk. So I'll leave the YOU, as others.
> 
> You can think your an employee all you want, we are not... Think about it... if we were, when someone gets deactivated, does uber have to pay unemployment benefits?
> 
> We are in control of the working environment, we control the car we drive, where we drive, when we drive, and who we authorize to get in our car. We can likewise determine if we are going to end the trip for what ever reason.
> 
> Controlling price is minor to the work environment, yes it would be nice if we could have some say in that, but given the totality of what we do control, the courts would view it as minor. And the rating system is a joke, but since you brought it up, It is an arbitrary distracting, make the customers feel better about themselves tool. Uber sends us a rating, which is very easy to maintain, and that is it, under the android app, we can see a little bit more of information, such as comments, or what riders indicated why they didn't give 5 stars on, but in all reality, that means nothing to us. It's so arbitrary and useless, it can't possibly be considered a control factor over the driver. There is actual so much wrong with it, that if it were brought to court, the person bringing the suit would have a very difficult time showing how it is a form of control over the driver.
> 
> Like I said before, sure, consequences were probably felt, but seriously to think we are forced to take rides that we can't/ don't feel would be worth it, would seriously need to consideration up front. Since nobody is paying us from the time we are ping'd until the pax is picked up, means this is an illusory contract.
> 
> Now, my understanding of NY law, is cabbies have medallions, and this is what contractually binds them, uber drivers don't have the same thing. I thought they couldn't pick up in downtown NY, but maybe that has changed.


In NY, all for hire vehicles and drivers are licensed by the TLC. That is what binds them to the rules around fare refusals. Medallion simply gives street hail rights. There's also a medical as part of the licensing process. Perhaps you're not cut out for this line of work.


----------



## Demon

MzBehavn said:


> I don't completely agree with your interpretation of employee.
> 
> Also, I wouldn't be in violation, because I have a medical condition, as previously stated, anything that runs a chance of exposing me to blood, means everyone in the car is in danger. I pass out, and that is not something that anyone would argue I would have to take that kind of risk. So I'll leave the YOU, as others.
> 
> You can think your an employee all you want, we are not... Think about it... if we were, when someone gets deactivated, does uber have to pay unemployment benefits?
> 
> We are in control of the working environment, we control the car we drive, where we drive, when we drive, and who we authorize to get in our car. We can likewise determine if we are going to end the trip for what ever reason.
> 
> Controlling price is minor to the work environment, yes it would be nice if we could have some say in that, but given the totality of what we do control, the courts would view it as minor. And the rating system is a joke, but since you brought it up, It is an arbitrary distracting, make the customers feel better about themselves tool. Uber sends us a rating, which is very easy to maintain, and that is it, under the android app, we can see a little bit more of information, such as comments, or what riders indicated why they didn't give 5 stars on, but in all reality, that means nothing to us. It's so arbitrary and useless, it can't possibly be considered a control factor over the driver. There is actual so much wrong with it, that if it were brought to court, the person bringing the suit would have a very difficult time showing how it is a form of control over the driver.
> 
> Like I said before, sure, consequences were probably felt, but seriously to think we are forced to take rides that we can't/ don't feel would be worth it, would seriously need to consideration up front. Since nobody is paying us from the time we are ping'd until the pax is picked up, means this is an illusory contract.
> 
> Now, my understanding of NY law, is cabbies have medallions, and this is what contractually binds them, uber drivers don't have the same thing. I thought they couldn't pick up in downtown NY, but maybe that has changed.


I'm not aware that's a medical condition and it certainly isn't a disability. In any case you'd face legal consequences for refusing service. As the other poster pointed out, if you pass out from the sight of blood this isn't a job for you. At anytime a rider could get a nosebleed, a paper cut while reading a magazine or book, or could bump their head entering the vehicle.

Let's review what you said about control.

1. You do not have control over what kind of car you drive. You have to have a car that's on the Uber approved list. 
2. You may control the route you take but if the passenger doesn't like the route they report that to Uber and if it happens enough the driver is deactivated. 
3. You don't have full control over who gets in your car. Uber mandates that you maintain a certain acceptance rate, if a driver goes below it, they get deactivated.

Drivers who have low ratings are deactivated or are mandated to take a special in person course at the driver's expense.

As for unemployment benefits.....
"Sure enough, the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity agreed with him that he was actually an employee. Predictably, Uber disagrees with the decision and will surely fight it vigorously."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertw...promise-long-battle/#2715e4857a0bc3e7be335a7d


----------



## MzBehavn

jfr1 said:


> In NY, all for hire vehicles and drivers are licensed by the TLC. That is what binds them to the rules around fare refusals. Medallion simply gives street hail rights. There's also a medical as part of the licensing process. Perhaps you're not cut out for this line of work.


Just because I pass out at the sight of blood doesn't mean I can't drive. I'm not an ambulance driver after all. So don't worry about me. Besides, this isn't my full time gig.


----------



## jfr1

MzBehavn said:


> Just because I pass out at the sight of blood doesn't mean I can't drive. I'm not an ambulance driver after all. So don't worry about me. Besides, this isn't my full time gig.


No it doesn't, which is why your medical condition doesn't prohibit you from obtaining a driver's license.

However, being a for-hire driver in NYC requires carrying all sorts of members of the public, with a highly restrictive list of circumstances where a fare can be refused. Given the possibility that you will be required to carry paying passengers who are bleeding, if your medical condition prohibits that, then it would prohibit you from being a for-hire driver.

Not sure why you're bringing up the point about it being your part time job... if a medical condition prohibits you from fulfilling the duties of the job, it doesn't matter whether it's part time or full... you've gotta find a new job.


----------



## MzBehavn

Demon said:


> I'm not aware that's a medical condition and it certainly isn't a disability. In any case you'd face legal consequences for refusing service. As the other poster pointed out, if you pass out from the sight of blood this isn't a job for you. At anytime a rider could get a nosebleed, a paper cut while reading a magazine or book, or could bump their head entering the vehicle.
> 
> Let's review what you said about control.
> 
> 1. You do not have control over what kind of car you drive. You have to have a car that's on the Uber approved list.
> 2. You may control the route you take but if the passenger doesn't like the route they report that to Uber and if it happens enough the driver is deactivated.
> 3. You don't have full control over who gets in your car. Uber mandates that you maintain a certain acceptance rate, if a driver goes below it, they get deactivated.
> 
> Drivers who have low ratings are deactivated or are mandated to take a special in person course at the driver's expense.
> 
> As for unemployment benefits.....
> "Sure enough, the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity agreed with him that he was actually an employee. Predictably, Uber disagrees with the decision and will surely fight it vigorously."
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertw...promise-long-battle/#2715e4857a0bc3e7be335a7d


I don't think I said I had a disability, I said it was a condition. It's Vega Nerve. No it doesn't preclude me from driving, as long as I take reasonable care to not place myself or my passengers in harms way.

1. the list of cars you can drive is regulated by local statutes, not Uber, so this is out.
2. I didn't talk about route a person takes, I talked where you drive, meaning where you go to look for rides. If you take a bad route, your being evaluated by the passenger, not by Uber. If you keep making longer routes, then you are acting in bad faith, in executing your contract. Repercussions are to be expected. It's a service industry.
3. Not a hard core statement, since, I know for a fact- you can have an acceptance rating less than the 80% or what ever it is, and there is not always a repercussion. This only happens in response to complaints. Therefore, it is not a hard rule, and if this issue goes to court, the court will look to how many times drivers fell below the rates, and compare them to how many were deactivated. A smart lawyer would then have a counter suit, for this, and claim discrimination.

An Agency that gives an opinion, does not have any legal effect, in the legal world. so yeah, that article you bring out, has no real legal meaning behind it. To get a different classification for us to be considered employees of Uber, is gonna require congressional regulation (in one of its various forms) or the federal courts to start adjudicating cases based on it, until we get a situation where the Supreme Court will be forced to look at it. Until then, we can keep arguing about what we think we are classified as, and until it is settled, it looks like we will view it differently. I can accept this, why can't you?


----------



## Ubernomics

negeorgia said:


> Having had my second son birthed in an ambulance, I am grateful for the mindset to have called an ambulance that morning.


Thank youuuuu


----------



## MzBehavn

jfr1 said:


> No it doesn't, which is why your medical condition doesn't prohibit you from obtaining a driver's license.
> 
> However, being a for-hire driver in NYC requires carrying all sorts of members of the public, with a highly restrictive list of circumstances where a fare can be refused. Given the possibility that you will be required to carry paying passengers who are bleeding, if your medical condition prohibits that, then it would prohibit you from being a for-hire driver.
> 
> Not sure why you're bringing up the point about it being your part time job... if a medical condition prohibits you from fulfilling the duties of the job, it doesn't matter whether it's part time or full... you've gotta find a new job.


 I'm not in NY, so that doesn't apply... and I can fulfill the duties of the rides I bind myself to contractually.


----------



## arto71

*A woman gave birth in the back of an Uber car*
http://nypost.com/2016/01/19/baby-born-in-the-back-of-an-uber-car-in-brooklyn/


----------



## jfr1

MzBehavn said:


> I'm not in NY, so that doesn't apply... and I can fulfill the duties of the rides I bind myself to contractually.


Of course not... but this thread is about New York drivers, and their obligations. Your medical condition would likely prohibit you from driving in NYC.


----------



## MzBehavn

jfr1 said:


> Of course not... but this thread is about New York drivers, and their obligations. Your medical condition would likely prohibit you from driving in NYC.


that is fine, but they are telling me I have to stop driving... and I'm saying I don't.


----------



## MzBehavn

OK your post made me think I should go look up the regulation your referencing. I've read it now. http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/downloads/pdf/rule_book_current_chapter_55.pdf

First, I don't see where I would personally be denied the ability to drive based on the license regulations. In fact under section 55-14 I would personally need to refuse service because to do otherwise would be unreasonable.

Second, as I stated in my initial post, this regulation violates the US constitution. After reading the provisions that talk about not refusing, I'm even more convinced this is directly in violation of the US Constitution. There is nothing there about refusing if there is suspicion of illegal activity, or feeling of personal safety, nor transporting unaccompanied minors (this should be there because of the implications this could cause).

So, for those that are trying to argue with me, let me help you. The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, meaning no legislative measure nor, judicial finding can trump it. I have already presented a constitutional argument, and I'm still waiting on someone to validate the regulation by using a Supreme Court case (you will need to use this, because the Supreme Court's decisions trump other federal decisions, and this presents a political question, and state courts can not determine constitutional political questions, in fact if this goes to the Supreme Court, the state of New York would need to change their regulation).

Next, was my argument about these are contractual cases, and I'm still waiting for someone to counter with what the consideration is.

The argument about whether drivers are employees or contractors, is still not decided by the courts, therefore, we could argue the points all day. I chose to concede to the fact everyone is going to have a different opinion on this. If you really want to argue this further then please provide the Supreme Court Case, that tells us we are employees, because so far the analysis pointing us towards employees, is weak.

Without these any argument made against mine, is weak.

Now, to move this conversation to a close, what everyone needs to understand is, just because it is unconstitutional, someone will have to take a bullet to invalidate it. Meaning, only someone who has been fined can challenge this in federal court (the only way you can get it to the Supreme Court) and even this is not guaranteed to make it get heard by the Supreme Court (It'd be risky to go straight to the Supreme Court, but it could happen). So, New York is stuck with an unconstitutional provision, and it is unlikely without a union any particular driver is going to challenge this.

Remember this started because someone stated they thought this was the worst argument in this posting, yet he still can't refute my argument with anything that would hold up in the courts. I understand lay persons think some legal arguments are ridiculous, I did when I first started studying, but if you only knew what kinds of seemingly ridiculous arguments have actually won cases, and changed law, you'd be surprised.

So, if you can't find the legal cases to support you proposition, that this is a valid regulation, then I'm done trying to explain it. There is a reason the initial Lawyer is bringing this up in the news, and not in the courts.


----------



## jfr1

MzBehavn said:


> that is fine, but they are telling me I have to stop driving... and I'm saying I don't.


nobody is telling you that. We're saying that if you were in NY, you probably wouldn't be driving(for Uber) in the first place.


----------



## jfr1

MzBehavn said:


> OK your post made me think I should go look up the regulation your referencing. I've read it now. http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/downloads/pdf/rule_book_current_chapter_55.pdf
> 
> First, I don't see where I would personally be denied the ability to drive based on the license regulations. In fact under section 55-14 I would personally need to refuse service because to do otherwise would be unreasonable.
> 
> Second, as I stated in my initial post, this regulation violates the US constitution. After reading the provisions that talk about not refusing, I'm even more convinced this is directly in violation of the US Constitution. There is nothing there about refusing if there is suspicion of illegal activity, or feeling of personal safety, nor transporting unaccompanied minors (this should be there because of the implications this could cause).
> 
> So, for those that are trying to argue with me, let me help you. The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, meaning no legislative measure nor, judicial finding can trump it. I have already presented a constitutional argument, and I'm still waiting on someone to validate the regulation by using a Supreme Court case (you will need to use this, because the Supreme Court's decisions trump other federal decisions, and this presents a political question, and state courts can not determine constitutional political questions, in fact if this goes to the Supreme Court, the state of New York would need to change their regulation).
> 
> Next, was my argument about these are contractual cases, and I'm still waiting for someone to counter with what the consideration is.
> 
> The argument about whether drivers are employees or contractors, is still not decided by the courts, therefore, we could argue the points all day. I chose to concede to the fact everyone is going to have a different opinion on this. If you really want to argue this further then please provide the Supreme Court Case, that tells us we are employees, because so far the analysis pointing us towards employees, is weak.
> 
> Without these any argument made against mine, is weak.
> 
> Now, to move this conversation to a close, what everyone needs to understand is, just because it is unconstitutional, someone will have to take a bullet to invalidate it. Meaning, only someone who has been fined can challenge this in federal court (the only way you can get it to the Supreme Court) and even this is not guaranteed to make it get heard by the Supreme Court (It'd be risky to go straight to the Supreme Court, but it could happen). So, New York is stuck with an unconstitutional provision, and it is unlikely without a union any particular driver is going to challenge this.
> 
> Remember this started because someone stated they thought this was the worst argument in this posting, yet he still can't refute my argument with anything that would hold up in the courts. I understand lay persons think some legal arguments are ridiculous, I did when I first started studying, but if you only knew what kinds of seemingly ridiculous arguments have actually won cases, and changed law, you'd be surprised.
> 
> So, if you can't find the legal cases to support you proposition, that this is a valid regulation, then I'm done trying to explain it. There is a reason the initial Lawyer is bringing this up in the news, and not in the courts.


Why do you think the NY fare refusal laws are unconstitutional?


----------



## Demon

jfr1 said:


> nobody is telling you that. We're saying that if you were in NY, you probably wouldn't be driving(for Uber) in the first place.


The argument hasn't gained anymore credibility and was already soundly refuted.


----------



## jfr1

Demon said:


> The argument hasn't gained anymore credibility and was already soundly refuted.


Not sure where you're getting that idea.

NY drivers ability to refuse fares is highly restrictive. A bleeding pax is not one of them. Therefore, the possibility exists that the driver will eventually have to transport somebody who is bleeding.

NY drivers must go through a medical examination prior to being licensed with the TLC.

Having a condition which would make you prone to instantaneous fainting as a result of something that you could quite possibly be required to do, would make you medically ineligible to perform the duties of a New York TLC driver.


----------



## Demon

jfr1 said:


> Not sure where you're getting that idea.
> 
> NY drivers ability to refuse fares is highly restrictive. A bleeding pax is not one of them. Therefore, the possibility exists that the driver will eventually have to transport somebody who is bleeding.
> 
> NY drivers must go through a medical examination prior to being licensed with the TLC.
> 
> Having a condition which would make you prone to instantaneous fainting as a result of something that you could quite possibly be required to do, would make you medically ineligible to perform the duties of a New York TLC driver.


I wasn't disagreeing with you but the other poster who by their own admission clearly shouldn't be driving.


----------



## jfr1

Demon said:


> I wasn't disagreeing with you but the other poster who by their own admission clearly shouldn't be driving.


Oh, Nvm then.


----------



## MzBehavn

jfr1 said:


> Why do you think the NY fare refusal laws are unconstitutional?


Short answer the New York regulation violates the US Constitutions 13th Amendment (anti-slavery).

I don't know how far back I put the quote, so if you want that you'll have to go back a couple pages. Basically, involuntary servitude violates the 13th amendment. The anti slavery laws. All throughout contract law, the US Supreme Court has held that requiring a person to perform a service straight up violates the US Constitution's 13th Amendment as involuntary servitude. My position is, we are not employees, we are contractors, and no contract is formed until we swipe the green bar. Up until that point, no consideration was given to enforce a contract, what we really have is an illusory promise, which is further supported by the fact that the rider (the one with power) can cancel the ride at any time with no consequence all the way up to 5 minutes. In the mean time, we are suppose to drive there in hopes of actually getting the ride. None of this creates an actual contract, so until we swipe the green bar no contract, and if there is no contract, no fines should be applied.

The NY regulation violates NY drivers liberty by telling them they cannot refuse to drive except under certain limiting circumstances. These circumstances have no bearing on legality nor personal safety, nor protecting our own interests (the problems of transporting minors). Since the NY regulation is forcing its drivers to drive regardless of the potentially dangerous situations, or legality, with no reasonable way out (without risk of a fine), the law is a violation of the Constitution.

I get the difference between discrimination, and what I'm explaining, the thing is, the regulation is unconstitutional as written, and should be should be struck down. Discrimination shouldn't happen, but as I stated before, it takes more than 1 incident to make a case for discrimination. The Lawyer in the article stated, he got another driver, and got his $13 back. He is going to have a very difficult time proving this was a case for discrimination, and chose instead to try to embarrass Uber by going to the news.


----------



## MzBehavn

Demon said:


> The argument hasn't gained anymore credibility and was already soundly refuted.


No it wasn't, I haven't seen anything, even in the NY law that states I shouldn't drive.

In fact, I've done over 2500 trips, and have not had 1 instance of blood, because having blood occur on a routine trip is an unusual thing thing. I don't care how many times you try to say it, but what you described is unusual, and I don't have to plan for the parade of horribles, you described, because it is just that, a parade of horribles. If someone is bleeding they don't just climb into a strangers car, they try to stop the bleeding. If it is a medical emergency, they need to call an ambulance, because we are not medical professionals, and I will not take on that duty, to subject myself to that negligence claim.

Also, when I got my driving privileges back from an unrelated medical condition, I asked the doctor if there would be a problem driving. I would think if there was an issue, the doctor had a legal duty to tell me.


----------



## jfr1

MzBehavn said:


> Short answer the New York regulation violates the US Constitutions 13th Amendment (anti-slavery).
> 
> I don't know how far back I put the quote, so if you want that you'll have to go back a couple pages. Basically, involuntary servitude violates the 13th amendment. The anti slavery laws. All throughout contract law, the US Supreme Court has held that requiring a person to perform a service straight up violates the US Constitution's 13th Amendment as involuntary servitude. My position is, we are not employees, we are contractors, and no contract is formed until we swipe the green bar. Up until that point, no consideration was given to enforce a contract, what we really have is an illusory promise, which is further supported by the fact that the rider (the one with power) can cancel the ride at any time with no consequence all the way up to 5 minutes. In the mean time, we are suppose to drive there in hopes of actually getting the ride. None of this creates an actual contract, so until we swipe the green bar no contract, and if there is no contract, no fines should be applied.
> 
> The NY regulation violates NY drivers liberty by telling them they cannot refuse to drive except under certain limiting circumstances. These circumstances have no bearing on legality nor personal safety, nor protecting our own interests (the problems of transporting minors). Since the NY regulation is forcing its drivers to drive regardless of the potentially dangerous situations, or legality, with no reasonable way out (without risk of a fine), the law is a violation of the Constitution.
> 
> I get the difference between discrimination, and what I'm explaining, the thing is, the regulation is unconstitutional as written, and should be should be struck down. Discrimination shouldn't happen, but as I stated before, it takes more than 1 incident to make a case for discrimination. The Lawyer in the article stated, he got another driver, and got his $13 back. He is going to have a very difficult time proving this was a case for discrimination, and chose instead to try to embarrass Uber by going to the news.


Short answer: No it doesn't. Being a taxi/uber driver is something an individual voluntarily signs up for.

Long Answer:

As a New York taxi or Uber driver, you enter into a contract with the passenger from the moment you acknowledge the hail, or accept the ping. (It's actually spelled out in the regulations right in that section).

These laws exist both to protect against discrimination against both defined minorities, and those who may simply just be less desirable to transport, to ensure the public's ability to move around New York is protected.

Furthermore, the law is on the books, and has not been constitutionally challenged. Until somebody does that, the law is in effect.


----------



## jfr1

MzBehavn said:


> No it wasn't, I haven't seen anything, even in the NY law that states I shouldn't drive.
> 
> In fact, I've done over 2500 trips, and have not had 1 instance of blood, because having blood occur on a routine trip is an unusual thing thing. I don't care how many times you try to say it, but what you described is unusual, and I don't have to plan for the parade of horribles, you described, because it is just that, a parade of horribles. If someone is bleeding they don't just climb into a strangers car, they try to stop the bleeding. If it is a medical emergency, they need to call an ambulance, because we are not medical professionals, and I will not take on that duty, to subject myself to that negligence claim.
> 
> Also, when I got my driving privileges back from an unrelated medical condition, I asked the doctor if there would be a problem driving. I would think if there was an issue, the doctor had a legal duty to tell me.


Do you believe that a Doctor (who you make aware of your condition) is going to approve you to drive people around, knowing that you may eventually be required to drive somebody around who is bleeding?


----------



## MzBehavn

jfr1 said:


> Do you believe that a Doctor (who you make aware of your condition) is going to approve you to drive people around, knowing that you may eventually be required to drive somebody around who is bleeding?


I said I would be driving people around. I don't drive in New York, and even under New York law, I think it is unreasonable to expect a private driver to drive a bleeding person around. You do know blood has to be cleaned in a certain way. What are you imagining, a person is going to take a knife cut themselves and then shove it in my face? Seriously?

Besides at this point, this is off topic... You guys can think what you want. I'm clearly doing OK, and if your that concerned, that is sweet. But if you really want to continue talking about it, I suggest taking it to a private convo, since this is not on topic anymore.


----------



## jfr1

MzBehavn said:


> I said I would be driving people around. I don't drive in New York, and even under New York law, I think it is unreasonable to expect a private driver to drive a bleeding person around. You do know blood has to be cleaned in a certain way. What are you imagining, a person is going to take a knife cut themselves and then shove it in my face? Seriously?
> 
> Besides at this point, this is off topic... You guys can think what you want. I'm clearly doing OK, and if your that concerned, that is sweet. But if you really want to continue talking about it, I suggest taking it to a private convo, since this is not on topic anymore.


Yeah, you will, because you don't attempt to do so in New York. If you were attepting to in NY, you'd likely have been rejected. At that point, free to engage in some sort of constitutional challenge in your spare time.

I'm not imagining anything. You said you have a medical condition which causes you to pass out at the sight of blood. As somebody who is not a doctor with access to both you and your medical file, I am in no positiion to challenge that claim. I can only take it at face value. As somebody who has read and understands the relevant laws, I can tell you that a condition that serious would likely prohibit you from being licensed as it prevents you from being able to perform your duties, and places the public in danger.

You think it's unreasonable to transport a person who may be bleeding... of course you do, you're a driver and that person has a higher probability of being a ride that is more expensive to service. By that same standard, it is unreasonable to transport the disabled (take too long), the fat (decrease fuel milage), the smelly or dirty (odors/mess affecting future tips), whatever.

Reality is -- taxis/uber/private cars are part of a city's transportation infrastructure, and that system fails the public when drivers can pick and chose fares at their whim. People who are bleeding need to get around too. No, we're not talking about the guy who got shot, is bleeding profusely, and could die without medical attention. That's where an ambulance comes in, and the driver should do whatever is possible to help speed up the rendesvous with the ambulance. Somebody who's suffered a cut or wound, gotten the bleding under control but requires stitches and some professional cleaning -- yeah -- a for hire vehicle is a reasonable way to do it... just like somebody who has gone into early stages of labour. It's not a medical emergency, but that person needs to get from point A to point B.

I get it -- you're in a jurisdiction that either hasn't seen the merits in placing very similar restrictions on Uber drivers as they do taxis, or has very relaxed rules on where taxis can refuse service (most likely the former). That doesn't make the debate off topic, it simply means we need to have the debate in the context of the NYC laws.


----------



## RamzFanz

JJ/Uber/Miami said:


> I'm curious about a couple of things --
> 
> 1. Will your personal policy pay out if you are driving for Uber at the time of the loss ??
> 
> 2. Do you make enough in fares driving for Uber to justify the added expense of a commercial policy?
> 
> A $1000 seems a lot of money to sacrifice when driving for peanuts. Then again, you could be in a market where profit is still possible. If you are, good for you !!!


1. Uber provides $1,000,000 in limited liability and uninsured motorist commercial primary insurance while driving to a pax or carrying one. Also primary collision with $1,000 deductible if you have it on your personal policy. The driver needs to ensure they are covered by their insurance when not driving to a pax or carrying one.

2. No, I don't. I'm part time. Just as we all should be. This is an extra money gig, not a career.

$1,000 deductible for collision is pretty standard. What is yours on your personal insurance? I won't drive for peanuts. It's a huge mistake to drive for what many Uber drivers are making.


----------



## RamzFanz

UberXTampa said:


> I had people trying to go to emergency using uber.
> I had a few of such people.
> 
> First time I am saying it here:
> In 23 years I had only 1 accident and it was when I was driving uber pax to the ER. I got screwed and costed me $3k, all out of pocket.
> Don't do it if you can avoid it.
> We are not trained nor covered for things that may go wrong during such risky pax deliveries.


I'm curious, how did you have to pay $3,000? Did you not carry collision on your personal insurance?


----------



## UberXTampa

RamzFanz said:


> I'm curious, how did you have to pay $3,000? Did you not carry collision on your personal insurance?


Bingo!
I had no collision coverage. 
You can't fix stupid!


----------



## RamzFanz

UberXTampa said:


> Bingo!
> I had no collision coverage.
> You can't fix stupid!


Hard lesson. That sucks.


----------



## JJ/Uber/Miami

RamzFanz said:


> 1. Uber provides $1,000,000 in limited liability and uninsured motorist commercial primary insurance while driving to a pax or carrying one. Also primary collision with $1,000 deductible if you have it on your personal policy. The driver needs to ensure they are covered by their insurance when not driving to a pax or carrying one.
> 
> 2. No, I don't. I'm part time. Just as we all should be. This is an extra money gig, not a career.
> 
> $1,000 deductible for collision is pretty standard. What is yours on your personal insurance? I won't drive for peanuts. It's a huge mistake to drive for what many Uber drivers are making.


I stopped driving for Uber months ago (no way I was going to drive for .75 cents a mile in my 2014 vehicle). I only do Lyft during holiday/special event guarantees. My deductible is $500 for collision and comprehensive. I know Uber touts their insurance coverage, but I just did not want to take the chance of financial ruin if anything happened. I'll just gave to make due with my 40K a year day job until something better comes along.


----------



## Trebor

grayspinner said:


> Honestly - having birthed 4 babies, I can say that the driver should have taken her.
> 
> It was only 3 miles & the likelihood that she would have delivered in the car or even been sick again was pretty darn low.
> 
> He could have at least asked how far apart her contractions were and gotten a good feel for how close to delivery she might have been.
> 
> Most women labor for hours.
> 
> Most women who have hospital births go there in the earlier stages of labor. Her being sick is actually a sign of early labor.
> 
> Most women don't have their waters rupture until delivery
> 
> And the uterus does an amazing job of protecting the fetus - the likelihood of something going wrong during transport is pretty much non-existent.
> 
> The driver was an ass.
> 
> I guess none of you guys drove your wives to the hospital to give birth? You all called ambulances because transport by car would be dangerous & messy? Yeah right


I called an ambulance. Driving for Uber allows me to qualify for medicaid! Ambulance was free.. =)


----------

