# Uber, Lyft and Via join hands to block accessibility mandate



## MHR (Jul 23, 2017)

NEWS
April 13, 2018 3:35 p.m. Updated 04/13/2018
*Uber, Lyft and Via sue to block wheelchair-accessibility mandate*
*The filing calls the new rules "arbitrary and capricious"*
Matthew Flamm 

The city's three biggest ride-hail companies have banded together to undo the recently passed Taxi and Limousine Commission mandate requiring them to make wheelchair accessible service a growing part of their operations.

Uber, Lyft, and Via filed a petition in state Supreme Court in Manhattan on Friday asking that the TLC mandate be vacated and annulled. The rules are set to go into effect in July, and will require that within 12 months 5% of all trips dispatched by the operators be in wheelchair accessible vehicles.

The portion will rise to 25% by July 2023. The accessible rides will be required regardless of whether they were requested by a person using a wheelchair, which the city says will keep the vehicles in operation and improve service for those who need them.

The rules apply across the for-hire vehicle industry, which has resisted adding accessible rides to their operations even as the taxi industry has been struggling to meet a 50% accessibility mandate by 2020.

The petition on Friday described the TLC's mandate as well-meaning but entirely impractical and enacted with no regard for the actual need for the service or the impact it will have on the industry.

"Unfortunately, in an effort to placate one constituency, the TLC has imposed an arbitrary and capricious mandate that unreasonably burdens another," the companies argue in the petition. "If implemented, the TLC's rule will not only fail to meet any stated or defined metric of success; it also will wreak irreparable economic damage on the entire FHV industry, from the largest app-based companies to the most vulnerable small base operators."

In a separate action, five trade groups representing livery cabs, black cars and limos will appear in federal court in Manhattan on Monday to argue for a temporary injunction against the mandate. The five groups, which include the Livery Base Owners Association, the Livery Round Table and the Black Car Fund, were originally joined with the app-based operators as part of an FHV Coalition.

Earlier this week, disability advocates including United Spinal Association and New York Lawyers for the Public Interest filed an amicus brief in federal court in Manhattan in opposition to the motion for a preliminary injunction. The advocates' brief defends the TLC against the FHV operators but argues that the city's plan does not go far enough to provide equivalent service for people with disabilities in accordance with anti-discrimination statutes.

"We're grateful the city is trying to push for accessibility, but it's not enough," said Ruth Lowenkron, director of the disability justice program at New York Lawyers for the Public Interest. "We think they have their own obligation under the non-discrimination laws to ensure access under non-discrimination laws. And the FHVs absolutely have a requirement to make their vehicles accessible."

_TLC Lawsuit_


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

MHR said:


> NEWS
> April 13, 2018 3:35 p.m. Updated 04/13/2018
> *Uber, Lyft and Via sue to block wheelchair-accessibility mandate*
> *The filing calls the new rules "arbitrary and capricious"*
> ...


LMAO...sure....I am wheel chair ready!!! I have.....

> I have a rear tow hitch
> I have a rope
> I have a bell on the end of the rope

Here is how it works....

>I will drive by slowly. The rider must be in the street and ready to go.
> The rider grabs onto the rope and holds on for dear life. 
> when the rider is ready to get off, he/she rings the bell and lets go. 
> Delivery complete.

I am set and ready to rock n roll.....


----------



## MHR (Jul 23, 2017)

Have to say I actually agree with them (U,L & V) on this lawsuit.

Some here know one of my boys is in a wheelchair and we've been trying to get funding for a conversion for a few years now.

That being said, it's expensive to get a conversion done (most recent quote came in at 9k), it's permanent (first thing done is dropping the floor of the vehicle by 3", this is why only certain makes and models can be converted) and you are expected to keep the vehicle until it falls to pieces and lastely your insurance premium also goes up. You are permanently changing your vehicle. You lose seating and cargo space.

It's so costly that, G'awd forbid you total your ride, the insurance company sends a team to salvage any part of the conversion that can be saved to install in your new vehicle.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

I'm not pushing for uber/lyft at all...

The conversion ARE expensive and one of the reasons taxis cost so much is compliance with local laws. If the taxi companies where smart they would get in line behind this law and stick to it uber.

This could ultimately sink uber in NYC and I would LOVE to see it happen.

I (and my not evil clone Mears Troll number 4) have stated numerous times that the ADA could ruin Uber and they deserve to get ruined over it.

The cab industry has been fighting these same mandates for years.. and they have lost every single time.

If uber can't adapt to these laws they should GTFO.










If Taxis can do it... STFU uber and get in line OR ELSE!

Cause that's the only way it will get done... when OR Else threatens you badly enough.

It is simply not fair for uber to ignore these people and force them to take more expensive transportation due to inaccessibility. That's what is happening in Orlando and it isn't fair for the customer.

But what do I know?

I'm just a card carrying member of the gimpest club in town. (i have a handicap placard, lost a leg, ect ect)

25% of the Green taxis deployed (green taxis were first introduced in 2014) where accessible vehicles, way more than the 5% mandate put on uber.

5% isn't unreasonable...


----------



## MHR (Jul 23, 2017)

I guess my perspective is different being in a small town that has never had public transportation. 

We've had 1 taxi company in my town the whole while I've lived here and I've been here 18 years, it's owned by a local family and they have 2 vehicles, neither are accessible. We have no public buses but we have 2 small transit buses that take people in wheelchairs, door to door service.

My son can't use his power chair anywhere other than school because I can't transport it. He uses his manual chair when we go out. I load a 56# chair and an 83# young man in and out of the van by myself, sometimes several times a day.

And I am sorry you've lost a leg. My son is paraplegic and his twin is deaf-blind so yeah, got the plates to go with them as well. But what do I know.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

MHR said:


> I guess my perspective is different being in a small town that has never had public transportation.
> 
> We've had 1 taxi company in my town the whole while I've lived here and I've been here 18 years, it's owned by a local family and they have 2 vehicles, neither are accessible. We have no public buses but we have 2 small transit buses that take people in wheelchairs, door to door service.
> 
> ...


Wouldn't it be great if your son could call an uber to get an accessible ride in his power chair?

Or if you got paid enough to be able to afford a van with a ramp?

There's 2 ways for uber to fix your problems right there...

When i owned my taxi I cleared $250,000 in 3 1/2 years. (gross revenue)

$10,000 for a wheelchair conversion on a van would be easy with that kind of money.

The cab company i drive for will issue wheelchair vans to it's drivers if they have a need for it... know a couple guys in that boat.


----------



## MHR (Jul 23, 2017)

Yes, it would be great if we could call an Uber to transport him as well as being able to earn decent pay to outfit the van ourselves. I do understand all of your points and the angle of your view on this story.

I fight so many frickin localized battles for my boys that sometimes I lose sight of the bigger ones others are fighting for us.

Peace


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

MHR said:


> Yes, it would be great if we could call an Uber to transport him as well as being able to earn decent pay to outfit the van ourselves. I do understand all of your points and the angle of your view on this story.
> 
> I fight so many frickin localized battles for my boys that sometimes I lose sight of the bigger ones others are fighting for us.
> 
> Peace


Small towns are notoriously bad for people with disabilities...

Don't know how you can stand it.

By the time i retire i may very well end up in a wheelchair.
Transportation is one of the reasons i live where I live. I can get a Wheelchair taxi dispatched to my driveway.

But i do have friends at the cab company depend on having the taxis for getting their family members around.

If uber offered wheelchair vans to local drivers i'm sure you would jump on that opportunity. (Or at least eagerly research the heck out of it)

But they won't, cause they don't want to.

And NYC often guides the rest of the country in terms of public transit.

If NYC forces uber to get 5% of their vehicles to be wheelchair vans the ADA groups will use that as an example in a lot of other states to force them to do the same elsewhere.

I see this lawsuit as good news... and uber losing it will be good news for people with disabilities.


----------



## Rakos (Sep 2, 2014)

Ok guys now remember I'm a monkey...

Dedicate the SDC fleet...

to be "assisted" vehicles...

Wheelchairs should be easy to connect with...

Perfect marriage...SDC and ADA...8>)

Rakos


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

No


MHR said:


> NEWS
> April 13, 2018 3:35 p.m. Updated 04/13/2018
> *Uber, Lyft and Via sue to block wheelchair-accessibility mandate*
> *The filing calls the new rules "arbitrary and capricious"*
> ...


Now

UBER PERSECUTES THE HANDICAPPED !


----------



## MHR (Jul 23, 2017)

Rakos said:


> Ok guys now remember I'm a monkey...
> 
> Dedicate the SDC fleet...
> 
> ...


I like that idea. You could have a "safety tech employee" overseeing the SDC but also available to assist the pax.


----------



## Rakos (Sep 2, 2014)

MHR said:


> I like that idea. You could have a "safety tech employee" overseeing the SDC but also available to assist the pax.


Me thinks you missed the sarcasm...8>O

Rakos


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

Reality check.....

After seeing this thread, I contacted my insurance company along with 4 others that provide rideshare coverage. I was told that they will not cover any such service or the gadgets needed to comply with the ADA. 

There are policies that can be bought in most markets to cover ADA rigged cars. They are expensive, hard to get and require certification of proper training. 

I am pretty sure that .79 cents a mile will not cover the costs. 

Drive safe


----------



## MHR (Jul 23, 2017)

Rakos said:


> Me thinks you missed the sarcasm...8>O
> 
> Rakos
> View attachment 224089


Well hell...I did indeed.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

UBERPROcolorado said:


> Reality check.....
> 
> After seeing this thread, I contacted my insurance company along with 4 others that provide rideshare coverage. I was told that they will not cover any such service or the gadgets needed to comply with the ADA.
> 
> ...


State of Florida requires certifications for driving for-hire with these rigs as well, probably pretty common elsewhere.

And checking my lanyard (Lanyard of for-hire permits) I noticed mine expired last week.

Probably won't get it redone either. Not worth it if i'm only working once in a blue moon and can rarely get a WAV vehicle.

I hadn't considered the insurance issues,

Probably $500 a month for insurance that will cover you with these... the odds of uber ever getting any numbers of these vehicles is going down in my eyes the more I look into it.

The ADA could end up KOing ridesharing if they keep pushing this.

Wouldn't that be a hoot..

I'd laugh my leg off.


----------



## RideshareinCali (May 11, 2017)

Screwber, Shyt, and Vagina ought to provide the accessibility vehicles for us to give rides. Considering how rapidly the country is aging, this is a growing market & these companies can ca$h in if they can knock some sensibility into themselves-- unless they believe that autonomous cars can handle the disabled passengers LOL.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

MHR said:


> NEWS
> April 13, 2018 3:35 p.m. Updated 04/13/2018
> *Uber, Lyft and Via sue to block wheelchair-accessibility mandate*
> *The filing calls the new rules "arbitrary and capricious"*
> ...


Handicapped. . .
More Legal Expeeience than Uber !

They will lose


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> 25% of the Green taxis deployed (green taxis were first introduced in 2014) where accessible vehicles, way more than the 5% mandate put on uber.
> 
> 5% isn't unreasonable...


They ***may*** be able to meet the 5% mark but there's no way they're going to make the 25% mark.

Last year in NYC they were doing 289,000 rides per day. 5% of that is 14,450 accessible rides every day, day in, day out. 25% of that is 72,250 accessible rides by 2023.

Really though I don't think they're going to make either of those percentages simply because there just aren't enough uber vehicles equipped for it, and there's no way in hell drivers are going to trust uber enough to make the capital investment based on promised elevated rates which past experience clearly shows they'll rescind as soon as they have the necessary number of properly equipped vehicles.

Uber is going to have to come out of hat for the money necessary to bring in enough properly equipped vehicles.

Actually I love it. They've screwed drivers over so much there's no way drivers are going to go out of their way to help uber on this without a hell of huge inducement.

Last year uber surpassed yellow cabs in the number of rides so it'll actually be harder, not easier, for uber to meet the requirement than it will be for cabs in NYC.

https://ny.curbed.com/2017/10/13/16468716/uber-yellow-cab-nyc-surpass-ridership

"What seemed inevitable for quite some time now, has finally come to pass; Uber has overtaken yellow cabs in average daily ridership figures, _the New York Times_ reports. This past July, Uber witnessed an average of 289,000 rides per day, whereas yellow cabs only managed 277,000."


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Wonkytonk said:


> They ***may*** be able to meet the 5% mark but there's no way they're going to make the 25% mark.
> 
> Last year in NYC they were doing 289,000 rides per day. 5% of that is 14,450 accessible rides every day, day in, day out. 25% of that is 72,250 accessible rides by 2023.
> 
> ...


Finally
Uber can not dodge Law.

After dodging so many times . . .

Every Business
Every Resturant
Every Taxi
Must be accessible !

Every Federal Building .

And with a Growing aging population in America.
Uber will NOT BE ALLOWED TO AVOID THE RULES.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

tohunt4me said:


> Finally
> Uber can not dodge Law.
> 
> After dodging so many times . . .
> ...


I can see uber/lyft encouraging drivers to make the investment on the basis that if they won't they'll be fighting each other for 95% of the fares initially, and eventually 75%. And lord help them if the city bumps it to 50% and drivers of non accessible equipped vehicles have to compete over those fares they'll hemorrhage drivers.

To prevent that they're going to have drastically boost the pay rate for the city.

No matter how you look at it uber is not going to get out of this cheaply unless they can get it scrapped all together.

And this leading into the IPO.

I actually want them to threaten to leave the city, and hope the city says "See ya later, bye!"


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Wonkytonk said:


> I can see uber/lyft encouraging drivers to make the investment on the basis that if they won't they'll be fighting each other for 95% of the fares initially, and eventually 75%. And lord help them if the city bumps it to 50% and drivers of non accessible equipped vehicles have to compete over those fares they'll hemorrhage drivers.
> 
> To prevent that they're going to have drastically boost the pay rate for the city.
> 
> ...


If it's the disability groups siding with the city and the city realizing that there will be a huge influx to public transit the moment Uber pulls out...

The clear choice is do you back this kids interests

With MORE money going to public transit...









Or these drunks interests
With less money going to public transit.










On a fiscal level it's better to push it through, it's better on a moral level, it's better on a feel good about yourself level...

It's just a good choice.


----------



## HotUberMess (Feb 25, 2018)

I’ve transpo’d several wheelchairs.. who can’t fit a wheelchair in their trunk???


----------



## MHR (Jul 23, 2017)

HotUberMess said:


> I've transpo'd several wheelchairs.. who can't fit a wheelchair in their trunk???


All depends on the wheelchair.

They are custom built with mods for the particular user's needs. Adults whom say are missing a lower limb with no other issues sometimes have the ability to use the lighter racing chair type.

Chairs for users with complicated muscular-skeletal issues involve more mods for proper positioning and posture and tend to be "fixed" and non folding and much heavier.

Can't get my son's wheelchair into the trunk of any sedan or compact.


----------



## njn (Jan 23, 2016)

Most of uber's own rules are "*arbitrary and capricious".
*
On top of this mandate, the city wants to charge $2000/ year for a TLC license.

Thin the herd.


----------



## bizly (Mar 23, 2018)

ADA has a lot of pull and some of the most govt support out there, fat chance U/L can fight this successfully even after lining the pockets of everyone involved. I mean just look at how many emails we get daily on support animal policy.


----------



## HotUberMess (Feb 25, 2018)

MHR said:


> All depends on the wheelchair.
> 
> They are custom built with mods for the particular user's needs. Adults whom say are missing a lower limb with no other issues sometimes have the ability to use the lighter racing chair type.
> 
> ...


Yeah I was thinking of that later.

My Mazda 6 does have an enormous trunk

By the way, iirc the ADA says "reasonable accomodation". Requiring a lift gate on every X vehicle is probably not going to be judged "reasonable". Having a few drivers who earn a little extra for using their gates - just like we currently have a few drivers running around with child seats - is probably what's going to end up happening.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

HotUberMess said:


> Yeah I was thinking of that later.
> 
> My Mazda 6 does have an enormous trunk
> 
> By the way, iirc the ADA says "reasonable accomodation". Requiring a lift gate on every X vehicle is probably not going to be judged "reasonable". Having a few drivers who earn a little extra for using their gates - just like we currently have a few drivers running around with child seats - is probably what's going to end up happening.


You think? I don't know. A few is a far cry from 5%, or 25% for that matter given the sheer numbers of rides those percentages entail.

I'm sort of like you in that I have taken a wheelchair before in the back end of my compact suv at the time. It was a heavy one though and lifting it was a real pain to say nothing of the hassle getting the disabled pax into the car.


----------



## Tnasty (Mar 23, 2016)

Im all for handicap accessibility, but whos paying for this?You cant charge more for these rides and the drivers cant foot the bill with our cut!


----------



## HotUberMess (Feb 25, 2018)

Wonkytonk said:


> You think? I don't know. A few is a far cry from 5%, or 25% for that matter given the sheer numbers of rides those percentages entail.
> 
> I'm sort of like you in that I have taken a wheelchair before in the back end of my compact suv at the time. It was a heavy one though and lifting it was a real pain to say nothing of the hassle getting the disabled pax into the car.


Hey.. it could be worse. You could be handicapped with no car.


----------



## Tom Harding (Sep 26, 2016)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> I'm not pushing for uber/lyft at all...
> 
> The conversion ARE expensive and one of the reasons taxis cost so much is compliance with local laws. If the taxi companies where smart they would get in line behind this law and stick to it uber.
> 
> ...


I drive for Uber, Lyft and VIA in Chicago. I inquired about having my vehicle fitted as a WAV. Uber and the other won't help with the expense (about $6.000) and I loose the XL, Plus trips to boot. The fare prices aare the same as UberX or Lyft. There is no incentive to really make the conversion. If the rates were the same as Select or Premium, I might make the investment, but they're not. And I really don't want to take EMT training
As independent contractors, we choose what vehicle types we invest in. Investing $6,000 without any any return and reducing income by loosing a higher class care if not good business.


----------



## KD_LA (Aug 16, 2017)

UBERPROcolorado said:


> LMAO...sure....I am wheel chair ready!!! I have.....
> 
> > I have a rear tow hitch
> > I have a rope
> ...


Don't forget a flashing red LED at the end of the rope


----------



## Tom Harding (Sep 26, 2016)

Tnasty said:


> Im all for handicap accessibility, but whos paying for this?You cant charge more for these rides and the drivers cant foot the bill with our cut!


Ubere & Lyft charge more for Select, XL, Plus, premium, etc. Why not charge fairly for WAV? After all business is business . If I got the same fare for WAV ans for XL or Select, I'd make the upgrade.
Oh, but wait, in Chicago if you have a WAV vehicle you have to take EMT training too.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Wonkytonk said:


> I can see uber/lyft encouraging drivers to make the investment on the basis that if they won't they'll be fighting each other for 95% of the fares initially, and eventually 75%. And lord help them if the city bumps it to 50% and drivers of non accessible equipped vehicles have to compete over those fares they'll hemorrhage drivers.
> 
> To prevent that they're going to have drastically boost the pay rate for the city.
> 
> ...


Uber MUST pay miles traveling to PAX .

WITH LIMITED ACCESS VEHICLES
an access vehicle driver will be called on to travel across the city for a handicapped pickup.

Law requires 24 hour access



Tom Harding said:


> Ubere & Lyft charge more for Select, XL, Plus, premium, etc. Why not charge fairly for WAV? After all business is business . If I got the same fare for WAV ans for XL or Select, I'd make the upgrade.
> Oh, but wait, in Chicago if you have a WAV vehicle you have to take EMT training too.


 I am an E.M.T. - B.
A C.N.A.
1 1/2 years L.P.N. School.

I have looked into buying paratransit busses. Small cutaway van/ busses with hydraullic lifts. 16 passenger.
5 handicap passenger capability with tie downs included.

Would be great for conventions also.
Turbo diesels could get 22mpg WITHOUT sacrificing X.L. capabilities.

There is an 8 year age limit in my market.
For Uber. For Taxi. For Limo.

Yet i could pick a unit up for $500.00-$2,000.00

Much cheaper than handicap vans which only hold 5 passengers.

Under 16 passengers require no special License.

Pictured is a 2010 model with gas v-10.
Only useable for 1 year in my market.
Then i would have to sell it to a football " "tailgater" to haul his crew in.

I would prefer the diesel.
With a few engine mods on a turbo diesel
I can easily boost mileage and power.


----------



## Tom Harding (Sep 26, 2016)

tohunt4me said:


> Uber MUST pay miles traveling to PAX .
> 
> WITH LIMITED ACCESS VEHICLES
> an access vehicle driver will be called on to travel across the city for a handicapped pickup.
> ...


Uber and Lyft do not accept full size vans and buses. The largest are mini-vans and SUVs. 
But to have a WAV in Chicago the driver must have passed a limited EMT training course, and I'm just too old for that.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Tom Harding said:


> Uber and Lyft do not accept full size vans and buses. The largest are mini-vans and SUVs.
> But to have a WAV in Chicago the driver must have passed a limited EMT training course, and I'm just too old for that.


I already have the papers.
Need a refresher though.
Looks good on Industrial & Offshore Resumees. 
They get a " free" first responder when they hire me.


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

Tom Harding said:


> Why not charge fairly for WAV?


Against federal law. Discrimination. ADA violation to charge more to handicapped, elderly, etc.


----------



## Tom Harding (Sep 26, 2016)

Mista T said:


> Against federal law. Discrimination. ADA violation to charge more to handicapped, elderly, etc.


Well that caps it. No Uber or Lyft driver will modify their vehicle for WAV, unless they want to help the handicapped. But business is business and I won't unless I can be compensated for my investment and loss of revenue by loosing UberXL and Plus status.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Tom Harding said:


> Well that caps it. No Uber or Lyft driver will modify their vehicle for WAV, unless they want to help the handicapped. But business is business and I won't unless I can be compensated for my investment and loss of revenue by loosing UberXL and Plus status.


These are some of the reasons I say Uber/Lyft aren't getting out of this without coming up with boat loads of cash or iron clad income guarantees to make this happen. Either that or say bye bye to a lucrative market.


----------



## Tom Harding (Sep 26, 2016)

Wonkytonk said:


> These are some of the reasons I say Uber/Lyft aren't getting out of this without coming up with boat loads of cash or iron clad income guarantees to make this happen. Either that or say bye bye to a lucrative market.


I can't see how they can make a ride-share company comply with these rules. First, in order to operate in New York, or any other city, Uber and Lyft cannot own any vehicles. Because they are not allowed to own vehicles, how can they mandate them to have a certain percentage of WAVs. On the other hand, cab companaies own the vehicles they operate so they can be pressured to have a certain percentage of WAVs. 
Now if they change the ownership clause in their rules for TNP, then those drivers become employees and then there is another can of worms.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Tom Harding said:


> I can't see how they can make a ride-share company comply with these rules. First, in order to operate in New York, or any other city, Uber and Lyft cannot own any vehicles. Because they are not allowed to own vehicles, how can they mandate them to have a certain percentage of WAVs. On the other hand, cab companaies own the vehicles they operate so they can be pressured to have a certain percentage of WAVs.
> Now if they change the ownership clause in their rules for TNP, then those drivers become employees and then there is another can of worms.


Looks like we're about to see the lie that they're not employers challenged and challenged hard. I don't see this going away so they're going to have to make the decision to finance vehicle mods, finance new vehicle purchases, or leave the market, because their reputation with their drivers is in the trash, and no reasonably intelligent driver is going to pay for mods that are going to cost them money, in terms of the cost of the mod, and loss of revenue from their current rides on a promise of increased rates which will likely evaporate as soon as enough vehicles have been moded.


----------



## Tom Harding (Sep 26, 2016)

Wonkytonk said:


> Looks like we're about to see the lie that they're not employers challenged and challenged hard. I don't see this going away so they're going to have to make the decision to finance vehicle mods, finance new vehicle purchases, or leave the market, because their reputation with their drivers is in the trash, and no reasonably intelligent driver is going to pay for mods that are going to cost them money, in terms of the cost of the mod, and loss of revenue from their current rides on a promise of increased rates which will likely evaporate as soon as enough vehicles have been moded.


There are ambulance services thata offer handicapped transportation, but at a rate much higher than a taxi cab. They aren't forced to charge the same as a taxi, so why shouldn't a ride share vehicles get a premium for WAV transportation?


----------



## Jboaz686 (Aug 23, 2017)

Just wait until someone with a wheel chair wants to use express pool because it’s cheap. You’ll have to stop (illegally) at a corner to help get them loaded in your rig and then drop them off similarly all while the other passengers that just wanted a regular car have to wait extra. 1* and false reportsfor everyone.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Tom Harding said:


> I can't see how they can make a ride-share company comply with these rules. First, in order to operate in New York, or any other city, Uber and Lyft cannot own any vehicles. Because they are not allowed to own vehicles, how can they mandate them to have a certain percentage of WAVs. On the other hand, cab companaies own the vehicles they operate so they can be pressured to have a certain percentage of WAVs.
> Now if they change the ownership clause in their rules for TNP, then those drivers become employees and then there is another can of worms.


Exactly. Unless Uber and list do that, there's absolutely no way they can guarantee any percentage of driver will be out all the time, ready to pick up. Additionally, they can't guarantee that a driver who is equipped would accept the ride. They would have to pay those drivers more, and they cannot pass the extra expense on to the passenger.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Tom Harding said:


> There are ambulance services thata offer handicapped transportation, but at a rate much higher than a taxi cab. They aren't forced to charge the same as a taxi, so why shouldn't a ride share vehicles get a premium for WAV transportation?


Actually I've said more than once now that the way this goes down is uber offers increased rates to entice drivers to modify their vehicles, or buy new accessible vehicles, and then as soon as it has enough accessible vehicles on the road reduces rates again.

I haven't commented on whether or not rideshare companies should be allowed to increase rates to their handicapped riders simply because I'm unaware of the legality of that. I suspect it wouldn't be legal, but don't know so I've stayed quiet on it.


----------



## tcaud (Jul 28, 2017)

If there were a tax credit available to offset the mods, that would be a start.


----------



## UberLady69 (Feb 5, 2018)

MHR said:


> Have to say I actually agree with them (U,L & V) on this lawsuit.
> 
> Some here know one of my boys is in a wheelchair and we've been trying to get funding for a conversion for a few years now.
> 
> ...


I have a kid in a wheelchair and had a Honda van converted; the van cost 24 gs with a trade in and the conversion 32 gs. The conversion will take another 4 years to pay off. The only reason we could afford it was 4% interest on the loan and my father dying, leaving me some money to buy the van with. That mandate would be unfeasible for sure. Honda is supposed to last forever and we will see!


----------



## Bpr2 (Feb 21, 2017)




----------



## Patrick R Oboyle (Feb 20, 2018)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> I'm not pushing for uber/lyft at all...
> 
> The conversion ARE expensive and one of the reasons taxis cost so much is compliance with local laws. If the taxi companies where smart they would get in line behind this law and stick to it uber.
> 
> ...


I understand your complaint. I can tell your sensitive to the subject because your hadicapped.

But, uber dosnt own the cars. The riders do. For this to work...drivers with handicap ready cars would have to join rideshare apps.

And then.. I guess theyd only accept a new ride type called uberhandi.?.

But....since there would be very...very few drivers with handicap ready cars.... The wait time would be long. And the cost to you..the rider would be high.

Taxi companies OWN there cars. So its easy for them to add handicap taxis to there fleet of ready cars.

Uber dosnt OWN the cars.so..it would be impossible for them to add in handicap cars....

This really is a stupid lawsuit that dosnt take in consideration the nature of the ridesharing apps.

Though.... I understand your frustration as a handicap person. Im very sorry uber isnt able to work for you.

Maybe a new rideshare app should be made specifically to help the disabled get rides. 



Wonkytonk said:


> Actually I've said more than once now that the way this goes down is uber offers increased rates to entice drivers to modify their vehicles, or buy new accessible vehicles, and then as soon as it has enough accessible vehicles on the road reduces rates again.
> 
> I haven't commented on whether or not rideshare companies should be allowed to increase rates to their handicapped riders simply because I'm unaware of the legality of that. I suspect it wouldn't be legal, but don't know so I've stayed quiet on it.


That makes a lot of sense. And i do agree with charings the handipax more for those rides.

Just like... Uber suv..or uber select..
If you want to get a speacile car to meet your needs...the driver needs to be compensated for the extra time it will take for you to come out.. Get loaded up...and then get unloaded.

Sure..handipax can get rides too.
But they have to pay... -_-


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Patrick R Oboyle said:


> Uber dosnt OWN the cars.so..it would be impossible for them to add in handicap cars....


It's not anywhere near impossible. It's going to cost them though. They're going to have to either finance accessible vehicles, or heavily incentivize drivers to get them, or leave the market, or get them to do away with the requirment. Of course they're trying to go with the last option first.

At this point given the ill will between drivers and uber about the only incentive drivers want to hear about is money, and a lot of it to either convert their own vehicles, or buy accessible vehicles.



Patrick R Oboyle said:


> That makes a lot of sense. And i do agree with charings the handipax more for those rides.


I believe drivers should be paid more for those rides, and I also believe uber should eat the cost of the added driver compensation if it turns out to be illegal to charge disabled pax more for those rides. I mean, let's face it, they have enough to worry about without having to worry about paying more for rides.

The additional cost uber pays to its drivers should be considered a public service fee uber pays for the privilege of working it's drivers in a lucrative market.


----------



## Uber's Guber (Oct 22, 2017)




----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Wouldn't it be great if your son could call an uber to get an accessible ride in his power chair?
> 
> Or if you got paid enough to be able to afford a van with a ramp?
> 
> ...


My friend had a caravan converted and it cost her $20,000



HotUberMess said:


> I've transpo'd several wheelchairs.. who can't fit a wheelchair in their trunk???


You can't always take the person out of the chair, and some of those chairs weigh a ton


----------



## Adieu (Feb 21, 2016)

MHR said:


> NEWS
> April 13, 2018 3:35 p.m. Updated 04/13/2018
> *Uber, Lyft and Via sue to block wheelchair-accessibility mandate*
> *The filing calls the new rules "arbitrary and capricious"*
> ...


It's unfeasible for a part-time contractor model


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Wonkytonk said:


> It's not anywhere near impossible. It's going to cost them though. They're going to have to either finance accessible vehicles, or heavily incentivize drivers to get them, or leave the market, or get them to do away with the requirment. Of course they're trying to go with the last option first.
> 
> At this point given the ill will between drivers and uber about the only incentive drivers want to hear about is money, and a lot of it to either convert their own vehicles, or buy accessible vehicles.
> 
> ...


The cost (however that cost is come by--incentives, higher rate for the driver--not the disabled pax) just has to be spread among the regular trips. It's no different than a restaurant having to have a ramp: the cost is part of the cost of doing business. Maybe a dollar or 50 cents on each meal. That's what taxi companies do.

Uber already charges less than the ride should cost while paying out boost, guarantees, bonuses etc. because the drivers won't work otherwise. They don't mind subsidizing drunk millennials. But god forbid they care about someone with a disability.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Tom Harding said:


> Ubere & Lyft charge more for Select, XL, Plus, premium, etc. Why not charge fairly for WAV? After all business is business . If I got the same fare for WAV ans for XL or Select, I'd make the upgrade.
> Oh, but wait, in Chicago if you have a WAV vehicle you have to take EMT training too.


Legally you can't do that.

ADA law says you can't charge more money based on someone's disability.


----------



## TedInTampa (Apr 5, 2017)

My 1st Uber vehicle has a lift for my wife's powered chair. She can walk up to 100 feet on a good day. So, she takes the chair to the passenger side, gets out and steps into the van. This is while I'm lowering the ramp to the back of van carrier. I maneuver the chair on, and useven straps to lock it down. This is NOT wheel chair accessible, because she has to get ou, and the chair is not in the van.


----------



## jlong105 (Sep 15, 2017)

With drivers coming and going, how do you measure a percentage? Uber doesn't have a permanent workforce as we are all independent contractors.



Wonkytonk said:


> Actually I've said more than once now that the way this goes down is uber offers increased rates to entice drivers to modify their vehicles, or buy new accessible vehicles, and then as soon as it has enough accessible vehicles on the road reduces rates again.
> 
> I haven't commented on whether or not rideshare companies should be allowed to increase rates to their handicapped riders simply because I'm unaware of the legality of that. I suspect it wouldn't be legal, but don't know so I've stayed quiet on it.


The issue is the unfairness of charging handicapped more than the x passenger picked up. The rate would have to be on all trips the vehicle is used on to be fair. Otherwise, Uber/Lyft can be said to be discriminating against the handicapped.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

jlong105 said:


> With drivers coming and going, how do you measure a percentage? Uber doesn't have a permanent workforce as we are all independent contractors.


The percentage of accessible rides given has nothing to do with the number of drivers at any given time. It pertains to the percentage of rides given. As an example if uber gave 100 rides every day and the mandate was for five percent then they would have to give five accessible capable rides every day.



jlong105 said:


> The issue is the unfairness of charging handicapped more than the x passenger picked up. The rate would have to be on all trips the vehicle is used on to be fair. Otherwise, Uber/Lyft can be said to be discriminating against the handicapped.


The issue is not whether or not it's fair it's whether or not it's legal. Uber does stuff every day to drivers that's unfair because it thinks that they're either legal, or that they can get away with them.



Fuzzyelvis said:


> The cost (however that cost is come by--incentives, higher rate for the driver--not the disabled pax) just has to be spread among the regular trips.
> 
> 
> > My overall point wasn't how they're going to do it, truth is there's a lot of different ways they can fund it including just coming out of hat without increasing rates at all since they already take in more than enough money. Of course that method would require them to become more fiscally responsible which I don't think they're current culture would allow but it's certainly within the realm of possibility.


----------



## Tom Harding (Sep 26, 2016)

tohunt4me said:


> Finally
> Uber can not dodge Law.
> 
> After dodging so many times . . .
> ...


I think Uber has to own vehicles before it can be held accountable for what vehicle types are available. And TNP rules are that Uber CANNOT OWN ANY VEHICLES for hire, otherwise they would be a taxi cab compaany.



jlong105 said:


> With drivers coming and going, how do you measure a percentage? Uber doesn't have a permanent workforce as we are all independent contractors.
> 
> The issue is the unfairness of charging handicapped more than the x passenger picked up. The rate would have to be on all trips the vehicle is used on to be fair. Otherwise, Uber/Lyft can be said to be discriminating against the handicapped.


Maybe passengers cannot be charged more for a trip, but maybe their equipment can be, sort of like the airlines or freight companies. Say a $10 charge for wheelchairs because of the extra time and effort it takes to load and unload them.


----------



## jfinks (Nov 24, 2016)

So uber has 5% of their "fleet" wheelchair accessible, how can they have 5% online at the same time all the time? What is the guarantee that any of them online will respond or accept a trip? I imagine because of the extreme low amount of availability the pickup distance will be very long most of the time, especially in big cities. It isn't like a wheelchair vehicle will just be around the corner when they need it.

On top of that out of 290,000 rides per day are there even a need for 15000 wheelchair rides per day? Every day? Is there a need for 73,000 wheelchair rides per day, every day?



Wonkytonk said:


> They ***may*** be able to meet the 5% mark but there's no way they're going to make the 25% mark.
> 
> Last year in NYC they were doing 289,000 rides per day. 5% of that is 14,450 accessible rides every day, day in, day out. 25% of that is 72,250 accessible rides by 2023.
> 
> ...


----------



## Blatherskite (Nov 30, 2016)

In mouse town these rides are all subsidized. Mears eats the overhead as the cost of doing business. Non emergency med transport companies are contracted directly with medical insurers who eat the cost as part of their plans. The government pays for transport contracts through Lynx and Meals on Wheels. No indy contractor can do this work outside of this subsidy system and the TLCs are diseased with too much debt already to cover ADA transport. The only way Uber can succeed against this predicament is to employ their fleet of virtual bulldozers once more against the rule of law. Their camel's back is at straw-bearing capacity. I hope to see him go meet his brother, Joe.


----------



## DJWolford (Aug 6, 2017)

What a horrible requirement to put on these companies


This is gross overreach of Gov't


----------



## Tom Harding (Sep 26, 2016)

DJWolford said:


> What a horrible requirement to put on these companies
> 
> This is gross overreach of Gov't


I cannot see how they would enforce a ADA requirement on a company that does not own any vehicles. All drivers are independent contractors and usually own one car that is "used" for Uber and Lyft. Their agreement with the TLCs is that they cannot own cars, otherwise they would be a taxi company. So if they don't own any vehicles, how can they be forced to have 5% on their vehicles as WAVs. 5% of ZERO is ZERO


----------



## DJWolford (Aug 6, 2017)

Tom Harding said:


> I cannot see how they would enforce a ADA requirement on a company that does not own any vehicles. All drivers are independent contractors and usually own one car that is "used" for Uber and Lyft. Their agreement with the TLCs is that they cannot own cars, otherwise they would be a taxi company. So if they don't own any vehicles, how can they be forced to have 5% on their vehicles as WAVs. 5% of ZERO is ZERO


I agree.

it's just insulting they would even suggest to impose that a certain percentage of cars MUST have wheel chair access.

its like the attitude is the burden should be on driver's as opposed to people in wheel chair's need to accommodate themselves appropriately


----------



## Blatherskite (Nov 30, 2016)

DJWolford said:


> What a horrible requirement to put on these companies. This is gross overreach of Gov't


It's ok to require legacy transport companies to adhere to this well deliberated law, but not these shining exemplars of the tech-VC Wunderfutur?


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

jfinks said:


> So uber has 5% of their "fleet" wheelchair accessible, how can they have 5% online at the same time all the time? What is the guarantee that any of them online will respond or accept a trip? I imagine because of the extreme low amount of availability the pickup distance will be very long most of the time, especially in big cities. It isn't like a wheelchair vehicle will just be around the corner when they need it.
> 
> On top of that out of 290,000 rides per day are there even a need for 15000 wheelchair rides per day? Every day? Is there a need for 73,000 wheelchair rides per day, every day?


That's not the mandate by my understanding the mandate is that 5% of their rides must by given by accessible vehicles. They can do that without five percent of the fleet of contract drivers having accessible vehicles. What that would entail is that accessible vehicles would probably get ping priority that's the good thing for drivers who have made the capital investment to convert. The bad thing is in order to get the mandate out of the way I would wager most of their rides would be short ones, the shorter the better to keep them churning to reach the mandated percentage.

There very likely isn't a need for 14,450 either at the 5% rate, that doesn't matter to them. They're setting the mandate to ensure that accessible vehicles are always available. I suppose one could call that unfair, but lets face it uber has been taking a manure ton of money from fares from the market it's time they gave back.


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> When i owned my taxi I cleared $250,000 in 3 1/2 years. (gross revenue)
> 
> $10,000 for a wheelchair conversion on a van would be easy with that kind of money.


Since this suit is in NYC (specifically Manhattan) ... $250K in 3.5 years (roughly $71K year gross ... is dead broke in NYC ... very small studio apartments start at $2,500/mo).


----------



## Blatherskite (Nov 30, 2016)

Ziggy said:


> Since this suit is in NYC (specifically Manhattan) ... $250K in 3.5 years (roughly $71K year gross ... is dead broke in NYC ... very small studio apartments start at $2,500/mo).


He's in Orlando where the median household income is $41,901. The stuff we're rolling in in O-town ain't dough.


----------



## Uber's Guber (Oct 22, 2017)

jlong105 said:


> The issue is the unfairness of charging handicapped more than the x passenger picked up.


Increase the rates on ALL pax then just to keep it fair & equal. 
There, I just solved everybody's problems.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Uber's Guber said:


> Increase the rates on ALL pax then just to keep it fair & equal.
> There, I just solved everybody's problems.


Either that, or uber can just eat the cost. It takes in plenty of money to do that. It would just have to learn to be financially responsible with the money it does take in and stop wasting it on anti-driver psych tech, and programmers up the ying-yang and slow down it's development of autonomous vehicles, and stop giving away so many free rides, and stop issuing so many refunds from complaining customers.

There! Problem solved!


----------



## Ride-Share-Risk-Manager (Mar 16, 2017)

Uber just pissed $100 million down the drain on buying an electric bike company. If they give that money back and deploy it instead in NYC they could buy their own fleet of disabled accessible vehicles and employ drivers to drive them. By my calculations they could deploy buy at least 3000 vehicles for NYC with a $100 million and that would more than suffice to reasonably service disabled passengers in NYC.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Ride-Share-Risk-Manager said:


> Uber just pissed $100 million down the drain on buying an electric bike company. If they give that money back and deploy it instead in NYC they could buy their own fleet of disabled accessible vehicles and employ drivers to drive them. By my calculations they could deploy buy at least 3000 vehicles for NYC with a $100 million and that would more than suffice to reasonably service disabled passengers in NYC.


3,000 accessible could pretty trivially handle the 5% mandate, but at current rides they would have to give 24 rides per day to meet the 25% mandate. That would be pushing it I think unless uber scheduled them for nothing but the shortest rides, and back to back. The problem with that is that type of driving would kill those vehicles off pretty quickly.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Blatherskite said:


> In mouse town these rides are all subsidized. Mears eats the overhead as the cost of doing business. Non emergency med transport companies are contracted directly with medical insurers who eat the cost as part of their plans. The government pays for transport contracts through Lynx and Meals on Wheels. No indy contractor can do this work outside of this subsidy system and the TLCs are diseased with too much debt already to cover ADA transport. The only way Uber can succeed against this predicament is to employ their fleet of virtual bulldozers once more against the rule of law. Their camel's back is at straw-bearing capacity. I hope to see him go meet his brother, Joe.


Everything Blatherskite said is completely true, i'm going to throw in some more details..

In mouse town... Mears charges less to the drivers who rent out the wheelchair vans then they do for even the hybrid Camry's. (Despite the $10,000 in modifications per car) Because the CITY OF ORLANDO sets limits on taxi rental per day and per week. BY LAW they can't charge more to rent out a 4 passenger wheelchair van (Modified Toyota Sienna 4 passenger limit) then they can ask for a 4 passenger Sedan. (currently Toyota Camrys)

On top of that they have to throw a lot of "bones" to the wheelchair van drivers to keep them happy. They will schedule them high dollar trips to the airport or whatnot in exchange for taking the time to diddle around with the wheelchair van fares that take 30-45 minutes and pay $4.80

There's a heck of a lot of subsidies going around behind the scenes keeping the wheelchair vans going here. And uber is too inept/incapable of that kind of song and dance to make it work.


----------



## jfinks (Nov 24, 2016)

Wonkytonk said:


> That's not the mandate by my understanding the mandate is that 5% of their rides must by given by accessible vehicles. They can do that without five percent of the fleet of contract drivers having accessible vehicles. What that would entail is that accessible vehicles would probably get ping priority that's the good thing for drivers who have made the capital investment to convert. The bad thing is in order to get the mandate out of the way I would wager most of their rides would be short ones, the shorter the better to keep them churning to reach the mandated percentage.
> 
> There very likely isn't a need for 14,450 either at the 5% rate, that doesn't matter to them. They're setting the mandate to ensure that accessible vehicles are always available. I suppose one could call that unfair, but lets face it uber has been taking a manure ton of money from fares from the market it's time they gave back.


How do they quantify availability then? It sounds like they are equating this to handicap parking spaces where a certain percentage of handicap spots in a lot are required even if they all seldom get used.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

jfinks said:


> How do they quantify availability then? It sounds like they are equating this to handicap parking spaces where a certain percentage of handicap spots in a lot are required even if they all seldom get used.


That's not what they are saying..

5% of rides have to be given in accessible vehicles...

Meaning more or less 5% of vehicles have to be accessible.



Blatherskite said:


> He's in Orlando where the median household income is $41,901. The stuff we're rolling in in O-town ain't dough.


https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Orlando_FL/price-180000-250000

You can buy a house for $200,000- $250,000 here.. decent houses to..


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

jfinks said:


> How do they quantify availability then?


Pretty simple really. Are they meeting the mandated percentage? If they are they're good, if they're not the process of corrective action to bring them online with the percentage mandate begins or the process of prohibiting them from operating within the market starts.


----------



## melusine3 (Jun 20, 2016)

MHR said:


> NEWS
> April 13, 2018 3:35 p.m. Updated 04/13/2018
> *Uber, Lyft and Via sue to block wheelchair-accessibility mandate*
> *The filing calls the new rules "arbitrary and capricious"*
> ...


They SHOULD be required to have special vans for this purpose. To expect us to cram these wheelchairs in our cars is ridiculous, considering they are often dirty AND they scratch our bumpers. Since when did ride SHARING become requiring an attendant? We should arrive, the person get in the car and we jet off. But, if access for handicapped is required, let these damn companies foot the bill and pay the specially trained attendant/drivers.



MHR said:


> NEWS
> April 13, 2018 3:35 p.m. Updated 04/13/2018
> *Uber, Lyft and Via sue to block wheelchair-accessibility mandate*
> *The filing calls the new rules "arbitrary and capricious"*
> ...


It's not as if large (at least) cities have bus "HandiRides" for the disabled, so it's not as if people can't get around at all. In Texas:

http://www.arlington-tx.gov/handitran/

https://www.care.com/senior-transportation/mansfield-tx

https://www.ridensafe.com/

https://www.superpages.com/yellowpa...led+transportation+services/s-tx/t-mansfield/

It doesn't look to me as if she was exactly left "high and dry" for lack of possibilities.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Meaning more or less 5% of vehicles have to be accessible.


That's not the meaning at all. What they state should be taken at face value. The initial mandate is 5% accessible rides. If uber and lyft can do that with less than 5% of their contract driver autos being accessible then they meet the mandate.

They can do it with less than 5% of cars. All they have to do is get a fractionally small number of vehicles into the market and then give those accessible vehicles ping priority on seriously short rides so it doesn't take them long to complete the rides, and they're pushed into another, and another, and another until the mandated percentage is met for the day.

No driver is going to want to have to deal with that so they would have to come up with seriously hefty incentives.

Until they reach critical mass no matter what percentage of cars become accessible, until the daily mandated percentage is met those drivers will get ping priority.


----------



## Bygosh (Oct 9, 2016)

Rideshare companies will probably have to just eat this by offering gaurantees to wheelchair accessible vehicle drivers. Or they will have to hire a few employees and buy some vans for cities that adopt rules like this.


----------



## melusine3 (Jun 20, 2016)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> It is simply not fair for uber to ignore these people and force them to take more expensive transportation due to inaccessibility. That's what is happening in Orlando and it isn't fair for the customer.


So, drivers are already underpaid must also accommodate another time consuming and car ruining subset of passengers? EVERYONE wants cheap rides, but doesn't want to pay the driver!



Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Wouldn't it be great if your son could call an uber to get an accessible ride in his power chair?
> 
> Or if you got paid enough to be able to afford a van with a ramp?
> 
> ...


The key here is that the company is buying these vans and not expecting the drivers to use their vehicles for this purpose.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Sorry I missed this post. I've been kinda waiting for this to happen. It was a matter of time. First, I think we can all agree that trying to force drivers to get a conversion simply won't ever happen. Uber/Lyft would simply have to close up shop if it actually came down to that. However, that being said, they aren't stupid enough to let it come down to that. So we can just avoid the whole forcing drivers to get a conversion done part, it simply won't happen.

Frankly, they should lose the suit (hear me out before the League of the Perpetually Offended starts going off, there are reasons they'll wind up losing). Taxis have had to comply with this, other transportation companies (like the non-emergency medical transportation companies, for example) have had to comply with this, why shouldn't Uber? Because they setup a poor business model to begin with? I don't think so. There are several ways they could comply with this though, and make it work.

One idea would be to subcontract it out to the cab companies (they're already used to subcontracting everything else out anyway). They're going to take a small loss on each one (welcome to the world of taxis). Another idea is that they could, especially in places like NYC, actually get their own fleet of accessible vehicles, and either lease them out to drivers, or simply allow drivers to use them (and train them), giving them a nice bump in their rates to make it worth their while. They're still going to take a small loss on each ride, but again, they wanted to be a transportation company (wither they admit it or not), they should have known they would have to comply with the rules eventually.

Here's the problem with them not complying (letting them win the suit). Why should the cab companies then? Think of the precedent that would be set if Uber (etc) were allowed to not comply, all the cab companies would suddenly become "TNCs" as well. It's easy to be cheaper when you don't have to follow all the same rules. Bottom line, they could make it work (and will probably have to). Drivers who are willing to get training and drive an Uber van (or cab companies that are willing to subcontract out), would probably win out of the deal anyway. Sure, Uber loses a bit, but they should have thought about that when they set up their business model, it's not like they weren't warned.


----------



## melusine3 (Jun 20, 2016)

Wonkytonk said:


> You think? I don't know. A few is a far cry from 5%, or 25% for that matter given the sheer numbers of rides those percentages entail.
> 
> I'm sort of like you in that I have taken a wheelchair before in the back end of my compact suv at the time. It was a heavy one though and lifting it was a real pain to say nothing of the hassle getting the disabled pax into the car.


Precisely. Not exactly ride-sharing, but performing a service that requires some training that most of us don't have. We should not have to get out of our car at all, just pick them up. Otherwise, avail themselves of a professional service and pay the price THEY deserve.



Tom Harding said:


> I drive for Uber, Lyft and VIA in Chicago. I inquired about having my vehicle fitted as a WAV. Uber and the other won't help with the expense (about $6.000) and I loose the XL, Plus trips to boot. The fare prices aare the same as UberX or Lyft. There is no incentive to really make the conversion. If the rates were the same as Select or Premium, I might make the investment, but they're not. And I really don't want to take EMT training
> As independent contractors, we choose what vehicle types we invest in. Investing $6,000 without any any return and reducing income by loosing a higher class care if not good business.


Why would anyone invest any money in an enterprise that is looking to replace them with autonomous cars anyway? It's not as far off as you think.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> Sorry I missed this post. I've been kinda waiting for this to happen. It was a matter of time. First, I think we can all agree that trying to force drivers to get a conversion simply won't ever happen. Uber/Lyft would simply have to close up shop if it actually came down to that. However, that being said, they aren't stupid enough to let it come down to that. So we can just avoid the whole forcing drivers to get a conversion done part, it simply won't happen.
> 
> Frankly, they should lose the suit (hear me out before the League of the Perpetually Offended starts going off, there are reasons they'll wind up losing). Taxis have had to comply with this, other transportation companies (like the non-emergency medical transportation companies, for example) have had to comply with this, why shouldn't Uber? Because they setup a poor business model to begin with? I don't think so. There are several ways they could comply with this though, and make it work.
> 
> ...


Well... one problem I forsee is...

It's 100% illegal to charge more based on a disability so Uber will have to subsidize the difference between x rates and what the cab drivers will accept in order to actually take the Uber rides.

Also...
What happens when the cab companies realize that they could get Uber kicked out of their city if they just banded together and refused to sign up with scruber and gryft?

I mean... karmic justice right there...

I know that in Orlando there's really only one cab company with close to the kind of numbers and coverage to supply Uber with Wavs.. and they have zero intention of playing with Uber lol.

Heck they can barely handle their own wav business let alone take more from Uber when the rates are 1/3 of what they are in the taxis.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

I am at a loss to understand, from the article, at least, what it required. Is the law stating that in Year One, if Company A puts out ten-thousand requests, five-hundred those requests have to go accessible vehicles, regardless of whether or not the trip requires an accessible? Can the company put out any five hundred to an accessible? Must it send out five hundred accessible requests even if the company receives only three hundred in Year One? WHERE is Company A supposed to get the other two-hundred? Make them up and send out two hundred fake requests? The article does not explain that clearly.

In the Capital of Your Nation, Uber meets the accessible demand mostly through the Uber Taxi platform, There is Uber Assist and Uber WAV, but it does not have very many vehicles on those platforms, as most drivers are not going to pay 2018 conversion prices to 2018 shops so that they can collect 1979 cab rates. Several organisations for "challenged" (is that the current PC term for people in wheelchairs, on canes, using walkers, blind,,,,,,,?) people as well as two organisations of do-gooders did sue Uber here. The suit has yet to be settled or tried.



MHR said:


> That being said, it's expensive to get a conversion done (most recent quote came in at 9k), it's permanent (first thing done is dropping the floor of the vehicle by 3", this is why only certain makes and models can be converted) and you are expected to keep the vehicle until it falls to pieces and lastely your insurance premium also goes up.
> 
> It's so costly that, G'awd forbid you total your ride, the insurance company sends a team to salvage any part of the conversion that can be saved to install in your new vehicle.


This is why Uber is having problems here getting accessibles to run on the Assist and WAV platforms. It costs large amounts of money that no one is going to spend so that he can collect the pennies that F*ub*a*r* and Gr*yft* pay.



Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> IThe conversion ARE expensive and one of the reasons taxis cost so much is compliance with local laws. If the taxi companies where smart they would get in line behind this law and stick to it uber.
> 
> This could ultimately sink uber in NYC and I would LOVE to see it happen.
> 
> ...


That the cabs have done it DESPITE the unregulated competition from the TNCs should show to any court that the TNCs can do it. I am surprised that the cab and limousine companies are not behind this rule.

London cabs are one-hundred per-cent accessible. I am surprised that London has not required at least fifty per-cent of the UberX (or is it Uber POP, there?) cars be accessible.

Here, the TNCs pay a one per-cent tax on all trips that originate or terminate in the District of Columbia. The revenue from that tax is earmarked for grants to owner-operators for accessible cabs. There are conditions for accepting the grants, one of which is to affiliate with one of the "approved" "dispatch" companies. Uber Taxi is one such "dispatch" company. Most accessible drivers affiliate with several.



RideshareinCali said:


> Considering how rapidly the country is aging, this is a growing market & these companies can ca$h in if they can knock some sensibility into themselves--


In the Washington Metropolitan Area, there are all kinds of funds available to pay people who will get hold of a van, or more than one, and haul the wheelchair bound to doctors, shopping, concerts, ball games and the like. More than a little of it goes unclaimed.



bizly said:


> ADA has a lot of pull and some of the most govt support out there, fat chance U/L can fight this successfully even after lining the pockets of everyone involved. I mean just look at how many emails we get daily on support animal policy.


Neither F*ub*a*r* nor Gr*yft* need to spend any money or bother with the animules. It is all on the driver, and, if the driver will not haul them, the TNCs de-activate him and avoid being sued or penalised. When it comes to the accessibles, though, now the TNCs must put out some money to get into compliance. They can not palm this one off onto the drivers.



Tnasty said:


> whos paying for this?You cant charge more for these rides and the drivers cant foot the bill with our cut!


No one is going to pay for the conversion so that he can collect Uber and Lyft's garbage rates.



Tom Harding said:


> I drive for Uber, Lyft and VIA in Chicago. I inquired about having my vehicle fitted as a WAV. Uber and the other won't help with the expense (about $6.000) and I loose the XL, Plus trips to boot. The fare prices aare the same as UberX or Lyft. *There is no incentive to really make the conversion.* If the rates were the same as Select or Premium, I might make the investment, but they're not. Investing $6,000 without any any return and reducing income by loosing a higher class care if not good business.


(emphasis added)

^^^^^^^^^^THIS, _*THIS*_, _*THIS*_ and _*THIS*_^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Thank you for those figures and your other points. This is why Uber can not attract the drivers. IT DON'T PAY, especially given the garbage rates that Uber and Lyft pay. Cab rates are what they are for a reason.



Tom Harding said:


> Ubere & Lyft charge more for Select, XL, Plus, premium, etc. Why not charge fairly for WAV? After all business is business . If I got the same fare for WAV ans for XL or Select, I'd make the upgrade.


^^^^^^^^^^^^never mind, he answered it for me\/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/


Mista T said:


> Against federal law. Discrimination. ADA violation





SuzeCB said:


> Uber They would have to pay those drivers more, and they cannot pass the extra expense on to the passenger.


The local District of Columbia government does make available to cab companies that have rental accessibles per trip and vehicle subsidies. Most of the cab companies pass on at least part of these subsidies to the rental drivers in the form of reduced rent as well as a per-trip subsidy.



tcaud said:


> If there were a tax credit available to offset the mods, that would be a start.


Odds are that you can take a deduction, but ask your accountant, as I am not qualified to dispense tax advice. The credit would be much better, though. Further, if there were some government subsidies, as there are in this market, that would help even more.



Patrick R Oboyle said:


> For this to work...drivers with handicap ready cars would have to join rideshare apps.
> 
> Taxi companies OWN there cars. So its easy for them to add handicap taxis to there fleet of ready cars.
> 
> ...


.........which they are not going to do for the garbage rates that Uber and Lyft pay..................

Not all taxi companies own cars, In fact, there are several here that do not own any. When I was an official of what was then the Premier Radio Cab Company in the Capital of Your Nation, for most of that period, my company did not own ANY cars, In many cases, all of the cars in a "company" are actually owned by the drivers who affiliate with the company by contract.................and here you had thought that Uber had invented the "driver-contractor" model because "Uber" is German for "innovative" and the definition of "opposed to innovation" is "disagreeing with T. Kalanick".

Where this is headed is that the TNCs eventually are going to be held responsible for their driver-contractors, as the cab and limousine companies already are.

"Sorry" and "we understand" have not been acceptable answers for these advocacy groups for years. They do not take that, any more. Just as we drivers do not like it when Rohit of Uber Driver "Support" sends us a scripted, canned, cue-card, templated, cookie-cutter non-response that often contains the phrase "We understand your frustration............"m these advocacy groups do not like it, either. They do not take it, either.



Adieu said:


> It's unfeasible for a part-time contractor model


The regulators, politicians, courts, advocacy groups, lawyers and do-gooders do not care about "feasible". To them, it is "comply or die". They do not care HOW you get it done, just that you DO get it done, or, go out of business.



Tom Harding said:


> I cannot see how they would enforce a ADA requirement on a company that does not own any vehicles. Their agreement with the TLCs is that they cannot own cars, otherwise they would be a taxi company. So if they don't own any vehicles, how can they be forced to have 5% on their vehicles as WAVs,


They can and do enforce ADA requirements on cab and limousine companies that do not own any vehicles, and yes, there are such things.


----------



## Spork24 (Feb 5, 2018)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> I'm not pushing for uber/lyft at all...
> 
> The conversion ARE expensive and one of the reasons taxis cost so much is compliance with local laws. If the taxi companies where smart they would get in line behind this law and stick to it uber.
> 
> ...


sounds like bullshit to me, real ****ing bullshit.



Wonkytonk said:


> Actually I've said more than once now that the way this goes down is uber offers increased rates to entice drivers to modify their vehicles, or buy new accessible vehicles, and then as soon as it has enough accessible vehicles on the road reduces rates again.
> 
> I haven't commented on whether or not rideshare companies should be allowed to increase rates to their handicapped riders simply because I'm unaware of the legality of that. I suspect it wouldn't be legal, but don't know so I've stayed quiet on it.


You are allowed to have an opinion regardless of law... laws change everyday.



Blatherskite said:


> It's ok to require legacy transport companies to adhere to this well deliberated law, but not these shining exemplars of the tech-VC Wunderfutur?


Didn't your mother ever tell you two wrongs don't make a right?



Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> There's a heck of a lot of subsidies going around behind the scenes keeping the wheelchair vans going here. And uber is too inept/incapable of that kind of song and dance to make it work.


I think uber has proven themselves more than capable at times. Why do the song and dance when you can kill the music outright? If they fail at that then they will comply.



Pawtism said:


> Frankly, they should lose the suit (hear me out before the League of the Perpetually Offended starts going off, there are reasons they'll wind up losing). Taxis have had to comply with this, other transportation companies (like the non-emergency medical transportation companies, for example) have had to comply with this, why shouldn't Uber? Because they setup a poor business model to begin with? I don't think so. There are several ways they could comply with this though, and make it work.


Wondering why you think uber has a poor business model? Cause they are not ripping off the public?


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Spork24 said:


> You are allowed to have an opinion regardless of law... laws change everyday.


Oh yeah, no doubt. I prefer to have them based in facts when I can, so on occasion, failing knowledge of the facts, I'll refrain from solidifying an opinion on any given subject.


----------



## jfinks (Nov 24, 2016)

I just don't agree with people needing special transportation and expecting to pay the same price as an Uber X. Sorry you got hurt, can't walk, or are older, but special services cost money just like their healthcare. I bet you don't see doctors giving them wheelchairs for free just because they can't walk. Nope, they had to pay for that, or insurance probably.

How about next we require nursing homes/assisted living to cost just as much as a typical apartment in the area. Nope, it is about 8x as much as a typical apartment.



Pawtism said:


> Sorry I missed this post. I've been kinda waiting for this to happen. It was a matter of time. First, I think we can all agree that trying to force drivers to get a conversion simply won't ever happen. Uber/Lyft would simply have to close up shop if it actually came down to that. However, that being said, they aren't stupid enough to let it come down to that. So we can just avoid the whole forcing drivers to get a conversion done part, it simply won't happen.
> 
> Frankly, they should lose the suit (hear me out before the League of the Perpetually Offended starts going off, there are reasons they'll wind up losing). Taxis have had to comply with this, other transportation companies (like the non-emergency medical transportation companies, for example) have had to comply with this, why shouldn't Uber? Because they setup a poor business model to begin with? I don't think so. There are several ways they could comply with this though, and make it work.
> 
> ...





Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Well... one problem I forsee is...
> 
> It's 100% illegal to charge more based on a disability so Uber will have to subsidize the difference between x rates and what the cab drivers will accept in order to actually take the Uber rides.
> 
> ...


So why can nursing homes/specialized care/assisted living charge up to 8x more than a typical apartment if it is so "illegal" based on disability?


----------



## RideshareinCali (May 11, 2017)

jfinks said:


> I just don't agree with people needing special transportation and expecting to pay the same price as an Uber X. Sorry you got hurt, can't walk, or are older, but special services cost money just like their healthcare. I bet you don't see doctors giving them wheelchairs for free just because they can't walk. Nope, they had to pay for that, or insurance probably.
> 
> How about next we require nursing homes/assisted living to cost just as much as a typical apartment in the area. Nope, it is about 8x as much as a typical apartment.
> 
> So why can nursing homes/specialized care/assisted living charge up to 8x more than a typical apartment if it is so "illegal" based on disability?


I hear ya, man. The problem is that society has shit-for-brains, and somewhere along the way they decided that the individual that operates a motor vehicle in which roughly 40,000 people a year die in is some lowly schlep that should be underpaid & abused. But you know what? Society can kiss our collective asses. As long as we don't sell ourselves short and until self-driving cars become ubiquitous, they are at _our_ mercy.


----------



## Fritz Duval (Feb 4, 2017)

UBERPROcolorado said:


> LMAO...sure....I am wheel chair ready!!! I have.....
> 
> > I have a rear tow hitch
> > I have a rope
> ...


That was a mean thing to say..


----------



## jfinks (Nov 24, 2016)

RideshareinCali said:


> I hear ya, man. The problem is that society has shit-for-brains, and somewhere along the way they decided that the individual that operates a motor vehicle in which roughly 40,000 people a year die in is some lowly schlep that should be underpaid & abused. But you know what? Society can kiss our collective asses. As long as we don't sell ourselves short and until self-driving cars become ubiquitous, they are at _our_ mercy.


Uber should use that argument, bet it would shut down this whole lawsuit in a hurry. Even worse, Uber or transportation is optional, the disabled person doesn't have to go anywhere. The nursing home/assisted living is required. The whole healthcare system discriminates against the disabled. You know why, they need specialized equipment and personnel. Uber/taxi or whatever would need the same things, that is why it should cost more.


----------



## Rex8976 (Nov 11, 2014)

Pawtism



Pawtism said:


> One idea would be to subcontract it out to the cab companies (they're already used to subcontracting everything else out anyway). They're going to take a small loss on each one (welcome to the world of taxis).


This suggestion was made by Fuber during The Great Broward County Commission Let's Screw The Cabs & Limos Debates of a few years ago.

A few of our bumbling commissioners thought this was a brilliant idea.

Yellow Cab answered simply, "Not a chance."

_If you buy the little dog for status you are still responsible to scoop its poop._


----------



## bpm45 (May 22, 2017)

Can't wait for this requirement to be imposed on self driving cars.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

bpm45 said:


> Can't wait for this requirement to be imposed on self driving cars.


It will be and it's gonna suck for whoever gets them on the road.

People havn't been considering this.. like at all.



Rex8976 said:


> Pawtism
> 
> This suggestion was made by Fuber during The Great Broward County Commission Let's Screw The Cabs & Limos Debates of a few years ago.
> 
> ...


That's no surprise lol...

The cabs are gonna say no out of principal, on top of that (in orlando for instance) i know that they can barely cover their current demand for Wavs. Cut rates by half or 2/3rds and they won't be able to cover demand at all.

If the cab companies continue to stick it to uber they could end up pushing uber into changing it's business model (actually owning cars) or pushing them out of markets. The cab companies KNOW that they are the only ones with Wavs and they know what that means.

They are also not obligated to work with uber... and they won't in a lot of places.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Well... one problem I forsee is...
> 
> It's 100% illegal to charge more based on a disability so Uber will have to subsidize the difference between x rates and what the cab drivers will accept in order to actually take the Uber rides.
> 
> ...


Yeah, they'd definitely have to make it worth the cab companies while (and as you say, it would come out of their own pocket), and that would probably depend largely on how the city is already doing with that sort of traffic. If they're already struggling to keep up with thier own request, they aren't going to even bother responding to Uber/Lyft's. Also, as Rex points out...



Rex8976 said:


> Pawtism
> 
> This suggestion was made by Fuber during The Great Broward County Commission Let's Screw The Cabs & Limos Debates of a few years ago.
> 
> ...


So you'd have to really make it worth their while, I suspect having their own fleet would be more practical.



Spork24 said:


> sounds like bullshit to me, real &%[email protected]!*ing bullshit.
> 
> You are allowed to have an opinion regardless of law... laws change everyday.
> 
> ...


Oh they're definitely ripping off the pax (I assume that's what you mean by the public), but not as much as drivers. Sadly, ripping off the public and drivers would make it an acceptable business model (how sad is the world we live in where that is true). It's a bad model because they wanted to play cab company and have all the pros with none of the cons, and that's simply not sustainable. It would be like me deciding I'm going to start a CPA firm but I won't call it a CPA firm, I'll call it "Tax Stuff" and I don't need a CPA license, or a degree, or any education, and I'm going to declare that I'm not liable for the screwed up taxes (because I didn't know any better) and I don't need a business license either, oh and I can just hire whoever the heck I want, and they don't have to even be able to do math.. How long do you think I'm going to be in business before I get shut down (or arrested lol)? That's what Uber did. They decided they were just going to be a cab company, call it a technology company and not have to comply with any of the laws. Frankly they've gone longer than they should have (and they are definitely ripping off the public, in many more ways than just monetarily). They're going to have to start complying with the laws. Either they'll start getting shut down, or the cab companies will decide they are technology companies too, which results in everyone getting shut down. Ergo, bad business model.



jfinks said:


> I just don't agree with people needing special transportation and expecting to pay the same price as an Uber X. Sorry you got hurt, can't walk, or are older, but special services cost money just like their healthcare. I bet you don't see doctors giving them wheelchairs for free just because they can't walk. Nope, they had to pay for that, or insurance probably.
> 
> How about next we require nursing homes/assisted living to cost just as much as a typical apartment in the area. Nope, it is about 8x as much as a typical apartment.
> 
> So why can nursing homes/specialized care/assisted living charge up to 8x more than a typical apartment if it is so "illegal" based on disability?


The honest answer is you're trying to compare apples and oranges. An apartment (and a nursing home for living there anyway) is not a public accommodation and is covered by a different law. FHA vs ADA (same reason people can have ESAs in their apartment but not in your Uber/Lyft). If you want to have that debate, you have to compare something in the ADA with something else in the ADA. Let me see if I can help you out. How about, why do old buildings not have to install a wheelchair ramp, but the new place across the street gets fined if they don't? The answer, sadly, is they are grandfathered in (and since they aren't required to, why spend the money to bring up to current code). For that argument to work with Uber/Lyft though, it's the cabs that would be grandfathered in and the Uber's that would have to do the WAVs, so they probably wouldn't want to go that route.

If I were to play devil's advocate, and try to think of an argument that Uber/Lyft could use, it would be the undue hardship (cost) argument, the cabs tried this and it failed (they were basically told to just up their fares), so it likely wouldn't work for Uber either, but that's probably their best angle. They do have the unique advantage (that the cabs didn't have) in that they don't own any of the vehicles, so they can kinda go with "hey, if someone with a WAV signs up, we'll definitely put 'em to work, but we can't make 'em sign up!" In the end, I don't think it's ultimately gonna fly for them, but it's probably their best shot.


----------



## jfinks (Nov 24, 2016)

Pawtism said:


> Yeah, they'd definitely have to make it worth the cab companies while (and as you say, it would come out of their own pocket), and that would probably depend largely on how the city is already doing with that sort of traffic. If they're already struggling to keep up with thier own request, they aren't going to even bother responding to Uber/Lyft's. Also, as Rex points out...
> 
> So you'd have to really make it worth their while, I suspect having their own fleet would be more practical.
> 
> ...


Ya my car doesn't have a wheel chair ramp so it is grandfathered in. lol

Cab companies, especially those under a medallion system, are in a bind. They know exactly how many cars are on the road at any given time. Essentially 5% of medallions would have to be in cars that are wheelchair accessible. With ride share who knows how many are on the road at given time, it could fluctuate up and down by 1000 cars depending on the time of day.

I think these wheel chair bound peeps are gonna have to suck it up and not go out partying and getting drunk. That way they can use their own wheelchair accessible vehicle that they bought. They bought one didn't they? Hmmm. Maybe wheelchair bound uber drivers could pickup other wheelchair bound peeps.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

jfinks said:


> Ya my car doesn't have a wheel chair ramp so it is grandfathered in. lol


Well, yes, that true.  They'd never be able to force drivers to get a conversion anyway though.  I mean they can offer incentives, and maybe someone will do it but even those that have vehicles capable of being converted (only some can be), likely won't, it's too expensive, and it's permanent. So they'd probably have to get their own fleet and lease them out, or something. In some places they might be able to strike a deal with a local transportation provider like a cab company, but as many others have pointed out, cabs aren't exactly feeling very friendly towards them atm.


----------



## jfinks (Nov 24, 2016)

Pawtism said:


> Well, yes, that true.  They'd never be able to force drivers to get a conversion anyway though.  I mean they can offer incentives, and maybe someone will do it but even those that have vehicles capable of being converted (only some can be), likely won't, it's too expensive, and it's permanent. So they'd probably have to get their own fleet and lease them out, or something. In some places they might be able to strike a deal with a local transportation provider like a cab company, but as many others have pointed out, cabs aren't exactly feeling very friendly towards them atm.


Ya I can see that, I would provide wheelchair services if they gave me a converted car to drive. I would park it in my driveway and if called go and get it. I think these rides are better off scheduled though instead of on demand.

The other thing, can a car that is converted even be used as an X car with 4 riders plus driver? I think all the mechanics of the system ruin the car for X.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

jfinks said:


> Ya I can see that, I would provide wheelchair services if they gave me a converted car to drive. I would park it in my driveway and if called go and get it. I think these rides are better off scheduled though instead of on demand.
> 
> The other thing, can a car that is converted even be used as an X car with 4 riders plus driver? I think all the mechanics of the system ruin the car for X.


Depends on the car, and how they converted it. Something with a thrid row seating, with the middle row taken out and a side lift, could probably still take pax in the 3rd row for example. Some load from the back, so you lose cargo room when a chair is there (but have a ton when it's not) and still have 4 seats at least). I'm sure if you got in as a WAV driver, they'd have you busy with the WAV runs, but if not, you could probably take any X that was 3 or less.

Here's an example of the back loaders (these would definitely qualify for X, as they have 5 seats when no wheelchair, and plenty of cargo room):
https://www.focacciagroup.com/en/lowered-floor-wav-conversions/other-wav-conversions


----------



## jfinks (Nov 24, 2016)

I wonder if they can surge the WAV equal to or more than X due to lack of cars on the road? Or by law would it always have to be standard rates? WAV could almost always be surge because lack of vehicles and drivers not wanting to do it. Then you have the issue of extra long pickups. Less WAV vehicles means higher likely hood of an available car being further away.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

They wouldn't be able to surge it more than any other vehicle. There is a good reason for that, it's actually the same reason as why service dogs can't be charged extra. You're only "crime" is that you are in a wheelchair, why should you have to pay more just to go to the movies or whatever. The goal is to make life as normal as possible for people with disabilities. If they did surge pricing, as you say, it would always be surging and it would cost someone in a wheel chair 4 times as much (or more) to go to anywhere (which would serve as a barrier to keep them trapped at home). That's why the law is the way it is, it's to reduce the barriers.


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

Fritz Duval said:


> That was a mean thing to say..


Light humor! The point is that nobody that drives form a ride share can or will retro their car for wheelchairs etc. The cost is massive.

These are our cars not Ubers.

We are not trained or insured to handle these riders. And my insurance company said NO even if I made the modifications.

We have plenty of ways for these folks to travel....cabs....ambo vans etc.



Pawtism said:


> They wouldn't be able to surge it more than any other vehicle. There is a good reason for that, it's actually the same reason as why service dogs can't be charged extra. You're only "crime" is that you are in a wheelchair, why should you have to pay more just to go to the movies or whatever. The goal is to make life as normal as possible for people with disabilities. If they did surge pricing, as you say, it would always be surging and it would cost someone in a wheel chair 4 times as much (or more) to go to anywhere (which would serve as a barrier to keep them trapped at home). That's why the law is the way it is, it's to reduce the barriers.


Sounds great! You go out there and retro your wheels at $20k plus. Try to find an insurance company that will cover you for under $400 + a month, additional. Go thru the needed training.

At .79 cents a mile, you should see a profit in 2060.

There are already plenty of retro cabs & busses and programs etc to handle this. Not to mention...this is my car! I dont want a lift or weird set up. Uber is for ppl that can walk in and walk out of my car. A little help for the elderly or drunk is fine.

Thank you.


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

Tom Harding said:


> I drive for Uber, Lyft and VIA in Chicago. I inquired about having my vehicle fitted as a WAV. Uber and the other won't help with the expense (about $6.000) and I loose the XL, Plus trips to boot. The fare prices aare the same as UberX or Lyft. There is no incentive to really make the conversion. If the rates were the same as Select or Premium, I might make the investment, but they're not. And I really don't want to take EMT training
> As independent contractors, we choose what vehicle types we invest in. Investing $6,000 without any any return and reducing income by loosing a higher class care if not good business.


I saw the rates in nyc, they were horrible too



Tom Harding said:


> Uber and Lyft do not accept full size vans and buses. The largest are mini-vans and SUVs.
> But to have a WAV in Chicago the driver must have passed a limited EMT training course, and I'm just too old for that.


Down here you can do it in 8-16 weeks



Tom Harding said:


> There are ambulance services thata offer handicapped transportation, but at a rate much higher than a taxi cab. They aren't forced to charge the same as a taxi, so why shouldn't a ride share vehicles get a premium for WAV transportation?


I think if a doctor says it is required, either Medicaid or insurance pays for most of it



jfinks said:


> So uber has 5% of their "fleet" wheelchair accessible, how can they have 5% online at the same time all the time? What is the guarantee that any of them online will respond or accept a trip? I imagine because of the extreme low amount of availability the pickup distance will be very long most of the time, especially in big cities. It isn't like a wheelchair vehicle will just be around the corner when they need it.
> 
> On top of that out of 290,000 rides per day are there even a need for 15000 wheelchair rides per day? Every day? Is there a need for 73,000 wheelchair rides per day, every day?


To be honest I think a lot of these people would use uber a lot more because the non medical transport business is a disorganized mess and often late. If they are charging x rates lol


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

UBERPROcolorado said:


> Light humor! The point is that nobody that drives form a ride share can or will retro their car for wheelchairs etc. The cost is massive.
> 
> These are our cars not Ubers.
> 
> ...


Sorry if I wasn't clear, I agree with you that almost no driver will go and convert their car for this (nor should they). What I'm saying is that Uber/Lyft is going to have to figure out something else. Perhaps they will get their own fleet of WAV and offer a lease deal to drivers, or work something out with the cab companies (good luck with that, as many have pointed out), etc. Getting drivers to convert their cars is not a viable plan (almost no one is going to do it, I would say "no one" but then someone will find that one guy who has an old van laying around and want to convert it hehe.. so I'll say "almost no one").


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

jfinks said:


> I wonder if they can surge the WAV equal to or more than X due to lack of cars on the road? Or by law would it always have to be standard rates? WAV could almost always be surge because lack of vehicles and drivers not wanting to do it. Then you have the issue of extra long pickups. Less WAV vehicles means higher likely hood of an available car being further away.


ADA law says you can't charge more for disabilties,

Uber could in theory charge less service fees, but they can't charge the customer more no.


----------



## Dontmakemepullauonyou (Oct 13, 2015)

MHR said:


> NEWS
> April 13, 2018 3:35 p.m. Updated 04/13/2018
> *Uber, Lyft and Via sue to block wheelchair-accessibility mandate*
> *The filing calls the new rules "arbitrary and capricious"*
> ...


Cmon uber roll out that driverless wheelchair accessible van, I might need to move soon.


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> Sorry if I wasn't clear, I agree with you that almost no driver will go and convert their car for this (nor should they). What I'm saying is that Uber/Lyft is going to have to figure out something else. Perhaps they will get their own fleet of WAV and offer a lease deal to drivers, or work something out with the cab companies (good luck with that, as many have pointed out), etc. Getting drivers to convert their cars is not a viable plan (almost no one is going to do it, I would say "no one" but then someone will find that one guy who has an old van laying around and want to convert it hehe.. so I'll say "almost no one").


This might be a door opening chance for Lyft or a start up to step in. Problem is that the issue is not in Ubers control. The liberals are behind this and if they win, ride share as we know it could disappear.

An Uber fleet is a great idea! But based on their record of not paying well, those trained and set loose to help our disabled citizens will be a joke.


----------



## LA_Native (Apr 17, 2017)

Good.
The whole "if we can't use Uber/Lyft, you can't use Uber/Lyft" bit is tired.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

LA_Native said:


> Good.
> The whole "if we can't use Uber/Lyft, you can't use Uber/Lyft" bit is tired.


Unfortunately...

Because the taxis where able to comply with these types of rules the courts are gonna find that uber can to.

It will be uber making the SAME arguments the cab companies made.


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Unfortunately...
> 
> Because the taxis where able to comply with these types of rules the courts are gonna find that uber can to.
> 
> It will be uber making the SAME arguments the cab companies made.


Just a thought....if Uber/Lyft are required to jump thru the same hoops that cabs do....then eventually the cost of an Uber will be the same as a cab. Defeats the purpose in my eyes. Uber was designed to be low cost, friendly, free of govt red tape and quick. They focus on a specific market....those that are mobile on thier own and can get to a spot...get in with little or no help and get out on their own.

Once the govt gets involved, things always get screwed up and expensive.


----------



## Rex8976 (Nov 11, 2014)

UBERPROcolorado



UBERPROcolorado said:


> Uber was designed to be low cost, friendly, free of govt red tape and quick.


Uber was designed to allow Travis and his pals to summon otherwise idle black cars and limos.

Lyft started the whole make believe taxi thing.

Talk about a utopian view of a company whose stated goal is to rule the world.

Soylent green, anyone?


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

Rex8976 said:


> UBERPROcolorado
> 
> Uber was designed to allow Travis and his pals to summon otherwise idle black cars and limos.
> 
> ...


Lol. Might be.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Rex8976 said:


> UBERPROcolorado
> 
> Uber was designed to allow Travis and his pals to summon otherwise idle black cars and limos.
> 
> ...


Yup...

Lyft was the one designed to change the world, Uber just copied it.

Labor laws and ADA regulations will probably be what Kills uber and lyft. That or Self inflicted financial ruin...

Build a card castle out of stacks of money on a set of Railroad tracks and light it on fire..

That's uber right now.

The question is what kills it and when.


----------



## john2g1 (Nov 10, 2016)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> I'm not pushing for uber/lyft at all...
> 
> The conversion ARE expensive and one of the reasons taxis cost so much is compliance with local laws. If the taxi companies where smart they would get in line behind this law and stick to it uber.
> 
> ...


I'm sure other people have said it but a few points:


TNC does not equal a Taxi company
To make that work TNCs would have to lease sell rent ADA compliant vehicles
25% Deployed? Are you saying:
If there are 100 TNC cars (driving or not) there must be 25 ADA cars driving or not?
If there are 100 driving TNC cars around there must also be at least 25 ADA cars actively driving?
Of the many many calls daily a TNC must say EFF the closest driver I must get that ADA car driver on call?

The first is just a fact and must be hashed out in court. The second is a logistical headache but I guess you want TNCs to die anyway? The third is where the problem is. 
If every TNC account is counted than A: 25% is a stupid high percentage (no 5% is not completely unreasonable) and B. TNCs will just fudge the numbers to technically comply.
If there must be 25% on the road to match the number on the road then that will cause more problems than it solves... Literally.
Now if the answer is of every TNC call that comes 25% must be answered by a ADA compliant vehicle then A. That's kinda dumb B. That is a waste of time and resources C. Cause additional pollution (the heavier vehicles and longer pickup times add to the carbon footprint).

I hear what you're saying but it's just not reasonable.


----------



## wb6vpm (Mar 27, 2016)

john2g1 said:


> I'm sure other people have said it but a few points:
> 
> 
> TNC does not equal a Taxi company
> ...


I believe it was 5-25% of rides given needed to be given in WAV capable vehicles per day, whether specifically for a wheelchair pax or just a normal UberX ride, not that there needed to be specifically 5-25% vehicles on the road at any given time.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

5-25% of rides need to be given in a wav vehicle.

The exact wording is to prevent companies from only running wavs when they have every single car in the road.

It's s technically that I can garuntee exists because a sketchy cab co or 20 found an insane loophole around.



john2g1 said:


> I'm sure other people have said it but a few points:
> 
> 
> TNC does not equal a Taxi company
> ...


Your not getting it..

1. Yes you are correct.
2. Yes you are indeed correct again. That's what they would have to do.
Uber would have to have a shop and they would have to lease out these cabs if they wanted to get them on the road. This is how cab companies work and this is how Uber is going to have to do if.

3. 5-25% of all rides need to occur in s wheelchair accessible vehicle.

Bad for the environment?

Yup...

But they can put a lift on the smallest size of econoline van and boom... 7-8 passengers and a wheelchair lift making them 100% ada compliant XL vehicle.
Charge $2.40 a mile and you can make the heavy gas usage work.

There are people who currently use huge vehicles like SUVs and whatnot for X/Xl now.

Every single argument that Uber has made was made by cab companies fighting the same rules.

And the cab companies DID NOT WIN!

There's probably even ADA subsidy money floating around to pay for these vehicles. Uber drivers just won't take the money for the conversion because it would be a terrible idea on an individual level.


----------



## john2g1 (Nov 10, 2016)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Uber drivers just won't take the money for the conversion because it would be a terrible idea on an individual level.


Yeah that's my point when I said a TNC is not a taxi company. TNCs are manned by people (generally) who own their vehicles.

Uber has learned the lease game is a loosing proposition so only drivers with a disabled vehicle already (and conversion vans are not allowed) or those who truly have no life outside of Uber would sign up.

Even then they would automatically get 25% of the calls? Uber would end up bombarding them with every call within a timeframe because there will be no guarantee an ADA vehicle would be available later to make the 25%.

I have always found the 25% to be such an arbitrary number. I would be shocked if the American population was even comprised of 2.5% of people physically disabled to that level. So why the high percentage?


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

john2g1 said:


> Yeah that's my point when I said a TNC is not a taxi company. TNCs are manned by people (generally) who own their vehicles.
> 
> Uber has learned the lease game is a loosing proposition so only drivers with a disabled vehicle already (and conversion vans are not allowed) or those who truly have no life outside of Uber would sign up.
> 
> ...


I think we can all agree that virtually no one is going to get a conversion done to their personal vehicle for this. Simply won't happen. I can answer your question about why the 25% though. It's not because they think 25% of the people are disabled (to that extent), it's because they want to make sure that they get service in a timely manner (the way a non disabled person would). If they have to have vans out no matter what anyway, over half the van's pickups will probably be "normal" pax, but when someone in a wheelchair does call for one, because they have to be out anyway, there should be one available in a timely fashion. Otherwise they'd just leave the van parked until a call that needed it came, then send a driver back to the lot to get the van, then back out to the pax, and an hour has gone by.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

john2g1 said:


> Yeah that's my point when I said a TNC is not a taxi company. TNCs are manned by people (generally) who own their vehicles.
> 
> Uber has learned the lease game is a loosing proposition so only drivers with a disabled vehicle already (and conversion vans are not allowed) or those who truly have no life outside of Uber would sign up.
> 
> ...


The disabled percent is higher then that and growing. Something I should point out is that the disabled take more for-hire rides than your average person because of their disability. (Think day time fares here)

Leasing cars is NOT a losing proposition,

They just need to charge about $500+ a week.
(For the Orlando market with $700 a week plus gas your per mile cost comes in at...(with a Camry hybrid) 50c a mile for 1750 miles driven.

The problem is that Uber drivers can't come up with that much in most of the nation.

Mears taxi... they get $700 or more per week on rental fees per taxi.

$700 is the incentivized dispatch only cheap-o car by yours self for the entire week taking the car home with you.

I pay $219 for 3 shifts a week. Someone else drives it the rest of the time.

If they charged what the taxi companies charge to rent taxis they could make it work.

However... with the rates where they are at the drivers can't be spending 30-70 hours a week just to break even. So Uber has to only charge a fraction of what it costs if the want to actually rent cars.

It all comes down to rates being too low.

If Uber charged $2.00 a mile and Uber charges $700 a week to rent a car and didn't take any service fees (thereby keeping you off the Lyft platform) they could make a tidy profit off you.


----------



## Scott.Sul (Sep 9, 2015)

Startup businesses are always being introduced and each entrepreneur is attempting to provide a non-existent service or product. They cannot and should not be able to fill every gap in every service. Local governments already provide, or should be providing, access to easy and affordable public transportation to support the needs of its handicapped citizens. 

It has nothing to do with ADA, or fairness, or filling a non-existent need in society. And nothing about this mandate can be interpreted as “reasonable accommodations” to someone who is physically disabled.

They can spin this any way they want but the real motivation of this mandate is an attempt to put rideshare out of business and put the money and control back in the hands of unions and government officials… Uber stole that from them a few years back and it still pisses them off. Don’t think for one minute that elected officials have anyone’s best interests in mind other than their own. This just shines a nice light on a media story and makes them look caring and sensitive against a big, mean, company.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Scott.Sul said:


> Startup businesses are always being introduced and each entrepreneur is attempting to provide a non-existent service or product. They cannot and should not be able to fill every gap in every service. Local governments already provide, or should be providing, access to easy and affordable public transportation to support the needs of its handicapped citizens.
> 
> It has nothing to do with ADA, or fairness, or filling a non-existent need in society. And nothing about this mandate can be interpreted as "reasonable accommodations" to someone who is physically disabled.
> 
> They can spin this any way they want but the real motivation of this mandate is an attempt to put rideshare out of business and put the money and control back in the hands of unions and government officials&#8230; Uber stole that from them a few years back and it still pisses them off. Don't think for one minute that elected officials have anyone's best interests in mind other than their own. This just shines a nice light on a media story and makes them look caring and sensitive against a big, mean, company.


Yeah but if you opened a restaurant... you can bet that your new restaurant would be handicap accessible. And it would be cheaper to make 1 small restaurant accessible than it would be to make 1 car accessible.

The fact is... The ADA forced this on the cab companies... That alone is justification (case law) that they can force it on Uber.

"Well taxis do it.. Why can't uber?

"It's an undue burdon and will cost too much money"

"The taxi companies said the same thing X years ago"

In a lot of places if someone offers a free shuttle, they force that business to instead provide a handicap accessible taxi.

The ADA has done far worse than this. FAR WORSE...

The fact that taxis do it?

That's all the ammunition the ADA needs to do it.


----------



## wb6vpm (Mar 27, 2016)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Yeah but if you opened a restaurant... you can bet that your new restaurant would be handicap accessible. And it would be cheaper to make 1 small restaurant accessible than it would be to make 1 car accessible.
> 
> The fact is... The ADA forced this on the cab companies... That alone is justification (case law) that they can force it on Uber.
> 
> ...


This.


----------

