Uber sued for allegedly refusing rides to the blind

Reading the article makes it really clear of why taxis are so regulated; because they need to be!<p>I once had an idea that was basically Uber, back in 2005 when I had a Motorola Razr and had also been left stranded, kept waiting for 45+minutes and forgotten about (or denied service!). My idea at the time involved selling it to the yellow cab industry so that they could send the closest cab and let the customer know the estimate time. But at no point did I think it a good idea to throw away the entire body of regulation for taxi services

The article keeps stating that the drivers are declining the disabled person access. In my understanding, they are denying the presence of an animal in their car, not necessarily the disabled person. This is an essential difference. Discrimination would be refusing the person due to his disability, whereas this is not discrimination. Uber is right in saying that the disabled person having a dog should mention it to the driver. Fact is, the dog could cause damage to the car, or the driver could be allergic, or the next passenger. Law shouldn&#x27;t force people to accept such an hindrance, even more when it was not even mentioned.

Key statement at the bottom of the article:<p>&quot;In a statement reported by the San Francisco Examiner, Uber said its policy is to terminate drivers who refuse to transport service animals.&quot;<p>The problem is some Uber drivers (who are independent contractors) refused to allow dogs into their cars. Uber should be more proactive about educating drivers about service animals, but it is hardly an Uber policy to &quot;refuse rides to the blind.&quot;