# Service dog vent - documentation



## raisedoncereal (Jun 5, 2019)

Of the dozen or so times that I've had to transport people's pet dogs, I've yet to come across one that I would personally consider a legit trained service dog. Not that I'm a pro at identifying legit service dogs. I mean, I feel like I've seen the legit service dogs in action in the public, and feel like I know some of the main traits in behavior, age (not a misbehaved puppy) as well as common breeds.

Anyways.

I realize that it will be a very slim chance of it happening, but I feel like pax should be required to

1) identify, as in click a checkbox when signing up for Uber and in the account settings, if they are expecting to be accompanied by a service dog
2) upload service dog documents along with picture of the dog prior to taking a ride. This one might be tricky as it may shut out a rider with a service dog who needs a ride before the documents can be approved, but maybe they can be given some amount of grace period after which they will be required to upload and have docs verified

At the time of the pickup , if the account is not marked/registered as needed for service animals, the driver should be allowed to deny the ride without any consequences.


----------



## SinTaxERROR (Jul 23, 2019)

Will not work that way my friend. Violates every aspect of Federal Law. (ADA)


----------



## raisedoncereal (Jun 5, 2019)

Such a fail of a law.

It's like saying it's illegal to show proof of age when getting senior citizen discounts at a restaurant and that denying anyone, including children who are clearly under 15 years old, is illegal and asking for proof is illegal. Same exact concept.

Why is there SUCH leniency (not the right word) for this area? Anyone who needs a service dog should know well in advance whether or not they will be accompanied by one, and anyone else is a fraud


----------



## TemptingFate (May 2, 2019)

raisedoncereal said:


> Such a fail of a law.
> 
> It's like saying it's illegal to show proof of age when getting senior citizen discounts at a restaurant and that denying anyone, including children who are clearly under 15 years old, is illegal and asking for proof is illegal. Same exact concept.
> 
> Why is there SUCH leniency (not the right word) for this area? Anyone who needs a service dog should know well in advance whether or not they will be accompanied by one, and anyone else is a fraud


Because the law is intended to make services accessible to the handicapped, not to create more obstacles for them.


----------



## raisedoncereal (Jun 5, 2019)

It's a one time process, and if made easy such as offering a public location where assistance can be provided on these types of issues, this could easily be a respected topic rather than just another BS thing to take advantage of by toy dog owners


----------



## SinTaxERROR (Jul 23, 2019)

Personally, I love dogs. I think they are awesome. I would rather transport a dog than a pax any day of the week.


----------



## Julescase2 (Apr 1, 2019)

raisedoncereal said:


> Of the dozen or so times that I've had to transport people's pet dogs, I've yet to come across one that I would personally consider a legit trained service dog. Not that I'm a pro at identifying legit service dogs. I mean, I feel like I've seen the legit service dogs in action in the public, and feel like I know some of the main traits in behavior, age (not a misbehaved puppy) as well as common breeds.
> 
> Anyways.
> 
> ...


There are no "documents" in existence that can be uploaded, nor are there ways for a person to tell from physical looks whether a dog is a service dog.

Your suggestions break several laws that are in place specifically to avoid what you're trying to accomplish.

A service dog is, essentially, like a wheelchair or walker or any other device used to help someone with a disability. It's just a living breathing thing instead of a mechanical item. Many drivers (or people in general) have a hard time reconciling this fact and that is where the anger sets in. If people spent a minute reading the facts and made an effort to fully understand how the ADA works, we'd have no posts about the service animal issues.



TemptingFate said:


> Because the law is intended to make services accessible to the handicapped, not to create more obstacles for them.


Perfectly stated!!!


----------



## raisedoncereal (Jun 5, 2019)

So you're saying that things such as service dog documentation does not exist? That's not how I understood it.


----------



## Julescase2 (Apr 1, 2019)

raisedoncereal said:


> So you're saying that things such as service dog documentation does not exist? That's not how I understood it.


Exactly. No such documentation exists. Fact.


----------



## SinTaxERROR (Jul 23, 2019)

@Julescase2 ... I think some of the pax I have transported just might be mechanical. Err... um, maybe maniacal... :roflmao:


----------



## TemptingFate (May 2, 2019)

raisedoncereal said:


> So you're saying that things such as service dog documentation does not exist? That's not how I understood it.


"Covered entities may not require documentation, such as proof that the animal has been certified, trained, or licensed as a service animal, as a condition for entry.
There are individuals and organizations that sell service animal certification or registration documents online. These documents do not convey any rights under the ADA and the Department of Justice does not recognize them as proof that the dog is a service animal."


Redirecting…


----------



## raisedoncereal (Jun 5, 2019)

Well, this is not what I wanted to hear, so you be quiet! Shoo!


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

raisedoncereal said:


> It's a one time process


For every single establishment and service they use. Hardly a minor inconvenience.



raisedoncereal said:


> That's not how I understood it.


You obviously do not understand correctly


----------



## raisedoncereal (Jun 5, 2019)

Shoo! Shoo!!


----------



## SinTaxERROR (Jul 23, 2019)

raisedoncereal said:


> So you're saying that things such as service dog documentation does not exist? That's not how I understood it.


Some people will tell you that that their dog is registered. They may even provide you a document or card stating as such. But no such registry exists.

Some will even try this registry scam for their emotional support animal.


----------



## Z129 (May 30, 2018)

Carry a towel. Lay it down to protect your seats. Take dog and owner from A to B. Carry on with your day. Every other option ends poorly for the driver.


----------



## SinTaxERROR (Jul 23, 2019)

(Waiting to be shoo’ed) :biggrin:


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

raisedoncereal said:


> It's like saying it's illegal to show proof of age when getting senior citizen discounts at a restaurant and that denying anyone, including children who are clearly under 15 years old, is illegal and asking for proof is illegal. Same exact concept.


Yeah except its nothing like that.

If you denied a pax a ride because they were too old, or a Muslim or black, then it's the same concept.

This subject has been beaten to death on this forum. You can not leagally refuse service because of race or religion, that is discrimination. You cannot refuse because of a service animal, its discrimination. Same concept.



raisedoncereal said:


> It's like saying it's illegal to show proof of age when getting senior citizen discounts at a restaurant and that denying anyone, including children who are clearly under 15 years old, is illegal and asking for proof is illegal. Same exact concept.


Yeah except its nothing like that.

If you denied a pax a ride because they were too old, or a Muslim or black, then it's the same concept.

This subject has been beaten to death on this forum. You can not leagally refuse service because of race or religion, that is discrimination. You cannot refuse because of a service animal, its discrimination. Same concept.


----------



## SinTaxERROR (Jul 23, 2019)

Boca Ratman said:


> Yeah except its nothing like that.
> 
> If you denied a pax a ride because they were too old, or a Muslim or black, then it's the same concept.
> 
> ...


@Boca Ratman ... you are echoing buddy. :laugh:


----------



## Uberdriver2710 (Jul 15, 2015)

maybe try instacart?


----------



## Matt Uterak (Jul 28, 2015)

TemptingFate said:


> Because the law is intended to make services accessible to the handicapped, not to create more obstacles for them.


In the end it hurts small businesses and creates more self entitled morons.

The IDEA law is bad as well.

The position that disabled people can't be given responsibility with their privileges under the law I'd what creates bad law like the ADA. I have to carry a license for driving and my gun. A disabled person should be required to carry a stare issued card for their service animal.

Our local school district had to hire someone to cart a kid in a hospital bed from class to class despite him being severely brain damaged. He doesn't speak, read, write or acknowledge anything around him. But the courts said "least restrictive environment" is the law and thus we indulge his parents.


----------



## raisedoncereal (Jun 5, 2019)

I don't so much mind the actual dogs themselves as much as I mind the disrespect for the system, driver, and trying to take advantage of a system put in place to help the truly needed. I liken it to someone using disability parking placards purely for personal convenience when they have no legitimate need for it.

That said.... Shoo!


----------



## SinTaxERROR (Jul 23, 2019)

Matt Uterak said:


> In the end it hurts small businesses and creates more self entitled morons.
> 
> The IDEA law is bad as well.
> 
> ...


If there is a law on the books, there will always be people that abuse it or take advantage of it. The ADA laws are not exempt from this systemic abuse.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

Matt Uterak said:


> I have to carry a license for driving and my gun. A disabled person should be required to carry a stare issued card for their service animal.


The law says they don't. A service animal is a necessity, driving is not.

Thos is an asinine comparison.


----------



## SinTaxERROR (Jul 23, 2019)

raisedoncereal said:


> I don't so much mind the actual dogs themselves as much as I mind the disrespect for the system, driver, and trying to take advantage of a system put in place to help the truly needed. I liken it to someone using disability parking placards purely for personal convenience when they have no legitimate need for it.
> 
> That said.... Shoo!


You do realize that not all disabled people have some noticeable physical handicap. Just cause you cannot see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


----------



## CTK (Feb 9, 2016)

TemptingFate said:


> Because the law is intended to make services accessible to the handicapped, not to create more obstacles for them.


While also protecting their medical privacy.


----------



## Julescase2 (Apr 1, 2019)

Matt Uterak said:


> In the end it hurts small businesses and creates more self entitled morons.
> 
> The IDEA law is bad as well.
> 
> ...


You obviously don't understand the ADA, and if you haven't educated yourself on it, I suggest you do.

Not all disabilities are visible to others.

Your examples don't correlate.


----------



## Illini (Mar 14, 2019)

As has been stated, I prefer dogs over humans.
I've transported several dogs. Some were pets, one was an emotional support dog (NOT a service dog), and just one true service dog. The service dog sat on a blanket that the owner brought and didn't move a muscle or make a sound the entire 20 minute trip.
No hair left in the car. That dog was the best pax I ever had.


----------



## Uberdriver2710 (Jul 15, 2015)

Boober is licensing bad behavior.


----------



## ST DYMPHNA son (Aug 10, 2017)

raisedoncereal said:


> Of the dozen or so times that I've had to transport people's pet dogs, I've yet to come across one that I would personally consider a legit trained service dog. Not that I'm a pro at identifying legit service dogs. I mean, I feel like I've seen the legit service dogs in action in the public, and feel like I know some of the main traits in behavior, age (not a misbehaved puppy) as well as common breeds.
> 
> Anyways.
> 
> ...


...hard to balance between how to deal with it as poor people who really need their service animals deserve to be treated right...only logical way to deal with people who try to abuse us,the drivers,with a smirk on their faces telling us that a pooch is the service animal when is clear that it is not, is to "hit" them with a cleaning charge...
...I don't mind animals in my car if people ask if I would take them and they take responsibility for any mishaps...


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

raisedoncereal said:


> Such a fail of a law.


One common problem with these do-gooder laws is that they go too far the other way. In the interest of protecting the class that requires protection, they adversely impact those not part of that class.

One of the original purposes of [cue up echo chamber and _basso profondo _voice] ot THE LAW, in theory, was to protect the weak from the strong. What has happened in far too many cases is that the law has become the means by which the weak establish a tyranny over the strong. When that goes too far too frequently, ........................................



SinTaxERROR said:


> I would rather transport a dog than a pax any day of the week.


The more that I deal with people, the more that I love my dog.

My mother always used to say: "Raise poodles, not children". She raised Standard Poodles: the full sized dog with the full throated bark; not those little, obnoxious yip-yip things.



raisedoncereal said:


> So you're saying that things such as service dog documentation does not exist? That's not how I understood it.


There is no Universal Form of Documentation for these dogs. Many of the centres that train them will issue some sort of certificates or other documents. One of the reasons that there is no such animal is that the ADA specifically states that you _ain't 'llowed t'ask fer nun_. The ADA permits you to ask two questions:

Is this a service animal?
What task has it been trained to perform?

You are required to take the person's word for whatever he says. If he says that it has been trained to pitch major league baseball games, you must believe him. Unlike what some of the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts would have you believe, you are not required to like it, Y-E-T, but, you are required to comply. Soon enough, the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and other do-gooders will really get their way and you will be required to like it.



raisedoncereal said:


> I don't so much mind the actual dogs themselves as much as I mind the disrespect for the system, driver, and trying to take advantage of a system put in place to help the truly needed


If someone can put something over on someone else and work it to his advantage, he will. These people know that the proverbial playing field is tilted against you. They are going to take advantage of that.


----------



## sheonlydrivesdays (May 25, 2019)

If a passenger has a legitimate service animal I have absolutely no problem with that. But these people who are faking having a service animal are infuriating. I went to the ADA website and found the info below. Not sure if someone posted this on here before. But there are two (and only two) questions you can ask when you encounter a person with a "service animal."

This is straight from the ADA website:

*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.

*Q3. Are emotional support, therapy, comfort, or companion animals considered service animals under the ADA?
A*. No. These terms are used to describe animals that provide comfort just by being with a person. Because they have not been trained to perform a specific job or task, they do not qualify as service animals under the ADA. However, some State or local governments have laws that allow people to take emotional support animals into public places. You may check with your State and local government agencies to find out about these laws.

I pulled up to an animal hospital a while back and there was a woman with two fake service animals (there was NO DOUBT in my mind they were emotional support animals). I politely asked the two ADA-approved questions. She was dumbfounded and started pulling out a letter from her doctor explaining they were emotional support animals. There it is. That's all I needed. An admission they were emotional support animals. I politely explained that emotional support animals are not recognized under the ADA and therefore I am not required to transport them in my car.

It would be wise to start recording the interaction as well. If you don't record it you risk getting deactivated if the customer complains. I found this one on youtube:


----------



## TomTheAnt (Jan 1, 2019)

^^^ Well said! :thumbup: Emotional support animals are the ones usually causing the most confusion.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Is this a service animal?
> What task has it been trained to perform?
> 
> You are required to take the person's word for whatever he says. If he says that it has been trained to pitch major league baseball games, you must believe him.


I was suspended for not believing a nonsense answer from pax while Uber "investigated". You can deny dogs when the answer to the second question is nonsense, but it can easily mean suspension while Uberlyft reviews the video evidence. (Don't do this without recording video)

Me - What task has your dog been trained to perform?
Pax - To say hello
Me - In my 40 plus years on this planet I have never come across a talking dog. I do not believe that your dog has been trained to say hello. You have been unable to tell me a valid task your dog has been trained to do and on that basis I will not be taking you today.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

The Gift of Fish said:


> I was suspended for not believing a nonsense answer from pax while Uber "investigated".


Ask me why I do not disbelieve you.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Ask me why I do not disbelieve you.


Another answer I had was "whatever we tell him to do". That pax also failed the question - the ADA requires that the dog be trained for specific tasks. While it would be great to have a dog trained to do whatever it was told ("hey Fido, make me a decaf soy latte with an extra shot and cream"), that answer was a fail.

And that refusal was another suspension from Uber.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

The Gift of Fish said:


> And that refusal was another suspension from Uber.


In short, the bottom line is what I stated: you must believe them. If you do not, you get an adverse consequence, whether said adverse consequence is justified, or not.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

SinTaxERROR said:


> @Boca Ratman ... you are echoing buddy. :laugh:


What?


SinTaxERROR said:


> @Boca Ratman ... you are echoing buddy. :laugh:


What?


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

Another Uber Driver said:


> In short, the bottom line is what I stated: you must believe them. If you do not, you get an adverse consequence, whether said adverse consequence is justified, or not.


Not sure about "must". It's a judgment call for each driver to make. I know each time I refuse a fake service dog in either Uber or Lyft then I may get suspended over it. When it does happen I just switch over to the other service until the suspension clears. I can't say that it's cost me money, and it just doesn't feel right letting pax get one over on me.


----------



## Roadmasta (Aug 4, 2017)

I'm getting a therapy monkey, he could ride with me and I will train him to pickpocket customers. Drivers should be protected by the same laws.


----------



## raisedoncereal (Jun 5, 2019)

If the pax fights back, the monkey will fling feces


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

raisedoncereal said:


> Such a fail of a law.
> 
> It's like saying it's illegal to show proof of age when getting senior citizen discounts at a restaurant and that denying anyone, including children who are clearly under 15 years old, is illegal and asking for proof is illegal. Same exact concept.
> 
> Why is there SUCH leniency (not the right word) for this area? Anyone who needs a service dog should know well in advance whether or not they will be accompanied by one, and anyone else is a fraud


Or illegal to show I.D. to Vote !


----------



## raisedoncereal (Jun 5, 2019)

How do airlines handle this type of issue?





tohunt4me said:


> Or illegal to show I.D. to Vote !


Exactly. Or illegal to require ID to withdraw money from a bank account. They must take your word for it that you're Jeff bezos and allow you to access the account

Or illegal for Uber to require a password to login

Etc
Etc
Etc


----------



## Gandler (Jan 27, 2019)

On Friday my department had ADA enforcement training and service animals was one of the sections. The only thing that can be asked about service dogs or service horses (apparently those are the only two animals legally classified as service animals). (Emotional support animals are not service animals and have no ADA protection) are :

1. Is the service animal required because of a disability? (You CANNOT ask about the nature of the individual's disability, only if the animal is required because of one).

2. What service or task has the animal been trained to perform. (You CANNOT ask them to demonstrate the task or prove that it can perform the task, you can only ask what the task is).

There are is no official documentation of any service animals or IDs. (In fact if somebody pulls a service dog ID when being asked out that is often a sign that it may be fake, something else I learned, because people with trained service dogs know the questions they have to answer).

No vests, tags, ID, etc... or anything are required to be worn by animal or owner.

If somebody says it is a service dog and can name a valid task, legally there is nothing more you can do or ask...

A service dog can be asked to leave the premise, property, or vehicle, if it becomes dangerous or "out of control".

There is no such thing as official paperwork for service animals. And, even if there were (again there is not), no company would be allowed to ask for it.

You can remove the patron if the service animal becomes "out of the handlers control" or dangerous. But, this is legally gray territory, and we know as drivers that Uber will side with the pax if it is your word against theirs (again Dashcam for sure for all service dog rides to cover yourself if there are allegations that you unfairly asked somebody to leave, really you should have a Dashcam for all rides in today's climate sadly).

Like any Taxi or public transit, we as Uber Drivers have a duty to provide reasonable accommodation to service animals, even if we suspect that occasional there is a faker. If somebody can answer the two questions, you legally have to take their word for it, in any line of work including transportation.

ADA references:

Q: I operate a private taxicab and I don't want animals in my taxi; they smell, shed hair and sometimes have "accidents." Am I violating the ADA if I refuse to pick up someone with a service animal?


> A: Yes. Taxicab companies may not refuse to provide services to individuals with disabilities. Private taxicab companies are also prohibited from charging higher fares or fees for transporting individuals with disabilities and their service animals than they charge to other persons for the same or equivalent service.


* Q: What if a service animal barks or growls at other people, or otherwise acts out of control?*


> A: You may exclude any animal, including a service animal, from your facility when that animal's behavior poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others. For example, any service animal that displays vicious behavior towards other guests or customers may be excluded. You may not make assumptions, however, about how a particular animal is likely to behave based on your past experience with other animals. Each situation must be considered individually.
> Although a public accommodation may exclude any service animal that is out of control, it should give the individual with a disability who uses the service animal the option of continuing to enjoy its goods and services without having the service animal on the premises.


* Can I exclude an animal that doesn't really seem dangerous but is disruptive to my business?*


> A: There may be a few circumstances when a public accommodation is not required to accommodate a service animal--that is, when doing so would result in a fundamental alteration to the nature of the business. Generally, this is not likely to occur in restaurants, hotels, retail stores, theaters, concert halls, and sports facilities. But when it does, for example, when a dog barks during a movie, the animal can be excluded.


----------



## SinTaxERROR (Jul 23, 2019)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Me - What task has your dog been trained to perform?
> Pax - To say hello
> Me - In my 40 plus years on this planet I have never come across a talking dog. I do not believe that your dog has been trained to say hello. You have been unable to tell me a valid task your dog has been trained to do and on that basis I will not be taking you today.


Wait. What? You have never once seen a talking dog? Ever watched "Family Guy"? :roflmao:


----------



## ghrdrd (Jun 26, 2019)

raisedoncereal said:


> Of the dozen or so times that I've had to transport people's pet dogs, I've yet to come across one that I would personally consider a legit trained service dog. Not that I'm a pro at identifying legit service dogs. I mean, I feel like I've seen the legit service dogs in action in the public, and feel like I know some of the main traits in behavior, age (not a misbehaved puppy) as well as common breeds.
> 
> Anyways.
> 
> ...


See a dog, or any other animal, keep driving. Cancel 50ft down the road. What's the problem???


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Roadmasta said:


> I'm getting a therapy monkey, he could ride with me and I will train him to pickpocket customers. Drivers should be protected by the same laws.





raisedoncereal said:


> If the pax fights back, the monkey will fling feces


You two do realise that this sort of banter will get you into trouble with @Rakos , *correctamundo*?



raisedoncereal said:


> How do airlines handle this type of issue?


They actually do get away with more than most on this one. The airlines are "too big to penalise".



ghrdrd said:


> See a dog, or any other animal, keep driving. Cancel 50ft down the road. What's the problem???


The rub is this: The customer sends a nastygram to F*ub*a*r* or Gr*yft* saying that you drove by him because of his dog. Even though there was no contact between you two, F*ub*a*r*/Gr*yft* assume that the customer has basis for the complaint and send you to Deactivation Station. I have not read of a complaint like this over _aminals_ on these Boards Y-E-T, but, I have read more than one complaint from a driver that he was deactivated for some other sort of discrimination when either he drove by the customer because the customer appeared under the influence of something or, even, that he never even saw the customer, but the customer has a chip on his shoulder and assumes that anything that does not go his way is due to his being___________________________(fill in appropriate "protected class" here).


----------



## Matt Uterak (Jul 28, 2015)

Julescase2 said:


> You obviously don't understand the ADA, and if you haven't educated yourself on it, I suggest you do.
> 
> Not all disabilities are visible to others.
> 
> Your examples don't correlate.


Your answer doesn't address my position.

I made no appeal to visible vs non visual entertainment disabilities.

I understand public accommodation under the ADA. The point remains. Disabled should be required to have documentation and small businesses should be shielded from those using the ADA a cudgel.



Boca Ratman said:


> The law says they don't. A service animal is a necessity, driving is not.
> 
> Thos is an asinine comparison.


"Necessity" shouldn't be the standard.

We already know that it is a heavily abused section of the law. Licensing should be required with harsh penalties for the cheaters.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

Matt Uterak said:


> "Necessity" shouldn't be the standard.
> 
> We already know that it is a heavily abused section of the law. Licensing should be required with harsh penalties for the cheaters.


Comparing driving or carrying a concealed weapon with a service animal is so far off the mark.

I agree with you that cheaters should be harshly penalized. I have mixed feeling on placing the burden upon the owner of a service animal to prove their dog is legit. The current system of honesty is flawed, greatly. Requiring someone to have to show proof every single time they went somewhere has the potential for huge problems.

Imagine having to show your ID every single place you went. Not every person, just you and anyone who has the same birthday as you. Supermarket, Walgreens, Home Depot, 7-11. Stop at Starbucks, pull out your Id, running late, too bad, no id no coffee. It may seem like such a minor thing, but if you had to stop, pull out your ID and find and wait for someone to examine it EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. you went somewhere it wouldn't be a minor thing. You've been to Walmart I'm sure, imaging having to wait for the on duty certified id verification specialist to come finally come upfront. Then damn, you left it in your car. Back out to the car, then back into Walmart, again waiting for the the verification specialist.

Just now, after I typed that last sentence I ran into Walgreens for a something. I had to wait about 90 seconds for the guy to finish doing what he was doing before he rang me up, I wont lie, I got a little frustrated. Then, I slid my card and put it away, typed in my pin, no I dint want cash back, entered my phone # for the discount. The system was busy and I had to pull out my card again re-slide it and enter my pin again, no I dont want cash back "System busy" again. He moved me to another register and I slid my card a third time, entered my pin, enter my phone # for the discount. My God, I was ready to leave my shit on the counter and not give them my money! 3 minutes of inconvenience frustrated me, you'd be subject to much more than that showing your id every single place you went just because you were born on a certain day of the year.

Could you even imagine?

Ever get to a store and realize you forgot your wallet/money/ bank card at home?

What happens if you lose your ID or it gets stolen or falls off the dog's collar, goes through the washing machine, gets burned in a house fire, the ink fades and is illegible, etc. Now you cant go anywhere until you get a new one. How do you get an uber to replace your ID if you cant get into an uber without an ID?

Requiring those with service animals to provide proof just opens the door to so much potential discrimination and limitations and inconveniences. The abusers need to be punished but not at the expense of the legit.


----------



## SinTaxERROR (Jul 23, 2019)

Boca Ratman said:


> Comparing driving or carrying a concealed weapon with a service animal is so far off the mark.
> 
> I agree with you that cheaters should be harshly penalized. I have mixed feeling on placing the burden upon the owner of a service animal to prove their dog is legit. The current system of honesty is flawed, greatly. Requiring someone to have to show proof every single time they went somewhere has the potential for huge problems.
> 
> ...


Excuse me sir, I am going to need to see two forms of government issued photo ID, and proof of address, before you will be allowed to actively place another response to this thread. Thank you for your understanding in this matter.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

SinTaxERROR said:


> Excuse me sir, I am going to need to see two forms of government issued photo ID, and proof of address, before you will be allowed to actively place another response to this thread. Thank you for your understanding in this matter.


I would but the DMV wont let me in to get an ID without an ID!


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

raisedoncereal said:


> Such a fail of a law.
> 
> It's like saying it's illegal to show proof of age when getting senior citizen discounts at a restaurant and that denying anyone, including children who are clearly under 15 years old, is illegal and asking for proof is illegal. Same exact concept.
> 
> Why is there SUCH leniency (not the right word) for this area? Anyone who needs a service dog should know well in advance whether or not they will be accompanied by one, and anyone else is a fraud


Don


raisedoncereal said:


> Of the dozen or so times that I've had to transport people's pet dogs, I've yet to come across one that I would personally consider a legit trained service dog. Not that I'm a pro at identifying legit service dogs. I mean, I feel like I've seen the legit service dogs in action in the public, and feel like I know some of the main traits in behavior, age (not a misbehaved puppy) as well as common breeds.
> 
> Anyways.
> 
> ...


Uber's going to follow Federal Law in these cases. The downside is too great for erroring on the other side of Federal Law (ADA).

Am in property management and the service animal issue comes up from time. Some residents get extremely upset, when it could be a "gray area" situation; however, we still allow the service animal. In the housing industry, fines for violating FHA (Fair Housing Act Guidelines) are huge. Reaching over six figures at times. So no, we're not taking chances.

Am not a huge animal person myself; but, when I've taken pets, on occasion, it's worked out fine.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

SinTaxERROR said:


> Some people will tell you that that their dog is registered. They may even provide you a document or card stating as such. But no such registry exists.
> 
> Some will even try this registry scam for their emotional support animal.


In some cases, they were scammed. They actually believe their pet to qualify, and these websites promise the world and the certs they send have lovely, official-sounding names for the issuing entity.



Z129 said:


> Carry a towel. Lay it down to protect your seats. Take dog and owner from A to B. Carry on with your day. Every other option ends poorly for the driver.


Service animals don't go on the seats. One of the ways to tell a fake.


----------



## SinTaxERROR (Jul 23, 2019)

Honestly, I do not think that the real issue here is the service, emotional support, or household pet itself. To me it seems the real issue is being forced to comply. 

Keyword: FORCED.

It is just human nature to not want to be forced to do something. If transporting animals was a non issue, there would be almost certainly be another issue that would immediately take its place.

Just my opinion...


----------



## welikecamping (Nov 27, 2018)

People. Get a liner/seat protector and deal with it. Or find something else to do.

OY! Give it a rest.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

SinTaxERROR said:


> Honestly, I do not think that the real issue here is the service, emotional support, or household pet itself. To me it seems the real issue is being forced to comply.
> 
> Keyword: FORCED.
> 
> ...


I don't think the issue is that we're forced. I don't think we're forced - but if we want to do rideshare then we have to take service animals. There are lots of other similar requirements for rideshare that don't cause issue - if you want to drive (any vehicle) then you must not drive drunk or drugged, you must have insurance, you must not speed, you must do this and not that etc. So I don't think it's a loss of freedom issue.

For me the problem is people trying to game the system with the fake dogs. I don't like dogs in general; never have, but I'll take genuine service dogs.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> One common problem with these do-gooder laws is that they go too far the other way. In the interest of protecting the class that requires protection, they adversely impact those not part of that class.
> 
> One of the original purposes of [cue up echo chamber and _basso profondo _voice] ot THE LAW, in theory, was to protect the weak from the strong. What has happened in far too many cases is that the law has become the means by which the weak establish a tyranny over the strong. When that goes too far too frequently, ........................................
> 
> ...


I'm going to correct you on the first question. It should be, "Is this a Service Animal needed for a disability?"

The reason is that it's not the animal that's covered by the ADA, but the disabled person. If a disabled person has a friend take their SA to the groomer for them as a favor, the SA is not on duty, and accommodations do not have to be made.

But it will still probably be the best pax you'll have all week, so...



ghrdrd said:


> See a dog, or any other animal, keep driving. Cancel 50ft down the road. What's the problem???


Disabled people with SAs aren't necessarily intellectually disabled. The same way a woman knows when she's being mansplained to, or an African-American knows when the store employee is following them, the disabled pax will know you drove past them. And they will report, and Uber will check the GPS for both of you, and your illegal act will be proved.


----------



## Julescase2 (Apr 1, 2019)

Matt Uterak said:


> In the end it hurts small businesses and creates more self entitled morons.
> 
> The IDEA law is bad as well.
> 
> ...


The "privileges" that disabled people possess? Lolol what privileges would those be, pray tell?

And please think before you respond.



Another Uber Driver said:


> One common problem with these do-gooder laws is that they go too far the other way. In the interest of protecting the class that requires protection, they adversely impact those not part of that class.
> 
> One of the original purposes of [cue up echo chamber and _basso profondo _voice] ot THE LAW, in theory, was to protect the weak from the strong. What has happened in far too many cases is that the law has become the means by which the weak establish a tyranny over the strong. When that goes too far too frequently, ........................................
> 
> ...


These "do gooder laws" ? Lolol do you realize how incredibly ignorant you sound? "Do gooder laws" to actually help disabled people live in a semi- similar fashion to how everyone else lives?

Jesus. You're scaring me.


----------



## Matt Uterak (Jul 28, 2015)

Julescase2 said:


> The "privileges" that disabled people possess? Lolol what privileges would those be, pray tell?
> 
> And please think before you respond.
> 
> ...


Privileges under the law.

The ADA, IDEA and so on spell them out.

I get you want to do the indignant thing. But my statement is factual.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

Matt Uterak said:


> Privileges under the law.
> 
> The ADA, IDEA and so on spell them out.
> 
> I get you want to do the indignant thing. But my statement is factual.


They get the "privilege" of being treated like everyone else, those lucky bastards!


----------



## Matt Uterak (Jul 28, 2015)

Boca Ratman said:


> They get the "privilege" of being treated like everyone else, those lucky bastards!


No.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Julescase2 said:


> These "do gooder laws" ? Lolol do you realize how incredibly ignorant you sound?


Do you realise that you are calling me "ignorant" only because I am not a Dedicated Follower of Fashion? Do you realise that you are calling me "ignorant" because I actually make unfashionable statements?

Finally, do you realise that when people call me "ignorant" for no valid reason, I tell them that they can tell someone who cares?


----------



## ThrowInTheTowel (Apr 10, 2018)

Everybody wants to be a legal expert on what you can and can not do. The biggest complaint is that the service animal excuse is being over abused and the law needs to be changed. The excuse that it may be too inconvenient placing the burden on the disabled person makes no sense. To get any other form of assistance requires proof. Even public transportation requires your doctor to fill out a medical form stating the disability. Only then can you ride the bus or train for 50% off disabled discount here in NJ. They can't afford their meds doctor has to fill out patient assistance forms. If they apply for disability proof of the disability is required by a medical professional. They need handicap parking medical documentation is required. That's how our laws work. 

The point is that there primary care physician could easily fill out a one time form and have a state licensed ID card issued. It would eliminate fraud completely. If the ADA wants to play a role they can mandate that all State ID's are issued free of charge. There is no valid excuse why it can't be this way so please continue to quote the law if it makes you feel like a legal expert. The majority understand the law clearly but dispute the logic behind it. That is why it will continue to come up as a topic until the ADA reconsiders how they can better protect legit disabled people.


----------



## ghrdrd (Jun 26, 2019)

SuzeCB said:


> I'm going to correct you on the first question. It should be, "Is this a Service Animal needed for a disability?"
> 
> The reason is that it's not the animal that's covered by the ADA, but the disabled person. If a disabled person has a friend take their SA to the groomer for them as a favor, the SA is not on duty, and accommodations do not have to be made.
> 
> ...


What about when a man is being womansplained to? 
Nothing "illegal" about not having a safe palce to stop.
Plus as an independent contractor, you can pick and choose what jobs you take and reject.


----------



## Julescase2 (Apr 1, 2019)

Matt Uterak said:


> Privileges under the law.
> 
> The ADA, IDEA and so on spell them out.
> 
> I get you want to do the indignant thing. But my statement is factual.


Yeah I understand that you were referring to the laws that are in place to ensure the fair treatment of the disabled (or "privileges" as you call them.)



ThrowInTheTowel said:


> Everybody wants to be a legal expert on what you can and can not do. The biggest complaint is that the service animal excuse is being over abused and the law needs to be changed. The excuse that it may be too inconvenient placing the burden on the disabled person makes no sense. To get any other form of assistance requires proof. Even public transportation requires your doctor to fill out a medical form stating the disability. Only then can you ride the bus or train for 50% off disabled discount here in NJ. They can't afford their meds doctor has to fill out patient assistance forms. If they apply for disability proof of the disability is required by a medical professional. They need handicap parking medical documentation is required. That's how our laws work.
> 
> The point is that there primary care physician could easily fill out a one time form and have a state licensed ID card issued. It would eliminate fraud completely. If the ADA wants to play a role they can mandate that all State ID's are issued free of charge. There is no valid excuse why it can't be this way so please continue to quote the law if it makes you feel like a legal expert. The majority understand the law clearly but dispute the logic behind it. That is why it will continue to come up as a topic until the ADA reconsiders how they can better protect legit disabled people.


What do you mean by "if the ADA wants to play a role"? The ADA isn't a group - it's a law. It stands for "Americans with Disabilities Act" and you might want to give it a read.

No one is trying to "be a legal expert on what you can and cannot do" - the law is clear on what you can and cannot do. The law called the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) tells us (the public, the country, and organizations) what we can and cannot do. That's what a law is.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

ghrdrd said:


> What about when a man is being womansplained to?
> Nothing "illegal" about not having a safe palce to stop.
> Plus as an independent contractor, you can pick and choose what jobs you take and reject.


But you can't reject for any of the protected classes. At least not legally. Disabled is one of those.

They're also the most likely to go after you for it, which is why U/L will deactivate so quickly, and get themselves as far away from the offending driver as they can.


----------



## Diamondraider (Mar 13, 2017)

SinTaxERROR said:


> Will not work that way my friend. Violates every aspect of Federal Law. (ADA)


Maybe, maybe not.

The OP suggests a way to weed out pets without hurting ADA pax chance at getting a ride.

Love it.


----------



## SinTaxERROR (Jul 23, 2019)

Diamondraider said:


> Maybe, maybe not.
> 
> The OP suggests a way to weed out pets without hurting ADA pax chance at getting a ride.
> 
> Love it.


Now if we could just find a way to weed out pax that do not tip.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

SinTaxERROR said:


> if we could just find a way to weed out pax that do not tip.


That would eliminate at best, seventy five per cent of the customers.


----------



## SinTaxERROR (Jul 23, 2019)

Another Uber Driver said:


> That would eliminate at best, seventy five per cent of the customers.


If 75% of the pax are weeded out, then 90% of the drivers need to be weeded out too.

In Uber terms: REBALANCING. :laugh:


----------



## mikes424 (May 22, 2016)

The ADA is a badly written law. A service animal needs to be trained and the training should be done by a certified trainer. It would be an inconvince for the trainer to be documented and be able to issue a certificate the animal is certified but that would be part of their job. The minor unconvince to the disabled person would be they need to have the certificate with them. A tag similar to a rabies or license on the animal's collar would suffice.

Too bad Congress is too infiltrated by liberals to enact such a simple change.


----------



## John M Santana (Jan 7, 2018)

mikes424 said:


> Too bad Congress is too infiltrated by liberals to enact such a simple change.


Jeezus! Why, whenever someone doesn't like something, they always blame the big, bad "lib'ruls"???

I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Lefty and damn proud of it --- also disabled and a rideshare driver (for the time being; landed FT job beginning 8/11). And, while I applaud the spirit of the ADA and how it's empowered countless Americans who had previously felt marginalized and discriminated against in the workplace, performing daily and social activities, etc. --- that was passed (by a D-majority Congress) during and signed by the George H. W. Bush (GOP) administration, and, as for "enact[ing] such simple change," this current Congress is controlled by the GOP! --- I agree that more able-bodied passengers that I've encountered with a dog have given me the cock-and-bull story that they needed their dog for "emotional support" than have I had pax (be it physical, mental or cognitive disabilities) who were accompanied by actual service dogs. I even had one guy, with his adorable and mild-mannered pit bull and a cushion upon which the dog sat, who gloated how he coaches others how to use the claim that they need a dog for "emotional support," so that they can take their dog anywhere with them. And, we can't say anything about it!

And, while we may justifiably be frustrated with examples of fraudulent "service dogs," it's not a Red-versus-Blue issue. Americans of all political affiliations are affected by and sympathetic to those afflicted with disabilities. So, let's stop tossing politics into every argument; Lord knows it has plenty of other issues for which it can be blamed.


----------



## Matt Uterak (Jul 28, 2015)

It is a red vs blue issue.


----------



## TomTheAnt (Jan 1, 2019)

mikes424 said:


> A service animal needs to be trained and the training should be done by a certified trainer.


See... That's just the thing. Actual *service animals* are indeed required to be trained. *Emotional support animals* are not. And it is the ESAs that usually, probably always, cause the issues.


----------



## John M Santana (Jan 7, 2018)

TomTheAnt said:


> See... That's just the thing. Actual *service animals* are indeed required to be trained. *Emotional support animals* are not. And it is the ESAs that usually, probably always, cause the issues.


As a dog-lover, U/L driver and person with physical disabilities myself, in my experience, it's not the ESAs who cause the issues, but, rather, their arrogant, condescending, entitled *owners*. A pet is only as "good" as its owner.


----------



## TomTheAnt (Jan 1, 2019)

John M Santana said:


> As a dog-lover, U/L driver and person with physical disabilities myself, in my experience, it's not the ESAs who cause the issues, but, rather, their arrogant, condescending, entitled *owners*. A pet is only as "good" as its owner.


True. I guess I should've made it a bit more clear.


----------



## John M Santana (Jan 7, 2018)

TomTheAnt said:


> True. I guess I should've made it a bit more clear.


?


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

Even the two questions do drivers no good:

Is your dog a service animal?
What task has it been trained to do?
Simply because people lie. They will lie to those answers, and if they get them wrong, they will lie to Uber, telling them that, _Driver would not take me and my Service Animal. _Uber then Deactivates driver, if passenger says, _Service Animal. _Uber has no means for proving or disproving that claim, and must deactivate driver.

Take all dogs.

There have even been instances where drivers have been deactivated because unscrupulous passenger made that claim, just to get driver deactivated, and they didn't even have a dog with them!


----------



## WAHN (May 6, 2019)

Boca Ratman said:


> I agree with you that cheaters should be harshly penalized. I have mixed feeling on placing the burden upon the owner of a service animal to prove their dog is legit. The current system of honesty is flawed, greatly. Requiring someone to have to show proof every single time they went somewhere has the potential for huge problems.
> 
> Imagine having to show your ID every single place you went. Not every person, just you and anyone who has the same birthday as you. Supermarket, Walgreens, Home Depot, 7-11. Stop at Starbucks, pull out your Id, running late, too bad, no id no coffee. It may seem like such a minor thing, but if you had to stop, pull out your ID and find and wait for someone to examine it EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. you went somewhere it wouldn't be a minor thing. You've been to Walmart I'm sure, imaging having to wait for the on duty certified id verification specialist to come finally come upfront. Then damn, you left it in your car. Back out to the car, then back into Walmart, again waiting for the the verification specialist.


At least some states are finally starting to make laws punishing those who abuse the ADA.

https://www.animallaw.info/content/fraudulent-service-dogs
Unfortunately, since U/L shoot first and ask questions later, it's an issue for drivers who don't just want to take any random pet or emotional support animal.  Seriously, how deeply does anyone think they "investigate" this type of issue. How many drivers have been deactivated and then reinstated after a complaint from a fake service dog pax?

As for it being such a major inconvenience, how many places does a person really go in a day?

Most people have their usual stops, so they might be inconvenienced a few times initial until they're known as a regular. Other places, they would know ahead of time about the possibility of this inconvenience.

"Verification specialist", lol. As if that would happen. Just like the "verification specialist" that checks your ID for smokes or writing a check?

Forgetting a wallet, ID, or whatever documentation is required for wherever you're headed isn't the problem of the establishment you're at.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

WAHN said:


> As for it being such a major inconvenience, how many places does a person really go in a day?


Probably more than the number of dogs more than the number of dogs i get in a year. What a truly ridiculous and selfish statement. It doesn't matter how many places a person goes, one or twenty, the law is there to guarantee that these people are not discriminated against.



WAHN said:


> Verification specialist", lol. As if that would happen. Just like the "verification specialist" that checks your ID for smokes or writing a check?


It would happen, guaranteed. If they put some kind of certificate requirement in service animals somewhere down the road some pimply face kid would deny entrance to a big retailer to someone with a legit service animal. A lawsuit would be filed. The company would then have to enact a new policy with training to ensure this never happens again. Then, more people come out and and tell their tales of discrimination/ denial of access to other major retailers and class action lawsuits will hey filed. There would be a media shitstorm followed by boycotts and all kinds of silliness. Then every company has to enact new policy and training. You're naive if you dont believe this would happen. I've worked in retail in a corporate position, it would happen! It would happen proactively in many companies before the lawsuits and there would still be problems.

We aren't allowed to discriminate based on race, yet it still happens. Starbucks recently had an issue where they kicked out a couple of AA kids that led to a company wide shuting down of all of their stores for several hours for training.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...n-8-000-stores-today-for-racial-bias-training
It would happen.

What you're suggesting punishes the innocent because of the breakers. Do you not see that?


----------



## ThePhoenix1956 (Jan 24, 2019)

Dogs are like family to their owners. They are welcome in my car provided they behave. S trained service dog will always behave as well as most family dogs.


----------



## WAHN (May 6, 2019)

Boca Ratman said:


> What you're suggesting punishes the innocent because of the breakers. Do you not see that?


Yeah, we're all "punished" by the inconveniences caused by dirtbags. That's life.


----------



## SinTaxERROR (Jul 23, 2019)

UberLaLa said:


> Even the two questions do drivers no good:
> 
> Is your dog a service animal?
> What task has it been trained to do?
> Simply because people lie.


I will be riding with my lie detector from now on. (Guess what? I just lied.) :roflmao:


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

And, here you go. Driver just deactivated for 'refusing to take a Service Animal' : /

https://uberpeople.net/threads/deactivated.342902/


----------



## EphLux (Aug 10, 2018)

After reading more than a dozen drivers getting deactivated over dogs...

I TAKE ALL DOGS and back that up in my Personal page:


----------



## Next Stop (Nov 24, 2017)

UberLaLa said:


> Even the two questions do drivers no good:
> 
> Is your dog a service animal?
> What task has it been trained to do?
> ...


IDEA: Insurance for Drivers Emotional Adjustment :
Buy 3 diff sizes of fake dog poop as emotional insurance against fraudulent service animal pax.
Complete ride. You did your duty. You discover that the service dog did it's duty.
File a claim. You did your duty.
Pax lives to fraud another day with their emotional animal support.
You live to drive another day with your emotional adjustment support.
Is this what they call Social Justice?


----------



## WAHN (May 6, 2019)

EphLux said:


> After reading more than a dozen drivers getting deactivated over dogs...
> 
> I TAKE ALL DOGS and back that up in my Personal page:


Wow, you too.

But I keep mine under the Fun Fact section.


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

Next Stop said:


> IDEA: Insurance for Drivers Emotional Adjustment :
> Buy 3 diff sizes of fake dog poop as emotional insurance against fraudulent service animal pax.
> Complete ride. You did your duty. You discover that the service dog did it's duty.
> File a claim. You did your duty.
> ...


Make that _Driver Emotional Adjustment Dookie _(DEAD) and I'm in!


----------



## ThrowInTheTowel (Apr 10, 2018)

Julescase2 said:


> Yeah I understand that you were referring to the laws that are in place to ensure the fair treatment of the disabled (or "privileges" as you call them.)
> 
> 
> What do you mean by "if the ADA wants to play a role"? The ADA isn't a group - it's a law. It stands for "Americans with Disabilities Act" and you might want to give it a read.
> ...


Would it be better if I say our government? The ADA law was enacted to protect disabled people from being discriminated against. It was poorly written and will continue to be controversial. A simple fix would eliminate all this nonsense once and for all. You show valid identification and 99% of businesses and drivers would be more than happy to accommodate the disabled. Driver's are tired of being taking advantage of. Everyone is so quick to warn about the consequences of denying rides on Uber/Lyft. What good does driver deactivation do for the passenger who still has to wait for another driver and is late to work, late for an appointment, or misses the train? The government should mandate state identification cards.


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

WAHN said:


> Wow, you too.
> 
> But I keep mine under the Fun Fact section.
> 
> View attachment 339983


You get the DP HaHa of the week!


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

UberLaLa said:


> Even the two questions do drivers no good:
> 
> Is your dog a service animal?
> What task has it been trained to do?
> ...


In my experience if a pax is taking a non service animal dog only a tiny percent will lie.

Most people aren't savvy enough to lie on these questions. Mostly they tell the truth and admit it's not a service animal

But that's my experience


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

iheartuber said:


> In my experience if a pax is taking a non service animal dog only a tiny percent will lie.
> 
> Most people aren't savvy enough to lie on these questions. Mostly they tell the truth and admit it's not a service animal
> 
> But that's my experience


Only takes that one.

https://uberpeople.net/threads/deactivated.342902/


----------



## Jaackil (Aug 27, 2016)

raisedoncereal said:


> Of the dozen or so times that I've had to transport people's pet dogs, I've yet to come across one that I would personally consider a legit trained service dog. Not that I'm a pro at identifying legit service dogs. I mean, I feel like I've seen the legit service dogs in action in the public, and feel like I know some of the main traits in behavior, age (not a misbehaved puppy) as well as common breeds.
> 
> Anyways.
> 
> ...


You make a very good point but none of that is going to happen. Under the law there is no "paperwork" required. As an FYI I recently transported a woman with a service dog who not only needs one but also trains service dogs. The dog with her was a 6 month old in training. He was unbelievable well behaved. She had sent me a text while I was enroute to pick her up saying she had a service dog and asked if I was ok with it. She said if I was not she would cancel and I did not have to worry about being reported. I was not going to take a chance but appreciated her asking. Anyways we had a discussion about service dogs. Long story short she is in favor of requiring documentation for service animals because there are so many people out there using the fake service dog claim to take their pets where they can't otherwise like grocery stores and restaurants. She said it is becoming a real problem for people who legitimately need service animals


----------



## raisedoncereal (Jun 5, 2019)

They need a law to make it illegal to check credit before major purchases like houses, cars etc and must take the word of the buyer that s/he is credit worthy.

After the purchase if the buyer can't come up with the cash, the buyer still has squatting rights for 5 years.

ffs what a fail


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

raisedoncereal said:


> They need a law to make it illegal to check credit before major purchases like houses, cars etc and must take the word of the buyer that s/he is credit worthy.
> 
> After the purchase if the buyer can't come up with the cash, the buyer still has squatting rights for 5 years.
> 
> ffs what a fail


What a moronic comparison.

The law isn't a fail, its the people who abuse it that fail.



ThrowInTheTowel said:


> Would it be better if I say our government? The ADA law was enacted to protect disabled people from being discriminated against. It was poorly written and will continue to be controversial. A simple fix would eliminate all this nonsense once and for all. You show valid identification and 99% of businesses and drivers would be more than happy to accommodate the disabled. Driver's are tired of being taking advantage of. Everyone is so quick to warn about the consequences of denying rides on Uber/Lyft. What good does driver deactivation do for the passenger who still has to wait for another driver and is late to work, late for an appointment, or misses the train? The government should mandate state identification cards.


No member of Congress is going to publicly support a bill taking away the rights of and promoting the discrimination of disabled persons.


----------



## raisedoncereal (Jun 5, 2019)

If a law allows anyone and everyone to routinely, blatantly abuse it to no end and make mockery of it, it is a fail


----------



## Julescase2 (Apr 1, 2019)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Do you realise that you are calling me "ignorant" only because I am not a Dedicated Follower of Fashion? Do you realise that you are calling me "ignorant" because I actually make unfashionable statements?
> 
> Finally, do you realise that when people call me "ignorant" for no valid reason, I tell them that they can tell someone who cares?


So is admitting that you're ignorant supposed to make it OK?

It doesn't.


----------



## peteyvavs (Nov 18, 2015)

EphLux said:


> After reading more than a dozen drivers getting deactivated over dogs...
> 
> I TAKE ALL DOGS and back that up in my Personal page:


I alw always take dogs, I just leave the pax behind.


----------



## WAHN (May 6, 2019)

Boca Ratman said:


> No member of Congress is going to publicly support a bill taking away the rights of and promoting the discrimination of disabled persons.


What rights are taken away and how is discrimination promoted by requiring proper verification?

By making it so easy for others to fraudulently claim their pets are service animals, the safety of others(including children) is often compromised. Nothing wrong with that, though, right?


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Julescase2 said:


> is admitting that you're ignorant supposed to make it OK?


Reading is your Friend. Comprehension is an acquired skill, for most, that is.

Not once did I "admit" that I was "ignorant". I did admit that "ignorant" translates to "You do not agree with me and accept the common opinion" or "You are "ignorant" because you do not like it and have the unmitigated gall to express that dislike".

I am also "ignorant" because I do not hold the fashionable opinions on seat belt laws, mollycoddling criminals, tobacco use (and I do not even use tobacco), "free-range" children, taxes, __________________(fill in appropriate, here).

It has gotten to the point where I am tired of reading or hearing this same old oom-wah-wah, so now I simply make flippant responses to it.

People expect everyone not just to comply, but to like it.

"Obedience is not enough" (Orwell; _1984_)

You are not required to like it Y-E-T; Hillary did not win. You are required to comply.. I do. If you want to like it, that is your business.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

WAHN said:


> What rights are taken away and how is discrimination promoted by requiring proper verification?
> 
> By making it so easy for others to fraudulently claim their pets are service animals, the safety of others(including children) is often compromised. Nothing wrong with that, though, right?


It's already illegal to claim an animal is a service animal if it is not. 
They would lose the right to be independent.


----------



## KK2929 (Feb 9, 2017)

raisedoncereal said:


> Of the dozen or so times that I've had to transport people's pet dogs, I've yet to come across one that I would personally consider a legit trained service dog. Not that I'm a pro at identifying legit service dogs. I mean, I feel like I've seen the legit service dogs in action in the public, and feel like I know some of the main traits in behavior, age (not a misbehaved puppy) as well as common breeds.
> 
> Anyways.
> 
> ...


------------------------

As I see it, Lyft/Uber provide the platform for Ride Share. They are only required to provide certain parameters for the drivers. What you are asking for is not one of them. Neither is giving advance notice of wheelchairs or handicapped paxs. 
The law states that we are required to take them and have no choice. The law assumes that everyone will be honest and no one will take advantage of the situation.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

KK2929 said:


> The law assumes that everyone will be honest and no one will take advantage of the situation.


..............................which is one of the failings of this law. In fact, it is a frequent failing of many laws.


----------



## raisedoncereal (Jun 5, 2019)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Not once did I "admit" that...


All you gotta say is: I plead da fif


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

mikes424 said:


> The ADA is a badly written law. A service animal needs to be trained and the training should be done by a certified trainer. It would be an inconvince for the trainer to be documented and be able to issue a certificate the animal is certified but that would be part of their job. The minor unconvince to the disabled person would be they need to have the certificate with them. A tag similar to a rabies or license on the animal's collar would suffice.
> 
> Too bad Congress is too infiltrated by liberals to enact such a simple change.


The problem is the cost. Disabled people already have increased costs to survive. Having a dog professionally trained to be a SA can run into the 10s of $1,000s.

Many are capable of training the dogs themselves. Why shouldn't they be able to?

The arguments you raise have been raised before, and the law was found to be sound and the best way to protect the civil rights of the disabled.



iheartuber said:


> In my experience if a pax is taking a non service animal dog only a tiny percent will lie.
> 
> Most people aren't savvy enough to lie on these questions. Mostly they tell the truth and admit it's not a service animal
> 
> But that's my experience


Almost all scammers will get indignant about the questions, and insist it's illegal for you to ask them. Real handlers either will not bat an eye OR be appreciative of your knowledge.

First question should not just be asking if it's a service animal.. should be, "Is that a service animal *needed for a disability*?"

Service animals aren't what is protected. The human, disabled handlers are. If a friend or relative is taking the SA to the groomer or whatever for the disabled owner, there is no obligation to accomodate.

Observe the dog. Make sure it is behaving like a service dog. The dog should NOT be interested in you except for the passing glance. It should NOT enter your car until the handler tells it to, either verbally or with a gesture. It should NOT go on your seats, but rather curl up on the floor.

If a scamming pax and the dog with them can get past both questions AND the observance test, just take the dog. It may still be your best-behaved pax of the day, even if it's not a real SA.


----------



## EngineerAtHeart (Nov 8, 2018)

raisedoncereal said:


> It's a one time process, and if made easy such as offering a public location where assistance can be provided on these types of issues, this could easily be a respected topic rather than just another BS thing to take advantage of by toy dog owners


The issue is TELLING drivers they have a dog. Would you be more likely to take the ride if you knew ahead of time or when it's a surprise when you get there?


----------



## raisedoncereal (Jun 5, 2019)

Both because I'm afraid pax will snitch and have proof if I cancel the ride early, and have proof if I show up and cancel upon seeing dog


----------



## Jlynn (Jul 24, 2019)

raisedoncereal said:


> Of the dozen or so times that I've had to transport people's pet dogs, I've yet to come across one that I would personally consider a legit trained service dog. Not that I'm a pro at identifying legit service dogs. I mean, I feel like I've seen the legit service dogs in action in the public, and feel like I know some of the main traits in behavior, age (not a misbehaved puppy) as well as common breeds.
> 
> Anyways.
> 
> ...


It's against the law.

You are allowed to ask the person two questions related to the service dog.
1. Is that a service dog?
2. What jobs or things can the service dog specifically do?

Anything else violates laws for disabled folkx.


----------



## BillC (Mar 5, 2017)

SuzeCB said:


> Almost all scammers will get indignant about the questions, and insist it's illegal for you to ask them. Real handlers either will not bat an eye OR be appreciative of your knowledge.


If they're smart, they'd take 15 minutes and figure out canned lies to answer the questions, and practice giving those answers so as to be smooth and not invite skepticism. Since all you can do is ask the 2 questions, if they can come up with an answer, even if it is a lie, that's as far as anyone can go to verify the claim of a legit need for a service animal. 15 minutes and $30 for a "Service Animal" vest on Amazon, and no one can stop them. The opportunity for fraud is immense, and it is a badly written law (as are most laws written to satisfy special interest groups).

I believe part of service animal training is to train them to hold their waste until there is an appropriate time/place. Remember, if someone claims a service animal and their non-trained service animal makes a mess in your car, you cannot claim a cleaning fee. If you do, and they complain to U/L that their fake service animal is a service animal, you're deactivated without any investigation as to the legitimacy of their service animal.

That said, I love animals and have taken 3 or 4 non-service dogs with their owners, zero problems.


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

Jlynn said:


> It's against the law.
> 
> You are allowed to ask the person two questions related to the service dog.
> 1. Is that a service dog?
> ...


That's exactly what I say and 9 times out of 10 they say it's not a service animal

Every time they say it is service I never refuse them

When they say it is not service most of the time I take it but once in a while I'm just not in the mood

I have them all on dash cam saying it's not a service animal so if any of them ever make a false report im set



BillC said:


> If they're smart, they'd take 15 minutes and figure out canned lies to answer the questions, and practice giving those answers so as to be smooth and not invite skepticism. Since all you can do is ask the 2 questions, if they can come up with an answer, even if it is a lie, that's as far as anyone can go to verify the claim of a legit need for a service animal. 15 minutes and $30 for a "Service Animal" vest on Amazon, and no one can stop them. The opportunity for fraud is immense, and it is a badly written law (as are most laws written to satisfy special interest groups).
> 
> I believe part of service animal training is to train them to hold their waste until there is an appropriate time/place. Remember, if someone claims a service animal and their non-trained service animal makes a mess in your car, you cannot claim a cleaning fee. If you do, and they complain to U/L that their fake service animal is a service animal, you're deactivated without any investigation as to the legitimacy of their service animal.
> 
> That said, I love animals and have taken 3 or 4 non-service dogs with their owners, zero problems.


How many pax are smart?

How many people in general are smart?

They're out there but let's be real... it's rare


----------



## SinTaxERROR (Jul 23, 2019)

SuzeCB said:


> The dog should NOT be interested in you except for the passing glance.


You must know my ex-girlfriend. :roflmao:


----------



## ILoveThisPlace (Jul 19, 2019)

This is how I handle all dogs, not just service. Some text, some just ask, but I respond:

Of course your dog is welcome. I have a dog myself. Just be aware I have black leather seats and black carpeting. I find shedding shows up very easily in my car and leather is very expensive to repair. Should either occur, i’ll have to go offline and address it, which may incur an expense. 

Of the three times I sent this via text, all three cancelled. Once I event snapped a photo of the seat as they were at my door and they promptly reconsidered with their 80 pound lab and no blanket.


----------



## Chorch (May 17, 2019)

What if I’m allergic to dogs? Do I HAVE to take them?


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

WAHN said:


> What rights are taken away and how is discrimination promoted by requiring proper verification?
> 
> By making it so easy for others to fraudulently claim their pets are service animals, the safety of others(including children) is often compromised. Nothing wrong with that, though, right?


The right to do live a normal independent life!

I've already talked about the discrimination. What happens when the "certificate " is lost, destroyed, forgotten or stolen?

I get it, you don't care what they have to go through just as long as you do not have to take a dog under false pretenses.

I hate the liars to, but the answer isnt to complicate the people who need the SA lives more and it's not going to happen.



Chorch said:


> What if I'm allergic to dogs? Do I HAVE to take them?


Yes


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

BillC said:


> If they're smart, they'd take 15 minutes and figure out canned lies to answer the questions, and practice giving those answers so as to be smooth and not invite skepticism. Since all you can do is ask the 2 questions, if they can come up with an answer, even if it is a lie, that's as far as anyone can go to verify the claim of a legit need for a service animal. 15 minutes and $30 for a "Service Animal" vest on Amazon, and no one can stop them. The opportunity for fraud is immense, and it is a badly written law (as are most laws written to satisfy special interest groups).
> 
> I believe part of service animal training is to train them to hold their waste until there is an appropriate time/place. Remember, if someone claims a service animal and their non-trained service animal makes a mess in your car, you cannot claim a cleaning fee. If you do, and they complain to U/L that their fake service animal is a service animal, you're deactivated without any investigation as to the legitimacy of their service animal.
> 
> That said, I love animals and have taken 3 or 4 non-service dogs with their owners, zero problems.


If a service animal makes a mess (like if it gets sick and has some sort of accident, etc.) why can't you charge a cleaning fee? Who told you that lie?



Chorch said:


> What if I'm allergic to dogs? Do I HAVE to take them?


Service Animals, yes.


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

Chorch said:


> What if I'm allergic to dogs? Do I HAVE to take them?


Yes, sorry

Loophole in the law

Uber follows the letter of the law

They don't care

Don't like it? Sue them


----------



## WAHN (May 6, 2019)

Boca Ratman said:


> The right to do live a normal independent life!


Having required documentation/papers/cards seems to be a pretty common part of my every day "normal" independent life.


Boca Ratman said:


> I've already talked about the discrimination. What happens when the "certificate " is lost, destroyed, forgotten or stolen?


The same type of thing that happens if my DL, bank cards, etc. are lost, destroyed, forgotten, or stolen. I'm inconvenienced.


Boca Ratman said:


> I get it, you don't care what they have to go through just as long as you do not have to take a dog under false pretenses.


Actually, you don't get shit. I'm highly unlikely to turn down any pet for a ride.

I simply think it's way too easy for fraud to be committed and that drivers are essentially forced to take every dog because even a complaint from a pax with a fake service animal can cause temporary or permanent loss of the income they make in rideshare.

But "I get it", you don't give two shits about people losing income over fraudulent claims or the people attacked by fake service dogs because they're forced to comply out fear of job loss.


Boca Ratman said:


> I hate the liars to, but the answer isnt to complicate the people who need the SA lives more and it's not going to happen.


Sorry, but I don't think a certificate or some ID card that can be carried in a wallet or purse is some great added inconvenience in life. Most people have regular routines and after a couple times, they wouldn't even be asked for it anymore in most of their regular haunts.

It's almost like you think disabled people are derelicts or something and couldn't handle the immense stress of it all.


----------



## 2smart2drive (Jul 9, 2019)

raisedoncereal said:


> Such a fail of a law.
> 
> It's like saying it's illegal to show proof of age when getting senior citizen discounts at a restaurant and that denying anyone, including children who are clearly under 15 years old, is illegal and asking for proof is illegal. Same exact concept.
> 
> Why is there SUCH leniency (not the right word) for this area? Anyone who needs a service dog should know well in advance whether or not they will be accompanied by one, and anyone else is a fraud


Because, the true handicapped people are often autistic; socially inadequate, or physically not able to articulate their needs or rights. It is therefore automatically presumed that their dog companions are their service dogs - without any "extra proof" required. Service dogs are amazing - trained to save lives and so much more... Most people (you right and we all know this) carry around with them Fluffy Mini "feels good" dogs - house pets, not service dogs. Yeah. But, so what? 
If you worry about car seats, that can be addressed (have an extra blanket in the trunk). If it's about you being allergic to dogs - although, major bummer - with the true service dogs that won't matter: the potential of saving "lives" overrides any personal allergic discomfort - according to Fed rules & humane moral standards. Because everybody claims their Chihuahuas Great Service Dogs they are not, and abuse the Fed statue, doesn't mean anything, when it comes to the actual purpose (for this law to exist in the first place).


----------



## Seadiver58 (Jul 16, 2018)

raisedoncereal said:


> Of the dozen or so times that I've had to transport people's pet dogs, I've yet to come across one that I would personally consider a legit trained service dog. Not that I'm a pro at identifying legit service dogs. I mean, I feel like I've seen the legit service dogs in action in the public, and feel like I know some of the main traits in behavior, age (not a misbehaved puppy) as well as common breeds.
> 
> Anyways.
> 
> ...


Law suit waiting to happen. It violates medical privace laws.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

WAHN said:


> Having required documentation/papers/cards seems to be a pretty common part of my every day "normal" independent life.
> 
> The same type of thing that happens if my DL, bank cards, etc. are lost, destroyed, forgotten, or stolen. I'm inconvenienced.
> 
> ...


So you want there to be more fraud and more people to lose their means of income??? I don't think you've thought this through.


----------



## Jleakakos (Jul 17, 2019)

John M Santana said:


> Jeezus! Why, whenever someone doesn't like something, they always blame the big, bad "lib'ruls"???
> 
> I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Lefty and damn proud of it --- also disabled and a rideshare driver (for the time being; landed FT job beginning 8/11). And, while I applaud the spirit of the ADA and how it's empowered countless Americans who had previously felt marginalized and discriminated against in the workplace, performing daily and social activities, etc. --- that was passed (by a D-majority Congress) during and signed by the George H. W. Bush (GOP) administration, and, as for "enact[ing] such simple change," this current Congress is controlled by the GOP! --- I agree that more able-bodied passengers that I've encountered with a dog have given me the cock-and-bull story that they needed their dog for "emotional support" than have I had pax (be it physical, mental or cognitive disabilities) who were accompanied by actual service dogs. I even had one guy, with his adorable and mild-mannered pit bull and a cushion upon which the dog sat, who gloated how he coaches others how to use the claim that they need a dog for "emotional support," so that they can take their dog anywhere with them. And, we can't say anything about it!
> 
> And, while we may justifiably be frustrated with examples of fraudulent "service dogs," it's not a Red-versus-Blue issue. Americans of all political affiliations are affected by and sympathetic to those afflicted with disabilities. So, let's stop tossing politics into every argument; Lord knows it has plenty of other issues for which it can be blamed.


The House of Representatives is currently controlled by democrats.


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

Jleakakos said:


> The House of Representatives is currently controlled by democrats.


And, hopefully, not much longer.


----------



## Uber_Yota_916 (May 1, 2017)

I just transported a blind pax and her dog. She brought a sheet for the dog and I thanked her. The dog sat at her feet and was a perfect passenger. 

I must rate highly with the society of the blind in my city. I get a lot of business from them.


----------



## Dammit Mazzacane (Dec 31, 2015)

raisedoncereal said:


> 1) identify, as in click a checkbox when signing up for Uber and in the account settings, if they are expecting to be accompanied by a service dog


There's one flaw:
Imagine my buddy has a service dog. We all get plastered. I order an Uber for me and the buds. My friend has a service dog. Nowhere would I presume under a reasonable case that I would normally have a service dog with me.

But it's a decent idea, for sure. Uber won't do it, but it is a decent idea.
The driver app lets us be able to inform passengers we are hard of hearing.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Dammit Mazzacane said:


> There's one flaw:
> Imagine my buddy has a service dog. We all get plastered. I order an Uber for me and the buds. My friend has a service dog. Nowhere would I presume under a reasonable case that I would normally have a service dog with me.
> 
> But it's a decent idea, for sure. Uber won't do it, but it is a decent idea.
> The driver app lets us be able to inform passengers we are hard of hearing.


That would be incredibly illegal.


----------



## Chorch (May 17, 2019)

Demon said:


> That would be incredibly illegal.


What would be illegal?


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Chorch said:


> What would be illegal?


It could be viewed as "aiding and abetting discrimination". If you inform the driver that there is an animal, those who do not want the animals to shed in their cars will decline the ping, thus making it more difficult for the person with the service animal to get his ride.

Lyft, in particular, would never do it because Lyft has a requirement that goes beyond the law. Lyft actually requires that you like it when a dog sheds in your car. It is not in Lyft's oft-published policy that you must like it, but, in practice, Lyft not only requires that you haul the fake service animal, it requires you to like it,


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Dammit Mazzacane said:


> There's one flaw:
> Imagine my buddy has a service dog. We all get plastered. I order an Uber for me and the buds. My friend has a service dog. Nowhere would I presume under a reasonable case that I would normally have a service dog with me.
> 
> But it's a decent idea, for sure. Uber won't do it, but it is a decent idea.
> The driver app lets us be able to inform passengers we are hard of hearing.


It's an idea that is against the law. You can ask if a pax has a PET with them, but not a service dog, and they don't have to offer the info, and probably wouldn't because they'd have too much trouble getting a ride, as all these SA threads on this forum prove.


----------



## Galveston (Aug 16, 2019)

raisedoncereal said:


> Of the dozen or so times that I've had to transport people's pet dogs, I've yet to come across one that I would personally consider a legit trained service dog. Not that I'm a pro at identifying legit service dogs. I mean, I feel like I've seen the legit service dogs in action in the public, and feel like I know some of the main traits in behavior, age (not a misbehaved puppy) as well as common breeds.
> 
> Anyways.
> 
> ...


One time I had a dude with a pit bull "service dog" and he put the dog in my car then said he forgot something, he'll be right back. I had a strange pit bull breathing in my ear for five minutes. Fortunately the man didn't have any need for the dog in those minutes....


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Galveston said:


> One time I had a dude with a pit bull "service dog" and he put the dog in my car then said he forgot something, he'll be right back. I had a strange pit bull breathing in my ear for five minutes. Fortunately the man didn't have any need for the dog in those minutes....


Could have booted them. A real handler would never do that with their SA.


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

SuzeCB said:


> Could have booted them. A real handler would never do that with their SA.


Yup, would of kicked that damn SA out. And enjoyed doing it.
?


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Galveston said:


> One time I had a dude with a pit bull "service dog" and he put the dog in my car then said he forgot something, he'll be right back. I had a strange pit bull breathing in my ear for five minutes. Fortunately the man didn't have any need for the dog in those minutes....


That doesn't sound like a service animal, it sounds like a pet you welcomed into your car.


----------



## Galveston (Aug 16, 2019)

No way in hell I’d let a pet pit bull in my car


----------



## Julescase2 (Apr 1, 2019)

Galveston said:


> One time I had a dude with a pit bull "service dog" and he put the dog in my car then said he forgot something, he'll be right back. I had a strange pit bull breathing in my ear for five minutes. Fortunately the man didn't have any need for the dog in those minutes....


He said it was a service dog or an emotional support animal? 2 different things, One of which you are not required to accept as an absolute.

I doubt anyone would leave their service animal alone for 5 minutes. Often they're incredibly valuable (cost-wise and in every other way) but most folks with true service dogs NEED their service dog for a reason and being without it for even 5 minutes could lead to pretty disastrous results.

Also, HELLS NO would I trust some Uber driver with my service dog! Are you shitting me??!!



Galveston said:


> No way in hell I'd let a pet pit bull in my car


Oh Jesus here we go again.

It's like people don't like to read.

Or absorb.



SuzeCB said:


> Could have booted them. A real handler would never do that with their SA.


Exactly!


----------



## Galveston (Aug 16, 2019)

Julescase2 said:


> He said it was a service dog or an emotional support animal? 2 different things, One of which you are not required to accept as an absolute.
> 
> I doubt anyone would leave their service animal alone for 5 minutes. Often they're incredibly valuable (cost-wise and in every other way) but most folks with true service dogs NEED their service dog for a reason and being without it for even 5 minutes could lead to pretty disastrous results.
> 
> ...


What is the difference if he said service animal or emotional support animal



Julescase2 said:


> He said it was a service dog or an emotional support animal? 2 different things, One of which you are not required to accept as an absolute.
> 
> I doubt anyone would leave their service animal alone for 5 minutes. Often they're incredibly valuable (cost-wise and in every other way) but most folks with true service dogs NEED their service dog for a reason and being without it for even 5 minutes could lead to pretty disastrous results.
> 
> ...


I'm not booting an idiot with a service animal out.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Galveston said:


> What is the difference if he said service animal or emotional support animal
> 
> 
> I'm not booting an idiot with a service animal out.


SAs are highly-trained animals that do tasks that assist disabled people and allow them to lead relatively normal lives. An ESA is a pet that a person has an emotional dependency on. In both cases, the person has a disability, but the ESA is only "protected" with regard to licensing (can't be charged for it, but still has to provide proof of vaccinations), housing, and, for the moment, limited accommodation on airplanes (mostly because some fool at the FAA didn't know the difference).

SAs are, legally, medical equipment. They must have a particular disposition in order to do the job, be able to pass a Public Access Test that includes such things as ignoring other animals, not entering cars unless told to, curling up on the floor of cars once in, not eating or drinking anything put in front of them until told to (even if they haven't eaten all day), not urinating or defecating until told to, nearly ignoring the presence of other people except to observe interaction with their handler, etc. The instant any of these animals show any aggression, protectiveness, or territorialism, they can never again be considered a service animal. An SA will not sniff you unless told it's ok by their handler (may sniff generally in your direction, though), will not approach you (except, if trained to do so, to get help for its unconscious or incapacitated handler), or seek to have you pet it. If you see one, it's WORKING. Do not speak to it, or otherwise make noises or gestures to gain its attention. Do not pet it unless invited to by its handler. And don't ask the handler, because they get this from idiots all day and it's really annoying and inconvenient and frustrating.

SAs are allowed to go, with their disabled handler, anywhere the handler would be allowed, except where to do so would risk life and health (like an operating room).

Here's what you need to know about them if you're going to be working with the general public on any level:



Redirecting…



https://www.adatitleiii.com/2018/08...onal-support-animals-ferreting-out-the-truth/


----------



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

I’ve taken 6 dogs in 10,000 rides. Only one was obviously legit. Blind lady, dog behaved impeccably. Total focus on his handler. Jumped in car and sat on floor board. Never took his eyes off her. Kinda weird.

The other 5, obvious pets but were identified as SA’s eagerly by the rider without being asked. Dogs bouncing all over my vehicle, sniffing everything. Called one guy out, “I know that’s not a service animal but I don’t mind taking your little pal.” He laughed sheepishly. **** wit!

Point is, it is very clear when you have a legit SA. They are so focused they seem drugged. That said, IF YOU WISH TO CONTINUE DRIVING RIDESHARE, TAKE EVERY DOG! If they leave fur, pics, report, 40 easy bucks! Light dusting with your palm, bring on the next pooch!


----------



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

raisedoncereal said:


> I've yet to come across one that I would personally consider a legit trained service dog.


I hear ya, a large portion of these "service" animals being dragged around by paxholes are definitely fake news, but you're heading for instant deactivation if you make even the slightest wave.


----------



## O-Side Uber (Jul 26, 2017)

Ive told my story many times on here but I do have an update.

Recap: 

Last May I got rejected from Uber because I allegedly refused a serve animal. It was an Uber Pool ride and she did not specify any additional passengers . She was also late , the pool timer had run out. She was busy in the liquor store that I was parked out in front of. I should of left right then. I was taking a screenshot of the timer being out when she approached my vehicle .

The best part was she had no visible disabilities . She was in her mid twenties , pretty with an oversized long haired golden retriever . She tried to enter my car without making any arrangements about the dog. 

I questioned her and she became aggressive and said “ go ahead and cancel it ! You’re fired anyway!! Because this is a SERVICE DOG!! And then she sat on the ground clutching her phone and I assumed called Uber .

Not knowing what to do at that point and being so freaked out about 1 Star ratings.. I obliged her, canceled and went home . I was rejected permanently within 10 min. 

The customer service in India were no help, I was toast.

***so here is my update ***

I had a drop on lyft at Uber green hub a few days ago. I decided to go in and actually talk to someone. Uber knew I was there as soon as I walked in. My phone got a text from them.. kind of weird...I sat and told this story to the Uber rep.

He seemed bummed for me and tried to send it up the chain but it turns out this chick was registered for all the INVISIBLE disabilities ... PTSD, Anxiety... yadda yadda. At least I have some closure with this in that she would’ve kicked my ass in court if I tried to sue her !!!

Anxiety is considered to be a disability now, and white women specifically suffer from it and use it as a defense. I was in court last week and saw white girl after white girl beg the judge to throw out the case because of their anxiety. It was pathetic . Anyways...

*take all dogs no matter what or you will get corn holed by Uber


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

raisedoncereal said:


> Of the dozen or so times that I've had to transport people's pet dogs, I've yet to come across one that I would personally consider a legit trained service dog. Not that I'm a pro at identifying legit service dogs. I mean, I feel like I've seen the legit service dogs in action in the public, and feel like I know some of the main traits in behavior, age (not a misbehaved puppy) as well as common breeds.
> 
> Anyways.
> 
> ...


1. Your feelings are irrelevant to the law.
2. Driver is not allowed to deny the ride. By law.
3. Slim chance? No. Because BY LAW no documentation is required.
4. Does anyone bother to google this before posting?


----------



## Galveston (Aug 16, 2019)

kc ub'ing! said:


> I've taken 6 dogs in 10,000 rides. Only one was obviously legit. Blind lady, dog behaved impeccably. Total focus on his handler. Jumped in car and sat on floor board. Never took his eyes off her. Kinda weird.
> 
> The other 5, obvious pets but were identified as SA's eagerly by the rider without being asked. Dogs bouncing all over my vehicle, sniffing everything. Called one guy out, "I know that's not a service animal but I don't mind taking your little pal." He laughed sheepishly. @@@@ wit!
> 
> Point is, it is very clear when you have a legit SA. They are so focused they seem drugged. That said, IF YOU WISH TO CONTINUE DRIVING RIDESHARE, TAKE EVERY DOG! If they leave fur, pics, report, 40 easy bucks! Light dusting with your palm, bring on the next pooch!


Yeah "service animals" should not be exempt from cleanup fee


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

O-Side Uber said:


> Ive told my story many times on here but I do have an update.
> 
> Recap:
> 
> ...


A service dog is not an "additional passenger." She had no obligation to "arrange" anything.


----------



## O-Side Uber (Jul 26, 2017)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> A service dog is not an "additional passenger." She had no obligation to "arrange" anything.


Thank you Fuzzy Elvis ??. It's called common courtesy. You let the driver know you have a service animal. This chick was hoping I would say something. She was buzzed and likely bi polar.

I've learned a lot about what our society now considers disabled. I just feel there are different levels of disabilities. Blind and missing limbs being top of the list. I will never consider someone like her to be disabled no matter how many of you snowflakes come running to her defense ??


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

ghrdrd said:


> See a dog, or any other animal, keep driving. Cancel 50ft down the road. What's the problem???


After a few pax complain you will still be deactivated. Uber has nothing to lose by getting rid of you, but they've already been sued over service animals. The burden of proof is on you, not the pax. And you can't prove you didn't drive away because of their dog.

Taxis have done this to blind people in the past. They still got sued. It wasn't difficult for even blind people who couldn't even SEE the taxi to figure out what was going on. You think pax won't see you drive away?



ThrowInTheTowel said:


> Everybody wants to be a legal expert on what you can and can not do. The biggest complaint is that the service animal excuse is being over abused and the law needs to be changed. The excuse that it may be too inconvenient placing the burden on the disabled person makes no sense. To get any other form of assistance requires proof. Even public transportation requires your doctor to fill out a medical form stating the disability. Only then can you ride the bus or train for 50% off disabled discount here in NJ. They can't afford their meds doctor has to fill out patient assistance forms. If they apply for disability proof of the disability is required by a medical professional. They need handicap parking medical documentation is required. That's how our laws work.
> 
> The point is that there primary care physician could easily fill out a one time form and have a state licensed ID card issued. It would eliminate fraud completely. If the ADA wants to play a role they can mandate that all State ID's are issued free of charge. There is no valid excuse why it can't be this way so please continue to quote the law if it makes you feel like a legal expert. The majority understand the law clearly but dispute the logic behind it. That is why it will continue to come up as a topic until the ADA reconsiders how they can better protect legit disabled people.


You can argue all this but it doesn't matter right now. The law is what it is. If you want to lobby for change, go for it. But you'll be wasting your time.

The argument is that without their service dog a disabled person may be unable to function. A blind person could be stranded if they lost or forgot their ID, for instance. Having to pay full fare because they forgot their ID is one thing. Not being able to cross the road and get to the bus stop to get home at all is another.

And IDs would be faked anyway. Even if they existed drivers would either not know what they looked like (most don't know the law as it is now, never mind bringing something else in) or would use the excuse they thought they were fake to not take a dog anyway.

How is quoting the law making someone "feel like a legal expert"? It's the effing LAW.

The folks whining over dogs are the snowflakes here IMO.



Galveston said:


> Yeah "service animals" should not be exempt from cleanup fee


They're not. Uber just eats it the first couple of times.



O-Side Uber said:


> Thank you Fuzzy Elvis ??. It's called common courtesy. You let the driver know you have a service animal. This chick was hoping I would say something. She was buzzed and likely bi polar.
> 
> I've learned a lot about what our society now considers disabled. I just feel there are different levels of disabilities. Blind and missing limbs being top of the list. I will never consider someone like her to be disabled no matter how many of you snowflakes come running to her defense ??


Well that's why you're deactivated, I guess.

Would you expect a pax to let you know she had a cane? A brace? A walker? Portable oxygen? Why, exactly, is a service dog different? And clearly, reading these threads, if she did she would often have an even harder time getting a ride.


----------



## O-Side Uber (Jul 26, 2017)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> After a few pax complain you will still be deactivated. Uber has nothing to lose by getting rid of you, but they've already been sued over service animals. The burden of proof is on you, not the pax. And you can't prove you didn't drive away because of their dog.
> 
> Taxis have done this to blind people in the past. They still got sued. It wasn't difficult for even blind people who couldn't even SEE the taxi to figure out what was going on. You think pax won't see you drive away?
> 
> ...


Normally a driver would have the option to not allow a pet or emotional support dog into their car so yes.. I would expect AT A MINIMUM for a pax with an alleged service dog , especially a pax that has absolutely no visible disabilities , to mention "I have a service dog" upon my arrival . Not after I ask what's up with the dog on this pool ride.

I've had legit blind people notify me by text in advance. And never have they been so rude to order a pool ride and bring a dog. They have always ordered a regular ride. That's rude no matter who you are. Any other service animals I've had said so right up front. This was the only time I've ever declined a dog of any kind. It was based off her entitlement and attitude and flat out weirdness.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

kc ub'ing! said:


> IF YOU WISH TO CONTINUE DRIVING RIDESHARE, TAKE EVERY DOG! If they leave fur, pics, report, 40 easy bucks! Light dusting with your palm, bring on the next pooch!


Gr*yft* used to do this. I got paid off on two fake service dogs like that. I took the photographs, sent in a plaintive report, got our the Dustbuster™ and vacuumed. I made it clear that it was a dog that had shed in my car. Gr*yft *added the money.

In my market, Gr*yft* now requires a receipt from a cleaning service to collect your clean up charge. You do not get the easy forty bananas any more, not here, at least.

Any time that you balk at a customer's dog, it suddenly becomes a "service" dog. Gr*yft* policy not only requires that you haul the dog, you are also required to like it and required to like it when the dog sheds in your car. Gr*yft* also requires you to like it when you must waste time cleaning up the dog hair so that the next passenger does not downrate you or complain about you.

When driving Gr*yft*, your mere compliance is not sufficient.

Despite that, your advice to haul every dog is not unsound.



Uber's Guber said:


> instant deactivation if you make even the slightest wave.


^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^

Gr*yft* requires you to like it and like all of the adverse consequences. If you fail to like it, Gr*yft* will waitlist you. There is nothing in their stated policy that says that you must like it. The policy states only that you must do it. Doing it, however, is not sufficient. In practice, Gr*yft* will at least waitlist you for failure to like it.



O-Side Uber said:


> *take all dogs no matter what or you will get corn holed by Uber


Does F*ub*a*r* require you to like it, or is compliance with the law sufficient for them? .........or do you know? .............or do you care?


----------



## O-Side Uber (Jul 26, 2017)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Gr*yft* used to do this. I got paid off on two fake service dogs like that. I took the photographs, sent in a plaintive report, got our the Dustbuster™ and vacuumed. I made it clear that it was a dog that had shed in my car. Gr*yft *added the money.
> 
> In my market, Gr*yft* now requires a receipt from a cleaning service to collect your clean up charge. You do not get the easy forty bananas any more, not here, at least.
> 
> ...


Like it? I doubt Uber cares what we think about the service dog rule. They just can't risk the liability of being sued by the ADA. I tell my story from time to time when I see drivers talking about cancelling on service dog people . Uber won't hesitate to reject you for life.


----------



## Chorch (May 17, 2019)

O-Side Uber said:


> Thank you Fuzzy Elvis ??. It's called common courtesy. You let the driver know you have a service animal. This chick was hoping I would say something. She was buzzed and likely bi polar.
> 
> I've learned a lot about what our society now considers disabled. I just feel there are different levels of disabilities. Blind and missing limbs being top of the list. I will never consider someone like her to be disabled no matter how many of you snowflakes come running to her defense ??


I can't agree more with you.

I remember the times when men and women were strong.

Now everyone's a whiner, and have "feelings"...

Omg... people are dumb and useless nowadays.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

O-Side Uber said:


> Normally a driver would have the option to not allow a pet or emotional support dog into their car so yes.. I would expect AT A MINIMUM for a pax with an alleged service dog , especially a pax that has absolutely no visible disabilities , to mention "I have a service dog" upon my arrival . Not after I ask what's up with the dog on this pool ride.
> 
> I've had legit blind people notify me by text in advance. And never have they been so rude to order a pool ride and bring a dog. They have always ordered a regular ride. That's rude no matter who you are. Any other service animals I've had said so right up front. This was the only time I've ever declined a dog of any kind. It was based off her entitlement and attitude and flat out weirdness.


You do know the meaning of the word "entitlement", right? It means something someone is ENTITLED to.

She is legally ENTITLED to order a Pool ride and bring her legitimate service animal with her without giving you any notice. You, OTOH, are not LEGALLY entitled to refuse service to her for that. The ADA serves, primarily, as a clarification of Constitutional rights of equal access.

As a business person dealing with the general public, it is your responsibility to know the laws that affect your business and how you run it.

You eff-ed up. Whether you like that fact or not is irrelevant. It's the fact of the matter. You didn't ask the correct, ONLY ALLOWABLE questions under the law. If she is legit disabled (and from your description she probably is)Be very, very grateful if all she does is complain to Uber. If she decides she's had enough of having trouble getting rides, you could find yourself on the business end of a lawsuit that could drive you under a bridge. And then there would be the fines from the federal and state governments.


----------



## O-Side Uber (Jul 26, 2017)

SuzeCB said:


> You do know the meaning of the word "entitlement", right? It means something someone is ENTITLED to.
> 
> She is legally ENTITLED to order a Pool ride and bring her legitimate service animal with her without giving you any notice. You, OTOH, are not LEGALLY entitled to refuse service to her for that. The ADA serves, primarily, as a clarification of Constitutional rights of equal access.
> 
> ...


Well thank you for pointing that out!!! This happened to me about a year and a half ago. I've since completed 3000 rides on lyft with a perfect rating and awarded favorite driver in San Diego . But go ahead and tell me what's up !! 
I just happened to be by a green light hub a few days ago and checked in there for any updates on the rejection . That woman was the only dog I have ever declined a ride to service , or pet.. I love animals .. but I get annoyed by anyone who acts ENTITLED for any reason. Especially some bullshitty disability like anxiety ...


----------



## Jleakakos (Jul 17, 2019)




----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

O-Side Uber said:


> Thank you Fuzzy Elvis ??. It's called common courtesy. You let the driver know you have a service animal. This chick was hoping I would say something. She was buzzed and likely bi polar.
> 
> I've learned a lot about what our society now considers disabled. I just feel there are different levels of disabilities. Blind and missing limbs being top of the list. I will never consider someone like her to be disabled no matter how many of you snowflakes come running to her defense ??


So, you act like invisible disabilities are just Anxiety and PTSD. What about epileptics, autistics, diabetics, etc.? You wouldn't know they were disabled looking at them outwardly (IE, not visible disabilities). Are you saying they aren't actually disabled and are just snowflakes? This is the problem with people who have ablest attitudes. You really need to educate yourself more.


----------

