# Fake service dogs - Lyft response vs Uber response. Account suspension.



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Every time a young lady tries to force me to take her little emotional support dog, I video record the incident and I then report the incident to Uberlyft as attempted abuse of the ADA regulations. I report it to Uberlyft first to cover myself in case the pax makes a false complaint, and second to request that Uberlyft contacts the pax to let them know that trying to force drivers to take emo dogs or other pets is not acceptable.

This is an example of a response from Lyft when I sent in a report of a pax trying to make me take her emo dog:










Result - "We'll tell the rider not to do this and we'll give you a $5 no show fee for the inconvenience"

Compare this with Uber's response to a similar report of a young lady trying to make me take her emo dog:










Result - "Thanks for reporting this rider abuse. We've suspended your account so you can't work; thanks for your patience"

It's been 24 hours now and still no further contact from them. I'm getting pretty tired of these arseholes; even if they do reactivate my account I may just tell them to stick it where the sun doesn't shine.

Anyway, I write this as a heads up - drivers are legally entitled to refuse service to emotional support dogs (these are not legally classed as service animals) and other pets. Even though you are legally allowed to do this and even if you have video evidence of the pax stating that it is an emotional support dog, Uber will still suspend your account, and possibly terminate it.

Knowing beforehand that Uber would suspend or maybe terminate my account in support of the young ladies who try to abuse the ADA regulations still would not have made me change my mind and given in to these pax - I won't be pushed around by these young entitled Millenial women who try to do this.


----------



## Go4 (Jan 8, 2017)

Wow, just WOW. Never in my wildest dreams would I have thought this would have been their response. Best of luck with all this


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Go4 said:


> Wow, just WOW. Never in my wildest dreams would I have thought this would have been their response. Best of luck with all this


It's a good thing that 2017 is Uber's "Year of the Driver"! I wonder what next year would be like? What a bunch of arseholes, lol.


----------



## Wonderland (Jun 20, 2017)

Glad I have a pet friendly car. I take dogs all the time, get huge tips for it too... I wish I knew how to start up my own service for people with pets. I haven't approached Uber with it because I know they will just steal the idea and not pay me squat...


----------



## Jagent (Jan 29, 2017)

Wonderland said:


> Glad I have a pet friendly car. I take dogs all the time, get huge tips for it too... I wish I knew how to start up my own service for people with pets. I haven't approached Uber with it because I know they will just steal the idea and not pay me squat...


You could call it Ruber and use a picture of ScoobyDoo......


----------



## Wonderland (Jun 20, 2017)

Jagent said:


> You could call it Ruber and use a picture of ScoobyDoo......


I would love to, but have ZERO clue how to make it happen. Who writes and launches the software/apps?


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Wonderland said:


> Glad I have a pet friendly car. I take dogs all the time, get huge tips for it too... I wish I knew how to start up my own service for people with pets. I haven't approached Uber with it because I know they will just steal the idea and not pay me squat...


As evidenced in my post, there would be no need for a special service for people with pets - Uber already suspends/deactivates drivers who don't take them.


----------



## Wonderland (Jun 20, 2017)

elelegido said:


> As evidenced in my post, there would be no need for a special service for people with pets - Uber already suspends/deactivates drivers who don't take them.


Only if the owner claims it is a service dog. If not, the driver does not have to take it...


----------



## Buckiemohawk (Jun 23, 2015)

Jagent said:


> You could call it Ruber and use a picture of ScoobyDoo......


I was thinking of calling it fuzzy Rides, a new ride program for people with pets


----------



## kc ub'ing! (May 27, 2016)

OP please show some evidence that emotional support dogs are not covered under the ADA. I believe they are and we drivers are required to take them.

As for your deactivation, sorry you deserved it. You contacted Uber and admitted you went against TOS and even sent them proof of your infraction.


----------



## Carbalbm (Jun 6, 2016)

kc ub'ing! said:


> OP please show some evidence that emotional support dogs are not covered under the ADA. I believe they are and we drivers are required to take them.
> 
> As for your deactivation, sorry you deserved it. You contacted Uber and admitted you went against TOS and even sent them proof of your infraction.


You're wrong, they are not.

"Service animals are working animals, not pets. The work or task a *dog* has been trained to provide must be directly related to the person's disability. *Dogs* whose sole function is to provide comfort or *emotional support* do not qualify as service animals *under* the *ADA*."
*ADA Requirements: Service Animals - ADA.gov*
https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm


----------



## AuxCordBoston (Dec 3, 2016)

kc ub'ing! said:


> OP please show some evidence that emotional support dogs are not covered under the ADA. I believe they are and we drivers are required to take them.
> 
> As for your deactivation, sorry you deserved it. You contacted Uber and admitted you went against TOS and even sent them proof of your infraction.


Agreed! You discriminated against this woman by declining service, then contact Lyft and told Lyft you discriminated against her. Job well done. You are definitely a bad influence on yourself. Why would you rat yourself out?


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

Carbalbm said:


> You're wrong, they are not.
> 
> "Service animals are working animals, not pets. The work or task a *dog* has been trained to provide must be directly related to the person's disability. *Dogs* whose sole function is to provide comfort or *emotional support* do not qualify as service animals *under* the *ADA*."
> *ADA Requirements: Service Animals - ADA.gov*
> https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm


Granted but there are a wide range of things that legitimate service dogs can be trained for and many of them are not all that obvious. Like a dog who watches for psychiatric conditions and warns the person, A dog for PTSD that goes in and turns on the lights, a dog that senses seizures. There is no way of knowing if the dog is legit or not but yea an emotional comfort dog is explicitly excluded.


----------



## NCHeel (Jan 5, 2017)

kc ub'ing! said:


> OP please show some evidence that emotional support dogs are not covered under the ADA. I believe they are and we drivers are required to take them.





www.ada.org said:


> Service animals are working animals, not pets. The work or task a *dog* has been trained to provide must be directly related to the person's disability. *Dogs* whose sole function is to provide comfort or *emotional support* do not qualify as service animals under the *ADA*.


I would consider the ADA government website a pretty reliable source.


----------



## LA_Native (Apr 17, 2017)

I wouldn't mind transporting a "comfort" dog, but I'd be a little annoyed if they peed or worse in my car.


----------



## Carbalbm (Jun 6, 2016)

Uberfunitis said:


> Granted but there are a wide range of things that legitimate service dogs can be trained for and many of them are not all that obvious. Like a dog who watches for psychiatric conditions and warns the person, A dog for PTSD that goes in and turns on the lights, a dog that senses seizures. There is no way of knowing if the dog is legit or not but yea an emotional comfort dog is explicitly excluded.


The ADA provides you the ability to determine if it is an actual service animal, and not an emotional support animal.

You are allowed to ask 1) is it a service animal?, and 2) what is the animal trained to do?

The passenger can always lie, but they risk a large fine if they are caught doing so.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Carbalbm said:


> You're wrong, they are not.
> 
> "Service animals are working animals, not pets. The work or task a *dog* has been trained to provide must be directly related to the person's disability. *Dogs* whose sole function is to provide comfort or *emotional support* do not qualify as service animals *under* the *ADA*."
> *ADA Requirements: Service Animals - ADA.gov*
> https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm


It's pretty clear from the high degree of ignorance of the ADA service animal regulations displayed by drivers just on this thread that people have a real difficulty understanding them.

The link you posted is the ADA document I use to explain to people the rules surrounding service animals. I'm really not sure why people don't get it - the ADA is crystal clear on the two questions we are allowed to ask dog handlers, the requirement for the animal to be trained in a specific task(s) in order to be classified as a service animal, and the specific exclusion of emotional support dogs as service animals.


----------



## AuxCordBoston (Dec 3, 2016)

It's good that we are having this discussion since there are so few posts on this forum about service animals


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

AuxCordBoston said:


> It's good that we are having this discussion since there are so few posts on this forum about service animals


Actually, there are many threads on service dogs on this site. What usually happens is that new rideshare drivers come on here and make many claims regarding service animals, which tend to be as varied as they are incorrect, i.e. that we have to take emotional support animals, that these are classed as service animals, that we're not allowed to ask any questions about the service animal, that all an owner has to do is claim it's a service animal and we automatically have to take it etc etc etc.

The more experienced drivers here then direct the noobs to the relevant information on the ADA website, the noobs say, "oh... I never knew that" and then the thread goes quiet. Until the next batch of noobs comes along and makes the same incorrect claims.

I don't tend to post on the regulations any more as it is a never-ending cycle, but I think that Uber deactivating based on its incorrect understanding of the rules is post-worthy.


----------



## AuxCordBoston (Dec 3, 2016)

elelegido said:


> Actually, there are many threads on service dogs on this site. What usually happens is that new rideshare drivers come on here and make many claims regarding service animals, which tend to be as varied as they are incorrect, i.e. that we have to take emotional support animals, that these are classed as service animals, that we're not allowed to ask any questions about the service animal, that all an owner has to do is claim it's a service animal and we automatically have to take it etc etc etc.
> 
> The more experienced drivers here then direct the noobs to the relevant information on the ADA website, the noobs say, "oh... I never knew that" and then the thread goes quiet. Until the next batch of noobs comes along and makes the same incorrect claims.
> 
> I don't tend to post on the regulations any more as it is a never-ending cycle, but I think that Uber deactivating based on its incorrect understanding of the rules is post-worthy.


Lyft apologized to the rider, gave her credit for free rides, and deactivated the driver. The website doesn't matter. What matters is what Lyft says because Lyft can fire you


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

AuxCordBoston said:


> Lyft apologized to the rider, gave her credit for free rides, and deactivated the driver. The website doesn't matter. What matters is what Lyft says because Lyft can fire you


Not sure which case you're referring to.

Anyway, you"re confusing two different issues. One consideration is whether regulations require us to transport emotional support dogs,and the answer to that is clearly no. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the ADA regulations don't matter.

The other, separate, consideration you allude to above is the fact that Uber deactivates based on its own policy that drivers must take emotional support dogs. (As demonstrated, service providers being obliged to take emotional dogs is not ADA policy; it's Uber's own). That is precisely the point I made in the opening post of this thread - that drivers do need to watch out because, even though they may legally decline service to emo dogs, Uber _will_ deactivate over it.

To me, this is a deal breaker with Uber. I am an independent contractor and it is my choice whether or not to take emotional dogs and other pets. Even if they do reactivate me, this would cause me to severely restrict the amount of time I drive for Uber, if I decide to carry on with their service at all.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Uberfunitis said:


> Granted but there are a wide range of things that legitimate service dogs can be trained for and many of them are not all that obvious. Like a dog who watches for psychiatric conditions and warns the person, A dog for PTSD that goes in and turns on the lights, a dog that senses seizures. There is no way of knowing if the dog is legit or not but yea an emotional comfort dog is explicitly excluded.


There are two questions you can ask. They have been posted over and over and over throughout these forums. Those two questions can be asked by any business being asked to accommodate a service animal, and should be answered by anyone who is in control of a service animal. Anyone handling a service animal will understand that these questions are allowed, and we'll know how to answer them. If they don't know how to answer them, or give you an argument about you even asking them, it is not a service animal or it is not being handled by someone who is allowed to handle it.

My state of New Jersey acknowledges emotional support dogs, but only in situations of residential rentals and leases. A landlord must accommodate, at no additional charge, an emotional support dog provided the owner has proper paperwork proving that they need the animal. That's it.

There are other states that have other requirements, that may allow more animals, or more uses for these animals. I believe California actually does cover in its own service animal law emotional support animals. I know there was a joke posted somewhere about somebody having an emotional support bear in California. I'm sure it's not true, but California's laws are much more lax for what their state law chooses to cover as a service animal. That doesn't mean it's covered by the Ada, or that it would apply in another state.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

kc ub'ing! said:


> OP please show some evidence that emotional support dogs are not covered under the ADA. I believe they are and we drivers are required to take them.
> 
> As for your deactivation, sorry you deserved it. You contacted Uber and admitted you went against TOS and even sent them proof of your infraction.


You are so very, very wrong. On every single statement you made.


----------



## Gooberlifturwallet (Feb 18, 2017)

elelegido said:


> Every time a young lady tries to force me to take her little emotional support dog, I video record the incident and I then report the incident to Uberlyft as attempted abuse of the ADA regulations. I report it to Uberlyft first to cover myself in case the pax makes a false complaint, and second to request that Uberlyft contacts the pax to let them know that trying to force drivers to take emo dogs or other pets is not acceptable.
> 
> This is an example of a response from Lyft when I sent in a report of a pax trying to make me take her emo dog:
> 
> ...


Does anyone really expect less from uber? They are without any redeeming qualities.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

LA_Native said:


> I wouldn't mind transporting a "comfort" dog, but I'd be a little annoyed if they peed or worse in my car.


There is no difference between a pet and a service dog except for a legal fiction. I've transported numerous pets and none have left anything in my car other than dirt and hair, and plenty of human passengers have left more hair and dirt in my car.


----------



## Jagent (Jan 29, 2017)

It seems to me that it doesn't matter what the ADA website says. If you refuse service to anyone with a dog, and they complain, Uber and Lyft will fire you.


----------



## kc ub'ing! (May 27, 2016)

NCHeel said:


> I would consider the ADA government website a pretty reliable source.


Agreed but, the ADA site is ambiguous on comfort animals. What but comfort do people with PTSD get from their "service animals"? The site mentions, "calming a person with PTSD". To me, calming = comforting.


----------



## 105398 (Aug 28, 2016)

Wonderland said:


> Glad I have a pet friendly car.


Is also a business person friendly or "person dressed well going out on the town" friendly car? Usually those are mutually exclusive, unless you have kennels, crates, or blankets lining the car.

I have a dog, love dogs, and am dog friendly - but it's hard to keep a car looking nice and spotless when you're dog friendly.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

105398 said:


> Is also a business person friendly or "person dressed well going out on the town" friendly car? Usually those are mutually exclusive, unless you have kennels, crates, or blankets lining the car.
> 
> I have a dog, love dogs, and am dog friendly - but it's hard to keep a car looking nice and spotless when you're dog friendly.


Have you had a bad experience with a dog? I have not. I've never had a dog leave anything behind that a lint roller could not fix. Meanwhile human passengers are vomiting in my car, drooling on my seats, cutting holes into my seats, spilling their beer, and putting their dirty used kleenexes and candy wrappers between the cushions or in the flap behind the passenger seat.

Humans are leaving their hairs on my seats too.

If I had to bet, a sober passenger with a dog is less likely to cause a mess than a drunk passenger without one.

Last night I picked up a couple. The lady put a jolly rancher in her mouth. Then she started french kissing her man with it in her mouth. At the end of the trip, her jolly rancher ends up stuck on center console in the backseat. Thanks pax.


----------



## AuxCordBoston (Dec 3, 2016)

Jagent said:


> It seems to me that it doesn't matter what the ADA website says. If you refuse service to anyone with a dog, and they complain, Uber and Lyft will fire you.


Exactly! That's why I always take dogs. However after 1,500 rides I've only taken 5 riders with dogs. It's not common


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

SuzeCB said:


> My state of New Jersey acknowledges emotional support dogs, but only in situations of residential rentals and leases. A landlord must accommodate, at no additional charge, an emotional support dog provided the owner has proper paperwork proving that they need the animal. That's it.


I think this is where these young ladies get confused. They have most likely already used the Fair Housing Amendments Act to force their landlords to let their emo dog live in the building. They probably also know that they can take the dog on planes (Air Carrier Access Act). So they automatically assume that they can take an emo dog anywhere, not realizing that the housing act does not apply to rideshare, given that we are not renting them an apartment, and neither does the air carrier act, as we operate cars and not airplanes.



> There are other states that have other requirements, that may allow more animals, or more uses for these animals. I believe California actually does cover in its own service animal law emotional support animals. I know there was a joke posted somewhere about somebody having an emotional support bear in California. I'm sure it's not true, but California's laws are much more lax for what their state law chooses to cover as a service animal. That doesn't mean it's covered by the Ada, or that it would apply in another state.


No, there is no state legislation in California that gives emotional support dogs a status of service animal that would be equivalent to the service animal status given by the ADA to trained animals.



Trafficat said:


> There is no difference between a pet and a service dog except for a legal fiction. I've transported numerous pets and none have left anything in my car other than dirt and hair, and plenty of human passengers have left more hair and dirt in my car.


Of course, you have the right to choose whether or not to take pets. If you like, you can fill your car with 10 dogs or however many you like. It's entirely up to you. You can also choose whether or not to take human passengers, naturally.



kc ub'ing! said:


> Agreed but, the ADA site is ambiguous on comfort animals. What but comfort do people with PTSD get from their "service animals"? The site mentions, "calming a person with PTSD". To me, calming = comforting.


I see no ambiguity. To me, it's crystal clear - the example you give of calming a person with PTSD is no different from any other task. If a driver asks "what task is the dog trained to do?" and the handler replies, "it is trained to calm me" then it is a service animal, period, because it has been trained to perform that task. We, as service providers, don't need to know exactly how the dog calms its owner.

This is no different from any other task, for example, dogs that remind the owner to take medication. Exactly how the dog does this is irrelevant. Maybe it pisses on the owner's right foot when it's time to take the blue pill and it pisses on his left foot when it's time to take the green pill. Who knows; the thing that makes it a service animal is that the owner says it has been trained to perform that specific task to assist him/her.



Jagent said:


> It seems to me that it doesn't matter what the ADA website says. If you refuse service to anyone with a dog, and they complain, Uber and Lyft will fire you.


Uber, yes, Lyft no in my experience. It all depends on the support drone you get, though. I have had to educate quite a few Lyft CSRs on this subject.


----------



## 105398 (Aug 28, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> Have you had a bad experience with a dog? I have not. I've never had a dog leave anything behind that a lint roller could not fix. Meanwhile human passengers are vomiting in my car, drooling on my seats, cutting holes into my seats, spilling their beer, and putting their dirty used kleenexes and candy wrappers between the cushions or in the flap behind the passenger seat.


I love dogs, and am fine with a small/medium breed if they're calm and well behaved. But I have some leather trim inside, and don't want any risk of damage whatsoever. Large dogs who are excitable and ruff (see there haha) can get their energy out in the park - not my car. I did have a medium dog drool on my console. I agree not the end of the world, but I don't want to clean up after a ride.

I have never had any passengers do those things in my car, except for the candy wrapper. Well a mint from a restaurant, but still annoying. But I am very selective about where and who I pick up.


----------



## RynoHawk (Mar 15, 2017)

It's always a tightrope when dealing with service animals and claims thereof. I work in a hotel and we have seen an upswing of service animals and have received some training on how to deal with them. I have also discussed it with lawyers at a seminar on hospitality law and learned some good stuff, some bad.

If a customer claims their dog is a service animal and tells you what they're trained to do, there is not much you can do about it if the dog appears under control. You cannot refuse service to people with service animals and you cannot charge them extra for normal usage of service.

While you cannot charge a cleaning fee just because a service dog gets in your car, you _can _ask for/charge a cleaning/damage fee if the dog pees, poops, barfs, or otherwise causes damage in your car (i.e. he chewed or scratched up your seats).

You can refuse or cancel if the dog appears overly aggressive or creates an unsafe atmosphere (jumping all over the car, etc.) and the person cannot or will not control the dog.This is another handy reason for an interior dashcam.

Emotional support dogs are not service animals according to the ADA as they receive no special training. So if the answer is "he provides emotional support" then that isn't training because the dog is just being a dog. It is still a tightrope walk in dealing with whether to take them or refuse them though and you may want to check the laws in your state as some may have a broader definition of service animal. If the dog appears under control, it may be best to just accept and complete the ride.

Service animals come in many different sizes and aren't just the big dogs you used to see guiding blind people. Small dogs can be trained to warn their people when they are about to have a seizure, for instance. They do not have to have any kind of tag, collar, or vest to identify them. Even if they do does not mean they're service animals as anyone can buy these on eBay.

What I said is not necessarily going to guarantee Uber or Lyft doesn't try to discipline you, but this has been how it was explained to me by a lawyer who went more in depth on the ADA requirements (and focused more on hospitality than Rideshare, but not a major difference). If you do run into an issue where the dog was wild or dangerous, and Uber or Lyft deactivates you, then you may have a case. Most of this is covered in the link to the ADA document provided above. Also as usual, different states may have even more broader outlines than the ADA so you should check with your state to make sure.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

RynoHawk said:


> It's always a tightrope when dealing with service animals and claims thereof. I work in a hotel and we have seen an upswing of service animals and have received some training on how to deal with them. I have also discussed it with lawyers at a seminar on hospitality law and learned some good stuff, some bad.
> 
> If a customer claims their dog is a service animal and tells you what they're trained to do, there is not much you can do about it if the dog appears under control. You cannot refuse service to people with service animals and you cannot charge them extra for normal usage of service.
> 
> ...


So, pretty much a re-hash of everything that's already been said here on the subject. Apart from the part about being able to refuse a genuine service dog that's out of control, which would be unlikely in a trained working animal.


----------



## RynoHawk (Mar 15, 2017)

elelegido said:


> So, pretty much a re-hash of everything that's already been said here on the subject. Apart from the part about being able to refuse a genuine service dog that's out of control, which would be unlikely in a trained working animal.


True, but it doesn't hurt to elaborate, and an out of control or wild acting dog is usually a telling giveaway that the dog is not a trained service animal. However unlikely it may be, service dogs are still dogs and can get out of control if someone or something freaks them out right before they get in a car.


----------



## kc ub'ing! (May 27, 2016)

elelegido said:


> I see no ambiguity. To me, it's crystal clear - the example you give of calming a person with PTSD is no different from any other task. If a driver asks "what task is the dog trained to do?" and the handler replies, "it is trained to calm me" then it is a service animal, period,


You couldn't be wronger. The dog isn't trained to calm. It's the owners interaction with the dog that's therapeutic. It's the affection, physical and verbal; nuzzle, pet, scratch, 'who's my lil poochy', that's calming. The only purpose of a PTSD service dog is to provide comfort! Exactly what task do you think a PTSD service dog can be trained to perform? "here boy, fetch me some mental health!"


----------



## RynoHawk (Mar 15, 2017)

kc ub'ing! said:


> You couldn't be wronger. The dog isn't trained to calm. It's the owners interaction with the dog that's therapeutic. It's the affection, physical and verbal; nuzzle, pet, scratch, 'who's my lil poochy', that's calming. The only purpose of a PTSD service dog is to provide comfort! Exactly what task do you think a PTSD service dog can be trained to perform? "here boy, fetch me some mental health!"


They can actually. They can fetch meds if they sense their person needs them.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

kc ub'ing! said:


> OP please show some evidence that emotional support dogs are not covered under the ADA. I believe they are and we drivers are required to take them.
> 
> As for your deactivation, sorry you deserved it. You contacted Uber and admitted you went against TOS and even sent them proof of your infraction.


They're not under the ADA. It is possible for states or local jurisdictions to include them though.



kc ub'ing! said:


> You couldn't be wronger. The dog isn't trained to calm. It's the owners interaction with the dog that's therapeutic. It's the affection, physical and verbal; nuzzle, pet, scratch, 'who's my lil poochy', that's calming. The only purpose of a PTSD service dog is to provide comfort! Exactly what task do you think a PTSD service dog can be trained to perform? "here boy, fetch me some mental health!"


They can recognize when their owner is tensing up and go up to them and distract them. They can put themselves between their owner and someone else who they can see is making their owner nervous. Just the action of pulling on their owners sleeve, for example, could distract and calm them a little. This can defuse a situation and even prevent violence. They can also do actions like going into a room ahead of someone and lettting them know it's "safe".

Because dogs are so good at reading humans they are perfect for training to deal with PTSD. They can often recognize issues before other humans, and before the person caught up in it. Even if all they do when they see their person starting to get scared or upset is grab a ball and throw it in the air and act cute, if it works to helps then it's an action that is helping. Some dogs will do this kind of thing without training, but training can make it specific to the person and their situation.

Plus, you shouldn't underestimate what just having the dog around (call it emotional support or whatever) is worth. Dogs that are used in children's reading programs need do nothing but lie next to them while the kids read to them. But the kids enjoy their nonjudgmental presence and the kids' reading improves faster with the dogs. If someone is taking their dog to one of those programs I'd have to be a jerk to not let them in my car, even if I didn't legally have to. I'm also not going to nitpick exactly what a dog does to help someone with PTSD. If the dog is helping them cope with life, then that's a good thing and should be supported.

By the way, on a side note, there are programs where kids read to shelter dogs. The dogs become better socialized and more adoptable and the kids get to practice
their reading. So it benefits both.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

kc ub'ing! said:


> You couldn't be wronger. The dog isn't trained to calm. It's the owners interaction with the dog that's therapeutic. It's the affection, physical and verbal; nuzzle, pet, scratch, 'who's my lil poochy', that's calming. The only purpose of a PTSD service dog is to provide comfort! Exactly what task do you think a PTSD service dog can be trained to perform? "here boy, fetch me some mental health!"


Turn on the lights in a room before you go in is an example listed for ADA


----------



## Jt76542 (May 4, 2017)

I have taken tons of requests with people with service dogs. Like every woman over 50 in Glencoe has one..lol

I have never had one misbehave what so ever. Ive never even had one bark. Very well behaved trained animals. I put a clean towel in the car daily for them to lay on during travel.

Whats the big deal?


----------



## Adieu (Feb 21, 2016)

kc ub'ing! said:


> OP please show some evidence that emotional support dogs are not covered under the ADA. I believe they are and we drivers are required to take them.
> 
> As for your deactivation, sorry you deserved it. You contacted Uber and admitted you went against TOS and even sent them proof of your infraction.


Ask Mr. Ralphs.

He can afford the bigshot lawyers and they say CA Penal Code 365.7 (a) makes it misdemeanor fraud to claim that a "therapy animal" is an ADA service dog.










Mnemonic device: Fraud 365 day a year, 7 days A week.



SuzeCB said:


> There are two questions you can ask. They have been posted over and over and over throughout these forums. Those two questions can be asked by any business being asked to accommodate a service animal, and should be answered by anyone who is in control of a service animal. Anyone handling a service animal will understand that these questions are allowed, and we'll know how to answer them. If they don't know how to answer them, or give you an argument about you even asking them, it is not a service animal or it is not being handled by someone who is allowed to handle it.
> 
> My state of New Jersey acknowledges emotional support dogs, but only in situations of residential rentals and leases. A landlord must accommodate, at no additional charge, an emotional support dog provided the owner has proper paperwork proving that they need the animal. That's it.
> 
> There are other states that have other requirements, that may allow more animals, or more uses for these animals. I believe California actually does cover in its own service animal law emotional support animals. I know there was a joke posted somewhere about somebody having an emotional support bear in California. I'm sure it's not true, but California's laws are much more lax for what their state law chooses to cover as a service animal. That doesn't mean it's covered by the Ada, or that it would apply in another state.


CA does no such thing.

Misrepresentation of a "therapy animal" as an ADA Service Animal is MISDEMEANOR FRAUD in the state of California, punishable by massive fine or incarceration


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

I tell this to all newbies, rejecting dogs, you're playing with fire. 

Just take them and move on to the next trip, it's not the end of the world, and you'll save yourself a lot of grief.

People, especially women, are like the female lion protecting her cubs, get on her bad side and "hell hath no fury......" etc. 

It's a losing battle, and you'll lose. The law says you're not allowed to even question if it's a legal service dog or not, and "emotional support dogs', heck, all dogs are that. Just take the critter, ( I make sure they stay on the floor and not the upholstry) and be done with it.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Resolved.

For now; this time, anyway. I got a phone call from an Uberdrone. While she agreed that emo dogs are not classified as service animals by the ADA, she claimed that it is Uber's policy that "emotional support animals are acknowledged by Uber and Uber requires drivers to take them. Failure to do so on multiple occasions will result in account deactivation".

This is nonsense, there is no such Uber policy. I directed the woman to Uber's actual, published, policy on service animals at https://accessibility.uber.com/service-animal-policy/ which is a summary of the ADA regulations, and makes no mention of emotional support animals or other pets.

The woman went on to contradict herself by saying that the only circumstances in which Uber will terminate a driver's account is if the driver does not transport a service animal as defined by the ADA. By this point I was beginning to lose the will to live, so I closed the call by telling her that I wanted to make it clear to her that I would continue to comply with Uber's official, published policy on service animals and that I would continue to deny service to all emotional support animals. She thanked me for my time and then reactivated my account.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> I tell this to all newbies, rejecting dogs, you're playing with fire.
> 
> Just take them and move on to the next trip, it's not the end of the world, and you'll save yourself a lot of grief.
> 
> ...


I do take dogs with no problem, even pets. I just don't understand why service dogs and these were obvious service dogs for two blind people have to be the freaking hairy overly shedding type.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Oscar Levant said:


> It's a losing battle, and you'll lose. The law says you're not allowed to even question if it's a legal service dog or not, and "emotional support dogs', heck, all dogs are that. Just take the critter, ( I make sure they stay on the floor and not the upholstry) and be done with it.


No. That is not the law. I do not have to take emo dogs or pets and I'm not going to roll over and let these scumbag pax walk all over me. Have some backbone, man!


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Adieu said:


> Ask Mr. Ralphs.
> 
> He can afford the bigshot lawyers and they say CA Penal Code 365.7 (a) makes it misdemeanor fraud to claim that a "therapy animal" is an ADA service dog.
> 
> ...


That's true, but you are not allowed to even question the owner as to the veracity of the dog's service dog status. The VAST MAJORITY of "service dogs" go through those puppy mill trainers, a two week deal, and it's a total fraud. In fact, there is no official certification process, it's just their word against yours, and you are not allowed to question them. I real service dog takes a long time to be trained, my brother, who is semi-disabled, was awarded one by the local police, it's a real service dog, german shepard. They are expensive, if you have to purchase one.

here's the clincher, if you want to prove the dog not a service dog, you have to take them to court, and have an expert trainer in court verify if the dog can perform the commands that all service dogs are required to master. Are you really going to go through all that trouble just to prove you are right? So what next, a local news story on what a prick you are for doing this? You're not going to win any popularity contests, if such things matter to you, in my humble opinion.

I tell all newbies, just take the dog, and move on to the next trip, you'll save yourself a lot of grief. I mean, how many animal trips to you get every week? I only get maybe one, or two, tops.



elelegido said:


> No. Not for me, anyway. I'm not going to roll over and let these scumbag pax walk all over me. Have some backbone, man!


You're talking about rejecting animals and pets, a subject dear to most people, and so, this is your idea of "backbone"? If you are going to be high and mighty on some issue, pick one that's worth being high and mighty about, 'cause you're barking up the wrong tree on this one ( pun intended  ).


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

Wonderland said:


> I would love to, but have ZERO clue how to make it happen. Who writes and launches the software/apps?


Step one: Get one billion dollars.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Oscar Levant said:


> You're talking about rejecting animals and pets, a subject dear to most people, and so, this is your idea of "backbone"? If you are going to be high and mighty on some issue, pick one that's worth being high and mighty about, 'cause you're barking up the wrong tree on this one ( pun intended  ).


No, you misunderstand. Having backbone has nothing to do with animals or pets. It refers, in this instance, to standing up for your rights and not allowing people to push you around just because they feel like it and (falsely) think that they have power over you.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

elelegido said:


> No, you misunderstand. Having backbone has nothing to do with animals or pets. It refers, in this instance, to standing up for your rights and not allowing people to push you around just because they feel like it and (falsely) think that they have power over you.


No, I understand perfectly, so I'll repeat the message:

_*If you are going to be high and mighty on some issue, pick one*_ *that's worth being high and mighty about*,

Dogs that only come every once in a while, and you're getting all puffed up over this? You got to be kidding me.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

kc ub'ing! said:


> You couldn't be wronger. The dog isn't trained to calm. It's the owners interaction with the dog that's therapeutic. It's the affection, physical and verbal; nuzzle, pet, scratch, 'who's my lil poochy', that's calming. The only purpose of a PTSD service dog is to provide comfort! Exactly what task do you think a PTSD service dog can be trained to perform? "here boy, fetch me some mental health!"


A driver's own personal interpretation of any training claimed by pax that its dog has completed is irrelevant. If a pax claims that the dog has been trained for a specific task to assist them, then it is a service animal. It is not open to judgment or consideration by the service provider as to whether or not they accept that the dog has been trained or not.

The ADA is worded so that the simple fact that a dog handler claims that the dog is trained in tasks to assist them is what makes it a service animal - there is no proof required. Now, you may well be correct to claim that a dog cannot be trained to comfort someone. And maybe you are not correct. But that does not matter; it is not a factor in whether or not the dog is legally service animal.



Oscar Levant said:


> No, I understand perfectly, so I'll repeat the message:
> 
> _*If you are going to be high and mighty on some issue, pick one*_ *that's worth being high and mighty about*,
> 
> Dogs that only come every once in a while, and you're getting all puffed up over this? You got to be kidding me.


High and mighty as in repeating yourself in bold and italic text? You mean like that? 

I see no evidence that I get "puffed up" about things like this. What I actually do when Uber tries to overstep the mark is explain to them calmly and coherently why their behavior is incorrect and unacceptable, and the actions that I require from them in order to correct the problem they created.

Emo dogs and other pets are indeed presented only once in a while. And I will decide, whenever they are presented, whether to take them or not. If you want to take 10 emo dogs a day, then that is your choice, just as it is mine to refuse them any time I please.


----------



## I_Like_Spam (May 10, 2015)

elelegido said:


> The ADA is worded so that the simple fact that a dog handler claims that the dog is trained in tasks to assist them is what makes it a service animal - there is no proof required. Now, you may well be correct to claim that a dog cannot be trained to comfort someone. And maybe you are not correct. But that does not matter; it is not a factor in whether or not the dog is legally service animal.


I don't think the ADA is a problem, because I have never seen any ruling which indicates that Ride Sharing vehicles are "public accommodations" according to the act.

The problem Uber drivers may have is with local and state regulations in regards to service animals.

Have federal regulators ruled on this? Ride Sharing didn't exist when the ADA was passed.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

I_Like_Spam said:


> I don't think the ADA is a problem, because I have never seen any ruling which indicates that Ride Sharing vehicles are "public accommodations" according to the act.
> 
> The problem Uber drivers may have is with local and state regulations in regards to service animals.
> 
> Have federal regulators ruled on this? Ride Sharing didn't exist when the ADA was passed.


Title II of the ADA refers to government services. The ADA is relevant to rideshare under Title III, which covers public accommodations and private businesses and their private facilities. Even if a company's facility is private, the law requires the disabled to be given the same access as the non-disabled. Doesn't matter if it's a private club, a restaurant, private car for hire etc.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

elelegido said:


> High and mighty as in repeating yourself in bold and italic text? You mean like that?
> 
> I see no evidence that I get "puffed up" about things like this


Ahhh, I see plenty of evidence (referring to pax as "scumbags" resulting in your attitude etc). I stand by my comment.

Thing is, most people are defensive and have trouble realizing a flaw if it's pointed out to them, so I understand why
you might not see any evidence.

(FYI, you're argument doesn't really work in reverse, you drove me to repeat in bold since you didn't get it the first time, and now it's obvious you never will. So, you can have the last word...... I will not reply to it)


----------



## ubergirl182 (Jun 14, 2017)

Pretty sure I like the dog more then the PAX....Dogs welcome here.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Oscar Levant said:


> Ahhh, I see plenty of evidence (referring to pax as "scumbags" resulting in your attitude etc). I stand by my comment.
> 
> Thing is, most people are defensive and have trouble realizing a flaw if it's pointed out to them, so I understand why
> you might not see any evidence.
> ...


No, no; you're entitled to think whatever you want; you go right ahead. High and mighty or low and... unmighty..., it doesn't matter - I will not allow scumbag pax who try to force me to take their little doggy to take advantage of me, and I will correct Uber CSR ignorance on service animal policy whenever it crops up.

If you like this, then great! If you don't like this, then great!



ubergirl182 said:


> Pretty sure I like the dog more then the PAX....Dogs welcome here.


That's good. I personally like cats and will always take them.


----------



## Bevital (Mar 9, 2017)

All dogs welcome in my vehicle regardless of their service status. I even offer to roll down the window so they (the dog) can stick their head out. Always gets the PAX to laugh and leave a nice tip.


----------



## ubergirl182 (Jun 14, 2017)

elelegido said:


> No, no; you're entitled to think whatever you want; you go right ahead. High and mighty or low and... unmighty..., it doesn't matter - I will not allow scumbag pax who try to force me to take their little doggy to take advantage of me, and I will correct Uber CSR ignorance on service animal policy whenever it crops up.
> 
> If you like this, then great! If you don't like this, then great!
> 
> That's good. I personally like cats and will always take them.


I like cats too but the whole allergy thing and dramatic female riders


----------



## SatMan (Mar 20, 2017)

kc ub'ing! said:


> OP please show some evidence that emotional support dogs are not covered under the ADA. I believe they are and we drivers are required to take them.
> 
> As for your deactivation, sorry you deserved it. You contacted Uber and admitted you went against TOS and even sent them proof of your infraction.


This publication provides guidance on the term "service animal" and the service animal provisions in the Department's new regulations.


Beginning on March 15, 2011, only dogs are recognized as service animals under titles II and III of the ADA.
A service animal is a dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for a person with a disability.
Generally, title II and title III entities must permit service animals to accompany people with disabilities in all areas where members of the public are allowed to go.
*How "Service Animal" Is Defined*
*Service animals are defined as dogs that are individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities.* Examples of such work or tasks include guiding people who are blind, alerting people who are deaf, pulling a wheelchair, alerting and protecting a person who is having a seizure, reminding a person with mental illness to take prescribed medications, calming a person with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) during an anxiety attack, or performing other duties. Service animals are working animals, not pets. The work or task a dog has been trained to provide must be directly related to the person's disability. Dogs whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support do not qualify as service animals under the ADA.

This definition does not affect or limit the broader definition of "assistance animal" under the Fair Housing Act or the broader definition of "service animal" under the Air Carrier Access Act.

Some State and local laws also define service animal more broadly than the ADA does. Information about such laws can be obtained from the State attorney general's office.


----------



## jester121 (Sep 6, 2016)

UberBastid said:


> Step one: Get one billion dollars.


Step two: Hire Travis to turn it into negative 3.5 billion dollars.


----------



## One Star (Jun 29, 2016)

So what happens if the driver is allergic to pet dander, the driver's eyes well up and they start sneezing and cause an accident because they can't see properly? Who is at fault then?


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

One Star said:


> So what happens if the driver is allergic to pet dander, the driver's eyes well up and they start sneezing and cause an accident because they can't see properly? Who is at fault then?


In the US the driver still, he or she can not refuse a service animal even if allergic but is still responsible for the operation of his or her vehicle at all times.


----------



## Hung nguyen (May 14, 2017)

I don't know why there is not addition fee for animal service. And every time i take them with dog i need to clean . It cost time and money to stoping by car wash and i need to vacuum all those dog hairs all around the car. if no the next pax will give me bad star and review. I never got any tips from those pax .
But in these end i still need to opening smile like nothing happened.
I know i love dog too but this is not funny ride this is my work for food .


----------



## One Star (Jun 29, 2016)

I too am an animal lover, and over the number of years in this biz, the way I have seen people act and live, I have more respect for animals than I do for a lot of people I have met.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

One Star said:


> I too am an animal lover, and over the number of years in this biz, the way I have seen people act and live, I have more respect for animals than I do for a lot of people I have met.


Me too. But the fact remains; it's still more likely that a four legged pax will rub its nose all over the window and smear it with snot than a two legged pax. Unless you drive in Reno, or Vegas or similar.


----------



## OdiousRhetoric (May 28, 2017)

elelegido said:


> It's a good thing that 2017 is Uber's "Year of the Driver"! I wonder what next year would be like? What a bunch of arseholes, lol.


Year of the robot.

Travis wasn't the right person to introduce self driving cars. The train obviously ends by 2020.


----------



## empresstabitha (Aug 25, 2016)

the only animal i will ever refuse is a spider or insect. Service or not (I don't even know if that's a thing). Service dog (or other animal)? You're welcome in my car. Regular dog? You're welcome in my car. The only thing that saddens me about having a service dog or other service animal in my car is knowing I cant play with them, because you can't play with working service animals.

The strughle not to baby talk or pet a dog or cat is so hard


----------



## Blatherskite (Nov 30, 2016)

Fungi, being heterotrophs, are taxonomically closer to animals than plants. That argument is how I got my slime mold registered with the State of California as an official emotional-support and service animal. Sorry about your upholstery.


----------



## john2g1 (Nov 10, 2016)

One Star said:


> So what happens if the driver is allergic to pet dander, the driver's eyes well up and they start sneezing and cause an accident because they can't see properly? Who is at fault then?


This is the great irony...

I have to imagine in order to short cut making overly complicated regulations the ADA simply says "Eff your allergies". Except an allergy *is* a disability.

What is even more ironic is so many posters in the forum have yelled "Screw your made up allergy you shouldn't be driving!". This is the type of behavior the ADA is supposed to protect against.

Strangely a paralyzed person could drive for Uber if their vehicle had the appropriate modifications to allow for vehicle control (and allowed for the maximum number of seat/seat-belts for whatever class he/she was driving). If Uber refused the ADA (and whatever that lobbying group is called) would step in and force compliance.

A fully functioning person who is only allergic to _____ dander in an enclosed space on the other hand is forced to give a *disabling *ride or face deactivation and possible punitive action.

That said there is one loophole... Accept the trip, start the trip, move, have a reaction (no one can tell you what the level of your reaction is) and by Uber's own "difficult or impossible to reach the destination" rules end the trip. To further protect yourself inform the pax you are having an issue and tell them you are requesting a refund. Obviously to CYA contact Uber and request the refund but leave out the cause of your reaction.

You know because hey "I didn't go through 8 plus years of medical training so I don't want to dishonor the profession with my opinion.".


----------



## AuxCordBoston (Dec 3, 2016)

What if the rider approaches your car with a knife and says she will hurt you if you don't driver her and her service dog. Imagine that senario


----------



## One Star (Jun 29, 2016)

AuxCordBoston said:


> What if the rider approaches your car with a knife and says she will hurt you if you don't driver her and her service dog. Imagine that senario


I think you imagine way too much!
Maybe you're one of those people that want something like that to happen so you can post about it on here and on Facebook to generate some drama and try and make people believe you actually have a life.


----------



## newbiewpb (Jul 5, 2016)

just drive by 
if you dont want the pet
don't contact anyone 
no calls nothing 
i like alot of drivers own a dog: 
personally
i dont mind 
so  leave it 
and if you dislike dogs i dont want to know you 
thanks ummm
bye now


----------



## mKat (May 19, 2016)

Wonderland said:


> I would love to, but have ZERO clue how to make it happen. Who writes and launches the software/apps?


Wonderland, check out https://www.samsride.com/


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

newbiewpb said:


> just drive by
> if you dont want the pet
> don't contact anyone
> no calls nothing
> ...


Bye!


----------



## Adieu (Feb 21, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> That's true, but you are not allowed to even question the owner as to the veracity of the dog's service dog status .


Of course NOT.

No need to question anything, except their familiarity with CA PENAL CODE 365.7 (a)

People are cowards in general.

And Americans are especially prone to tremble and fold when exposed to legalese.


----------



## STJ (Sep 14, 2016)

Hung nguyen said:


> I don't know why there is not addition fee for animal service.............................



People with disabilities who use service animals cannot be isolated from other patrons, treated less favorably than other patrons, *or charged fees that are not charged to other patrons without animals*. In addition, if a business requires a deposit or fee to be paid by patrons with pets, it must waive the charge for service animals.
Now of course if the dog has an accident there is recourse to charge the "cleaning fee". So since if a human rider peed in my car I would claim the cleaning fee then legally per the ADA guidelines I can charge the dogs owner 


If a business such as a hotel normally charges guests for damage that they cause, a customer with a disability may also be charged for damage caused by himself or his service animal.


----------



## One Star (Jun 29, 2016)

Even though I had made a smart assed remark to him earlier,.....basing it on AuxCordBoston's scenario (minus the knife of course), for those who are taking the easy way out and saying that they just wouldn't stop and keep on driving and cancel the ride. What would you do if the pax wasn't in view and when they came out of a building you saw the pet in question. Would you then also just drive away as they are approaching your vehicle so you didn't have to explain???


----------



## Blatherskite (Nov 30, 2016)

mKat said:


> Wonderland, check out https://www.samsride.com/


$600 per month SAAS --nope.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

One Star said:


> Would you then also just drive away as they are approaching your vehicle so you didn't have to explain???


I think that is risky. You need the video footage of the pax admitting that it's an emotional support dog (as all owners of fake service dogs do) as proof that it was not a service animal. If you just drive off then you have no proof and, without that, you'll be declared guilty.


----------



## rickasmith98 (Sep 26, 2016)

Carbalbm said:


> You're wrong, they are not.
> 
> "Service animals are working animals, not pets. The work or task a *dog* has been trained to provide must be directly related to the person's disability. *Dogs* whose sole function is to provide comfort or *emotional support* do not qualify as service animals *under* the *ADA*."
> *ADA Requirements: Service Animals - ADA.gov*
> https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm


So vets that has service dogs because of their PTSD are not included? The Lyft Terms of Serice says if the owner claims it's a service dog, you must carry them. If you suspect they are trying to abuse the policy, you can call and report them only after you've transported them.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

rickasmith98 said:


> So vets that has service dogs because of their PTSD are not included? The Lyft Terms of Serice says if the owner claims it's a service dog, you must carry them. If you suspect they are trying to abuse the policy, you can call and report them only after you've transported them.


But, section 10.h. of Lyft's contract states:

_You will make  reasonable accommodation for Riders and/or for service animals, as required by law.
_
And, as we know, the law (ADA) says that we are allowed to ask the question about tasks that the dog has been trained to do. The ADA also says:

_... the provision of emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship do not constitute work or tasks for the purposes of this definition.
_
So if we go by the contract, which both Lyft and its drivers agreed to and are bound by, then Lyft's policy in that contract is that we follow the law. As above, if a pax with a fake service dog admits it's an emotional support dog then the law does not oblige us to take it.

You raise a good point though - Lyft's webpage on this does contradict what its contract says. I'd personally place more weight on the contract.


----------



## Jt76542 (May 4, 2017)

Uberfunitis said:


> I do take dogs with no problem, even pets. I just don't understand why service dogs and these were obvious service dogs for two blind people have to be the freaking hairy overly shedding type.


No you dont! You a cheap non-tipping pax. You dont drive. Show us. Screenshot your drivers profile page.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

AuxCordBoston said:


> What if the rider approaches your car with a knife and says she will hurt you if you don't driver her and her service dog. Imagine that senario


Well that's why you have a dash cam, isn't it?

You do HAVE a dash cam, don't you? Since you're so paranoid and all.


----------



## rickasmith98 (Sep 26, 2016)

I have to wonder if the ADA's interpretation of emotional support, well-being and companionship was at the most generic form. After all, those terms can be used to describe exactly what a pet does for any of us. But when you have a specific medical condition and you have a doctor's note and insurance is approving and paying for a service dog, then it becomes a medical necessity and in my opinion, would qualify as a service animal.


----------



## newbiewpb (Jul 5, 2016)

Uberfunitis said:


> In the US the driver still, he or she can not refuse a service animal even if allergic but is still responsible for the operation of his or her vehicle at all times.


trollin just troll in along do de do DA troll in da ta da de da do da

also maybe these dogs dont want to ride with a,holes so 
dont traumatize them 
oh and 
our guys in the service with PTSD
dogs 
you dont want them?
but it was ok for them to risk their f ing life for you?
you are truly a scumbag 
unamerican dirtbag



Uberfunitis said:


> In the US the driver still, he or she can not refuse a service animal even if allergic but is still responsible for the operation of his or her vehicle at all times.


pig


----------



## Uberdriver2710 (Jul 15, 2015)

I take dogs all the time, I can't resist. Love them, they are sooooo cute. I have a 99 cent store hand broom in case of hair on the seat. And if one pees a bit...vinegar spray.

Then again, I'd rather give dogs rides instead of humans. Humans are more complicated, with more problems.

My favorite...I haven't had a cat yet...


----------



## EthiopianFemalePax (Jun 19, 2017)

Emo dogs... LMAo


----------



## newbiewpb (Jul 5, 2016)

Jt76542 said:


> No you dont! You a cheap non-tipping pax. You dont drive. Show us. Screenshot your drivers profile page.


he is a troll


----------



## ganerbangla (Mar 4, 2017)

Very smart idea you video the dog


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> That's true, but you are not allowed to even question the owner as to the veracity of the dog's service dog status. The VAST MAJORITY of "service dogs" go through those puppy mill trainers, a two week deal, and it's a total fraud. In fact, there is no official certification process, it's just their word against yours, and you are not allowed to question them. I real service dog takes a long time to be trained, my brother, who is semi-disabled, was awarded one by the local police, it's a real service dog, german shepard. They are expensive, if you have to purchase one.
> 
> here's the clincher, if you want to prove the dog not a service dog, you have to take them to court, and have an expert trainer in court verify if the dog can perform the commands that all service dogs are required to master. Are you really going to go through all that trouble just to prove you are right? So what next, a local news story on what a prick you are for doing this? You're not going to win any popularity contests, if such things matter to you, in my humble opinion.
> 
> ...


You are so unfamiliar with the process for service dogs, it's insane. You really should try reading the law at some point, and educating yourself before spouting off on what we are and are not allowed to do and ask about them.

We can, indeed, ask if it is a service animal trained to perform a task for a disability. We can also ask what task it is that the dog is trained to perform. Or the miniature horse. Both of those animals can be service animals according to the Ada. You're probably not going to run across miniature horses too often. If it's a legitimate service animal, the person with it will know how to answer those questions, and will do so willingly. If you get any grief from the person for asking these questions, then they're lying. They could get themselves into a lot of trouble for this, as well. It's against the law in Most states and it is against the law for the federal government as well. Major fines all the way around.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

newbiewpb said:


> also maybe these dogs dont want to ride with a,holes so
> dont traumatize them
> oh and
> our guys in the service with PTSD
> ...





Uberfunitis said:


> I do take dogs with no problem, even pets.


----------



## unPat (Jul 20, 2016)

Service dogs are very quiet and well mannered that you won't notice you have a dog in the back seat. If you see aggressive dog then chances are they are not a service dog.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

SuzeCB said:


> You are so unfamiliar with the process for service dogs, it's insane. You really should try reading the law at some point, and educating yourself before spouting off on what we are and are not allowed to do and ask about them.
> 
> We can, indeed, ask if it is a service animal trained to perform a task for a disability. We can also ask what task it is that the dog is trained to perform. Or the miniature horse. Both of those animals can be service animals according to the Ada. You're probably not going to run across miniature horses too often. If it's a legitimate service animal, the person with it will know how to answer those questions, and will do so willingly. If you get any grief from the person for asking these questions, then they're lying. They could get themselves into a lot of trouble for this, as well. It's against the law in Most states and it is against the law for the federal government as well. Major fines all the way around.


It says you can ask if dog is service dog, but of course they will say that, but i didnt see any language where a driver is allowed to ask rider to have dog proove it is a service dog , or provide certification 
https://www.ada.gov/archive/qasrvc.htm


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> It says you can ask if dog is service dog, but of course they will say that, but i didnt see any language where a driver is allowed to ask rider to have dog proove it is a service dog , or provide certification
> https://www.ada.gov/archive/qasrvc.htm


Number three says you can ask them the first question that I told you. You can't ask them about their disability, because that is considered private medical information that you do not have a right to have. You can, however ask what the dog is trained to do. If you have been reading through this forum at all you will see that this has been covered a bare minimum of 10 times. It's not that hard. It really isn't.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

SuzeCB said:


> You are so unfamiliar with the process for service dogs, it's insane. You really should try reading the law at some point, and educating yourself before spouting off on what we are and are not allowed to do and ask about them.
> 
> We can, indeed, ask if it is a service animal trained to perform a task for a disability. We can also ask what task it is that the dog is trained to perform. Or the miniature horse. Both of those animals can be service animals according to the Ada. You're probably not going to run across miniature horses too often. If it's a legitimate service animal, the person with it will know how to answer those questions, and will do so willingly. If you get any grief from the person for asking these questions, then they're lying. They could get themselves into a lot of trouble for this, as well. It's against the law in Most states and it is against the law for the federal government as well. Major fines all the way around.


I read the law. My roommate (my brother) is handicapped and has a bona-fide service dog.

It says you can ask if dog is service dog, but of course they will say that, but i didn't see any language where a driver is allowed to ask rider to have dog proove it is a service dog , or provide certification (and there is no such thing). In fact, it says you can't ask for proof. As for the rest, i see it as a touchy subject and no way am i going to put anyone through all that nonsense, just take the pooch, I say, and what is the big deal? I've driven cabs since the 70s, never had a problem with cats or dogs (can't say that about humans, though).


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Oscar Levant said:


> I read the law. My roommate is handicapped and has a bona-fide service dog.
> 
> It says you can ask if dog is service dog, but of course they will say that, but i didnt see any language where a driver is allowed to ask rider to have dog proove it is a service dog , or provide certification. In fact, it says you cant ask for proof. As for the rest, i see it as a touchy subject and no way am i going to put anyone through all that nonsense, just take the pooch, i say, and what is the big deal?


I think you're just trying to be difficult here. There's no point in you telling other people to take all dogs - the point being made here is that we don't have to take the fakes if we don't want to. If you want to take a dog, or two, or indeed fill your car with dogs then fine; do as you please. By trying to tell us to take all dogs then you're just wasting your time.

As for you saying that you don't see in the law that we are allowed to ask for certifications or documents, you're arguing against a point that nobody has made except you: we know that asking for proof is not permitted. It's written in the law.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> I read the law. My roommate (my brother) is handicapped and has a bona-fide service dog.
> 
> It says you can ask if dog is service dog, but of course they will say that, but i didn't see any language where a driver is allowed to ask rider to have dog proove it is a service dog , or provide certification (and there is no such thing). In fact, it says you can't ask for proof. As for the rest, i see it as a touchy subject and no way am i going to put anyone through all that nonsense, just take the pooch, I say, and what is the big deal? I've driven cabs since the 70s, never had a problem with cats or dogs (can't say that about humans, though).


You can ask what task the dog is trained to perform.

https://adata.org/faq/how-can-i-tell-if-animal-really-service-animal-and-not-just-pet


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

SuzeCB said:


> You can ask what task the dog is trained to perform.
> 
> https://adata.org/faq/how-can-i-tell-if-animal-really-service-animal-and-not-just-pet


 Why? So you're gonna interrogate handicapped people with service dogs, real or imagined?

So, what, maybe you might make them nervous, they struggle for an answer, but the dog is legit,
and you decide the dog isn't because the reply doesn't comport with what you presume is the real deal, then you refuse, 
then they complain (because it is a real service dog, but it doesn't matter if the dog is or is not, so listen up,
Uber is going to accept whatever the rider says, and not verify anything, trust me on that one ) and you get deactivated.

You're arbiting something where you think you are right, but, it just may happen that you are not.

Or....maybe you are right, but only technically, but the rider actually believes he or she has a legit service dog, as most
do who go through the puppy mill training,_ and they will complain_, and you will still lose your gig.

Brilliant. This is what i mean, it's a touchy subject, and all of this over a cool, cute, pooch?

Hey....

It's just a pooch, and don't you like pooches?

What is your problem?


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> Why? So you're gonna interrogate handicapped people with service dogs, real or imagined?
> 
> So, what, maybe you might make them nervous, they struggle for an answer, but the dog is legit,
> and you decide the dog isn't because the reply doesn't comport with what you presume is the real deal, then you refuse,
> ...


At the moment, my problem is that I'm in a rental, and part of my agreement is that I do not put animals of any sort in the vehicle. Service animals are the one exception.

And no one who has a legitimate service animal is going to get nervous about these two questions because when they got the service animal they were instructed that these two questions were allowed, and they were told to expect them, and how to answer them. They are expected to be able to handle this, the same way that they are expected to be able to handle the care of the animal that is their helper. Most disabled people will actually appreciate the fact that A store owner or service provider such as we are is actually educated on the subject and able to handle them and their service animal. Those that don't comma usually end up becoming a dead giveaway two fraudulent Behavior.

And I do agree with you that some people who do not have legitimate service animals believe they are legitimate service animals because of unscrupulous companies that are handing out supposed "certifications". And then there are the people who have a legitimate need for an emotional support animal, and are actually confused on the issue. Educating these people can actually save them thousands of dollars comma because the disabled Community is the single most litigious demographic in this country. The laws protecting them have been ignored and neglected for far too long, and they are fed up. They will go after anyone who denies a service animal or a reasonable accommodation or who is not up to code in their buildings or their handicap spots in their parking lots. They will also go after anyone who tries to claim a service animal when it is not a service animal. They do this because the fraudulent claim of a service animal that isn't really one hurts them by damaging the reputation of real service animals who have gone through extensive training to do what they do, and causing people to not want to accommodate them. The emotional support dog that was on an airplane and suddenly attacked someone in the next seat is a prime example of what can go wrong.

So I'm looking for my own car. I'm also an animal lover. I'm still not sure if I will take any animals other than my own, animals that I am familiar with, and service animals. Pets are great. People suck. I have no idea how any passenger who gets into my car has trained there animal or perhaps has abused it. There's no way to know. That's why I don't want someone else's pet in my car. The exception would be if the animal is completely contained. I've had a bearded dragon in a shoebox held closed with elastic bands. I have had a cat in a carrier. I have also had an emotional support dog, because the woman who brought him into the vehicle was uninformed about the fact that emotional support dogs are not service animals. Luckily, and to the woman and her disabled vet daughter's credit, the dog was extraordinarily well behaved and sweet as can be. I did educate her to the fact that emotional support dogs are not covered under the ADA, and that she should not be calling this dog a service animal as it can cause a tremendous amount of difficulty for her daughter and anyone handling the animal and claiming that. In New Jersey, the only protections that emotional support animals have is regarding housing. Nothing else.

And if anyone made a claim that I denied service to someone with a service animal, they had better be able to back that up in court. If they're going to cost me my livelihood, you can bet your posterior I will be looking to recoup my losses. And I actually don't lose money driving Uber.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

SuzeCB said:


> At the moment, my problem is that I'm in a rental, and part of my agreement is that I do not put animals of any sort in the vehicle. Service animals are the one exception.
> 
> And no one who has a legitimate service animal is going to get nervous about these two questions because when they got the service animal they were instructed that these two questions were allowed, and they were told to expect them, and how to answer them. They are expected to be able to handle this, the same way that they are expected to be able to handle the care of the animal that is their helper. Most disabled people will actually appreciate the fact that A store owner or service provider such as we are is actually educated on the subject and able to handle them and their service animal. Those that don't comma usually end up becoming a dead giveaway two fraudulent Behavior.
> 
> ...


Court? sheesh, who's going to go that far? You'd do this? Uber deactivates you for a dog you were sure was not a service dog, and they claim it is, and what are you going to do? You're going to sue? You got to be kidding me. You speak of "livelihood" as if Uber were some kind of real career, worth fighting for. Really?

I would lay down rubber mats, ask rider to make sure pooch sits on the mats, and not tell the car owner, that's what i would do, and the reason is, well , for the reasons I gave in my previous comment, it's a touchy subject, and you're going to invite trouble with riders of service does, or quasi-service dogs. Just make sure the car is clean when you turn it in. They don't come that often, who's going to know?
Not telling you to violate your lease, but I definitely would, and if they found it, I'd find another car. $500 down will get you a car in many dealerships, that's what go me my 2013 camry I bought last year.

But, that's just me.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> Court? sheesh, who's going to go that far? You'd do this? Uber deactivates you for a dog you were sure was not a service dog, and they claim it is, and what are you going to do? You're going to sue? You got to be kidding me. You speak of "livelihood" as if Uber were some kind of real career, worth fighting for. Really?
> 
> I would lay down rubber mats, ask rider to make sure pooch sits on the mats, and not tell the car owner, that's what i would do, and the reason is, well , for the reasons I gave in my previous comment, it's a touchy subject, and you're going to invite trouble with riders of service does, or quasi-service dogs. Just make sure the car is clean when you turn it in. They don't come that often, who's going to know?
> Not telling you to violate your lease, but I definitely would, and if they found it, I'd find another car. $500 down will get you a car in many dealerships, that's what go me my 2013 camry I bought last year.
> ...


I would do it on behalf of members of my family and my friends who are disabled and need service dogs. And, just like the person who claimed the service dog and then turned around and complained knowing it wasn't a real service dog did it for the $5 to $25 credit that Uber would give them comma I could do it for a lawsuit that would pay me tens of thousands of dollars. All of this stuff surrounding service dogs is no joke. Anybody who actually knows anything about service dogs knows this.


----------



## Jesusdrivesuber (Jan 5, 2017)

elelegido said:


> Result - "Thanks for reporting this rider abuse. We've suspended your account so you can't work; thanks for your patience"


Hahaha, oh Uber... you are the too much of too muchery.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

Oscar Levant

https://uberpeople.net/threads/vide...raud-attempt-by-lyft-pax.177339/#post-2634631

Watch that video. That is a textbook execution of how a driver is to determine a service animal or not.

Many of these Support Animal type don't know the correct answer to the second question or will assume emotional support is the correct answer. The correct answer is it's trained to (help me navigate because I'm blind, detect seizures that may be life threatening, etc). There is no training for emotional support, dogs are (mostly) naturally emotionally supportive animals. I know my dogs make me feel better after a long day at work.

Also, if they offer to show you a certificate, like this person did, that's a red flag as well because there is no certificate. The only certificate she has is from a website that she paid $150 to "register" her dog as a support animal.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

steveK2016 said:


> Oscar Levant
> 
> https://uberpeople.net/threads/vide...raud-attempt-by-lyft-pax.177339/#post-2634631
> 
> ...


The second question seems to me to be a privacy issue. One should not be required to advertise their medical conditions to the world. Perhaps we do need some form of certification, I know we don't have it now but people that are not involved in my health care have no business knowing my medical history.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

Uberfunitis said:


> The second question seems to me to be a privacy issue. One should not be required to advertise their medical conditions to the world. Perhaps we do need some form of certification, I know we don't have it now but people that are not involved in my health care have no business knowing my medical history.


By ADA guidelines, that is an acceptable question to ask. Anyone with a legitimate service animal knows that and knows they must answer that question if asked. Whether or not it truly is a privacy issue, by law, they are required to answer it.

The ADA was structured heavily by advocates for the disabled. This is how they wanted the law to be structured. They did not want certification, as a compromise, service providers can ask those two questions to verify the legitimacy of the service animal.

I would prefer a certificate or ID as well, but they consider that an "undue burden"...


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Uberfunitis said:


> The second question seems to me to be a privacy issue. One should not be required to advertise their medical conditions to the world. Perhaps we do need some form of certification, I know we don't have it now but people that are not involved in my health care have no business knowing my medical history.


No, you misunderstand. Questions about the dog owner's medical conditions are prohibited under the ADA. The only questions allowed relate to the animal. Is it a service animal and what tasks has it been trained to do.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

elelegido said:


> No, you misunderstand. Questions about the dog owner's medical conditions are prohibited under the ADA. The only questions allowed relate to the animal. Is it a service animal and what tasks has it been trained to do.


No I understood completely, by asking what task the animal has been trained to do you are asking about the owners medical history because that task is tied directly to his or her disability.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Uberfunitis said:


> No I understood completely, by asking what task the animal has been trained to do you are asking about the owners medical history because that task is tied directly to his or her disability.


No, not necessarily. A service dog owner could give the following answers to the tasks question:

- The dog has been trained to remind me to take medication
- The dog has been trained to alert other people when I need help
- The dog has been trained to calm me

In none of the above cases would it be possible to make any accurate assessment of a person's medical history.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

elelegido said:


> No, not necessarily. A service dog owner could give the following answers to the tasks question:
> 
> - The dog has been trained to remind me to take medication
> - The dog has been trained to alert other people when I need help
> ...


I agree, It can be done!

The last one seems to indicate an emotional support dog though.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

Uberfunitis said:


> I agree, It can be done!
> 
> The last one seems to indicate an emotional support dog though.


At which point the pax failed the quiz. Just because the answers could be #3 doesn't mean it's an acceptable answer.

That's essentially what the pax in the video answer with and got *denied*.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

steveK2016 said:


> At which point the pax failed the quiz. Just because the answers could be #3 doesn't mean it's an acceptable answer.
> 
> That's essentially what the pax in the video answer with and got *denied*.


But it could also be someone with a psychiatric condition that the dog is trained to pick up on and alert the owner about before getting out of hand. It would not be wrong for him or her to say that the animal has been trained to calm them as it was trained to pick up on those triggers. Thus the driver ends up in a lawsuit when it is a legit service dog.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

Uberfunitis said:


> But it could also be someone with a psychiatric condition that the dog is trained to pick up on and alert the owner about before getting out of hand. It would not be wrong for him or her to say that the animal has been trained to calm them as it was trained to pick up on those triggers. Thus the driver ends up in a lawsuit when it is a legit service dog.


Fare enough


----------



## PrestonT (Feb 15, 2017)

Buckiemohawk said:


> I was thinking of calling it fuzzy Rides, a new ride program for people with pets


DanderDash


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

steveK2016 said:


> Oscar Levant
> 
> https://uberpeople.net/threads/vide...raud-attempt-by-lyft-pax.177339/#post-2634631
> 
> ...


 I let all dogs in my car, so no need to watch the video. I've driven cabs since the 70s, and Uber for the last four years,
and not once have I had a problem with a dog. I do ask them if they have walked the dog ( if not, I'll give them a few minutes to do so ) 
and I don't let them sit on my seats, they must be either held on rider's lap or sit on floor.

I happen to like dogs.


----------



## Rakos (Sep 2, 2014)

I keep a furniture blanket on tap...

And make full use of my fold down seats...

And welcome an occasional dog...

As long as they are well behaved...

And dont leave a doggy doo...

Of course I could always resort to...

Throwing doggy poo...8)

Rakos

Ps. And I still get a cleaning fee...

Seems like a win win to me...8)


----------



## Paul Vincent (Jan 15, 2016)




----------



## TheMagster (May 12, 2017)

Can't you just cancel the trip when you pull up and see someone with a dog?


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

Paul Vincent said:


> View attachment 134615


That sounds like a legitimate news service with that language.


----------



## Stripzip (Mar 16, 2017)

elelegido said:


> Every time a young lady tries to force me to take her little emotional support dog, I video record the incident and I then report the incident to Uberlyft as attempted abuse of the ADA regulations. I report it to Uberlyft first to cover myself in case the pax makes a false complaint, and second to request that Uberlyft contacts the pax to let them know that trying to force drivers to take emo dogs or other pets is not acceptable.
> 
> This is an example of a response from Lyft when I sent in a report of a pax trying to make me take her emo dog:
> 
> ...


You should go to a reporter with this. Uber needs more bad press.



Wonderland said:


> Glad I have a pet friendly car. I take dogs all the time, get huge tips for it too... I wish I knew how to start up my own service for people with pets. I haven't approached Uber with it because I know they will just steal the idea and not pay me squat...


If you approach Uber with your idea their response will be to deactivate you while they investigate.



Uberfunitis said:


> No I understood completely, by asking what task the animal has been trained to do you are asking about the owners medical history because that task is tied directly to his or her disability.


Perhaps you should take a look at the law before commenting because you have once again posted incorrect information, I know you are a very busy person, but if you could take a few minutes away from your very busy schedule of stiffing food servers to google stuff it would be appreciated! https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

Stripzip said:


> Perhaps you should take a look at the law before commenting because you have once again posted incorrect information, I know you are a very busy person, but if you could take a few minutes away from your very busy schedule of stiffing food servers to google stuff it would be appreciated! https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html


I have read the law. What you quoted was me commenting on shortcomings of that law in terms of privacy protections for the disabled.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

TheMagster said:


> Can't you just cancel the trip when you pull up and see someone with a dog?


That is, of course, an option open to you.



Uberfunitis said:


> That sounds like a legitimate news service with that language.


But accurate. In nearly 7,000 rides I have only transported one genuine service animal, whose owner did not fail the "tasks" question.



Uberfunitis said:


> The last one seems to indicate an emotional support dog though.


Ah, come on. It really _really_ isn't that hard to understand, is it? Maybe it is. If the owner says the dog has been trained to perform a task to assist them, then it is a service animal.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

elelegido said:


> Ah, come on. It really _really_ isn't that hard to understand, is it? Maybe it is. If the owner says the dog has been trained to perform a task to assist them, then it is a service animal.


I understand it completely, and have no problem with it hell I even take pets with no problems so I have no doubt I will never run afoul of the law in that regards.


----------



## Stripzip (Mar 16, 2017)

Uberfunitis said:


> I have read the law. What you quoted was me commenting on shortcomings of that law in terms of privacy protections for the disabled.


Wow, your comment made that as clear as a Donald Trump tweet.

Perhaps if you spent a little more time on how things actually are rather than how you have decided you think they should be.... All those food servers you stiff get to pay taxes like you had actually upheld the social contract.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

Stripzip said:


> All those food servers you stiff get to pay taxes like you had actually upheld the social contract.


There is no social contract that I have signed. It is all hopeful thinking of how people would like the world to be. In reality unless something is written in law or agreed to explicitly it does not exist but in the imagination.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Uberfunitis said:


> In reality unless something is written in law or agreed to explicitly it does not exist but in the imagination.


By that logic, since I didn't agree to bad drivers who can't drive for shit, they don't exist but in my inagination.

I didn't explicitly agree to Travis Kalanick either, nor was he written in law, so he also didn't exist. Good to know!


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

elelegido said:


> By that logic, since I didn't agree to bad drivers who can't drive for shit, they don't exist but in my inagination.
> 
> I didn't explicitly agree to Travis Kalanick either, nor was he written in law, so he also didn't exist. Good to know!


It is true they are not bad driver, except in your imagination, unless they are breaking written laws pertaining to driving.

TK was written into law, he was issued a birth certificate and dully registered as a person legally allowed to operate within the US within the laws of the United States. There are explicit laws concerning people and their existence and legal rights and responsibilities.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Uberfunitis said:


> It is true they are not bad driver, except in your imagination, unless they are breaking written laws pertaining to driving.


Clearly, those were the ones I was referring to.


> TK was written into law, he was issued a birth certificate and dully registered as a person legally allowed to operate within the US within the laws of the United States. There are explicit laws concerning people and their existence and legal rights and responsibilities.


Ah... but I didn't explicitly agree to Kalanick and according to your (unusual) logic, one must explicitly agree to something in order for it to exist. Here's a recap:


> In reality unless something is written in law or agreed to explicitly it does not exist but in the imagination.


Don't get me wrong, I do like your logic. It would have come in very handy at school, for example. "No, teacher, I did not explicitly agree to your homework assignment therefore it does not exist". Later in life, too, after I was married. "I did not specifically agree to my mother in law" etc etc etc. But, unfortunately, it holds no water.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

elelegido said:


> Clearly, those were the ones I was referring to.
> Ah... but I didn't explicitly agree to Kalanick and according to your (unusual) logic, one must explicitly agree to something in order for it to exist.


You as an individual do not have to explicitly agree, did you miss the *or* in what you quoted it is written in law the entire process by which a person can be within the US it is spelled out very explicitly there is no social contract involved at all.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Uberfunitis said:


> You as an individual do not have to explicitly agree, did you miss the *or* in what you quoted it is written in law the entire process by which a person can be within the US it is spelled out very explicitly there is no social contract involved at all.


I disagree, Kalanick is not written into law, and your logic's still full of (large) holes.

Take the common house fly. The common house fly is not written into law, nor did I explicitly agree to it, yet it exists.

And then there's a whole world of intangibles. Racism, for example. That certainly and unfortunately does exist, so according to your logic either it must be written into law (seriously? You're saying racism is _written into law?_)_, _or the parties must explicitly agree to it. Whoa, dude, you need to read some books. Go to the library or something. The relevant legislation here prohibits racism, not write it into law.

In fact, the list of things which exist but are neither supported by law or explicitly agreed to is infinite.

I'm just playing with you though. Everyone makes mistakes and makes statements that are inaccurate from time to time. But you're one of those people who will _never, ever_ admit they made a mistake and will argue black and white and defend their (often ridiculous) position until the last


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

elelegido said:


> I disagree, Kalanick is not written into law, and your logic's still full of (large) holes.
> 
> Take the common house fly. The common house fly is not written into law, nor did I explicitly agree to it, yet it exists.
> 
> ...


You are correct going back to my statement that caused you to go off into the weeds.



Uberfunitis said:


> There is no social contract that I have signed. It is all hopeful thinking of how people would like the world to be. In reality unless something is written in law or agreed to explicitly it does not exist but in the imagination.


I should have chosen my words more precisely and stated that "There are no social contracts. To be a contract all parties much have agreed to it, and I have not agreed to any social contract, whatever that means to you."


----------

