# SERVICE ANIMALS AND IMPOSED POLICY



## Vitomanujo (Apr 30, 2019)

I know that if a person requests a ride and is with a "normal type" animal that can fit in my small car and is identified as a "service animal" I must accept them. Not taking into account that this is a "very special service" imposed on us drivers, or that I or any other driver might be allergic to animal's hair/fur or that my next passenger might be allergic too, that that animal's hair/fur might spoil my next passenger's very expensive (or not) attire, that that animal might be unkempt and smelly and that it will carry on forever in my car fabric and my next passengers body and attire, that that animal might slobber all over my car's fabric upholstry and create a mess that cannot be photographed in order to prove said mess and for you to charge the passenger for all the troubles his/her very special animal has caused; why doesn't Lyft/Uber begin charging these passengers a "very special surcharge for this very special service" and pass it on to the drivers. It seems only fair we should be rewarded for providing these "very special service" to these "very special passengers".
Thank you 

PS I got cancelled by Robber, sorry Uber, because this lady wanted to introduce a pony or a great dane and have it sit on my seat! I have a small car, that lady should've call for a truck!


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

Not this again?


----------



## Vitomanujo (Apr 30, 2019)

Well, has it been resolved? If it has please advise. I got this on the mail.

Always Say Yes to Service Animals​LEARN THE POLICY​We know service animals can raise some questions for Lyft drivers, but they're essential for many people. We work hard to improve the experience for everyone in our community, including a service animal policy that clarifies how drivers should handle these requests:

You're required by the law and Lyft's policy to accommodate service animals, even if you have an allergy, religious or cultural objections, or a fear of them.

We know this is an adjustment for some of you, but it's important to us to have an official policy that eliminates any gray area. At Lyft we believe access to transportation is a fundamental right - but as you'll learn from Christella, people with service animals are too often denied rides when they need to get somewhere. Lyft drivers like you are in a unique position to change that, and help us deliver on our mission to provide safe, reliable transportation to everyone.

Laura Copeland
Head of Community, Lyft​


----------



## 25rides7daysaweek (Nov 20, 2017)

Vitomanujo said:


> I know that if a person requests a ride and is with a "normal type" animal that can fit in my small car and is identified as a "service animal" I must accept them. Not taking into account that this is a "very special service" imposed on us drivers, or that I or any other driver might be allergic to animal's hair/fur or that my next passenger might be allergic too, that that animal's hair/fur might spoil my next passenger's very expensive (or not) attire, that that animal might be unkempt and smelly and that it will carry on forever in my car fabric and my next passengers body and attire, that that animal might slobber all over my car's fabric upholstry and create a mess that cannot be photographed in order to prove said mess and for you to charge the passenger for all the troubles his/her very special animal has caused; why doesn't Lyft/Uber begin charging these passengers a "very special surcharge for this very special service" and pass it on to the drivers. It seems only fair we should be rewarded for providing these "very special service" to these "very special passengers".
> Thank you
> 
> PS I got cancelled by Robber, sorry Uber, because this lady wanted to introduce a pony or a great dane and have it sit on my seat! I have a small car, that lady should've call for a truck!


If someone wants to bring a dragon into your car and you see them first either cancel the ride or start and immediately (without moving) end it. They cant rate you and its a pain for them to complain......


----------



## Vitomanujo (Apr 30, 2019)

Thanks 25. Good advice


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

25rides7daysaweek said:


> If someone wants to bring a dragon into your car and you see them first either cancel the ride or start and immediately (without moving) end it. They cant rate you and its a pain for them to complain......


Another way to handle it ...

Canx as soon as you find out about the dragon.
Go offline
Text Uber that you cancelled the ride because the rider was very intoxicated, angry, threatening and belligerent; and ask to never be paired with this rider again.
Do NOT say anything about a dragon. If you get contacted in regards to the cancellation your story is that the 'service animal' had nothing to do with the cancellation - it was the behavior of the pax that made you feel unsafe and you cancelled because of that.
DON'T WAIT to do this. It is often the first story that is told that is believed by The Massa.


----------



## Vitomanujo (Apr 30, 2019)

Travis Bickle Uber said:


> You decided to be a driver you cant pick and choose which laws you feel like following.


I might've decided to drive, not to be a dumbass. .


----------



## Merc7186 (Jul 8, 2017)

Travis Bickle Uber said:


> I'm sorry someone's disability is an inconvenience to you... Then you can see how it feels to always be cancelled on. The disabled pax aren't stupid they know why it's hard to get an Uber.


First off, this is uncalled for. No need to jump on someone because they disagree with you.

With that being, I agree with you.

In NY, there is a very strict law on service animals (can only be a dog and only certain breeds). Thankfully, they also dont recognize the snowflake philosophy of "Emotional Support" animal. Ive had people try to bring all sorts of BS animals in (best so far was a Ferret) and all have been rejected. I keep a bookmark to the NY site and read it to these people when they try to game the system and also advise them to smile, they are on camera.

Not One Issue. I will gladly take a Service Dog but they must lay on my floor mats, not on the seat.


----------



## Travis Bickle Uber (Dec 30, 2016)

Merc7186 said:


> First off, this is uncalled for. No need to jump on someone because they disagree with you.
> 
> With that being, I agree with you.
> 
> ...


Agree to disagree. People has been on this board for years complaining about taking service animals and scheming for ways to avoid it. Nobody forced you to be an Uber driver. I've talked to many disabled PAX who say they've given up using Uber because cars just drive by and cancel. It makes them feel further ashamed because of their disabilities. This board openly talks about how to help other drivers illegally discriminate against the disabled.

Start treads for how to best quickly clean your car after a service animal was in it. I'll be nice in those.


----------



## BuckleUp (Jan 18, 2018)

Drive past, cancel. Next.
You are independent worker - you choose what jobs to take or not.
If you want to take everyone, become a bus driver.


----------



## Karen Stein (Nov 5, 2016)

Considering certain local drivers, having a dragon along might be useful ?


----------



## Merc7186 (Jul 8, 2017)

Travis Bickle Uber said:


> Agree to disagree. People has been on this board for years complaining about taking service animals and scheming for ways to avoid it. Nobody forced you to be an Uber driver. I've talked to many disabled PAX who say they've given up using Uber because cars just drive by and cancel. It makes them feel further ashamed because of their disabilities. This board openly talks about how to help other drivers illegally discriminate against the disabled.
> 
> Start treads for how to best quickly clean your car after a service animal was in it. I'll be nice in those.


Now I disagree with you. People driving by to avoid all of the hassles that could potentially come with non service animal pax is their right. Feel free to plead to Uber about having a special service for pax with service animals, that drivers have the option to Opt Into or Not. And again, this is a free speech forum, not Ubers board to dictate, so people can say whatever they want here.

Again, I see someone with a legit service animal and I will gladly help them into my vehicle and help their dog in as well but there are too many people out there gaming the system and it leaves a bad taste is a lot of peoples mouths where they would rather avoid the situation than have to argue over someone pretending to be disabled and they are not.

Sorry man, I was with you until your last statement. Good Luck To You.


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

Vitomanujo said:


> I might've decided to drive, not to be a dumbass. That's your choice.


Not this crap again


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

BigRedDriver said:


> Not this crap again


Yep...


----------



## MHR (Jul 23, 2017)

25rides7daysaweek said:


> If someone wants to bring a dragon into your car and you see them first either cancel the ride or start and immediately (without moving) end it.


If it's a fire breathing dragon we should be allowed to cancel with no repercussions AND get a $100 cancel fee. I can't believe they expect us to carry them. They should at least provide us with asbestos undergarments. 
Besides, I'm allergic to dragons.

I usually try and make sure I don't make eye contact with the pax so they don't think I'm canceling because of the dragon.


----------



## SurgeMasterMN (Sep 10, 2016)

I think this could end in a huge lawsuit. Driver picks up lady with dog. Drivers eyes swell up going down the freeway. Vehicle hits something and bursts into flames. Huge lawsuit...


----------



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

Have fun getting fired...

The ada law applies to Uber,

Because you are letting the public into your place or business you have to allow service dogs/horses in.

Period....



MHR said:


> If it's a fire breathing dragon we should be allowed to cancel with no repercussions AND get a $100 cancel fee. I can't believe they expect us to carry them. They should at least provide us with asbestos undergarments.
> Besides, I'm allergic to dragons.
> 
> I usually try and make sure I don't make eye contact with the pax so they don't think I'm canceling because of the dragon.


If this is the level of disrespect I get when my ptsd service dragon shows up from Unicornacopia I'm going to have serious reservations about EVER taking Uber anywhere again.

Yes... I have an order in for a service dragon.

It is in the process of being trained in general disability assistance (such as helping me walk when I have my prosthetic off) he is also psychic and can mentally read when I am about to have a PTSD episode.

Additionally... dragons are awesome.

As I weigh over 950 pounds and am 13.4 hands tall a service dog would never be any help at all.

Also when I sneeze I tend to light idiots on fire. Hence the need for a service dragon, as appossed to a service griffin, however a griffin would be the IDEAL choice for a Pegasus.

How exactly do I drive a Toyota Camry?

Unicorn magic... that's how.

You never know who has a service animal and you never know why.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

Vitomanujo said:


> I know that if a person requests a ride and is with a "normal type" animal that can fit in my small car and is identified as a "service animal" I must accept them. Not taking into account that this is a "very special service" imposed on us drivers, or that I or any other driver might be allergic to animal's hair/fur or that my next passenger might be allergic too, that that animal's hair/fur might spoil my next passenger's very expensive (or not) attire, that that animal might be unkempt and smelly and that it will carry on forever in my car fabric and my next passengers body and attire, that that animal might slobber all over my car's fabric upholstry and create a mess that cannot be photographed in order to prove said mess and for you to charge the passenger for all the troubles his/her very special animal has caused; why doesn't Lyft/Uber begin charging these passengers a "very special surcharge for this very special service" and pass it on to the drivers. It seems only fair we should be rewarded for providing these "very special service" to these "very special passengers".
> Thank you
> 
> PS I got cancelled by Robber, sorry Uber, because this lady wanted to introduce a pony or a great dane and have it sit on my seat! I have a small car, that lady should've call for a truck!


Because Federal Law



UberBastid said:


> Another way to handle it ...
> 
> Canx as soon as you find out about the dragon.
> Go offline
> ...


That may be the case with regular pax but Uber will believe a service animal pax before you. You cant hure a decent lawyer but the federation of the blind can with that $500,000 settlement that uber paid them the last time they sued Uber.



Travis Bickle Uber said:


> Agree to disagree. People has been on this board for years complaining about taking service animals and scheming for ways to avoid it. Nobody forced you to be an Uber driver. I've talked to many disabled PAX who say they've given up using Uber because cars just drive by and cancel. It makes them feel further ashamed because of their disabilities. This board openly talks about how to help other drivers illegally discriminate against the disabled.
> 
> Start treads for how to best quickly clean your car after a service animal was in it. I'll be nice in those.


I agree



BuckleUp said:


> Drive past, cancel. Next.
> You are independent worker - you choose what jobs to take or not.
> If you want to take everyone, become a bus driver.


Federal Law still applies to ICs, also the way that the Federal Law is written, you can be sued directly for discrimination. Tread lightly if you dont want to file bankruptcy



Merc7186 said:


> Now I disagree with you. People driving by to avoid all of the hassles that could potentially come with non service animal pax is their right. Feel free to plead to Uber about having a special service for pax with service animals, that drivers have the option to Opt Into or Not. And again, this is a free speech forum, not Ubers board to dictate, so people can say whatever they want here.
> 
> Again, I see someone with a legit service animal and I will gladly help them into my vehicle and help their dog in as well but there are too many people out there gaming the system and it leaves a bad taste is a lot of peoples mouths where they would rather avoid the situation than have to argue over someone pretending to be disabled and they are not.
> 
> Sorry man, I was with you until your last statement. Good Luck To You.


Not all disabilities are visibile or obvious.



SurgeMasterMN said:


> I think this could end in a huge lawsuit. Driver picks up lady with dog. Drivers eyes swell up going down the freeway. Vehicle hits something and bursts into flames. Huge lawsuit...


Been tried. Take a clarion or whatever is used for dog allergies. If you have such violence reaction to pet danger, you probably should be in a bubble. Federal law does not allow allergies as an excuse from the law. Hard stop. Law has been in place since 1992 and hasn't been repealed yet due to a driver having allergies and crashing into someone.


----------



## SurgeMasterMN (Sep 10, 2016)

steveK2016 said:


> Because Federal Law
> 
> 
> That may be the case with regular pax but Uber will believe a service animal pax before you. You cant hure a decent lawyer but the federation of the blind can with that $500,000 settlement that uber paid them the last time they sued Uber.
> ...


Yet...


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

SurgeMasterMN said:


> Yet...


With not a sliver of hope in sight...


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

I’ve been reading this thread with my pet dragon

He’s depressed now.

Thanks, I got a dragon that’s crying like a baby now.

I’d take him for ice cream to make him feel better

But we normally catch a Uber.

CRAP!


----------



## SurgeMasterMN (Sep 10, 2016)

BigRedDriver said:


> I've been reading this thread with my pet dragon
> 
> He's depressed now.
> 
> ...


----------



## BuckleUp (Jan 18, 2018)

steveK2016 said:


> Because Federal Law
> 
> 
> That may be the case with regular pax but Uber will believe a service animal pax before you. You cant hure a decent lawyer but the federation of the blind can with that $500,000 settlement that uber paid them the last time they sued Uber.
> ...


That's all fine. My advice still stands See a dog, cancel. If you want extra safety, go offline 10 min. If anyone queries or complains - you had sudden onset stomach cramps, diarrhoea, needed to find toilet urgently.


----------



## Z129 (May 30, 2018)

I'm a big fan of Piff the Magic Dragon.










and Mr. Piffles.


----------



## Seamus (Jun 21, 2018)

SurgeMasterMN said:


> I think this could end in a huge lawsuit. Driver picks up lady with dog. Drivers eyes swell up going down the freeway. Vehicle hits something and bursts into flames. Huge lawsuit...


Yeah, against the driver! Rule #1 in Uberville is that its always the Uber drivers fault! LOL


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

BuckleUp said:


> That's all fine. My advice still stands See a dog, cancel. If you want extra safety, go offline 10 min. If anyone queries or complains - you had sudden onset stomach cramps, diarrhoea, needed to find toilet urgently.


You think youre the only driver to think of that? Doesnt matter your excuse, once a pattern develops , they wont care what your excuse is. You think they cant look up the data and show your vehicle drove right past the pin?

The disabled get paid $75 by Uber when they report a driver for discrimination, you can bet they'll report you every time. You may get away with it a few times, and service dogs dont happen too often, but eventually you'll get caught and it may be when you needed that cash the most.

Disabled deserve to receive service and you are the reason they made the laws so open and so strict.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

MHR said:


> If it's a fire breathing dragon we should be allowed to cancel with no repercussions


I have no problems taking dragons, fire breathing and non. I've seen all 3 how to train my dragon movies multiple times.


----------



## MHR (Jul 23, 2017)

Boca Ratman said:


> I have no problems taking dragons, fire breathing and non. I've seen all 3 how to train my dragon movies multiple times.


Well that's fine but I shouldn't have to take them if I don't want to.

There should be an option for drivers like you to say you'll take all dragons. I. Shouldn't. Have. To. Because I'm me and I said so and no one should be able to tell me what to do. My car. My rules.

I don't like when they're shedding either, have you just seeeeen the mess they make.
/*sarcasm*


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

MHR said:


> Well that's fine but I shouldn't have to take them if I don't want to.
> 
> There should be an option for drivers like you to say you'll take all dragons. I. Shouldn't. Have. To. Because I'm me and I said so and no one should be able to tell me what to do. My car. My rules.
> 
> ...


Your car must abide by all laws. Your car - your rules in your garage.


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

Merc7186 said:


> Now I disagree with you. People driving by to avoid all of the hassles that could potentially come with non service animal pax is their right. Feel free to plead to Uber about having a special service for pax with service animals, that drivers have the option to Opt Into or Not. And again, this is a free speech forum, not Ubers board to dictate, so people can say whatever they want here.
> 
> Again, I see someone with a legit service animal and I will gladly help them into my vehicle and help their dog in as well but there are too many people out there gaming the system and it leaves a bad taste is a lot of peoples mouths where they would rather avoid the situation than have to argue over someone pretending to be disabled and they are not.
> 
> Sorry man, I was with you until your last statement. Good Luck To You.


 Well said. I think it should be incumbent upon the passenger to prove that this is a legitimate service animal. They should have documentation for that animal, and they should have to upload it to Uber, and their account should have an authorized service animal icon. That way we know they are for real. I understand why the laws are in place to protect people with disabilities. But some of the responsibility should still be placed on the person with the disability, and not completely on the driver. Otherwise you're just asking for abuse. That's why you have handicap placards for cars, otherwise everybody would just park in those spots.


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

steveK2016 said:


> Because Federal Law


...signed into law *July 26, 1990!*



ZenUber said:


> Well said. I think it should be incumbent upon the passenger to prove that this is a legitimate service animal. They should have documentation for that animal, and they should have to upload it to Uber, and their account should have an authorized service animal icon. That way we know they are for real. I understand why the laws are in place to protect people with disabilities. But some of the responsibility should still be placed on the person with the disability, and not completely on the driver. Otherwise you're just asking for abuse. That's why you have handicap placards for cars, otherwise everybody would just park in those spots.


Then demand that of all riders who want to bring animals into your car. Stand up for yourself! Call them out! Let them know what YOU think!

Then come back here and let us know how that worked out for you, lol.


----------



## robg77 (May 17, 2016)

Can moderators of this site please ban all future threads concerning this matter? Seriously, this topic has been discussed to the point where any new threads on the subject serves no point.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

ZenUber said:


> Well said. I think it should be incumbent upon the passenger to prove that this is a legitimate service animal. They should have documentation for that animal, and they should have to upload it to Uber, and their account should have an authorized service animal icon. That way we know they are for real. I understand why the laws are in place to protect people with disabilities. But some of the responsibility should still be placed on the person with the disability, and not completely on the driver. Otherwise you're just asking for abuse. That's why you have handicap placards for cars, otherwise everybody would just park in those spots.


This argumeny has been made by multi million dollar business that fought tooth and nail against the Americans With Disability Act of 1990. They spent millions of dollars over the last several decades. Its written this way intentionally because of people that would deny the disabled.


----------



## AnotherUberGuy (Oct 26, 2018)

robg77 said:


> Can moderators of this site please ban all future threads concerning this matter? Seriously, this topic has been discussed to the point where any new threads on the subject serves no point.


This. You take service animals because Uber says so. Uber says so because they are deathly afraid of lawsuits on the topic. Debating the whys and wherefores is a pointless rabbit chase. Yes, people abuse the animal policy because people suck. Is it worth getting permanently deactivated because you have a hangup with dogs?


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

JimKE said:


> ...signed into law *July 26, 1990!*
> 
> 
> Then demand that of all riders who want to bring animals into your car. Stand up for yourself! Call them out! Let them know what YOU think!
> ...


So, I called Uber and let loose on a big rant. And hot damn, it worked. They're gonna let me know which passengers have a legitimate service dogs. Only problem is they're only going to do it for me. I guess everybody else will have to call in one at a time. Worked real good though, thanks for the advice.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Y


BigRedDriver said:


> Not this again?


Yet
Here it is . . .


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

ZenUber said:


> So, I called Uber and let loose on a big rant. And hot damn, it worked. They're gonna let me know which passengers have a legitimate service dogs. Only problem is they're only going to do it for me. I guess everybody else will have to call in one at a time. Worked real good though, thanks for the advice.


Perfect, congratulations!


----------



## Ubermcbc (Sep 25, 2016)

Vitomanujo said:


> I know that if a person requests a ride and is with a "normal type" animal that can fit in my small car and is identified as a "service animal" I must accept them. Not taking into account that this is a "very special service" imposed on us drivers, or that I or any other driver might be allergic to animal's hair/fur or that my next passenger might be allergic too, that that animal's hair/fur might spoil my next passenger's very expensive (or not) attire, that that animal might be unkempt and smelly and that it will carry on forever in my car fabric and my next passengers body and attire, that that animal might slobber all over my car's fabric upholstry and create a mess that cannot be photographed in order to prove said mess and for you to charge the passenger for all the troubles his/her very special animal has caused; why doesn't Lyft/Uber begin charging these passengers a "very special surcharge for this very special service" and pass it on to the drivers. It seems only fair we should be rewarded for providing these "very special service" to these "very special passengers".
> Thank you
> 
> PS I got cancelled by Robber, sorry Uber, because this lady wanted to introduce a pony or a great dane and have it sit on my seat! I have a small car, that lady should've call for a truck!


I don't know why guber and gryft not starting a service with a special vehicle for the pax with the animals. The one that we used to see in cartoons. Lol.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Merc7186 said:


> Now I disagree with you. People driving by to avoid all of the hassles that could potentially come with non service animal pax is their right. Feel free to plead to Uber about having a special service for pax with service animals, that drivers have the option to Opt Into or Not. And again, this is a free speech forum, not Ubers board to dictate, so people can say whatever they want here.
> 
> Again, I see someone with a legit service animal and I will gladly help them into my vehicle and help their dog in as well but there are too many people out there gaming the system and it leaves a bad taste is a lot of peoples mouths where they would rather avoid the situation than have to argue over someone pretending to be disabled and they are not.
> 
> Sorry man, I was with you until your last statement. Good Luck To You.


People do not have a right to do illegal things and refusing a service animal is illegal.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

ZenUber said:


> Well said. I think it should be incumbent upon the passenger to prove that this is a legitimate service animal. They should have documentation for that animal, and they should have to upload it to Uber, and their account should have an authorized service animal icon. That way we know they are for real. I understand why the laws are in place to protect people with disabilities. But some of the responsibility should still be placed on the person with the disability, and not completely on the driver. Otherwise you're just asking for abuse. That's why you have handicap placards for cars, otherwise everybody would just park in those spots.


Maybe make them wear armbands too?


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

SuzeCB said:


> Maybe make them wear armbands too?


Nothing you have to wear. Let's not even go there. Just something along the lines of the handicap card that you hang from your mirror, except it would be in the app.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

ZenUber said:


> Nothing you have to wear. Let's not even go there. Just something along the lines of the handicap card that you hang from your mirror, except it would be in the app.


You do understand that's highly illegal, right? For the same reasons they don't have to disclose the color of their skin, religious affiliation, etc.


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

SuzeCB said:


> You do understand that's highly illegal, right? For the same reasons they don't have to disclose the color of their skin, religious affiliation, etc.


People who argue this issue are not concerned with the law. They're usually totally ignorant of the federal law that's been around almost 30 years -- but when that's pointed out to them, they don't care.

They just want what they want.


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

SuzeCB said:


> You do understand that's highly illegal, right? For the same reasons they don't have to disclose the color of their skin, religious affiliation, etc.


It would be to identify the animal, not the person. Is the animal legitimate.


----------



## Caturria (Jun 14, 2018)

Wouldn't these threads be so much more constructive if they weren't so plagued with exaggeration?
As a disabled pax, I support having to provide supporting documentation of a disability in order to receive special rights like the ability to request assistance and to bring a service animal. I would be happy to be required to provide more proof than the law currently requires, for both my protection and yours.
If you feel vindicated in refusing someone service based on a disability, then I feel vindicated in saying you deserve to become afflicted with said affliction yourself.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Vitomanujo said:


> I know that if a person requests a ride and is with a "normal type" animal that can fit in my small car and is identified as a "service animal" I must accept them. Not taking into account that this is a "very special service" imposed on us drivers, or that I or any other driver might be allergic to animal's hair/fur or that my next passenger might be allergic too, that that animal's hair/fur might spoil my next passenger's very expensive (or not) attire, that that animal might be unkempt and smelly and that it will carry on forever in my car fabric and my next passengers body and attire, that that animal might slobber all over my car's fabric upholstry and create a mess that cannot be photographed in order to prove said mess and for you to charge the passenger for all the troubles his/her very special animal has caused; why doesn't Lyft/Uber begin charging these passengers a "very special surcharge for this very special service" and pass it on to the drivers. It seems only fair we should be rewarded for providing these "very special service" to these "very special passengers".
> Thank you
> 
> PS I got cancelled by Robber, sorry Uber, because this lady wanted to introduce a pony or a great dane and have it sit on my seat! I have a small car, that lady should've call for a truck!


The "imposed rule" is because most americans lack a social conscience. The ADA is there so that people with disabilities can expect to be treated like every other human being, instead of being treated like a burden.

People will go to church and sing, and pray, about the golden rule, then live the other 6.5 days of the week like they never heard of it.


----------



## Caturria (Jun 14, 2018)

UberBeemer said:


> The "imposed rule" is because most americans lack a social conscience. The ADA is there so that people with disabilities can expect to be treated like every other human being, instead of being treated like a burden.
> 
> People will go to church and sing, and pray, about the golden rule, then live the other 6.5 days of the week like they never heard of it.


Can I just say that I've never been cancelled on, or shuffled, or refused service by an Uber driver in Canada because of my disability? Never.
I'm going on vacation to the USA (Utah) in two days. First time I've ever been out of country in my life. I'm going to try some Ubers there just to see if my experience is the same or if it's more reflective of what this website suggests it should be. I will post a thread about it when I come back.
I hypothesize that this problem is:


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Caturria said:


> Can I just say that I've never been cancelled on, or shuffled, or refused service by an Uber driver in Canada because of my disability? Never.
> I'm going on vacation to the USA (Utah) in two days. First time I've ever been out of country in my life. I'm going to try some Ubers there just to see if my experience is the same or if it's more reflective of what this website suggests it should be. I will post a thread about it when I come back.
> I hypothesize that this problem is:


Take heart. Most drivers in this country aren't members of this site. And most of them, in my experience are nice, and accomodating. The complaints you read here on the subhect don't necessarily represent a majority of drivers.

Enjoy your visit!


----------



## Caturria (Jun 14, 2018)

UberBeemer said:


> Take heart. Most drivers in this country aren't members of this site. And most of them, in my experience are nice, and accomodating. The complaints you read here on the subhect don't necessarily represent a majority of drivers.
> 
> Enjoy your visit!


Will do.
I'm going to RPG Limit Break, a charity RPG video speed running marathon.
I have been wanting to attend this event for years.
I just figured I'd take a few Ubers there just for kicks just to see how it would go, since I seem to have dedicated my life to researching and dealing with this kind of thing.
I will keep what you said in mind though and reserve judgement.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

ZenUber said:


> It would be to identify the animal, not the person. Is the animal legitimate.


The animal is considered medical equipment, legally. Believe me, the two questions and observation of the animal's condition and how it behaves is enough, and if a fake can make it through those tests, it will probably be the best behaved and least problematic pax you'll have all month.



Caturria said:


> Wouldn't these threads be so much more constructive if they weren't so plagued with exaggeration?
> As a disabled pax, I support having to provide supporting documentation of a disability in order to receive special rights like the ability to request assistance and to bring a service animal. I would be happy to be required to provide more proof than the law currently requires, for both my protection and yours.
> If you feel vindicated in refusing someone service based on a disability, then I feel vindicated in saying you deserve to become afflicted with said affliction yourself.


How about is people who go into business actually learn the laws that will affect that business and then decide if they are able to do that business or not?

And who is going to pay for all of this certification? What you're suggesting, while might initially sounds reasonable, effectively becomes an additional tax just because someone is disabled. That's not fair. Disabled people have enough additional expenses to be able to get by each day. They don't need any more taxes on it.


----------



## Caturria (Jun 14, 2018)

SuzeCB said:


> The animal is considered medical equipment, legally. Believe me, the two questions and observation of the animal's condition and how it behaves is enough, and if a fake can make it through those tests, it will probably be the best behaved and least problematic pax you'll have all month.
> 
> 
> How about is people who go into business actually learn the laws that will affect that business and then decide if they are able to do that business or not?
> ...


I'm not sure I fully understand what you're referring to, most of us will already have certification. If I were to make the same statement in a community of other people with disabilities I would probably divide a room, but personally I don't have a problem with supplying proof of disability if it helps kerb abuse of the system.
I don't have a service animal, but if I did I would have certification from the training school I would have spent several months boarding at.
If Uber asked me to send them documentation in support of my disability in order to access things like Uber Assist, the ability to bring an animal etc, myself I'd be fine with it while others might not. I would rather shoulder that inconvenience than have a status quo, which is exactly what's being discussed here, people refusing service based on myth, misconception, assumption and exaggeration.
Genuine, properly cared for service animals do not exhibit the kind of behaviour people here seem to be so fixated on.
But yes, an accessible, inclusive society is only possible if everyone does a small part so nobody has to do it all. That's why the laws are in place. Don't like it? apply to immigrate to a country that doesn't have it.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Caturria said:


> I'm not sure I fully understand what you're referring to, most of us will already have certification. If I were to make the same statement in a community of other people with disabilities I would probably divide a room, but personally I don't have a problem with supplying proof of disability if it helps kerb abuse of the system.
> I don't have a service animal, but if I did I would have certification from the training school I would have spent several months boarding at.
> If Uber asked me to send them documentation in support of my disability in order to access things like Uber Assist, the ability to bring an animal etc, myself I'd be fine with it while others might not. I would rather shoulder that inconvenience than have a status quo, which is exactly what's being discussed here, people refusing service based on myth, misconception, assumption and exaggeration.
> Genuine, properly cared for service animals do not exhibit the kind of behaviour people here seem to be so fixated on.
> But yes, an accessible, inclusive society is only possible if everyone does a small part so nobody has to do it all. That's why the laws are in place. Don't like it? apply to immigrate to a country that doesn't have it.


What about if you trained the dog yourself, as would be your right?


----------



## Caturria (Jun 14, 2018)

SuzeCB said:


> What about if you trained the dog yourself, as would be your right?


Then you wouldn't have documentation pertaining to your dog, but you would still have documentation pertaining to your disability. You need it to apply for government services (think tax credits, financial support, paratransit), and you often need it to obtain accommodations in the workplace or in academic institutions.
I wouldn't object to providing that medical documentation to Uber, the same as I had to provide it to my local paratransit office. That said, that's just me. I know plenty of others who would feel differently.


----------



## FLKeys (Dec 27, 2018)

It is simple, if you don't want to take a person with a service animal don't.

Just don't complain when you deny services to the wrong person and it costs you your driving on the platform and possible civil charges and fines.

If you do take a service animal and you are worried about it leaving a mess or damage select last ride so you don't get another ping (and possibly lose the waybill information), drop them off and inspect your car for a mess and or damages. If you have either one get screen shots of your trip details and waybill. Document the mess/damage and file a claim with Uber/Lyft. If that does not cover the damages use the information from the trip details and waybill to file a claim in small claims court against the passenger.

I have picked up one service dog and over a dozen pax with non service dogs. Every single one of them has been respectful of my vehicle and one person with a shedding dog even pulled a lint roller out of their bag and cleaned up the hair from my seat. I guess until I have an issue I'm not really worried about people with dogs.


----------



## mmn (Oct 23, 2015)

ZenUber said:


> It would be to identify the animal, not the person. Is the animal legitimate.


Not legal, damnit! If they say it's a service animal, it's a service animal!

God, this just goes on and on...!


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

*Sometimes* -- when everything that can be said about a topic has already been said over and over and over --* it's time to close the thread.*

Failing that, there is always the Ignore feature.


----------



## DriverMark (Jan 22, 2018)

*Vitomanujo 2nd thread on UP:

I've been deactivated on uber and I have no idea why! Someone help me!*


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

ZenUber said:


> It would be to identify the animal, not the person. Is the animal legitimate.


Facepalm.


----------



## Antquisha (Apr 12, 2019)

Well, I'll take my flack here and deactivation punishment if it ever gets to that point because i'm not letting large dogs into my car. Period.

I'm not really terrified of dogs, but I did get bitten on the ass by a German Shepherd when I was a kid and the scar is still there. So there's that.

I'm not dealing with the possible smell. I'm not dealing with the drool. Not dealing with hair. Not dealing with cleanup.

I understand it's the law to pickup. But as a non-American I can assure you it's an effin crazy law to say "whether allergy, religion, or fear" we don't give a damn. Accept mini horses into your car or else lol.

Maybe I'm missing something, but why can't there simply be an opt-in feature for transporting animals? There are certainly enough drivers out there who will gladly do so. I just can't wrap my head around being forced to accept an animal. I've taken the little purse dogs many times. That's a non-issue. But big dogs on a leash and shit? Hell no.


----------



## Uberdriver2710 (Jul 15, 2015)




----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

Antquisha said:


> Well, I'll take my flack here and deactivation punishment if it ever gets to that point because i'm not letting large dogs into my car. Period.
> 
> I'm not really terrified of dogs, but I did get bitten on the ass by a German Shepherd when I was a kid and the scar is still there. So there's that.
> 
> ...


Your car, your rules. Don't let posters here worry you. Uber's got your back!


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

Antquisha said:


> Maybe I'm missing something, but why can't there simply be an opt-in feature for transporting animals?


You are missing something.

Substitute Jewish or Muslim or African-American for pax with service animal.

If it won't fly with the substitution, it won't fly without it.



JimKE said:


> Your car, your rules. Don't let posters here worry you. Uber's got your back!


LOL


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

mmn said:


> Not legal, damnit! If they say it's a service animal, it's a service animal!
> 
> God, this just goes on and on...!


We'll just have to agree to disagree I guess.



Antquisha said:


> Well, I'll take my flack here and deactivation punishment if it ever gets to that point because i'm not letting large dogs into my car. Period.
> 
> I'm not really terrified of dogs, but I did get bitten on the ass by a German Shepherd when I was a kid and the scar is still there. So there's that.
> 
> ...


Agreed. We have some people here who think the law is unquestionable, and that their interpretation of it is the correct interpretation. They are not lawyers nor politicians, just bossy petty tyrants. Nothing to worry about.



SuzeCB said:


> The animal is considered medical equipment, legally. Believe me, the two questions and observation of the animal's condition and how it behaves is enough, and if a fake can make it through those tests, it will probably be the best behaved and least problematic pax you'll have all month.
> 
> 
> How about is people who go into business actually learn the laws that will affect that business and then decide if they are able to do that business or not?
> ...


That's fine if the animal is legit. But what if the pax shows up with a dog that is clearly not a service animal, but they want to claim it is. And then decide to report us for not allowing it. What about the situation where the pax is trying to take advantage? Where is the drivers protection?


----------



## Caturria (Jun 14, 2018)

ZenUber said:


> We'll just have to agree to disagree I guess.
> 
> 
> Agreed. We have some people here who think the law is unquestionable, and that their interpretation of it is the correct interpretation. They are not lawyers nor politicians, just bossy petty tyrants. Nothing to worry about.


What exactly is your issue with this @ZenUber?
Do you not feel that people who need service animals deserve to have the same level of access to the world as you enjoy?
Do you not think that by obstructing this, that you technically deserve to be afflicted with a disability yourself so you can see how easy you really do have it?



ZenUber said:


> That's fine if the animal is legit. But what if the pax shows up with a dog that is clearly not a service animal, but they want to claim it is. And then decide to report us for not allowing it. What about the situation where the pax is trying to take advantage? Where is the drivers protection?


That's the exact problem that requiring documentation would solve, and that's why I would support such a rule being implemented.


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

Caturria said:


> What exactly is your issue with this @ZenUber?
> Do you not feel that people who need service animals deserve to have the same level of access to the world as you enjoy?
> Do you not think that by obstructing this, that you technically deserve to be afflicted with a disability yourself so you can see how easy you really do have it?
> 
> ...


It seems to me as though YOU are the one with the issue. I am not denying anyone their rights, unless it infringes upon my rights. On the one hand, you agree with my solution, but on the other hand you deny that I might have some rights of my own to protect.


----------



## Caturria (Jun 14, 2018)

ZenUber said:


> It seems to me as though YOU are the one with the issue. I am not denying anyone their rights, unless it infringes upon my rights. On the one hand, you agree with my solution, but on the other hand you deny that I might have some rights of my own to protect.


What rights do I deny that you have?
I simply stated that as a person with a disability myself, I support being required to provide supporting documentation (to prevent fake service dogs and others that abuse the system).
On the other hand, I don't support anyone trying to claim that they should be exempted from having to make their product/service inclusive, because I believe I'm just as much a human being as you and I should have just as many opportunities.
Believe me, every single industry wines and gripes about accessibility legislation from transportation to software to education, but it's there for a reason and nobody knows if/when they'll be in the position to need it.


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

I don’t want every Tom, Dick, and Harry getting into my car with their mangy dogs because I’m forced to take their word for it.


----------



## Caturria (Jun 14, 2018)

ZenUber said:


> I don't want every Tom, Dick, and Harry getting into my car with their mangy dogs because I'm forced to take their word for it.


If you had reliable evidence that an animal was a genuine service animal, would you still resent it?


----------



## Wasted_Days (Aug 15, 2017)

what's with all the caps in thread titles lately?, everyone calm down.


----------



## NotanEmployee (Apr 20, 2019)

Certification for the dog is useless. Anyone can go online and buy a certification for their dog.

You are allowed to ask what work has your dog been trained to perform. Most with pets or support animals cannot answer this. Those with a tual trained service animals can tell you what special training the dog has had. Obedience is not the work. He's trained to see and hear for me, hes trained to notify me of an incoming seizure,etc. That's work. Of course them not answering to your liking still will not preclude them from filing a complaint. That's why grocery stores and restaurants and other places like that just let anyone in. The risk is not worth the hassle.

As a disabled person I have to prove disability to social security, social services, DMV, paratransit, I don't see any problem proving to uber as well. Riding the bus, my Medicare card is enough. Only way to get that under 63 is to be disabled.

Complain to your congressman. We can't help you here on the forum.


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

Caturria said:


> If you had reliable evidence that an animal was a genuine service animal, would you still resent it?


Resent what? Having reliable evidence? Of course not. That's what I'm asking for. 
I resent having to make this argument. I have done no harm to anyone with a service animal, and have never denied service to them. And I resent any pax trying to take advantage of me. Call me resentful. I have no problem wearing that. I've earned it right here on UP.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Caturria said:


> Then you wouldn't have documentation pertaining to your dog, but you would still have documentation pertaining to your disability. You need it to apply for government services (think tax credits, financial support, paratransit), and you often need it to obtain accommodations in the workplace or in academic institutions.
> I wouldn't object to providing that medical documentation to Uber, the same as I had to provide it to my local paratransit office. That said, that's just me. I know plenty of others who would feel differently.


There's that armband...

Maybe you don't care, and that's fine. That's your right, same as your opinion on the matter, but there are others that value whatever privacy they have regarding their medical conditions.

Seriously, the two questions and just a little bit of knowledge about how the dogs should behave really goes a LONG way to weed out the fakes. Add to that the fact that one by one states are starting to enact laws making faking a service dog a crime (misdemeanor), and there's no problem, IMO.



ZenUber said:


> We'll just have to agree to disagree I guess.
> 
> 
> Agreed. We have some people here who think the law is unquestionable, and that their interpretation of it is the correct interpretation. They are not lawyers nor politicians, just bossy petty tyrants. Nothing to worry about.
> ...


Dashcam and a trip to the GLH to make sure someone sees it. It will show the behavior of the dog, and also record you asking the two questions and the handler's responses.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

SuzeCB said:


> Maybe make them wear armbands too?


I think a big "D" tattooed on their forehead maybe (for disabled)? Or, so they don't have to be embarrassed by that, how about a number tattooed on their arm? Could be linked to a database and we could make them show the tattoo and check if they're allowed to bring a service animal.

I think that would solve this, don't you?


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> I think a big "D" tattooed on their forehead maybe (for disabled)? Or, so they don't have to be embarrassed by that, how about a number tattooed on their arm? Could be linked to a database and we could make them show the tattoo and check if they're allowed to bring a service animal.
> 
> I think that would solve this, don't you?
> View attachment 316793


And a number can stand for what the person's disability is, and a letter for each task the animal is trained to do! Maybe even info on if they've ever had crabs...


----------



## NotanEmployee (Apr 20, 2019)

Yeah, you can't ask what their disability is. That is also illegal and delves into private medical information.


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

Vitomanujo said:


> I know that if a person requests a ride and is with a "normal type" animal that can fit in my small car and is identified as a "service animal" I must accept them. Not taking into account that this is a "very special service" imposed on us drivers, or that I or any other driver might be allergic to animal's hair/fur or that my next passenger might be allergic too, that that animal's hair/fur might spoil my next passenger's very expensive (or not) attire, that that animal might be unkempt and smelly and that it will carry on forever in my car fabric and my next passengers body and attire, that that animal might slobber all over my car's fabric upholstry and create a mess that cannot be photographed in order to prove said mess and for you to charge the passenger for all the troubles his/her very special animal has caused; why doesn't Lyft/Uber begin charging these passengers a "very special surcharge for this very special service" and pass it on to the drivers. It seems only fair we should be rewarded for providing these "very special service" to these "very special passengers".
> Thank you
> 
> PS I got cancelled by Robber, sorry Uber, because this lady wanted to introduce a pony or a great dane and have it sit on my seat! I have a small car, that lady should've call for a truck!


Yes, some people are taking the service animal thing to the extreme. Uber should have our back on this, but they do not.


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

SuzeCB said:


> There's that armband...
> 
> Maybe you don't care, and that's fine. That's your right, same as your opinion on the matter, but there are others that value whatever privacy they have regarding their medical conditions.
> 
> ...


That sounds familiar. What where the two questions again?


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

ZenUber said:


> That sounds familiar. What where the two questions again?


Get over it already. Don't want to take service dogs, then don't.

And take a business law course. It might get you past this paranoia.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

ZenUber said:


> That sounds familiar. What where the two questions again?


"
*Q7. What questions can a covered entity's employees ask to determine if a dog is a service animal?

A*. In situations where it is not obvious that the dog is a service animal, staff may ask only two specific questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability? and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform? Staff are not allowed to request any documentation for the dog, require that the dog demonstrate its task, or inquire about the nature of the person's disability."



Redirecting…


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

SuzeCB said:


> "
> *Q7. What questions can a covered entity's employees ask to determine if a dog is a service animal?
> 
> A*. In situations where it is not obvious that the dog is a service animal, staff may ask only two specific questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability? and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform? Staff are not allowed to request any documentation for the dog, require that the dog demonstrate its task, or inquire about the nature of the person's disability."
> ...


RESOLVED


----------



## mmn (Oct 23, 2015)

BigRedDriver said:


> RESOLVED


If only...!


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

MiamiKid said:


> Yes, some people are taking the service animal thing to the extreme. Uber should have our back on this, but they do not.


In what way should uber have our backs?

You're saying uber should encourage discrimination?

What if I don't want to drive Muslims or African Americans ? Should uber have my back?


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

BigRedDriver said:


> Get over it already. Don't want to take service dogs, then don't.
> 
> And take a business law course. It might get you past this paranoia.


The paranoia is all yours. 
You need to take a reading course - you're not reading what I'm saying. I don't have a problem taking legit service animals. I do have a problem taking regular dogs where the owner would falsely claim claim that it was a service animal, just to get it into my car. 
Maybe you have been denied service in the past, and you're taking it out on me - I don't know. But you are blinded by your own rage. 
If somebody lies to me, I don't have to get over it. I just won't let them in the car. I'm here to discuss the legalities of it. Nobody on UP has to take a course in anything to come here and discuss. I think you need to chill out. I have not denied a ride to you or anybody else with service animals, and I'm not suggesting I want to. That is all in your imagination.

People like you are taking things to an extreme. If someone shows up at my car with a legit service animal I will let them in. If someone like you shows up with a legit service animal, but gives me attitude, I will kick them to the curb just like I would anyone else who gives me attitude. And that is my right. Having a service animal doesn't give you a pass on all the other rules and etiquette of rideshare. If I kicked you out, it's because I'm treating you as I would treat everyone else. If you disrespect me, I don't have to let you in my car. It would be incumbent upon you to prove that I booted you for the service dog. But I would have the dash cam video to prove otherwise. Why don't you go and research the law on that?


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

ZenUber said:


> The paranoia is all yours.
> You need to take a reading course - you're not reading what I'm saying. I don't have a problem taking legit service animals. I do have a problem taking regular dogs where the owner would falsely claim claim that it was a service animal, just to get it into my car.
> Maybe you have been denied service in the past, and you're taking it out on me - I don't know. But you are blinded by your own rage.
> If somebody lies to me, I don't have to get over it. I just won't let them in the car. I'm here to discuss the legalities of it. Nobody on UP has to take a course in anything to come here and discuss. I think you need to chill out. I have not denied a ride to you or anybody else with service animals, and I'm not suggesting I want to. That is all in your imagination.
> ...


You'd be surprised at my knowledge of accessibility laws. (Real estate broker 35 years)


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

Boca Ratman said:


> In what way should uber have our backs?
> 
> You're saying uber should encourage discrimination?
> 
> What if I don't want to drive Muslims or African Americans ? Should uber have my back?


Saying exactly that. BTW I discriminate. Mostly legal. It is only illegal discrimination that will get you in trouble.

The ADA only goes so far and does not cover extreme cases. For example, you're not Pit Bull or Rottweiler, in the front seat, next to me. Nor are they allowed, just, any animal. Service Animal Policy has limitations.

So yes, absolutely saying Uber should promote, even require legal discrimination.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Yes, it is imposed, by the law. Hillary did not win, so you need not like it, but you must do it. Complaining about it here is allright in that it lets you vent, but, in the end, you are stuck with it, still. You can do what you will to duck it, and, you might even get away with it, for a while. At some point, though, it will catch up to you and it is De-Activation Station for you. Shuffling or driving by them might work, the first few times, but, eventually, some one with a service animal will send a nastygram to Uber that reads "the driver kept going once he saw my dog". They may have no basis on which to make this claim, but, again, the reality is that it does not matter. Uber will make a statistic out of you with utmost despatch. When the do-gooders sue Uber for not enforcing the ADA requirements, Uber can point to all of the drivers unto whom it has rendered the proverbial bum's rush for not complying with the requirements of the ADA.

One of the problems with legislation in this country that is designed to protect a class is that far too often it protects that class to the excessive hardship of everyone else; it goes too far the other way.

Campaign all that you will to try to get rid of it, few will take your side, despite the fact that more of them than care to admit it will agree with you. Protecting this or that class is simply fashionable and most people are Dedicated Followers of Fashion. What is really funny is that the same people who mocked that in the 1960s now push it.



BigRedDriver said:


> You'd be surprised at my knowledge of accessibility laws. (Real estate broker 35 years)


Oh no I would not. You have been down the road. The laws that protect classes apply everywhere in that business. The laws are so intrusive in that business that you must show properties to people who obviously can not pay for them.


----------



## CaliQT (Apr 10, 2019)

25rides7daysaweek said:


> If someone wants to bring a dragon into your car and you see them first either cancel the ride or start and immediately (without moving) end it. They cant rate you and its a pain for them to complain......


They cannot rate you if you start - end wow??? If I ever need to try this I will keep my eyes on ratings to see if I get a low score. Hard to believe, but thank you for telling me!!!! Or us lol


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

ZenUber said:


> The paranoia is all yours.
> You need to take a reading course - you're not reading what I'm saying. I don't have a problem taking legit service animals. I do have a problem taking regular dogs where the owner would falsely claim claim that it was a service animal, just to get it into my car.
> Maybe you have been denied service in the past, and you're taking it out on me - I don't know. But you are blinded by your own rage.
> If somebody lies to me, I don't have to get over it. I just won't let them in the car. I'm here to discuss the legalities of it. Nobody on UP has to take a course in anything to come here and discuss. I think you need to chill out. I have not denied a ride to you or anybody else with service animals, and I'm not suggesting I want to. That is all in your imagination.
> ...


Ask the two questions. With dashcam recording. If they fail the question: denied. Cancel no show, send report to Uber noting you have dash cam of the pax failing the two questions. Theres a driver here that posted text book execution of the two questions and denial on his dashcam. He was deactivated for 24 hours then reinstated every time.

If they pass they either did enough research to fake it or they are legitimate disabikities that dont look obvious from the outside. Someone can look healthy but may have a serious, hidden condition that requires a service animal.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

25rides7daysaweek said:


> its a pain for them to complain......


You would be *truly* amazed at the lengths to which people will go to complain, especially about something such as this. Ask me how I know this.

Do keep in mind that sleep is one of the most wonderful inventions ever: it allows some people to complain only sixteen hours per day instead of all twenty-four.


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

BigRedDriver said:


> You'd be surprised at my knowledge of accessibility laws. (Real estate broker 35 years)


Would I?
You haven't actually quoted any laws here. 
Why don't you put your knowledge where your mouth is?
So far all I've gotten out of you is misplaced anger and false accusations. 
Why don't you just post all your credentials so the rest of us will know what topics are off limits for us lay persons.


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

ZenUber said:


> Would I?
> You haven't actually quoted any laws here.
> Why don't you put your knowledge where your mouth is?
> So far all I've gotten out of you is misplaced anger and false accusations.
> Why don't you just post all your credentials so the rest of us will know what topics are off limits for us lay persons.


What Law do you want me to supply when you have access to google like anyone else?

It ain't hard, oh, but wait, you've seen these laws posted, what? 100 times already on the dozens upon dozens of threads that ALREADY have addressed this issue.

We get it, you don't want to take non service dogs. Who exactly is stopping you?


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Ladies and gentlemen, let us keep it civilised and within the Rules of the Forum, please.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> You would be *truly* amazed at the lengths to which people will go to complain, especially about something such as this. Ask me how I know this.
> 
> Do keep in mind that sleep is one of the most wonderful inventions ever: it allows some people to complain only sixteen hours per day instead of all twenty-four.


I'm pretty sure that $75 credit on their account would get them to complain every time.


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

BigRedDriver said:


> What Law do you want me to supply when you have access to google like anyone else?
> 
> It ain't hard, oh, but wait, you've seen these laws posted, what? 100 times already on the dozens upon dozens of threads that ALREADY have addressed this issue.
> 
> We get it, you don't want to take non service dogs. Who exactly is stopping you?


First off, I do not read all the posts on UP. I just skim through threads I think are interesting and make comments. I think that's what everyone does. Have you read all the posts?

If you know of some law that I don't, by all means, enlighten me. Who's stopping you? I'm not claiming to know specifics. I'm just discussing things here on UP. You are the one getting upset about the letter of the law, but refusing to spell it out.

I don't want to take non service dogs being presented as actual service dogs. Who is stopping me? Hypothetically, pax who would lie about it. And we all know how some people lie. And that's why I'm suggesting some sort of way to identify the legitimate service animals. And I think you were of the opinion that you shouldn't be burdened with that, or the law somehow exempts you from proving it, or most likely that you are just blindly defending your rights before you've taken the time to hear what I'm saying. I think there should be an amendment to the law that requires some kind of identification. You don't think that's fair to you - we all get that. I'm sorry if that would potentially be such an inconvenience for you, but at the moment, the inconvenience is all mine. Therefore, I'm discussing it here on UP. I think you originally misunderstood me, and thought that I was refusing to take legitimate service animals. But I think you now know that you were mistaken.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

ZenUber said:


> First off, I do not read all the posts on UP. I just skim through threads I think are interesting and make comments. I think that's what everyone does. Have you read all the posts?
> 
> If you know of some law that I don't, by all means, enlighten me. Who's stopping you? I'm not claiming to know specifics. I'm just discussing things here on UP. You are the one getting upset about the letter of the law, but refusing to spell it out.
> 
> I don't want to take non service dogs being presented as actual service dogs. Who is stopping me? Hypothetically, pax who would lie about it. And we all know how some people lie. And that's why I'm suggesting some sort of way to identify the legitimate service animals. And I think you were of the opinion that you shouldn't be burdened with that, or the law somehow exempts you from proving it, or most likely that you are just blindly defending your rights before you've taken the time to hear what I'm saying. I think there should be an amendment to the law that requires some kind of identification. You don't think that's fair to you - we all get that. I'm sorry if that would potentially be such an inconvenience for you, but at the moment, the inconvenience is all mine. Therefore, I'm discussing it here on UP. I think you originally misunderstood me, and thought that I was refusing to take legitimate service animals. But I think you now know that you were mistaken.


Inconvenience is all yours? Didnt realize the inconvenience of taking a dog in your car was greater then the inconvenience of being blind, or suffering from a condition that can cause your death if you dont have a service animal to help you.

The issue is mute. Businesses with expensive lawyers have argued your exact same point. They failed.


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

steveK2016 said:


> Inconvenience is all yours? Didnt realize the inconvenience of taking a dog in your car was greater then the inconvenience of being blind, or suffering from a condition that can cause your death if you dont have a service animal to help you.
> 
> The issue is mute. Businesses with expensive lawyers have argued your exact same point. They failed.


I'm referring to the inconvenience of having to deal with the people faking it - as opposed to the inconvenience of blind people getting their animal certified or registered. It should be done at the moment they acquire the animal, and it would would be little inconvenience. If I deny a person who is faking their service dog, it is no inconvenience to actual blind people. I am not responsible for blindness in general. I am only responsible for giving rides to people with service animals. I just need a way to identify them. I don't think that's too much to ask.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

ZenUber said:


> I'm referring to the inconvenience of having to deal with the people faking it - as opposed to the inconvenience of blind people getting their animal certified or registered. It should be done at the moment they acquire the animal, and it would would be little inconvenience. If I deny a person who is faking their service dog, it is no inconvenience to actual blind people. I am not responsible for blindness in general. I am only responsible for giving rides to people with service animals. I just need a way to identify them. I don't think that's too much to ask.


You have a way: two questions.


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

steveK2016 said:


> You have a way: two questions.


Good answer.


----------



## arcterus (Oct 31, 2014)

You know, I think I have a solution. What if we came up with a kind of car that had vinyl covering the floors and seats, so it would be easy to clean. We could call this kind of vehicle something new and different, like... a... TAXI! We could have the driver charge like $2.50 a mile, so if there were hair on the seats afterwards, they could just wipe it off, no big deal. Wouldn't that be such a clear upgrade to what is in place today?

Seriously, I've been driving for 15 years, and the worse animal problem I've ever had was a pitbull who kept trying to lick me in the face. It was startling, but he was a good boy.

Seriously, how are problems with animals in the top 100, even top 250 of the issues we have to deal with? Maybe 10% of the complaints are drivers that have true allergic reactions to animal hair. To them I say that I'm sorry, but this job just isn't for you. Like if you're not good around cooking grease, you probably shouldn't be working the fryers at McDonalds.

To the other 90% of complaints, the diagnosis is clear: there is a very large ***hole involved in the situation. Protip: neither the rider nor their animal is the ***hole.

Animals are usually pretty good judges of character, and act accordingly.


----------



## DirtyRead (Oct 2, 2016)

Vitomanujo said:


> I know that if a person requests a ride and is with a "normal type" animal that can fit in my small car and is identified as a "service animal" I must accept them. Not taking into account that this is a "very special service" imposed on us drivers, or that I or any other driver might be allergic to animal's hair/fur or that my next passenger might be allergic too, that that animal's hair/fur might spoil my next passenger's very expensive (or not) attire, that that animal might be unkempt and smelly and that it will carry on forever in my car fabric and my next passengers body and attire, that that animal might slobber all over my car's fabric upholstry and create a mess that cannot be photographed in order to prove said mess and for you to charge the passenger for all the troubles his/her very special animal has caused; why doesn't Lyft/Uber begin charging these passengers a "very special surcharge for this very special service" and pass it on to the drivers. It seems only fair we should be rewarded for providing these "very special service" to these "very special passengers".
> Thank you
> 
> PS I got cancelled by Robber, sorry Uber, because this lady wanted to introduce a pony or a great dane and have it sit on my seat! I have a small car, that lady should've call for a truck!


The problem is and there is no debating this at all, it is ILLEGAL to refuse service to anyone because of a service animal. It doesn't matter what size, shape, breed or if its in a cage or not. All they have to say is this is my service animal. You are not allowed to question the validity of the their declaration nor are you permitted to inquire as to the person's need for the service animal. Unfortunately for you this is clearly stated in the Driver's agreement and through numerous emails from Uber reminding drivers of the LAW. You won't get your Uber platform access back. People and companies get sued for violating a person's civil rights all the time. Thats what you did. You violated her civil rights. The fact that she was a low down sub human taking advantage of a law meant to protect those with a disability from discrimination is irrelevant.


----------



## itendstonight (Feb 10, 2019)

Fu


ZenUber said:


> Well said. I think it should be incumbent upon the passenger to prove that this is a legitimate service animal. They should have documentation for that animal, and they should have to upload it to Uber, and their account should have an authorized service animal icon. That way we know they are for real. I understand why the laws are in place to protect people with disabilities. But some of the responsibility should still be placed on the person with the disability, and not completely on the driver. Otherwise you're just asking for abuse. That's why you have handicap placards for cars, otherwise everybody would just park in those spots.


Funny how strict the government is for parking spots for disabled and the placards, but any a-hat can bring their untrained yapper anywhere without question.


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Yes, it is imposed, by the law. Hillary did not win, so you need not like it, but you must do it. Complaining about it here is allright in that it lets you vent, but, in the end, you are stuck with it, still. You can do what you will to duck it, and, you might even get away with it, for a while. At some point, though, it will catch up to you and it is De-Activation Station for you. Shuffling or driving by them might work, the first few times, but, eventually, some one with a service animal will send a nastygram to Uber that reads "the driver kept going once he saw my dog". They may have no basis on which to make this claim, but, again, the reality is that it does not matter. Uber will make a statistic out of you with utmost despatch. When the do-gooders sue Uber for not enforcing the ADA requirements, Uber can point to all of the drivers unto whom it has rendered the proverbial bum's rush for not complying with the requirements of the ADA.
> 
> One of the problems with legislation in this country that is designed to protect a class is that far too often it protects that class to the excessive hardship of everyone else; it goes too far the other way.
> 
> ...


Also, have a real estate license and manage multiple rental properties. Additionally, have several attorneys I consult with.


DirtyRead said:


> The problem is and there is no debating this at all, it is ILLEGAL to refuse service to anyone because of a service animal. It doesn't matter what size, shape, breed or if its in a cage or not. All they have to say is this is my service animal. You are not allowed to question the validity of the their declaration nor are you permitted to inquire as to the person's need for the service animal. Unfortunately for you this is clearly stated in the Driver's agreement and through numerous emails from Uber reminding drivers of the LAW. You won't get your Uber platform access back. People and companies get sued for violating a person's civil rights all the time. Thats what you did. You violated her civil rights. The fact that she was a low down sub human taking advantage of a law meant to protect those with a disability from discrimination is irrelevant.


You are very, very wrong.

However, if you're right, I will be going straight to prison. In real estate, as a property manager, and discriminate. Legally.

And discriminate driving for Uber as well. Legally. Think I know the law way better than you. In fact, know so.

The service animal law is not absolute. Ask me how I know this? Yes, have been in court several times.

It is not any animal. Period.


----------



## DirtyRead (Oct 2, 2016)

MiamiKid said:


> Also, have a real estate license and manage multiple rental properties. Additionally, have several attorneys I consult with.
> 
> You are very, very wrong.
> 
> ...


Look it up. You tell someone you are refusing them service because of their service animal its a violation of the Americans with disabilities Act. You cannot inquire on the reasons the person needs a service animal. Thats their privet medical information. You can't question them or ask them to prove its a service animal. Thats how it is in Ca and as far as I know the rest of the states. Some states have purposed and may have implemented changes recently but here in Ca and for every driver in the U.S. regardless of state laws those are the nonnegotiable rules pertaining to service animals. If you reread my post I didn't say "any" animal. I use the word animal repeatedly because dogs are not the only service animals just the most popular. Monkeys I would guess are the second. I don't know if you are going to prison but you can definitely be removed from the Uber app or fired from any other job with cause for this. If there is a random or irrelevant exception to The Americans with Disabilities Act so be it. I don't care if an 18th century historic landmark in some swap is excluded from installing wheel chair ramps.



itendstonight said:


> Fu
> 
> Funny how strict the government is for parking spots for disabled and the placards, but any a-hat can bring their untrained yapper anywhere without question.


As long as those placards are up to date and you are the recipient or holder of the placard you don't have to answer anything else. The reason for this is to protect your privacy. Maybe you have a service animal because you are in the later stages of AIDS. Is that something you want to be forced to tell some stranger so you can get around town?


----------



## itendstonight (Feb 10, 2019)

DirtyRead said:


> Look it up. You tell someone you are refusing them service because of their service animal its a violation of the Americans with disabilities Act. You cannot inquire on the reasons the person needs a service animal. Thats their privet medical information. You can't question them or ask them to prove its a service animal. Thats how it is in Ca and as far as I know the rest of the states. Some states have purposed and may have implemented changes recently but here in Ca and for every driver in the U.S. regardless of state laws those are the nonnegotiable rules pertaining to service animals. If you reread my post I didn't say "any" animal. I use the word animal repeatedly because dogs are not the only service animals just the most popular. Monkeys I would guess are the second. I don't know if you are going to prison but you can definitely be removed from the Uber app or fired from any other job with cause for this. If there is a random or irrelevant exception to The Americans with Disabilities Act so be it. I don't care if an 18th century historic landmark in some swap is excluded from installing wheel chair ramps.
> 
> 
> As long as those placards are up to date and you are the recipient or holder of the placard you don't have to answer anything else. The reason for this is to protect your privacy. Maybe you have a service animal because you are in the later stages of AIDS. Is that something you want to be forced to tell some stranger so you can get around town?


But a doctor and the DMV have to verify your disability and that placard means the holder went through the process. You can't just buy one online like the fake vests for dogs. That's the point. You see the blue placard on a car and you can be certain that person has a true disability. The a-hole with tea cup Ficko that is humping another person's leg didn't go through any process. The loser that brought an untrained pit bull that mailed a little girl at an airport is not legitimate!


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

itendstonight said:


> Fu
> 
> Funny how strict the government is for parking spots for disabled and the placards, but any a-hat can bring their untrained yapper anywhere without question.


There is question, two of them in fact.


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

DirtyRead said:


> Look it up. You tell someone you are refusing them service because of their service animal its a violation of the Americans with disabilities Act. You cannot inquire on the reasons the person needs a service animal. Thats their privet medical information. You can't question them or ask them to prove its a service animal. Thats how it is in Ca and as far as I know the rest of the states. Some states have purposed and may have implemented changes recently but here in Ca and for every driver in the U.S. regardless of state laws those are the nonnegotiable rules pertaining to service animals. If you reread my post I didn't say "any" animal. I use the word animal repeatedly because dogs are not the only service animals just the most popular. Monkeys I would guess are the second. I don't know if you are going to prison but you can definitely be removed from the Uber app or fired from any other job with cause for this. If there is a random or irrelevant exception to The Americans with Disabilities Act so be it. I don't care if an 18th century historic landmark in some swap is excluded from installing wheel chair ramps.
> 
> 
> As long as those placards are up to date and you are the recipient or holder of the placard you don't have to answer anything else. The reason for this is to protect your privacy. Maybe you have a service animal because you are in the later stages of AIDS. Is that something you want to be forced to tell some stranger so you can get around town?


Been managing property 30 years. Have been in court, specifically on the service animal issue, three separate times. Guess what? Won every case hands down.

What was the case? Denying a prospective tenant because they had a pet. They claimed it was a service animal. We don't care. Application denied. They sued and lost.

Federal government did get involved.
Would have been a $110,000 fine. Boy did we celebrate after winning that one. ??

Then happened, while driving Uber, two times. Suspended both times 72 hours. Then reinstated.

Will continue.


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

MiamiKid said:


> Also, have a real estate license and manage multiple rental properties. Additionally, have several attorneys I consult with.
> 
> You are very, very wrong.
> 
> ...


You go to prison for violating the ADA?

Never heard of that



MiamiKid said:


> Been managing property 30 years. Have been in court, specifically on the service animal issue, three separate times. Guess what? Won every case hands down.
> 
> What was the case? Denying a prospective tenant because they had a pet. They claimed it was a service animal. We don't care. Application denied. They sued and lost.
> 
> ...


This discussion has nothing to do with Pets.


----------



## LasVegasMellowYellow (Jun 24, 2015)

Nope, I didn't read the entire thread, because they all start to sound the same. I did learn something this morning reading this AP news story. From the article:

"But the Americans with Disabilities Act does not require that a service dog be professionally trained or certified. And, according to the U.S. Department of Justice , local and state agencies are prohibited from requiring that the dogs be registered."

"The ADA allows people to train their own service dogs."

https://apnews.com/d0bb5c8e25574612869a71f3dd1a8e6a
Again, I barely read the thread, but I thought this was an interesting article.


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

BigRedDriver said:


> You go to prison for violating the ADA?
> 
> Never heard of that
> 
> ...


Using a bit of sarcasm here. As a contrarian viewpoint regarding service animals.



DirtyRead said:


> Look it up. You tell someone you are refusing them service because of their service animal its a violation of the Americans with disabilities Act. You cannot inquire on the reasons the person needs a service animal. Thats their privet medical information. You can't question them or ask them to prove its a service animal. Thats how it is in Ca and as far as I know the rest of the states. Some states have purposed and may have implemented changes recently but here in Ca and for every driver in the U.S. regardless of state laws those are the nonnegotiable rules pertaining to service animals. If you reread my post I didn't say "any" animal. I use the word animal repeatedly because dogs are not the only service animals just the most popular. Monkeys I would guess are the second. I don't know if you are going to prison but you can definitely be removed from the Uber app or fired from any other job with cause for this. If there is a random or irrelevant exception to The Americans with Disabilities Act so be it. I don't care if an 18th century historic landmark in some swap is excluded from installing wheel chair ramps.
> 
> 
> As long as those placards are up to date and you are the recipient or holder of the placard you don't have to answer anything else. The reason for this is to protect your privacy. Maybe you have a service animal because you are in the later stages of AIDS. Is that something you want to be forced to tell some stranger so you can get around town?


No could care less about an Aids' victim's privacy, with respect to service animals. All's I'm concerned with, are the legal questions which can be asked.

However, been suspended two times from Uber. Sued, in court, as a property manager.

Not changing anytime soon. Just glad I don't reside in CA!


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

MiamiKid said:


> Been managing property 30 years. Have been in court, specifically on the service animal issue, three separate times. Guess what? Won every case hands down.
> 
> What was the case? Denying a prospective tenant because they had a pet. They claimed it was a service animal. We don't care. Application denied. They sued and lost.
> 
> ...


What was the cost of the defense?


----------



## Peter Vann (Jun 30, 2017)

This is absolute BS. if you’re going to require drivers to allow service animals, then pay a premium for cleaning up the animal hair. It’s not my fault there’s no premium. I don’t blame drivers for trying to get out of this.


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

Peter Vann said:


> This is absolute BS. if you're going to require drivers to allow service animals, then pay a premium for cleaning up the animal hair. It's not my fault there's no premium. I don't blame drivers for trying to get out of this.


I've had roughly half a dozen service animals in 1500+ rides. Maybe another half dozen pets. Never seen this mess yet, but I do keep a small blanket in my car, just in case.

Cats, always in a carrier. Dudes like @Rakos, well, I do have a trunk.


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

BigRedDriver said:


> What was the cost of the defense?


Clear, cut cases not requiring elaborate legal work. However, still blew through $7,500.


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

MiamiKid said:


> Clear, cut cases not requiring elaborate legal work. However, still blew through $7,500.


So it was apparent the pet was not service animal covered by the ADA.

Tenants that lie?

Who'd a thunk it


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

BigRedDriver said:


> So it was apparent the pet was not service animal covered by the ADA.
> 
> Tenants that lie?
> 
> Who'd a thunk it


Yes, clearly what happened.


----------



## Peter Vann (Jun 30, 2017)

BigRedDriver said:


> I've had roughly half a dozen service animals in 1500+ rides. Maybe another half dozen pets. Never seen this mess yet, but I do keep a small blanket in my car, just in case.
> 
> Cats, always in a carrier. Dudes like @Rakos, well, I do have a trunk.


In 2 years I've had maybe 5 dogs - not service animals. In each case at the end of the trip I had to pull over and clean the hair off my upholstery. No tip. The dogs were fine, but their owners cheap.


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

MiamiKid said:


> Yes, clearly what happened.


If you care to elaborate, we are all ears.

I've had many attempts by folks claiming an ADA violation on my properties, not once did the Feds get involved. Can't imagine what it would take to get them involved. All were by lawyers that backed down when shown the errors of their ways.


----------



## DoubleDee (Apr 22, 2019)

I don't drive dogs period. Or pigs, rabbits, birds or service rodents. It's rideshare ... not a taxi service. If you need a ride for your Saint Bernard call a taxi or a limo.

Any Uber or Lyft driver who transports animals is an idiot . Period.


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

DoubleDee said:


> I don't drive dogs period. Or pigs, rabbits, birds or service rodents. It's rideshare ... not a taxi service. If you need a ride for your Saint Bernard call a taxi or a limo.
> 
> Any Uber or Lyft driver who transports animals is an idiot . Period.


Sure, because my experience with them have been great?

First, tell the pax you didn't know you were taking a VIP. Ask them to keep animal on floor or lap.

Most tip when you flatter the pet.

Most animals better behaved then rider.

Ok dude, I suspect you need thicker skin.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

DirtyRead said:


> The problem is and there is no debating this at all, it is ILLEGAL to refuse service to anyone because of a service animal. It doesn't matter what size, shape, breed or if its in a cage or not. All they have to say is this is my service animal. You are not allowed to question the validity of the their declaration nor are you permitted to inquire as to the person's need for the service animal. Unfortunately for you this is clearly stated in the Driver's agreement and through numerous emails from Uber reminding drivers of the LAW. You won't get your Uber platform access back. People and companies get sued for violating a person's civil rights all the time. Thats what you did. You violated her civil rights. The fact that she was a low down sub human taking advantage of a law meant to protect those with a disability from discrimination is irrelevant.


The fact is you CAN ask the two questions. The first one basically asks if the dog is needed for a disability. Now, you can't ask what the disability is, but even a real service animal is NOT a service animal unless it's with its disabled handler. When my fully-able neighbor walks his disabled wife's S.A., it's just a regular, if highly-trained, dog.

Also, if the dog is ungroomed (nails should be SHORT!), dirty, etc., enters the car without the handler telling it to, jumps on the seat, sticks its nose between the front seats to check you out, etc., it's not a service animal. Get any of that on your dashcam, or someone unable to answer the questions correctly, and covered. In some states, you'll also have evidence of someone committing a crime.


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

SuzeCB said:


> The fact is you CAN ask the two questions. The first one basically asks if the dog is needed for a disability. Now, you can't ask what the disability is, but even a real service animal is NOT a service animal unless it's with its disabled handler. When my fully-able neighbor walks his disabled wife's S.A., it's just a regular, if highly-trained, dog.
> 
> Also, if the dog is ungroomed (nails should be SHORT!), dirty, etc., enters the car without the handler telling it to, jumps on the seat, sticks its nose between the front seats to check you out, etc., it's not a service animal. Get any of that on your dashcam, or someone unable to answer the questions correctly, and covered. In some states, you'll also have evidence of someone committing a crime.


Well stated.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

DirtyRead said:


> Look it up. You tell someone you are refusing them service because of their service animal its a violation of the Americans with disabilities Act. You cannot inquire on the reasons the person needs a service animal. Thats their privet medical information. You can't question them or ask them to prove its a service animal. Thats how it is in Ca and as far as I know the rest of the states. Some states have purposed and may have implemented changes recently but here in Ca and for every driver in the U.S. regardless of state laws those are the nonnegotiable rules pertaining to service animals. If you reread my post I didn't say "any" animal. I use the word animal repeatedly because dogs are not the only service animals just the most popular. Monkeys I would guess are the second. I don't know if you are going to prison but you can definitely be removed from the Uber app or fired from any other job with cause for this. If there is a random or irrelevant exception to The Americans with Disabilities Act so be it. I don't care if an 18th century historic landmark in some swap is excluded from installing wheel chair ramps.
> 
> 
> As long as those placards are up to date and you are the recipient or holder of the placard you don't have to answer anything else. The reason for this is to protect your privacy. Maybe you have a service animal because you are in the later stages of AIDS. Is that something you want to be forced to tell some stranger so you can get around town?


Monkeys are not SAs under the ADA. Only dogs (and states can't restrict breeds, like some are trying to do) and miniature horses are.


----------



## DirtyRead (Oct 2, 2016)

SuzeCB said:


> Monkeys are not SAs under the ADA. Only dogs (and states can't restrict breeds, like some are trying to do) and miniature horses are.


I don't know my friend says he has a monkey service him. Not sure if they take Uber/Lyft or not.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

DirtyRead said:


> I don't know my friend says he has a monkey service him. Not sure if they take Uber/Lyft or not.


 There are trained helper monkeys. Absolutely. They are not covered under the ADA, however. I believe, because as an animal, monkeys are considered to be too unpredictable. I don't know if any particular States cover them, though. States are allowed to expand on the federal ADA, but they cannot restrict it. A while back, there was a joke on this forum about California allowing service bears. Lol


----------



## DirtyRead (Oct 2, 2016)

MiamiKid said:


> Well stated.


If monkeys aren't covered then I stand corrected. If that's what you know the law(s) to be go for it. I am sticking with what my ex-girlfriend just told me after a recent compliance training class. Trust me not much else would make me happier then to know she's wrong...about anything. Still you can't refuse someone that claims their horse or dog is their service animal. By law or by your drivers agreement.


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

DirtyRead said:


> I don't know my friend says he has a monkey service him. Not sure if they take Uber/Lyft or not.


Can assure a monkey does not qualify as SA. As a property manager, happen to know the ADA fairly well.

Also, would not think Uber would expect you to accept a monkey as a SA, but who knows?

I do know this, regardless of, both, the law and Uber's policy, I am NOT letting a monkey in my car.

Deactivation is of no concern for me.


----------



## DirtyRead (Oct 2, 2016)

SuzeCB said:


> Monkeys are not SAs under the ADA. Only dogs (and states can't restrict breeds, like some are trying to do) and miniature horses are.


Monkeys are not SAs but I picked up this ése named Monkey Boy and he had a cold so his voice was a little horse. I accepted the ride just to be on the safe side.


----------



## IR12 (Nov 11, 2017)

BigRedDriver said:


> I've been reading this thread with my pet dragon
> 
> He's depressed now.
> 
> ...


...wish there was a way to hide this tiresome topic from my phone along with ANYTHING Trump.


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

IR12 said:


> ...wish there was a way to hide this tiresome topic from my phone along with ANYTHING Trump.


From anything Trump? Wow. Best numbers since 1969. Economy rocks.


----------



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

Having driven lots of disabled folks recently
(In the last week 24+ paratransit fares)

I've come up with another test for service animals.

"what are the two questions i'm allowed to ask you about your service animals again?"


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Having driven lots of disabled folks recently
> (In the last week 24+ paratransit fares)
> 
> I've come up with another test for service animals.
> ...


That may actually qualify as brilliant! LMAO



DirtyRead said:


> If monkeys aren't covered then I stand corrected. If that's what you know the law(s) to be go for it. I am sticking with what my ex-girlfriend just told me after a recent compliance training class. Trust me not much else would make me happier then to know she's wrong...about anything. Still you can't refuse someone that claims their horse or dog is their service animal. By law or by your drivers agreement.


Yes, you can. You can use the two questions. They are actually written into the law.


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

SuzeCB said:


> The fact is you CAN ask the two questions. The first one basically asks if the dog is needed for a disability. Now, you can't ask what the disability is, but even a real service animal is NOT a service animal unless it's with its disabled handler. When my fully-able neighbor walks his disabled wife's S.A., it's just a regular, if highly-trained, dog.
> 
> Also, if the dog is ungroomed (nails should be SHORT!), dirty, etc., enters the car without the handler telling it to, jumps on the seat, sticks its nose between the front seats to check you out, etc., it's not a service animal. Get any of that on your dashcam, or someone unable to answer the questions correctly, and covered. In some states, you'll also have evidence of someone committing a crime.


When I pick up a pax, and I think they might be underage, I ask the question - How old are you? If I believe them, I let them in. If I don't believe them, I card them.

What if I don't believe a pax when they tell me it's a service animal?
Just let them in the car, record the video, and take them to court?


----------



## DirtyRead (Oct 2, 2016)

SuzeCB said:


> That may actually qualify as brilliant! LMAO
> 
> 
> Yes, you can. You can use the two questions. They are actually written into the law.


Yes you may ask is that your service dog. You can ask what the dogs name is or is the dog related to Snoop. Thats not what I meant by questioning them. It doesn't matter anymore. Y'all handle issues with dogs in what ever manner feels right by you. Thats really the way to handle everything in life.


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

ZenUber said:


> When I pick up a pax, and I think they might be underage, I ask the question - How old are you? If I believe them, I let them in. If I don't believe them, I card them.
> 
> What if I don't believe a pax when they tell me it's a service animal?
> Just let them in the car, record the video, and take them to court?


If you don't believe it's a service animal? Don't take it. Violating a person civil rights however, based on belief, rarely turns out well.

Have we beaten this dead horse enough yet?

Odds are..........

No


----------



## DirtyRead (Oct 2, 2016)

BigRedDriver said:


> If you don't believe it's a service animal? Don't take it. Violating a person civil rights however, based on belief, rarely turns out well.
> 
> Have we beaten this dead horse enough yet?
> 
> ...


Wait a minute even I know if its a dead service horse you have to by Law ......zzzzzzzzz....zzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

BigRedDriver said:


> If you don't believe it's a service animal? Don't take it. Violating a person civil rights however, based on belief, rarely turns out well.
> 
> Have we beaten this dead horse enough yet?
> 
> ...


Have we beaten this dead horse enough yet?
You keep coming back for more, so I guess not. 
If someone tries to scam me with a fake service animal, and I deny them service, I haven't violated anyone's civil rights. I've defended my own.
A blind persons biggest handicap may not be their blindness, but rather their bitterness about it.


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

DirtyRead said:


> Yes you may ask is that your service dog. You can ask what the dogs name is or is the dog related to Snoop. Thats not what I meant by questioning them. It doesn't matter anymore. Y'all handle issues with dogs in what ever manner feels right by you. Thats really the way to handle everything in life.


Sounds good to me.


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

ZenUber said:


> Have we beaten this dead horse enough yet?
> You keep coming back for more, so I guess not.
> If someone tries to scam me with a fake service animal, and I deny them service, I haven't violated anyone's civil rights. I've defended my own.
> A blind persons biggest handicap may not be their blindness, but rather their bitterness about it.


I've yet to come across a single bitter blind person. Not one.

What exactly are you trying to do here?

I suggest you quit wasting so much time on this and get the law changed.

Geez.


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

BigRedDriver said:


> I've yet to come across a single bitter blind person. Not one.
> 
> What exactly are you trying to do here?
> 
> ...


I think you might want to re-read your posts to me, and take a good look at yourself. I wasn't referring to other blind people.

What I'm trying to do here is shed some light on the flaws in the law.

Thanks for your suggestion, but I will decide for myself what is or is not a waste of my time, as well as if or when I decide to "get the law changed". For now, I'm just posting my thoughts in a public chat room. It's up to you if you want to debate me about it. Are you enjoying yourself? Why do you continue? Because it sounds a lot like bitterness to me.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

ZenUber said:


> When I pick up a pax, and I think they might be underage, I ask the question - How old are you? If I believe them, I let them in. If I don't believe them, I card them.
> 
> What if I don't believe a pax when they tell me it's a service animal?
> Just let them in the car, record the video, and take them to court?


You ask the two questions. If they fail it, then you can deny them. If they dont fail it, they are eithsr legit or know exactly how to fake it. In that case, I would take the dog. If they fail, make sure to note the time for your dashcam to prove they failed the question. It's not up to you to believe them or not. If they answer the second question accurately, who are you to say if they are legit or not? Some disabilities aren't visible. 


ZenUber said:


> A blind persons biggest handicap may not be their blindness, but rather their bitterness about it.


Did you actually just say that?


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

steveK2016 said:


> You ask the two questions. If they fail it, then you can deny them. If they dont fail it, they are eithsr legit or know exactly how to fake it. In that case, I would take the dog. If they fail, make sure to note the time for your dashcam to prove they failed the question. It's not up to you to believe them or not. If they answer the second question accurately, who are you to say if they are legit or not? Some disabilities aren't visible.
> 
> Did you actually just say that?


Yes I just said that. I believe it's true. The other poster is blinded by indignation, and is not hearing what I'm saying. The blind become deaf from bitterness. It's unfortunate. Friends and family or unlikely to impose this kind of truth on a handicap person. Loved ones will look the other way out of compassion. Sometimes an adversary is the only one free to tell the truth.

Yes, some disabilities aren't visible. And sometimes you can't tell if a service animal is legit. That's why am asking for some proof. Maybe a tag on the collar. It's not much to ask When you're being threatened under penalty of law if you don't comply.

I'm not the one making this personal.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

ZenUber said:


> Yes I just said that. I believe it's true.
> 
> Yes, some disabilities aren't visible. And sometimes you can't tell if a service animal is legit. That's why am asking for some proof. Maybe a tag on the collar. It's not much to ask When you're being threatened under penalty of law if you don't comply.


(202) 224-3121
United States Capital Switchboard

https://www.house.gov/representatives
Good luck, again, business with millions to burn and lawyers who know what they're doing haven't been able to get the laws changed, but I have a good feeling about your tenacity.


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

steveK2016 said:


> You ask the two questions. If they fail it, then you can deny them. If they dont fail it, they are eithsr legit or know exactly how to fake it. In that case, I would take the dog. If they fail, make sure to note the time for your dashcam to prove they failed the question. It's not up to you to believe them or not. If they answer the second question accurately, who are you to say if they are legit or not? Some disabilities aren't visible.
> 
> Did you actually just say that?


Yes, then doubled down on it!



ZenUber said:


> Yes I just said that. I believe it's true. The other poster is blinded by indignation, and is not hearing what I'm saying. The blind become deaf from bitterness. It's unfortunate. Friends and family or unlikely to impose this kind of truth on a handicap person. Loved ones will look the other way out of compassion. Sometimes an adversary is the only one free to tell the truth.
> 
> Yes, some disabilities aren't visible. And sometimes you can't tell if a service animal is legit. That's why am asking for some proof. Maybe a tag on the collar. It's not much to ask When you're being threatened under penalty of law if you don't comply.
> 
> I'm not the one making this personal.


You get to ask two questions. That's it.

Or hire Kojak and track these fiends down!


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

steveK2016 said:


> (202) 224-3121
> United States Capital Switchboard
> 
> https://www.house.gov/representatives
> Good luck, again, business with millions to burn and lawyers who know what they're doing haven't been able to get the laws changed, but I have a good feeling about your tenacity.


 Never said I was going to try and get the law changed. Just posting my views in a chat room. It's free speech. And I don't know of anyone spending millions of dollars to try and change that.

As far as this issue goes, I like the two questions as a starting point. If I believe the rider I'll give them a ride. If I don't believe the rider, I won't give them a ride, and it will be incumbent upon them to prove their case in court. But I will not be taken hostage by a lawbreaker, and then spend my time and money in court to prove it. That's not what justice is all about. And that's not what the service animal laws are all about either.


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

ZenUber said:


> Never said I was going to try and get the law changed. Just posting my views in a chat room. It's free speech. And I don't know of anyone spending millions of dollars to try and change that.
> 
> As far as this issue goes, I like the two questions as a starting point. If I believe the rider I'll give them a ride. If I don't believe the rider, I won't give them a ride, and it will be incumbent upon them to prove their case in court. But I will not be taken hostage by a lawbreaker, and then spend my time and money in court to prove it. That's not what justice is all about. And that's not what the service animal laws are all about either.


Then don't give the passenger the ride and hope you are right 100% of the time.

If you are wrong, and you violated someone's civil rights, and they report. You will be deactivated and possibly more.

Then you'll have your chance to plead your case in front of a judge. It seems this should end this now, right?


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

BigRedDriver said:


> Yes, then doubled down on it!
> 
> 
> You get to ask two questions. That's it.
> ...


 Not sure what you mean by double down on it.

If I believe someone is forcing a fake service animal in my car, I will deny service. They can take me to court. 
If I was right I will be vindicated. If I was wrong I will go to jail. I can except that. I don't live above the law, but I do recognize that the law is in perfect, malleable, and always a work in progress. I do not take it as the word of God. But I will not be taken hostage in my own car by a scammer, and be forced to take it upon myself to spend all my time and money to prove my case after the fact.

I think a lot of this trouble could be avoided by simply having a medallion on the animals collar. And I have heard no argument here against it.

You don't have to understand me, or agree with me. You don't have to like me or even respect me. You can put words in my mouth, and I will deny them. You can tell me what you think I should do, but I probably won't. You can insult me, and I will ignore it. You can be sarcastic, and I will poke holes in your logic. You are free to stop responding to me at anytime, and I will let it go. You have that freedom, and yet you're not taking it. And neither am I. Maybe we both still have something to prove, so we keep dancing this dance. I think it's a good thing. Debate is the exercise of free speech. But I think it's best played by the rules.


----------



## Friendly Jack (Nov 17, 2015)

I drove Daenerys Targaryen during a blizzard last winter and her dragon was very polite. Kept my car cozy warm and even helped defrost my windshield. She, on the other hand, was rather cold... Wanted me to bend a knee. I'm like, "What the heck, lady, I already have the seat moved up as far as it will go!"


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

BigRedDriver said:


> Then don't give the passenger the ride and hope you are right 100% of the time.
> 
> If you are wrong, and you violated someone's civil rights, and they report. You will be deactivated and possibly more.
> 
> Then you'll have your chance to plead your case in front of a judge. It seems this should end this now, right?


I will not give the passenger the ride - and hope I am right 100% of the time. I won't do that. No. I will refuse the ride ( if I think they are fake ), affectively placing my bet. Remember, I haven't violated anybody's civil rights unless I'm proved to be wrong. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the defendant. And the burden of bringing a case to court is on the party that feels violated. I know of no law or precedent saying that I have to put myself in jeopardy and then bring Charges after the fact. In fact, That sounds like entrapment.

Or, I can choose not to give a ride even to a legitimate service animal, by deciding to quit the rideshare business right at the moment of the request. And I'm not violating anyone's civil rights. I'm simply exercising my own. The right of the handicapped passenger with a service animal to a ride, is secondary to the right of the drivers personal space within their car. In other words, handicapped people can't approach non-Uber drivers and demand a ride. No matter how outraged they might be.

Do you really think I'm going to end this right now just because you say so? Is this your attempt at a Jedi mind trick? Don't you know me at all by now?


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

robg77 said:


> Can moderators of this site please ban all future threads concerning this matter? Seriously, this topic has been discussed to the point where any new threads on the subject serves no point.


I wish. Or better, lock the initial post of everyone with the only reply being a link to my Ultimate Service Dog Guide. If only ... https://uberpeople.net/threads/the-ultimate-service-dog-guide.253888/



Caturria said:


> Can I just say that I've never been cancelled on, or shuffled, or refused service by an Uber driver in Canada because of my disability? Never.
> I'm going on vacation to the USA (Utah) in two days. First time I've ever been out of country in my life. I'm going to try some Ubers there just to see if my experience is the same or if it's more reflective of what this website suggests it should be. I will post a thread about it when I come back.
> I hypothesize that this problem is:


It's not only in America, Canada has it's fair share too. Thankfully it's more often the exception and not the rule (in both countries), thanks to the bad drivers getting deactivated when they misbehave. It may surprise you to learn that many here talk tough, but take the ride when it comes to it, because they know they actually will get deactivated.








ZenUber said:


> Where is the drivers protection?


Two words... "Dash cam"

For those wanting an ID: Stop and think this through for a minute? Putting aside the argument of who would pay for it (a legitimate concern), let's just assume that it was somehow covered. How do you intend on testing for it? Do you even know how countries that have an ID system (like Canada) do test for it? Or why those countries don't make the ID mandatory? I hear a lot of very uneducated people talking about an ID system when they have ZERO education on how it actually works.

Let me guess, you'd like to flash lights at the epileptic and see if the dog alerts before they have a seizure? Maybe drive a truck down a street and see if the dog stops the blind person from walking in front of it? Obviously none of these would work, and that is exactly why service dogs are NOT tested on their task training. That's right, even countries, like Canada that have an ID system, even if it's not required, still don't test for task training on their ID test. There simply is no ethical way to test that. Bottom line, they have to take the handlers word for it (same as you do, a business does, etc). What places like Canada test for, is the public access test. Because that is something they can ethically standardize and test. It's also something that any well behaved dog could be trained to pass (and not be a service dog).

Now think this through a moment, which is easier for a faker? To lie once to a board, and have a dog trained well enough to get through the public access test, get an "ID" that they can show to everyone and no one can question. Or, to lie each and every time they get in an Uber? Seems like an ID is easier for a faker. Now, to be fair, an ID would be easier for a handler too. However, the last time you saw someone in a wheelchair, did you see them get asked for an ID? How about with a walker? An O2 tank? Cane? Glasses? Yeah, I didn't either. Therefore, it is inherently discriminatory to require one for a service dog (another piece of medical equipment). Speaking of Canada's ID, did you know it's not required? It's actually not "Canada", each province does it's own, but they (at least 7 of the 10 I've checked) don't require it. You get even more protection, higher fines if someone violates, etc. for having one, but you're still covered by their Human Rights laws (similar to ADA/Anti-discrimination laws here). Why? Well, for one, not everyone can afford it. For an ADI certified dog, like mine, it's free. However, if you had to owner train because you couldn't afford an ADI program, then you have to pay the public access test cost (I think it was like $200 last I looked, and that's in each province that you need one for). Furthermore, Canada likes tourism (imagine that), so if someone from the states, is just coming to visit, they aren't likely to pay the $200 to get an ID for their week long stay.

Guess what? There are still fakes in Canada, the UK, etc., where they have an ID system in place. It doesn't actually solve anything. Do some more education about how the actual ID systems work (or don't work, actually), before commenting about how we need an ID system.


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

I have to abide by the law or go to jail. I don’t have to agree with it. And I still have freedom of speech. First amendment comes first.


----------



## 142605 (Mar 4, 2018)

Vitomanujo said:


> I know that if a person requests a ride and is with a "normal type" animal that can fit in my small car and is identified as a "service animal" I must accept them.


To be clear, It's ONLY for dogs.

"Under the ADA, a service animal is defined as a dog that has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability."



Redirecting…


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Authority said:


> To be clear, It's ONLY for dogs.
> 
> "Under the ADA, a service animal is defined as a dog that has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability."
> 
> ...


Miniature horses, too, now. TNC drivers are HIGHLY unlikely to come across them, though. They can be smaller than some large breeds of dogs, but they don't fold up as easily.


----------



## 142605 (Mar 4, 2018)

SuzeCB said:


> Miniature horses, too, now. TNC drivers are HIGHLY unlikely to come across them, though. They can be smaller than some large breeds of dogs, but they don't fold up as easily.


No, that's NOT true. Please see ada.gov.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Authority said:


> No, that's NOT true. Please see ada.gov.


Keep scrolling. There's a revision.



Redirecting…


----------



## 142605 (Mar 4, 2018)

ZenUber said:


> That's why am asking for some proof. Maybe a tag on the collar. It's not much to ask When you're being threatened under penalty of law if you don't comply.


Two things.

1). It's ILLEGAL to "ask for proof".

"...may not require documentation, such as *proof* that the*animal* has been certified, trained, or licensed as a *service animal*""

2). There is no such thing as proof.

"The ADA does not require service animals to wear a vest, ID tag, or specific harness."

https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html#cert


SuzeCB said:


> Keep scrolling. There's a revision.
> 
> 
> 
> Redirecting…


That's old. That was removed.


----------



## Roadmasta (Aug 4, 2017)

The dragon in the last episode of GOT looked pissed, wouldn't want that dragon.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Authority said:


> Two things.
> 
> 1). It's ILLEGAL to "ask for proof".
> 
> ...


It wasn't removed.


----------



## 142605 (Mar 4, 2018)

SuzeCB said:


> It wasn't removed.


It was removed in the 2015 update. Your document was 2011. See for yourself.



Redirecting…



'The miniature horse is not included in the definition of service animal, which is limited to dogs."

https://adata.org/faq/i-heard-miniature-horses-are-considered-be-service-animals-ada-true


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

Authority said:


> Two things.
> 
> 1). It's ILLEGAL to "ask for proof".
> 
> ...


Yes, I know perfectly well that it is illegal to ask for proof. But is it such a crime for me to ask why, and to possibly disagree with law? Do the writers of the law consider it to be the very word of God?


----------



## 142605 (Mar 4, 2018)

ZenUber said:


> Yes, I know perfectly well that it is illegal to ask for proof. But is it such a crime for me to ask why, and to possibly disagree with law? Do the writers of the law consider it to be the very word of God?


The law is stupid. But it's the law.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Authority said:


> It was removed in the 2015 update. Your document was 2011. See for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"However, the new ADA regulations contain a specific provision which covers miniature horses."


----------



## 142605 (Mar 4, 2018)

SuzeCB said:


> "However, the new ADA regulations contain a specific provision which covers miniature horses."


But they're NOT SERVICE ANIMALS.


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

Authority said:


> The law is stupid. But it's the law.


The law is inaccurate, but it's the law.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Authority said:


> But they're NOT SERVICE ANIMALS.


For those who are unaware, I specialize in service animal law. I mention this, because I want to make sure you understand that I am literally an expert on it. Mini horses ARE service animals (in fact, they are pretty much the sole reason the wording wasn't changed to "service dog"). Initially it was going to be dogs only (which is why it was worded that it was dogs only at first). The mini horse lobby dug their hooves in (pardon the pun) and managed to get an exemption for mini horses (added at the end). The reason they mention it as an exception (and still a service animal), but differentiate it (leading to the confusion), is because the mini horses have restriction upon them that the dogs don't. Most notably, size restrictions. If you really want to know more about it, I can show you articles from the time when the debate was going on (or you can google them yourself). Now, all that being said, are you likely to have to take a mini horse in an Uber/Lift? Not unless you drive a big van or something. You'll be able to cite those size restrictions. So, for a drivers standpoint, all you'll likely have to worry about is dogs. However, a mini horse is technically a service animal still.

EDIT: BTW, your second link is from an org, and while they are a pretty good source of information most the time, they are separate organization and not the DOJ, or the lawmakers themselves.


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

When I see dogs, I see $$$.
I have different color fake fur in my glove box and I always have water ready to make a "pee" mark on seat.
Take the dog and the entitled pax.
Drop off end trip.
Make a fake mess with fake fur and water (always claim the stench of urine is horrible).
Take pictures and report to Uber.
Boom $150 cleaning fee and your account is still activated.

It doesn't matter to me if the dog is a service animal or not, IM GETTING PAID BABY.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

UberUber81 said:


> When I see dogs, I see $$$.
> I have different color fake fur in my glove box and I always have water ready to make a "pee" mark on seat.
> Take the dog and the entitled pax.
> Drop off end trip.
> ...


Wow, that unoriginal? A cut and paste from https://uberpeople.net/threads/deactivated-over-fake-service-dog.258307/page-12#post-5024839

Maybe mix it up a bit, or at least reword it slightly, you're actually plagiarizing yourself. :wink:


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

I'm lazy, but at least I'm helping drivers out by showing them how to get paid for the risk and preventing deactivation.

But still, no one wants to talk about the added risk of having a 20-40lb animal flailing about loosely in a car accident and the potential injuries that could be incurred on the drivers/passengers.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

UberUber81 said:


> I'm lazy, but at least I'm helping drivers out by showing them how to get paid for the risk and preventing deactivation.
> 
> But still, no one wants to talk about the added risk of having a 20-40lb animal flailing about loosely in a car accident and the potential injuries that could be incurred on the drivers/passengers.


They go on the floorboard, unless you're going to roll the car (in which case the loose flying animal is the least of your concerns), the only place the dog will be "flailing" is into the seat back.


----------



## New2This (Dec 27, 2015)

Vitomanujo said:


> Well, has it been resolved?


Yes. Take them.


----------



## Kevin.G (May 10, 2019)

Wow this seems to be a real hotbed of controversy.... some of the Lyft rule is worthy of a fight... like allergies, if a driver has an allergy to animal dander this ruling puts the driver, passerger(s)/service animal and other surrounding drivers and pedestrians at risk of an accident or worse. Can't drive if you can't see and/or breathe.

I would argue vehemently the allergy point needs to be removed from the lyft and uber rule(s) regarding service animals. 

***Caveat**** of course medical evidence to their allergy is necessary.... and....the allergic driver would be required to put in their profile that they are allergic as well as post a sign in clear sight to current and potential passengers on and in their car stating that they are allergic therefore for health and safety reasons cannot allow animals, service or otherwise, in their vehicle.

BTW... I am not allergic, but do hold a life long mild yet controllable fear of dogs and will allow service animals (dogs/cats) in my car.... for that matter I have allowed a few non service cats over the course of my uber/lyft 'carrer' providing they were in carriers. I also allowed a dog owner to bring her sick dog that needed to get to the vet as quickly as safely possible. I stipulated that she needed to wrap her dog in a towel and needed to attend immediately to any discharge that may happen (I stated I would pull over if it was necessary, and would continue the trip after said discharge was cleaned to my satisfaction). The ride presented no major problems, the riders were rather appreciative that I was willing to help them as best I could that they gave me a healthy tip... almost double what the fare was. 

Clean up after that ride was almost unnecessary, but I did so anyway with respect to future pax

I wonder if a disabled person with a service animal could sue a driver and uber/lyft for discrimination resulting from what seems to be an overwhelming disregard, as is seen in these threads, to the needs of disabled persons?

Frankly a hefty lawsuit would look so damn good on those that choose to be so blatantly discriminatory.


----------



## 142605 (Mar 4, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> For those who are unaware, I specialize in service animal law. I mention this, because I want to make sure you understand that I am literally an expert on it. Mini horses ARE service animals (in fact, they are pretty much the sole reason the wording wasn't changed to "service dog"). Initially it was going to be dogs only (which is why it was worded that it was dogs only at first). The mini horse lobby dug their hooves in (pardon the pun) and managed to get an exemption for mini horses (added at the end). The reason they mention it as an exception (and still a service animal), but differentiate it (leading to the confusion), is because the mini horses have restriction upon them that the dogs don't. Most notably, size restrictions. If you really want to know more about it, I can show you articles from the time when the debate was going on (or you can google them yourself). Now, all that being said, are you likely to have to take a mini horse in an Uber/Lift? Not unless you drive a big van or something. You'll be able to cite those size restrictions. So, for a drivers standpoint, all you'll likely have to worry about is dogs. However, a mini horse is technically a service animal still.
> 
> EDIT: BTW, your second link is from an org, and while they are a pretty good source of information most the time, they are separate organization and not the DOJ, or the lawmakers themselves.


Wrong. While minature are horses are addressed selerately, the ADA the explictly states that dogs and _only dogs_ can be considered "service animals" under the law.


----------



## Invisible (Jun 15, 2018)

I had my first service dog today. The pax was blind, and the dog was well behaved, and was seated on the floor. I almost forgot the dog was in the car.


----------



## 142605 (Mar 4, 2018)

Invisible said:


> I had my first service dog today. The pax was blind, and the dog was well behaved, and was seated on the floor.  I almost forgot the dog was in the car.


The only time I refused was when a guy had like FOUR dogs.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Authority said:


> Wrong. While minature are horses are addressed selerately, the ADA the explictly states that dogs and _only dogs_ can be considered "service animals" under the law.


You're just not getting it...

The ONLY difference between them is an acknowledgement that their unwieldy bodies create some accommodation difficulties. No, you would never be expected to put one in your Camry.

That's it. Past that, they are considered Service Animals, and are, or rather their handler's are, a protected class covered by the ADA. If you were a restaurant owner, say, instead of a TNC driver, you would have to allow a customer with a Service Mini horse in your restaurant. Again, you might have a bit more leeway on where you sat them, so the horse wouldn't be in the way so much (which you can't do with the dog), but you would have to find a way to reasonably accomodate without discriminating.



Kevin.G said:


> Wow this seems to be a real hotbed of controversy.... some of the Lyft rule is worthy of a fight... like allergies, if a driver has an allergy to animal dander this ruling puts the driver, passerger(s)/service animal and other surrounding drivers and pedestrians at risk of an accident or worse. Can't drive if you can't see and/or breathe.
> 
> I would argue vehemently the allergy point needs to be removed from the lyft and uber rule(s) regarding service animals.
> 
> ...


The reason that allergies are not a valid excuse for Uber or Lyft policies is because they are not a valid excuse according to the law. Specifically according to the law. The law specifically says that allergies or religious objections cannot justify refusal to accommodate.

if you are a devout, observant Christian, you don't take a job in a *****house as a *****, and then say that you are not going to have any kind of sexual relations with the customers because of your religious objections to those activities. Your religion precludes you from doing that job at all.

Similarly, if you have allergic reactions to animals that are that severe, then they are severe enough that if someone gets in your car with any kind of pet hair, pet dander, or enzymes from their pets saliva that become airborne when they get dry on their clothing. if that's the case, then you are disabled enough that you are not able to work with the general public.

There are reasons they are called "disabilities". There are things you are not able to do.


----------



## BigRedDriver (Nov 28, 2018)

Kevin.G said:


> Wow this seems to be a real hotbed of controversy.... some of the Lyft rule is worthy of a fight... like allergies, if a driver has an allergy to animal dander this ruling puts the driver, passerger(s)/service animal and other surrounding drivers and pedestrians at risk of an accident or worse. Can't drive if you can't see and/or breathe.
> 
> I would argue vehemently the allergy point needs to be removed from the lyft and uber rule(s) regarding service animals.
> 
> ...


This has all been covered dozens of times.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Authority said:


> Wrong. While minature are horses are addressed selerately, the ADA the explictly states that dogs and _only dogs_ can be considered "service animals" under the law.


I don't feel like typing it all out, so I'll let Massachusetts do it for me. https://blog.mass.gov/mod/service-a...nder-the-americans-with-disabilities-act-ada/

Go look up the word "exception". Then, extrapolate what "exception to a definition" means. Get it now? As the mini horse is an exception, it gets included in the definition. If I say "all the Wizbangs are purple, the only exception is a rare blue one." Could that rare blue one be a Wizbang? The purple ones clearly could be, the yellow ones clearly aren't, but the blue ones could be (although it would be rare). Now, going further in this logic puzzle, does that mean all purple objects/items/people/whatever are Wizbangs? Nope, just like not all dogs are service dogs. So rephrase it to "all the animals that are Service Animals are dogs, the only exception is a rare mini horse". Could the mini horse be a Service Animal? Yup, it could, although it is also rare. There is a reason there are so many logic puzzles on the LSAT test. It's one of those things that if you aren't trained for, you really shouldn't be commenting on (and I hate to be "that guy", but if you're going to go around trying to correct people more educated than yourself, perhaps you should work on your spelling as well).


----------



## Kevin.G (May 10, 2019)

BigRedDriver said:


> This has all been covered dozens of times.


And it evidently needs to continue to be 'covered'.... because far too many people simply won't follow rules and choose to be discriminatory towards others.

Granted some rules do need to be changed or amended as needed, like the thing about allergies for instance.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Kevin.G said:


> And it evidently needs to continue to be 'covered'.... because far too many people simply won't follow rules and choose to be discriminatory towards others.
> 
> Granted some rules do need to be changed or amended as needed, like the thing about allergies for instance.


I don't see any reason why the allergy thing should be changed.


----------



## Kevin.G (May 10, 2019)

SuzeCB said:


> You're just not getting it...
> 
> The ONLY difference between them is an acknowledgement that their unwieldy bodies create some accommodation difficulties. No, you would never be expected to put one in your Camry.
> 
> ...


Wow... really??.... laws that may prevent someone with allergies from working by considering said allergies to be a disability.... please point me in the direction where I can read these laws. I am not being sarcastic, I am actually interested.

I live in Ontario, Canada, I have not seen any law pertaining to allergies being classed as something that will disallow a person from said occupation, as you are portraying, in the Highway Traffic Act which governs all aspects of driving in Ontario. 
So that rule is left open to changes, as far as I know... I am not a lawyer nor do I claim to be, however I have been a commercial driver for close to 7 years. Three of those driving out of Ontario going east or west across Canada, so it was up to me to bring myself up to snuf' regarding the act here and in the provinces and territories that I drive in.

****This does not mean that a law similar to the one you are referring to does not exist here, it just means that I have not come across it... nor has anyone *with allergies* I know that drives commercially (including many cab drivers here and other provinces) have ever mentioned it.

All of that being said.... laws can be changed by way of amendments.... so the idea of change remains as a valid point.....

....BUT....

....we ARE NOT talking about laws we are talking about rules as handed down by ... lyft.... in this case.

Rules can be arbitrarily or by committee changed or deleted. Ergo my earlier comment.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Kevin.G said:


> Wow... really??.... laws that may prevent someone with allergies from working by considering said allergies to be a disability.... please point me in the direction where I can read these laws. I am not being sarcastic, I am actually interested.
> 
> I live in Ontario, Canada, I have not seen any law pertaining to allergies being classed as something that will disallow a person from said occupation, as you are portraying, in the Highway Traffic Act which governs all aspects of driving in Ontario.
> So that rule is left open to changes, as far as I know... I am not a lawyer nor do I claim to be, however I have been a commercial driver for close to 7 years. Three of those driving out of Ontario going east or west across Canada, so it was up to me to bring myself up to snuf' regarding the act here and in the provinces and territories that I drive in.
> ...


She is referring to the US (where she is from). Canada has a different setup basically going by each provinces rules, rather than a federal system. Very strange to us in the US, but probably normal for you. However, since you mention Ontario, I peeked into a bit of their human rights laws in that province (AODA) and it seems they actually do have a system similar to our ADA doctrine that if someone with severe allergies, and someone with a service dog must be in the same room, they should be as far apart as possible (so no service dogs in the front seat lol). "If the physical space, or use of that space, needs to be adjusted in order to minimize or avoid contact with the animal, care should be taken to ensure that any changes (such as rearranging office locations) are not done in a manner that would isolate or stigmatize either party." was how someone from up north worded it. So it's not that "your" (the fictitious you, not you literally) allergies don't matter, it just means they don't matter more than the service dog handlers disabilities either. You're both important and should be kept as far apart as is practically possible (dog would have to go in rear passenger side floorboard).

Now, that being said, you missed her point completely trying to focus on the wording. If you're (the fictitious you again) so allergic that the dog hair on my clothing, as a service dog handler, is going to set you off also, then you, my friend, have a disability and can't work as a ride share driver (you'd also be well aware of that fact, well before we got into this situation). Less than 1% of the only 15% or so of people who are allergic to dogs at all have a "severe" allergy (life threatening). So the odds of both one of those people (who wouldn't be driving anyway as just hair on peoples clothes could set them off), and a service dog handler (which is also pretty rare really, despite how much this subject seems to keep coming up) getting paired together is probably lower than your odds of winning the lotto jackpot.

As for Uber/Lyfts rules, it's quite simple, at least here in the US, they are doing what is legally required (allergies, fear of dogs, and religious objections are specifically stated as not being valid reasons for refusal here, in the law). Taking service dogs is required in most (if not all) provinces in Canada as well. I can't seem to find a Canada specific Lyft policy to see if they allow deviation from the US version or not (probably because I'm not in Canada). I know the Uber Canada version is a bit different, so maybe Lyft is too? You'd have to look and tell me as I can't see it.

EDIT: This is what Uber Canada includes in their policy (I can't confirm if Lyft does or not, as I can't see it). This seems to be mostly referring to severe allergies, extreme fear of dogs, or religious objections, but they left the wording vague, likely on purpose in case there were other disabilities affected. "There may be *very rare* circumstances where, because of a driver-partner's membership in a group protected by human rights legislation, carrying a service animal would be an undue hardship. Uber will not permanently prevent the driver-partner from using the Driver App if (a) the driver-partner has written evidence, like a doctor's or cleric's letter, dated before the incident and confirming that they belong to a group protected by human rights legislation and how carrying the service animal is an undue hardship, and (b) the driver-partner (i) arrived at the rider's location rather than cancelling the request, (ii) got the rider, or helped the rider get, another ride without delay, (iii) waited with the rider until the rider was safely aboard the other ride, and (iv) promptly told Uber of the incident through this link. However, driver-partners may still be liable to civil and government penalties for refusing service."

That reads to me like "if you have allergies (or whatever), they are documented, and you helped the pax get another ride (and stayed with them), then reported it to us right away, we won't deactivate you, but you could still be in violation of someone's civil rights and the government could come after you... we just don't want to take a risk of being sued by you for discrimination, so we're covering our bases." But then, I'm not from Canada. :wink:


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

SuzeCB said:


> No, you would never be expected to put one in your Camry.


I don't know... isn't that a Camry? Or maybe that's a Corolla actually...










I'm kidding of course, she is correct that you can cite size restrictions for the mini horses.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

BigRedDriver said:


> This has all been covered dozens of times.


At least!


----------



## mmn (Oct 23, 2015)

It's funny how we can string out a debate on issues that are not debatable. But it does get old and stale.


----------



## 142605 (Mar 4, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> I don't feel like typing it all out, so I'll let Massachusetts do it for me. https://blog.mass.gov/mod/service-a...nder-the-americans-with-disabilities-act-ada/
> 
> Go look up the word "exception". Then, extrapolate what "exception to a definition" means. Get it now? As the mini horse is an exception, it gets included in the definition.


No it doesn't or it would be included in the definition. A miniature horse receives some, but not all, the consideration of a service animal, which is ONLY a dog under Federal Law.



Pawtism said:


> For those who are unaware, I specialize in service animal law.


Then you fail. A miniature horse receives some, but not all, the consideration of a service animal, which is ONLY a dog under Federal Law.

It's remarkable to me that no one actually reads this stuff. Under the ADA, a "service animal" can _*ONLY*_ be a dog. A miniature horse has some, but not all, the privileges of a service animal. Not the least of which it can be DENEID ACCESS based on height and weight, unlike service dogs which have no size or breed restrictions.

Uber drivers are required to accommodate service animals, NOT miniature horses.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Authority said:


> No it doesn't or it would be included in the definition. A miniature horse receives some, but not all, the consideration of a service animal, which is ONLY a dog under Federal Law.
> 
> 
> Then you fail. A miniature horse receives some, but not all, the consideration of a service animal, which is ONLY a dog under Federal Law.
> ...


It's remarkable to me that you didn't bother to read (and conveniently didn't quote) the very long winded explanation of how an exception works. I'll tell you what, go get your J.D. and then you can explain to me exactly where you messed up (as by then, you'll be able to see it).

The ONLY part you got right (and we've all already told you) is:



Authority said:


> Uber drivers are required to accommodate service animals, NOT miniature horses.


As previously stated, the exception includes certain conditions, including size restrictions.

Let's try another logic puzzle for you. Let's say you're an inmate in my prison. I run an ultra-fascist prison (the way all prisons should be, frankly ) so we literally REQUIRE you to eat your dinner (no opting out, upon pain of death). Now, let's also say that you are allergic to peas (someone out there has to be allergic to peas, right?) So, the official rule is: "You are required to eat your food, but not your peas." Sound familiar (Uber drivers are required to accommodate service animals, but NOT miniature horses)? Are peas still food?

You're thinking like someone in high school, trying to have a debate with college educated people. No one is saying that uber drivers will have to take mini horses (in fact, if you'd bother to actually read what we are saying, which clearly you aren't, we've said many times that you won't have to). Since you aren't reading this anyway, I suppose I could point out that you are making yourself look even less educated than you might otherwise be, by responding about things that we've already confirmed, and arguing against things that have been well explained by this point. At least others can have a good laugh at you about it (as they likely read the whole post).


----------



## 142605 (Mar 4, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> The ONLY part you got right


"The only part I got right" is the only part that matters... a minature horse is not a service animal as defined by the ADA.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Authority said:


> "The only part I got right" is the only part that matters... a minature horse is not a service animal as defined by the ADA.


See, I knew you weren't reading the whole thing. :roflmao:

Keep on being uneducated, you clearly enjoy it.


----------



## 142605 (Mar 4, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> See, I knew you weren't reading the whole thing. :roflmao:
> 
> Keep on being uneducated, you clearly enjoy it.


Back at ya!


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

ZenUber said:


> The law is inaccurate,


What? How so? How can a law be inaccurate?


----------



## 142605 (Mar 4, 2018)

Boca Ratman said:


> What? How so? How can a law be inaccurate?


He may mean that it one place it says a service animal can only be a dog, and in others it refers to a partial exception? It has obviously caused some confusion.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

Authority said:


> He may mean that it one place it says a service animal can only be a dog, and in others it refers to a partial exception? It has obviously caused some confusion.


A law, can not be inaccurate. They can be vague.

What are you confused about?

It's not really confusing. Miniature horses were added after the law was written.

The end.


----------



## 142605 (Mar 4, 2018)

Boca Ratman said:


> A law, can not be inaccurate. They can be vague.
> 
> What are you confused about?


I think YOU are confused, as I am not the one who said the law was 'inaccurate".


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

Authority said:


> I think YOU are confused, as I am not the one who said the law was 'inaccurate".


No, I'm not confused, I know you did not say that. You DID however respond to my question.

I simply added a thought to the "inaccurate" statement and then addressed YOUR statement about being confused.


----------



## 142605 (Mar 4, 2018)

Boca Ratman said:


> No, I'm not confused, I know you did not say that. You DID however respond to my question.
> 
> I simply added a thought to the "inaccurate" statement and then addressed YOUR statement about being confused.


Your clearly confused, because I never said I was confused.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

MiamiKid said:


> Saying exactly that. BTW I discriminate. Mostly legal. It is only illegal discrimination that will get you in trouble.
> 
> The ADA only goes so far and does not cover extreme cases. For example, you're not Pit Bull or Rottweiler, in the front seat, next to me. Nor are they allowed, just, any animal. Service Animal Policy has limitations.
> 
> So yes, absolutely saying Uber should promote, even require legal discrimination.


Service dogs can be ANY breed.



ZenUber said:


> I'm referring to the inconvenience of having to deal with the people faking it - as opposed to the inconvenience of blind people getting their animal certified or registered. It should be done at the moment they acquire the animal, and it would would be little inconvenience. If I deny a person who is faking their service dog, it is no inconvenience to actual blind people. I am not responsible for blindness in general. I am only responsible for giving rides to people with service animals. I just need a way to identify them. I don't think that's too much to ask.


If someone got in your car with the little cart with oxygen, would you ask them to prove they needed it? This is no different. The dog is medical equipment.

BTW oxygen tanks are way more dangerous to drive around with than a service dog.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Authority said:


> Your clearly confused, because I never said I was confused.


Obvious troll is obvious. Hey, that's a logic turn of phrase I didn't even intend!


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Service dogs can be ANY breed.
> 
> 
> If someone got in your car with the little cart with oxygen, would you ask them to prove they needed it? This is no different. The dog is medical equipment.
> ...


 A dog is not the same as medical equipment. I am not allergic to an oxygen tank. An oxygen tank doesn't shed its air all over my upholstery. An oxygen tank doesn't scratch up my seat with its claws, and potentially leave muddy footprints all over my seats.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

ZenUber said:


> A dog is not the same as medical equipment. I am not allergic to an oxygen tank. An oxygen tank doesn't shed its air all over my upholstery. An oxygen tank doesn't scratch up my seat with its claws, and potentially leave muddy footprints all over my seats.


From a legal standpoint, a Service Animal is medical equipment, and has to be accommodated as such.

Which brings to my mind a good analogy of how a Service Mini Horse is a Service Animal, but you don't have to take it in your U/L vehicle...

A cane is medical equipment it will fit in your car, so you have to take the person with the cane. An iron lung is medical equipment. It won't fit in your car, so denying a ride to someone in one doesn't violate the ADA. That doesn't mean it's not medical equipment, though.

Same with service dogs and service mini horses.


----------



## Ptuberdriver (Dec 2, 2018)

SurgeMasterMN said:


> I think this could end in a huge lawsuit. Driver picks up lady with dog. Drivers eyes swell up going down the freeway. Vehicle hits something and bursts into flames. Huge lawsuit...


As soon as the eyes start swelling u call 911 and stop the trip that won't break the law


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

SuzeCB said:


> From a legal standpoint, a Service Animal is medical equipment, and has to be accommodated as such.
> 
> Which brings to my mind a good analogy of how a Service Mini Horse is a Service Animal, but you don't have to take it in your U/L vehicle...
> 
> ...


So who get's to decide that the qualifying attribute for medical equipment, is weather or not it fits in your car? Who gets to decide that a biological animal is synonymous with medical equipment? Basically you're saying, if it fits, it rides. I think there are more important attributes, such as the ones I've listed above, that place undue burden on the driver - or any provider for that matter.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

ZenUber said:


> A dog is not the same as medical equipment.


A service animal however is infact medical equipment according to the law.

maybe a service animal isn't a dog. Hmmmm



ZenUber said:


> So who get's to decide that the qualifying attribute for medical equipment, is weather or not it fits in your car? Who gets to decide that a biological animal is synonymous with medical equipment? Basically you're saying, if it fits, it rides. I think there are more important attributes, such as the ones I've listed above, that place undue burden on the driver - or any provider for that matter.


Holy crap. Haven't you beaten this dog/miniature horse to death?

The law defines what a service animal is. Laws are, in theroy, created legislators that we the people elect into office. They, the legislators, are supposedly acting in the interest of their constituents.

So, I suppose one could argue that we the people of the United States of America have decided.


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

Boca Ratman said:


> A service animal however is infact medical equipment according to the law.
> 
> maybe a service animal isn't a dog. Hmmmm
> 
> ...


 I'm not arguing what the law is. I'm arguing the stupidity of it. 
As far as I know, there aren't any limits on how long this thread can go on. If you would just like to shut me up, just stop posting.


----------



## Wildgoose (Feb 11, 2019)

Riders riding with Service animal can not be rejected by Policy. So I agree to take riders with service animals. But Rider should have got approved in prior for their use of service animals by Uber/Lyft along with their U/L accounts. Uber/Lyft are not restaurant service where service dogs will not sit on chairs.
How could we make sure whether a service dog or not if a riders wanted to take one with them?


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

ZenUber said:


> So who get's to decide that the qualifying attribute for medical equipment, is weather or not it fits in your car? Who gets to decide that a biological animal is synonymous with medical equipment? Basically you're saying, if it fits, it rides. I think there are more important attributes, such as the ones I've listed above, that place undue burden on the driver - or any provider for that matter.


Because if you were that allergic, you wouldn't be able to do ANY job that entailed dealing with the gen pop face-to-face. People have animals.

That is how they would know the driver's allergies don't outweigh the SA handler's need for his/her animal.

Other than that, try writing to your senator and congressman.



Wildgoose said:


> Riders riding with Service animal can not be rejected by Policy. So I agree to take riders with service animals. But Rider should have got approved in prior for their use of service animals by Uber/Lyft along with their U/L accounts. Uber/Lyft are not restaurant service where service dogs will not sit on chairs.
> How could we make sure whether a service dog or not if a riders wanted to take one with them?


The law itself tells you how.


----------



## Wildgoose (Feb 11, 2019)

SuzeCB said:


> The law itself tells you how.


I have read somewhere the law said No need to show a proof if was a service animal.


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

SuzeCB said:


> Because if you were that allergic, you wouldn't be able to do ANY job that entailed dealing with the gen pop face-to-face. People have animals.
> 
> That is how they would know the driver's allergies don't outweigh the SA handler's need for his/her animal.
> 
> ...


 There's a big difference between coming into contact with a pet owner, and coming into contact with the pet itself in a small enclosed space. I don't feel the need to contact my Reps, This is just a conversation in a UP thread. I'm just playing devils advocate because I think the law is indefensible. I think it was rammed through by force by some people with big money, a powerful agenda, and a huge chip on their shoulders. Just my opinion of course.


----------



## 142605 (Mar 4, 2018)

ZenUber said:


> There's a big difference between coming into contact with a pet owner, and coming into contact with the pet itself in a small enclosed space. I don't feel the need to contact my Reps, This is just a conversation in a UP thread. I'm just playing devils advocate because I think the law is indefensible. I think it was rammed through by force by some people with big money, a powerful agenda, and a huge chip on their shoulders. Just my opinion of course.


I agree it's a stupid law... and there's a lot of murky questions. Like how many service animals can someone have? I had a guy try to get in my car with four little dogs that he claimed were service animals and I said sorry and canceled. Also what about pool rides? I've never had that happen but it sounds like a nightmare. And with no breed restriction imagine someone with a Great Dane??




Pawtism said:


> Obvious troll is obvious. Hey, that's a logic turn of phrase I didn't even intend! :smiles:


Yes, he's clearly trolling. I said there was "confusion" (as evidenced by this thread) not that I was confused.

If only we had a moderator...


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

Authority said:


> I agree it's a stupid law... and there's a lot of murky questions. Like how many service animals can someone have? I had a guy try to get in my car with four little dogs that he claimed werer service animals and I said sorry and canceled. Also I what about pool rides? I've enevr had that happen but it sounds like a nightmare.


 I would've canceled as well. Maybe they were all service animals, but that doesn't mean he was handicapped. Maybe he was just the trainer. If he didn't make a claim against you, that says it all. Some people on this site are of the mind that you should have taken the ride, and then taken it upon yourself to sue him in court. That's the kind of narrow minded thinking that went into this ADA law.


----------



## Asificarewhatyoudontthink (Jul 6, 2017)

Vitomanujo said:


> I might've decided to drive, not to be a dumbass. .


Nope, that one is also 100% on you.
Noone else to blame for it.

This is a law, you are required to follow it.

Driving, at all, is a privilege.
Transporting passengers is a choice.
You choose to be in this job, you are required to do it legally.

Don't like the requirements shut up and don't login to the app anymore. 
Problem solved.


----------



## 142605 (Mar 4, 2018)

Asificarewhatyoudontthink said:


> Nope, that one is also 100% on you.
> Noone else to blame for it.
> 
> This is a law, you are required to follow it.
> ...


Or if you see a dog just cancel before you get there say you got lost.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Wildgoose said:


> I have read somewhere the law said No need to show a proof if was a service animal.


Two questions can be asked, if the handler's disability isn't obvious.


----------



## FLKeys (Dec 27, 2018)

SuzeCB said:


> Two questions can be asked, if the handler's disability isn't obvious.


And those questions are worthless if they lie because you can not ask for proof.

I love dogs, I take people with non service dogs as well as with service dogs.

At least in South Florida this Service dog thing is out of control. I am one of the last people that want more government regulation in this country, however I truly believe there should be a national standard and a national license that should be issued with pictures identifying the person with the disability and the service dog associated with them.

Then it becomes real simple, can I please see your service animal license, if you don't want to take non service animals.

I can't tell you how many times I have been in a restaurant eating and someones "Service Dog" is pacing back and forth whining and begging for food from everyone that happens to make eye contact with it.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

FLKeys said:


> And those questions are worthless if they lie because you can not ask for proof.
> 
> I love dogs, I take people with non service dogs as well as with service dogs.
> 
> ...


Two questions PLUS behavior. What you described is absolutely not a service animal. If the dog doesn't behave as a Service Animal should, don't take it. Just be sure you have video proof. Real SAs are chosen because there is enough of their personalities and tendencies that actually go completely against canine-hood. They don't act like other dogs when on-duty.

So, what would constitute proof before you start the trip? Easy.

When the pax opened the door, did the dog just jump in, or did the handler instruct it to do so, either verbally or with a gesture? If the dog was, like most dogs, eager to go for a ride in the car and jumped in with tongue and tail a-wagging, it's not a service animal.

Did the dog jump on the seat? If so, it's not a service dog.

Did the dog start sniffing everything in sight with intensity? Not a service dog. At least not one that's on duty. This holds even if you have an intact male dog that occasionally rides in your car.

Did the dog thrust it's head between or over the seat to investigate or enthusiastically greet you? Not a service dog.

A real service dog won't pee or poop without being commanded to, at least not when on-duty, unless sick. Not sure about off-duty, but you don't have to take them when they're off-duty.

They also won't beg for food or drink, and will almost completely ignore any offered until told by their handler that they can have it. I would imagine extreme thirst on a hot day would be the exception, and the dog may whimper and whine to its handler for permission.

A real service animal will show absolutely ZERO signs of aggression. Not even if you threatened overtly to harm it's handler. The instant it does, it ceases to be a service animal forever, not just for that moment.

Now, any dog that can pass the behavioral observation test and is with a handler that can answer the two questions easily and NICELY with answers that make sense, will probably be the best pax you will ever transport. No promises about the handler, though.

Oh! If the task answer is that the dog alerts for glucose levels/diabetes, it will either stay in the handler's arms, or be in a front-sitting holder similar to the ones some parents get for their babies/toddlers. Dog needs to be close enough to smell the breath and saliva.

Easy, right?


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

ZenUber said:


> A dog is not the same as medical equipment. I am not allergic to an oxygen tank. An oxygen tank doesn't shed its air all over my upholstery. An oxygen tank doesn't scratch up my seat with its claws, and potentially leave muddy footprints all over my seats.


Legally, a service dog *IS* medical equipment (exactly the same as an O2 tank, or a wheelchair, etc.), she's even tax deductible. Not hypothetically, not like "as an example", litterally, legallly classified as durable medical equipment (exactly the same as a wheelchair or O2 tank). An O2 tank can absolutely track stuff into your car, scratch up your seats or interior and/or leave mud on your seats (ironically an O2 tank is much more likely to do those things than a service dog). You do the same thing with an O2 tank that does that, as you do a service dog that does that, you report it and send in pictures.



ZenUber said:


> So who get's to decide that the qualifying attribute for medical equipment, is weather or not it fits in your car? Who gets to decide that a biological animal is synonymous with medical equipment? Basically you're saying, if it fits, it rides. I think there are more important attributes, such as the ones I've listed above, that place undue burden on the driver - or any provider for that matter.


The ADA, specifically, does. They have entire sections about say, a power wheelchair, and what is required to be able to carry it legally. That's the funny thing about the law, people often say "no one can tell me what to do", yet the law tells people what they can and can't do all the time. Those who choose to violate it, have to live with the consequences.



Wildgoose said:


> Riders riding with Service animal can not be rejected by Policy. So I agree to take riders with service animals. But Rider should have got approved in prior for their use of service animals by Uber/Lyft along with their U/L accounts. Uber/Lyft are not restaurant service where service dogs will not sit on chairs.
> How could we make sure whether a service dog or not if a riders wanted to take one with them?


Actually, most service dogs are trained to ride on the floorboard. This is, yet another, misconception people have when they've never actually had a service animal in their car and make crazy assumptions like "it's going to be jumping all over my car, and riding on the seats!" Anyone who has taken an actual service dog can tell you they just lay on the floorboard, that's it.

Ask the two questions you're allowed to ask (and frankly should ask if it's not obvious that it's a service dog for an obvious disability, like blindness). 1. It that a service dog required for a disability? (any fool can lie to this) and 2. What tasks is it trained to perform? (this is where you will catch your fakers, "you can't ask me that" and "emotional support", along with non task work tasks, like "he can roll over and play dead" are fail answers).



ZenUber said:


> There's a big difference between coming into contact with a pet owner, and coming into contact with the pet itself in a small enclosed space. I don't feel the need to contact my Reps, This is just a conversation in a UP thread. I'm just playing devils advocate because I think the law is indefensible. I think it was rammed through by force by some people with big money, a powerful agenda, and a huge chip on their shoulders. Just my opinion of course.


Because the disabled all well known for their wealth? Bottom line, if you want it to change, congress is kind of your only option.



Authority said:


> I agree it's a stupid law... and there's a lot of murky questions. Like how many service animals can someone have? I had a guy try to get in my car with four little dogs that he claimed were service animals and I said sorry and canceled. Also what about pool rides? I've never had that happen but it sounds like a nightmare. And with no breed restriction imagine someone with a Great Dane??
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How many service dogs? Legally there is no limit. However, realistically speaking, two aren't unusual (sometimes people have one about to retire and will help train the new one, also two different conditions can require two different dogs), I will admit that 4 sounds suspicious (and probably not legit), but not completely impossible (albeit, unlikely).

Pool? No difference than any other ride. They can go, if the next pax doesn't like it, they have the option to cancel. Serves everyone involved right, really, none of you (including the driver) should be doing pool.

Great Danes are commonly used as mobility assistance dogs (although thank you for not using the stereotypical "pitbull" example).

Your confusion was obvious. As is your trolling people who are trying to help educate you. We're just telling you what the current situation is, if you (and Zen) don't like it, you can do the same as everyone else and lobby congress to change it.

If only there was a moderator who would delete the posts of people who are arguing with people who are trying to educate them. Ah well, it's obviously not me.



ZenUber said:


> I would've canceled as well. Maybe they were all service animals, but that doesn't mean he was handicapped. Maybe he was just the trainer. If he didn't make a claim against you, that says it all. Some people on this site are of the mind that you should have taken the ride, and then taken it upon yourself to sue him in court. That's the kind of narrow minded thinking that went into this ADA law.


As for trainers, it depends on the state. In about half the states, service dogs in training, in the company of their trainer, have the same protection as any other service dog. In the other half, they either don't have protection at all, or there are very specific situations in which they do. So you'd want to check your state law (if you're curious about a specific state tell me which and I'll let you know what their law is).



SuzeCB said:


> Two questions PLUS behavior. What you described is absolutely not a service animal. If the dog doesn't behave as a Service Animal should, don't take it. Just be sure you have video proof. Real SAs are chosen because there is enough of their personalities and tendencies that actually go completely against canine-hood. They don't act like other dogs when on-duty.
> 
> So, what would constitute proof before you start the trip? Easy.
> 
> ...


Ironically, service dogs are kind of disabled themselves. They don't behave as normal dogs do (in the dog world, they'd probably be considered disabled). They do a personality and temperance tests on them when choosing a candidate to train. Most dogs simply don't have the personality to be service dogs. There are actually reasons they mandate certain personality traits. The no aggression thing, for example. I've had people ask me well what if someone attacked you, wouldn't she help you then? Probably not, honestly. You have to think through why we train this stuff and look for that personality though. It's not that we want a coward dog. Let's say I have a heart attack on the street. She does as she's trained and gets me help. The last thing I want is the EMTs to get there, and she's guarding me, with them scared to try to get close to me. Or worse, they start giving me CPR and she growls at them or something... They might stop. I absolutely want her to just sit there and wait while they try to save my life. She doesn't know if they are trying to help me or kill me. She just knows that if they are on top of me like that, she doesn't need to go look for help anymore and to sit there and wait. They could be giving me CPR, or trying to go through my pockets, and I doubt she would know the difference.


----------



## 142605 (Mar 4, 2018)

SuzeCB said:


> Two questions PLUS behavior. What you described is absolutely not a service animal. If the dog doesn't behave as a Service Animal should, don't take it.


That would be a violation of Uber police and the law. A driver isn't qualified to determine if a dogs behavior is "as a Service Animal should".



SuzeCB said:


> Real SAs are chosen because there is enough of their personalities and tendencies that actually go completely against canine-hood. They don't act like other dogs when on-duty.
> 
> So, what would constitute proof before you start the trip? Easy.
> 
> ...


Wrong, none of that is true. There is no legal definition of "real" service dog or their behavior. In fact , anyone can "train" their own service animal without any experience or knowledge. There are no requirements whatsoever, so quite literally if they say it's a "trained service dog" then "poof" it is. It's all so vague, which is the problem many people have with the law.



FLKeys said:


> And those questions are worthless if they lie because you can not ask for proof.


It's actually even worse than that... the questions are worthless because the law doesn't allow to deny them service regardless of how they answer.

For example, if you ask "What service does your dog perform?" and they answer "he speaks to me in my dreams" you are _still_ obligated to accept them.

It really is a poorly conceived law.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Authority said:


> It's actually even worse than that... the questions are worthless because the law doesn't allow to deny them service regardless of how they answer.
> 
> For example, if you ask "What service does your dog perform?" and they answer "he speaks to me in my dreams" you are _still_ obligated to accept them.
> 
> It really is a poorly conceived law.


This is blatantly untrue, again, you really should educate yourself. Seriously, please read through at least this (I know you aren't big on reading or education, but if you want to not have to take just random pets, you really need to know this stuff). https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html


----------



## 142605 (Mar 4, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> Again, I really wish you'd educate yourself about service dog law. The ADA did address multiple behavioral situations. They have included direct threat clauses (aggression issues like the dog is barking or growling at people), they have included out of control clauses (that would cover the walking around begging, for example), and they included "housebroken" issues (potty issues). All of which are a legal reason to exclude, even an otherwise legitimate service dog. Yes, owner training is allowed, but they still have standards they have to train to (to avoid the above mentioned issues, as they can be excluded for them). Are there some fairly poorly trained owner trained dogs? Sadly, yes, but they still have to meet at least the level I just mentioned or they can be excluded, even as actual service dogs (having legitimate task training).
> 
> 
> This is blatantly untrue, again, you really should educate yourself. Seriously, please read through at least this (I know you aren't big on reading or education, but if you want to not have to take just random pets, you really need to know this stuff). https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html


Your post presumes all service animals are professionally trained to a similar standard. They are not. Every one of these example is incorrect. Do you just make all this up? If not, please cite a source?

"Did the dog jump on the seat? If so, it's not a service dog."

Did the dog start sniffing everything in sight with intensity? Not a service dog. At least not one that's on duty. This holds even if you have an intact male dog that occasionally rides in your car.

Did the dog thrust it's head between or over the seat to investigate or enthusiastically greet you? Not a service dog.

They also won't beg for food or drink, and will almost completely ignore any offered until told by their handler that they can have it. I would imagine extreme thirst on a hot day would be the exception, and the dog may whimper and whine to its handler for permission."

You're really doing a disservice to drivers. Someone is going to deny service because you told them that a "real" service dog wouldn't jump on their seat or sniff them.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Authority said:


> Your post presumes all service animals are professionally trained to a similar standard. They are not. Every one of these example is incorrect. Do you just make all this up? If not, please cite a source?
> 
> "Did the dog jump on the seat? If so, it's not a service dog." Wrong.
> 
> ...


First off, those aren't my examples. Second off, a dog jumping on the seat without a command to enter, isn't in control. Nor is one that runs around sniffing everything. Nor one that is enthusiastically greeting you. Nor one begging for food. All of the examples that Suze made would likely fall under the "out of control" clause.


----------



## 142605 (Mar 4, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> First off, those aren't my examples. Second off, a dog jumping on the seat without a command to enter, isn't in control. Nor is one that runs around sniffing everything. Nor one that is enthusiastically greeting you. Nor one begging for food. All of the examples that Suze made would likely fall under the "out of control" clause.


Please cite a source or case law that says a dog on a leash that jumps on a seat in a car, sniffs, or begs for food isn't "in control". You're simply wrong, and you're doing a disservice to drivers and the disabled by spreading false information.


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

Pawtism said:


> Legally, a service dog *IS* medical equipment (exactly the same as an O2 tank, or a wheelchair, etc.), she's even tax deductible. Not hypothetically, not like "as an example", litterally, legallly classified as durable medical equipment (exactly the same as a wheelchair or O2 tank). An O2 tank can absolutely track stuff into your car, scratch up your seats or interior and/or leave mud on your seats (ironically an O2 tank is much more likely to do those things than a service dog). You do the same thing with an O2 tank that does that, as you do a service dog that does that, you report it and send in pictures.
> 
> 
> The ADA, specifically, does. They have entire sections about say, a power wheelchair, and what is required to be able to carry it legally. That's the funny thing about the law, people often say "no one can tell me what to do", yet the law tells people what they can and can't do all the time. Those who choose to violate it, have to live with the consequences.
> ...


Well, hello to you too, Pawtism. I bet it felt good to get that all out, now didn't it?


----------



## 142605 (Mar 4, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> This is blatantly untrue, again, you really should educate yourself. Seriously, please read through at least this (I know you aren't big on reading or education, but if you want to not have to take just random pets, you really need to know this stuff). https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html


Thank you, I am very familiar with it. Please show me where _you_ think it says service may be denied based on the answer to one of the two questions.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Authority said:


> Please cite a source or case law that says a dog on a leash that jumps on a seat in a car, sniffs, or begs for food isn't "in control". You're simply wrong, and you're doing a disservice to drivers and the disabled by spreading false information.


Try the one I already gave you but you clearly aren't willing to read. https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html

Question 28 specifically states:

*Q28. What can my staff do when a service animal is being disruptive? *

*A*. If a service animal is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it, staff may request that the animal be removed from the premises.

As for a specific case, I'll have to try to find you one on Tuesday (I'm at home and don't have access to our LexisNexis atm). Again, those weren't my examples, and I said they would likely fall under "out of control". I'll find you an actual real world example similar to one of them though. Just because they are owner trained, doesn't mean they don't have to follow some standards. Admitedly, those standard aren't as high as professionally trained service dogs are, but there is a base standard that has to be met to be in public.



ZenUber said:


> Well, hello to you too, Pawtism. I bet it felt good to get that all out, now didn't it?


Just catching up, but it's not like it's my first post on this thread about it. There are a lot of misconceptions out there that have to be addressed.


----------



## 142605 (Mar 4, 2018)

Let's recap what you said shall we?



Pawtism said:


> Did the dog start sniffing everything in sight with intensity? Not a service dog.


This is blatantly incorrect, and suggesting that a sniffing animal is "out of control" is absurd.



Pawtism said:


> Did the dog thrust it's head between or over the seat to investigate or enthusiastically greet you? Not a service dog.


Again, flat out WRONG. You've just told a forum of drivers that they can deny service for this? Really?



Pawtism said:


> Just because they are owner trained, doesn't mean they don't have to follow some standards.


There are no defined standards for training in the ADA. You're just making stuff up.



Pawtism said:


> Just catching up, but it's not like it's my first post on this thread about it. There are a lot of misconceptions out there that have to be addressed.


Yes, and unfortunately you're causing them.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Authority said:


> Let's recap what you said shall we?
> 
> This is blatantly incorrect, and suggesting that a sniffing animal is "out of control" is absurd.
> 
> ...


You need to go revisit your quotes, I didn't say any of the first two quotes. You're the one accusing people of making stuff up, yet you're the only one who is making stuff up. Do proper research first please. The last two quotes are the only ones I did say. As clearly, as evidenced by your level of research here, you're response to the last one is dubious (at best).

As for the standards, I've already stated the standards. Not a direct threat, not out of control, and must be housebroken. Those are the standards that MUST be present for public access.


----------



## 142605 (Mar 4, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> This is blatantly untrue, again, you really should educate yourself. Seriously, please read through at least this (I know you aren't big on reading or education, but if you want to not have to take just random pets, you really need to know this stuff). https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html


Thank you, I am very familiar with it. Please show me where _you_ think it says service may be denied based on the answer to one of the two questions.

Still waiting.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Authority said:


> Thank you, I am very familiar with it. Please show me where _you_ think it says service may be denied based on the answer to one of the two questions.
> 
> Still waiting.


And, if you'd bother to read, you'd see I've already answered, #28.


----------



## 142605 (Mar 4, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> And, if you'd bother to read, you'd see I've already answered, #28.


Incorrect. Question 28 addresses "disruptive animals". Please read my question again?

I was asking you about Question 7.

"In situations where it is not obvious that the dog is a service animal, staff may ask only two specific questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability? and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform?"

No matter what they say, the law does not allow for denying service based on their answer. No matter how crazy! They could say "my dog translates Chinese" and the driver is still obligated to drive them.

So for the third time, please show me where _you_ think it says that service may be denied based on the answer to one of those two questions?


----------



## forrest m (Feb 21, 2019)

It seems simple to me. As long as ride-share companies are not considered employers of drivers, they do not have to follow employer medical accommodations laws. The day they are determined legally and officially to be employers, is the day they will have to make accommodations for drivers who have animal allergies.

If you want medical accommodations for your allergies, you have to have an employer to provide those accomodations. Of course someone could argue the term "self employment" to mean you are an employee and therefore required to provide medical accommodation to yourself.


----------



## 142605 (Mar 4, 2018)

forrest m said:


> It seems simple to me. As long as ride-share companies are not considered employers of drivers, they do not have to follow employer medical accommodations laws. The day they are determined legally and officially to be employers, is the day they will have to make accommodations for drivers who have animal allergies.
> 
> If you want medical accommodations for your allergies, you have to have an employer to provide those accomodations. Of course someone could argue the term "self employment" to mean you are an employee and therefore required to provide medical accommodation to yourself.


Interesting theory.

The ADA applies to "State and local government agencies, businesses, and non-profit organizations (covered entities) that provide goods or services to the public". As a independant contractor, we're our own business, so the law applies to us.

As a business, Uber can't use contractors that don't obey applicable laws such as car registration, insurance, licensing, and yes ADA.


----------



## forrest m (Feb 21, 2019)

Authority said:


> Interesting theory.
> 
> The ADA applies to "State and local government agencies, businesses, and non-profit organizations (covered entities) that provide goods or services to the public". As a independant contractor, we're our own business, so the law applies to us.
> 
> As a business, Uber can't use contractors that don't obey applicable laws such as car registration, insurance, licensing, and yes ADA.


 So who among us will go to the ride-share companies and argue the point (or hire a lawyer to do it) that in order for them to comply, they can only have drivers who obey ADA law by providing medical accommodations to themselves? May be worth an attempt at a class action lawsuit, but I doubt an individual could get anywhere with it.


----------



## 142605 (Mar 4, 2018)

forrest m said:


> So who among us will go to the ride-share companies and argue the point that in order for them to comply, they can only have drivers who obey ADA law by providing medical accommodations to themselves?


Not sure exactly what you mean, but it does seem to me that the law is in direct conflict with a number of other legal principles. If a driver is severely allergic to an animal, to force them to risk their health _while operating a vehicle_, would seem to unnecessarily put the safety of passengers and the public in jeopardy.

The law only requires a "reasonable" accommodation. In my interpretation, allowing drivers to elect to be "animal friendly" or not would accommodate both passenger _and_ driver.

Unfortunately this won't happen until a driver has a severe allergic reaction to a service animal that causes a traffic or pedestrian fatality and a lawsuit is filed.


----------



## ZenUber (Feb 11, 2019)

Pawtism said:


> Try the one I already gave you but you clearly aren't willing to read. https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html
> 
> Question 28 specifically states:
> 
> ...


It's not my first post either. But there are a few people out there who have a "it's the law, shut up and do it or go to jail" kind of attitude.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Authority said:


> Incorrect. Question 28 addresses "disruptive animals". Please read my question again?
> 
> I was asking you about Question 7.
> 
> ...


Ah, I may have misread your question, I apologize for that. #1, 2 and 3 would apply in most cases, #4 in a few. If their dog translates Chinese, that does not meet #1 or #2, using your example.

Now, how about addressing the fact that you quote me as using 2 examples I didn't use? Care to address that?



ZenUber said:


> It's not my first post either. But there are a few people out there who have a "it's the law, shut up and do it or go to jail" kind of attitude.


Only in a few states would you actually go to jail, in most you'd just get cited to appear in court.  (funny, but also true) That being said, these issues are my bread and butter . Being disabled, (and specifically Autistic, if my user name didn't give it away, Asperger's to be exact, and a service dog handler myself), finding work that you can do, and actually enjoy, is a challenge, so I'm really grateful that I'm able to do it. However, it also means I take it quite seriously. I've been involved in several cases, with both legitimate, and even a fake service dog. I take both parties rights very seriously (however, I do tend to be on the side of the disabled typically, so I will admit some bias there). Businesses (drivers, in this case) and the customers (pax in this case) both have rights, and only in truly understanding the law, can we flush out what each sides rights are.

That's why the two questions are so important. They really are just about the only way (yes, behavior to a certain extent, but the bad behaved ones tend to be obvious, what about well behaved pets?) you can tell if a service dog is legit or not. I despise (like literally hate) people who fake service dogs. It's not the dogs fault, but rather the person who is faking a disability. I equate it to rolling around in a wheelchair telling people you're paralyzed when you aren't. Obviously, I (a disabled service dog handler), strongly defend the rights of those who have legitimate service dogs. However, I find it equally important to defend the rights of businesses (in this case, drivers) to protect themselves against those who would fake a disability to take an untrained pet with them. Is it possible that someone with a well behaved enough pet could do enough research to lie well enough to pass it off? Sadly, yes. I wish I could say no, but no system, no ID, no anything, is going to be 100% scam proof.

For me, it's important that the drivers have the facts, both what they can do, and what they have to do, so they don't wind up in trouble because they were ignorant about something (even just as simple as being deactivated). So I want them to have the facts. People, like Authority, want you to believe that you just have to take them, no matter what. That is simply not true. You have 2 questions you can ask, if you choose not to ask them, then when it winds up being a fake, you are really just as much to blame as the person faking it. You didn't bother to ask. On top of that, if it's out of control, aggressive, etc, you have protections (just make sure to get it on your dash cam to cover yourself). Now, if it's a legitimate service dog, or a well trained enough fake who's owner had done enough research and has a low enough moral character that they are willing to fake a disability, then yes, you're probably stuck taking it. I won't defend the fakers, but the legitimate handlers have a right to go on with their lives too, and shouldn't be punished because of someone else's crappy decisions in life.

You might find is surprising that many people don't want Autistic representation. However, as a sidebar, I should mention that outside of the drivers world, it's also important for businesses to use to two questions to help protect legitimate handlers as well. By keeping the fakes out, you reduce the chances of one of the untrained fakes attacking or distracting our legitimate service dogs (which often results in a washout).


----------



## 142605 (Mar 4, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> Ah, I may have misread your question


Over and over again.



Pawtism said:


> I apologize for that. #1, 2 and 3 would apply in most cases, #4 in a few. If their dog translates Chinese, that does not meet #1 or #2, using your example.


Incorrect. The law allows two questions to be asked. The law does _not_ however provide for *any* determination based on the answer. The questions are essentially rhetorical.

I would really encourage you to stop providing your beliefs, hopes, and assumptions as law. You are doing a disservice both to drivers and to the disabled by providing false, inaccurate, and incomplete information... I hope you have good malpractice insurance.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Authority said:


> Over and over again.
> 
> Incorrect. The law allows two questions to be asked. The law does _not_ however provide for *any* determination based on the answer.
> 
> I would really encourage you to stop providing your beliefs, hopes, and assumptions as law. You are doing a disservice both to drivers and to the disabled by providing false, inaccurate, and incomplete information... I hope you have good malpractice insurance.


https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html is an FAQ, it's not "the law", it's a guide to help people (like you) who don't understand the law make sense of it. If you weren't so confused and trying so hard to troll, you'd get that. "The law" (which includes case law that has been argued over the last 29 years) simply says that (paraphrasing, obviously) that those are the two questions you can ask. It doesn't say "this answer is acceptable and this answer is not" (nor can it). Attorneys make those arguments (before a judge) when something comes up. Some are pretty obvious. "My dog translates Chinese", "you can't ask me that!" and "emotional support" (with no other info), are obvious fails. "Seizure alert and uses a button to summon emergency response", "Alerts me when my blood sugar is low", and "Gets my medication for me if I'm having an episode" are all obvious tasks (and have been used as examples in various ADA documentation). Anything in between is a bit of a gamble. Bottom line, does it fit as a task that could mitigate a disability? How about "She nudges me at a specific time each day."? I use that one, intentionally, as it was a point of contention in a specific case I was on. I'd advise unless you're sure it's not a task, to accept it.

You act like the FAQ is the end all, be all. All you're doing is showing off exactly how uneducated you are. I can't help but notice that you have failed to address the inaccurate quotes you attributed to me, how about addressing that?


----------



## 142605 (Mar 4, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html is an FAQ, it's not "the law", it's a guide to help people (like you) who don't understand the law make sense of it. If you weren't so confused and trying so hard to troll, you'd get that. "The law" (which includes case law that has been argued over the last 29 years) simply says that (paraphrasing, obviously) that those are the two questions you can ask. It doesn't say "this answer is acceptable and this answer is not" (nor can it). Attorneys make those arguments (before a judge) when something comes up. Some are pretty obvious. "My dog translates Chinese", "you can't ask me that!" and "emotional support" (with no other info), are obvious fails. "Seizure alert and uses a button to summon emergency response", "Alerts me when my blood sugar is low", and "Gets my medication for me if I'm having an episode" are all obvious tasks (and have been used as examples in various ADA documentation). Anything in between is a bit of a gamble. Bottom line, does it fit as a task that could mitigate a disability? How about "She nudges me at a specific time each day."? I use that one, intentionally, as it was a point of contention in a specific case I was on. I'd advise unless you're sure it's not a task, to accept it.
> 
> You act like the FAQ is the end all, be all. All you're doing is showing off exactly how uneducated you are. I can't help but notice that you have failed to address the inaccurate quotes you attributed to me, how about addressing that?


I wonder if name calling makes you feel better? If so, feel free to continue. However the fact remains that neither the FAQ nor the code allow the person asking the question to make _any_ determination based on the answer because they are simply not qualified to do so. The question is rhetorical and irrelevant.

While you drone on and on, you have failed to provide _any_ evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Authority said:


> I wonder if name calling makes you feel better? If so, feel free to continue. However the fact remains that neither the FAQ nor the code allow the person asking the question to make _any_ determination based on the answer because they are simply not qualified to do so. The question is rhetorical and irrelevant.
> 
> While you drone on and on, you have failed to provide _any_ evidence to the contrary.


I'm still waiting for you to address your erroneous quoting of me.


----------



## mmn (Oct 23, 2015)

Authority said:


> ... If a driver is severely allergic to an animal, to force them to risk their health _while operating a vehicle_, would seem to unnecessarily put the safety of passengers and the public in jeopardy...


Except no one's being forced. You can go do something else.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Pawtism said:


> Ah, I may have misread your question, I apologize for that. #1, 2 and 3 would apply in most cases, #4 in a few. If their dog translates Chinese, that does not meet #1 or #2, using your example.
> 
> Now, how about addressing the fact that you quote me as using 2 examples I didn't use? Care to address that?
> 
> ...


Half of the people out there claiming their not-legit SA is legit aren't entirely scammers. These websites offering "official certificates" saying an animal is an SA can be confusing as all get-out. Most people think that their ESA actually IS covered as an SA. Most people in general don't know the difference between SA, ESA, and Therapy Animal at all.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

SuzeCB said:


> Half of the people out there claiming their not-legit SA is legit aren't entirely scammers. These websites offering "official certificates" saying an animal is an SA can be confusing as all get-out. Most people think that their ESA actually IS covered as an SA. Most people in general don't know the difference between SA, ESA, and Therapy Animal at all.


Sadly that is true. The ones who are willing to be educated aren't too bad, but you get many who are too stubborn to learn though.


----------



## 142605 (Mar 4, 2018)

SuzeCB said:


> Half of the people out there claiming their not-legit SA is legit aren't entirely scammers. These websites offering "official certificates" saying an animal is an SA can be confusing as all get-out. Most people think that their ESA actually IS covered as an SA. Most people in general don't know the difference between SA, ESA, and Therapy Animal at all.


Is a dog that assists with "depression", which is recognized by the ADA as a "disability", an SA, ESA, Therapy Animal?



Pawtism said:


> You do the same thing with an O2 tank that does that, as you do a service dog that does that, you report it and send in pictures.





ZenUber said:


> I will not give the passenger the ride - and hope I am right 100% of the time. I won't do that. No. I will refuse the ride ( if I think they are fake ), affectively placing my bet. Remember, I haven't violated anybody's civil rights unless I'm proved to be wrong.


Most drivers don't realize that if a "service dog" sheds, drools, or even poops or pees in your car you don't get a cleanup fee.

Imagine being an Uber Lux driver with a $50K car having dog diarrhea get into their seats... and no clean up fee?


----------



## Uberladysf777 (Nov 27, 2018)

ZenUber said:


> Well said. I think it should be incumbent upon the passenger to prove that this is a legitimate service animal. They should have documentation for that animal, and they should have to upload it to Uber, and their account should have an authorized service animal icon. That way we know they are for real. I understand why the laws are in place to protect people with disabilities. But some of the responsibility should still be placed on the person with the disability, and not completely on the driver. Otherwise you're just asking for abuse. That's why you have handicap placards for cars, otherwise everybody would just park in those spots.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Authority said:


> Is a dog that assists with "depression", which is recognized by the ADA as a "disability", an SA, ESA, Therapy Animal?


Depends on it's training, or lack thereof.



Authority said:


> Most drivers don't realize that if a "service dog" sheds, drools, or even poops or pees in your car you don't get a cleanup fee.
> 
> Imagine being an Uber Lux driver with a $50K car having dog diarrhea get into their seats... and no clean up fee?


Yes you do. They just don't charge the disabled pax for it the first time or two it happens. Driver still gets paid.

Legally, the handler is responsible. Uber CHOOSES to give them a courtesy. That's between them and Uber. Driver gets paid, or driver can sue for damages and expenses and the last thing Uber wants is that.


----------



## 142605 (Mar 4, 2018)

SuzeCB said:


> Depends on it's training, or lack thereof.
> 
> 
> Yes you do. They just don't charge the disabled pax for it the first time or two it happens. Driver still gets paid.
> ...


Source?

https://accessibility.uber.com/service-animal-policy/


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Authority said:


> Source?
> 
> https://accessibility.uber.com/service-animal-policy/


An emotional support animal is, simply, a pet. The owner gets certified as having an emotional need for a pet and gets a cert from a doctor. This guarantees that this person can have the pet accommodated in their residence. There is absolutely no training necessary, and the only thing guaranteed is residential accommodation. Provided, of course, that the animal doesn't become a nuisance, and the owner controls it. It can be any animal legal in the town. It may not be legal, for example, for someone to have a rooster living in their high rise apt.

A therapy animal has the same temperament as a Service Animal. There are no special accomodations for them, except as recognized by hospitals, nursing homes, etc. Where the animal may be brought to provide comfort to people who could use it. There are also therapy horses that are used for therapy for a number of different disabilities. Landlords do not have to accomodate them.

A Service Animal has its particular temperament, plus public access behavioral training. The disabled person can certainly do this training themselves, if able, but the animal needs to be tested. After that, any tasks it has been trained to do for the person because of their disability is what separates the Therapy from Service. That and the fact there are therapy rabbits, cats, chinchillas, and the list goes on. Only dogs and mini horses can be SAs.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Authority said:


> Source?
> 
> https://accessibility.uber.com/service-animal-policy/


As for the cleanup fee, many drivers have submitted them and have gotten them (although not always as much as they have wanted, usually because they didn't get it professionally done, but asked for professional fees). As Suze said, they just aren't passed on to the pax (except in cases of actual damage, which can be). If you need a source for that, we have a nice search feature in the top right.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

ZenUber said:


> So who get's to decide that the qualifying attribute for medical equipment, is weather or not it fits in your car? Who gets to decide that a biological animal is synonymous with medical equipment? Basically you're saying, if it fits, it rides. I think there are more important attributes, such as the ones I've listed above, that place undue burden on the driver - or any provider for that matter.


If it fits it rides is EXACTLY what she's saying. And the ADA decided.


----------



## Kyanar (Dec 14, 2017)

ZenUber said:


> Well said. I think it should be incumbent upon the passenger to prove that this is a legitimate service animal. They should have documentation for that animal, and they should have to upload it to Uber, and their account should have an authorized service animal icon. That way we know they are for real. I understand why the laws are in place to protect people with disabilities. But some of the responsibility should still be placed on the person with the disability, and not completely on the driver. Otherwise you're just asking for abuse. That's why you have handicap placards for cars, otherwise everybody would just park in those spots.


Except that Uber _can't_ require this. By law, they - like you - can only ask _two questions_. Is this animal trained to perform a particular task or function, and what task or function is it trained to perform. Uber _cannot_ ask for documentation, or require it be uploaded to a portal, or display an icon to the driver (especially not that, which is actually open to far more abuse _by drivers_ than the current situation is _by passengers_).


----------



## forrest m (Feb 21, 2019)

I guess I'm just looking for disappointment, because I keep looking back at this thread to see if by some miracle someone has posted an enlightening suggestion or a solution that will free affected drivers from their burden.


----------



## Larrybaty (Jun 2, 2019)

Pawtism said:


> Ah, I may have misread your question, I apologize for that. #1, 2 and 3 would apply in most cases, #4 in a few. If their dog translates Chinese, that does not meet #1 or #2, using your example.
> 
> Now, how about addressing the fact that you quote me as using 2 examples I didn't use? Care to address that?
> 
> ...


Not following the ADA rules is not a criminal act. In some states you can refuse an animal that is not wearing a vest. Most people without a certified service animal will call me and ask if taking their dog is ok with me. I charge a $10 fee for animals without proof of service. This is my car not Lyft's car.


----------



## forrest m (Feb 21, 2019)

Larrybaty said:


> Not following the ADA rules is not a criminal act. In some states you can refuse an animal that is not wearing a vest. Most people without a certified service animal will call me and ask if taking their dog is ok with me. I charge a $10 fee for animals without proof of service. This is my car not Lyft's car.


I had been considering the notion of charging to transport pets, wondering if it violates TOS. Then I was wondering if here is a service company for transporting pets, because that might be better than transporting humans.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Larrybaty said:


> Not following the ADA rules is not a criminal act. In some states you can refuse an animal that is not wearing a vest. Most people without a certified service animal will call me and ask if taking their dog is ok with me. I charge a $10 fee for animals without proof of service. This is my car not Lyft's car.


States can try to say that, about the vests, but they can't enforce, as such a law violates the Fed ADA. Driver is responsible for violating ADA.

Pets are not SAs. The only way you can "prove" an SA is an SA or not is to observe it's behavior and ask the two questions. That's it.


----------

