Uber Doesn't Care About Disability

Sometimes, the most unexpected sources ride to the rescue, and so it is with the currently debated issue of driver and rider matching service Uber and its stance on accessibility. The signs that Uber, to put it directly, does not care about the disabled and the less mobile have come not from their opponents, but from their own actions, and the reports on them. The lesson for those needing accessible transport in London are clear.

The capital’s black cabs must be fully accessible: that means they can accommodate wheelchairs, which in addition benefits those less mobile, less confident to use the bus and Tube, those laden with luggage and shopping, or just wanting to make a more dignified exit from their chosen conveyance. No such compulsion extends to Uber to provide accessible vehicles, and so they do not.

But if there were a demand out there, then surely the market would step in and satisfy the need? That would be the dream of those who urge less regulation and free competition. And, from the experiences of customers in the USA, it is, sadly, nothing more than wishful thinking. The effect of Uber in New York City has been to impact severely on the availability of accessible vehicles. And the news from California is yet worse.

In NYC, advocates for more accessible taxi services had worked with the industry over the years to make 50% of the city’s cabs wheelchair accessible. This was not up to the standard of London, but it was excellent progress. Then along came Uber, taking business from taxi services, and taking taxi drivers, too. The result was that, out of an estimated 14,000 Uber cars on the road in NYC, not one was accessible. Not one.

You can see the video setting the facts out right HERE.

What Uber won't give you, and doesn't much care about

It gets worse: last week, as the Los Angeles Times has told, Uber suffered a blow “when an administrative judge recommended that the ride-sharing giant be fined $7.3 million and be suspended from operating in California”. At issue was reporting customer information: “The reporting requirements include the number of requests for rides from people with service animals or wheelchairs; how many such rides were completed; and other ride-logging information such as date, time, Zip Code and fare paid”.

Uber is not letting the authorities know how many requests it’s receiving from wheelchair users and those with service dogs (guide dogs in UK speak), nor how many of those requests were satisfied. This is a most creative way of airbrushing out the issue: just don’t report on it at all. Then there is the issue of non-cooperation with the NYC authorities.

As The Verge has told, “The City Council is expected to vote tomorrow on a new proposal that would impose a one-year slowdown in the number of new vehicles it can license for its fleet. The city says it needs time to study a rapid increase in congestion happening in its crowded urban core”. Uber’s response is to wheel out the aggressive lobbyist and claim that it’s not fair because it will cost people their jobs.

That is Uber in a nutshell. It’s all about them. No word about their total lack of disabled provision. No word about the percentage of disabled requests they actually accept. Just the aggressive pursuit of expansion, expansion, and yet more expansion - on the terms on which they want to do business.

Meanwhile, in London, Assembly Transport Committee Chair Val Shawcross has noted that TfL “does not appear to have progressed plans to develop an over-arching strategy for the taxi and private hire trades”, and, worse, “there is no clear audit trail for interactions between senior managers and licensees”. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Uber’s lack of accessible vehicles will not be addressed by TfL - at all.

So where does that leave those who do require an accessible vehicle, and all those who benefit from the black cab requirement? One thing comes clear from happenings Stateside, and that it that Uber does not give a damn. Hello TfL, time for you to wake up.