# Fake Service Animals



## Jst1dreamr (Apr 25, 2019)

Just FYI:
Here is something to share with those pax that carry their dog around in a pusre or stroller claiming it is a "service dog". *They are not protected by the ADA regulations.*
There are 31 states that have laws making it a crime to misrepresent a pet as a service dog. only three classifications are covered under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) which are "guide dogs", "signal dogs" and "service dogs".
In California this is defined by penal code 365.5 (d), (e) and (f) as described below. Although (ESA) Emotional Support Animals are legitimate but they are not protected under the ADA regulations.

Californias Penal Code Law:
*§ 365.7. Knowing and fraudulent representation as owner or trainer of guide, signal or service dog; penalty*

(a) Any person who knowingly and fraudulently represents himself or herself, through verbal or written notice, to be the owner or trainer of any canine licensed as, to be qualified as, or identified as, a guide, signal, or service dog, as defined in subdivisions (d), (e), and (f) of Section 365.5 and paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) of Section 54.1 of the Civil Code, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.

(b) As used in this section, "owner" means any person who owns a guide, signal, or service dog, or who is authorized by the owner to use the guide, signal, or service dog.

*§ 365.5. *(a) Any blind person, deaf person, or disabled person, who is a passenger on any common carrier, airplane, motor vehicle, railway train, motorbus, streetcar, boat, or any other public conveyance or mode of transportation operating within this state, shall be entitled to have with him or her a specially trained guide dog, signal dog, or service dog.

(d) As used in this section, "guide dog" means any guide dog or Seeing Eye dog that was trained by a person licensed under Chapter 9.5 (commencing with Section 7200) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code or that meets the definitional criteria under federal regulations adopted to implement Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336).

(e) As used in this section, "signal dog" means any dog trained to alert a deaf person, or a person whose hearing is impaired, to intruders or sounds.

(f) As used in this section, "service dog" means any dog individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including, but not limited to, minimal protection work, rescue work, pulling a wheelchair, or fetching dropped items.


----------



## 5☆OG (Jun 30, 2019)

uber does not care if you turn down this ride be prepared to look for another line of work..the end


----------



## Illini (Mar 14, 2019)

Take ALL dogs or risk being deactivated. You and Uber cannot request the pax to prove it's a service dog. Therefore, if you deny a ride to a dog, and they claim it was a service dog, you're done.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Illini said:


> You cannot request the pax to prove it's a service dog. if you deny a ride to a dog, and they claim it was a service dog, you're done.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^READ and pay heed^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That law that Original Poster quoted is all wonderful, good and right, but it is almost unenforceable. You, as the driver, are required to believe them if they claim that it is a "service" animal.

You get to ask two questions:

"Is this animal required because of a disability"

If they answer "yes", you get to ask "What task(s) has it been trained to perform?". If they list even one legitimate task, you are required to believe them and accommodate the animal.

One of the problems with laws of this nature is that far too often they go too far the other way. While their purpose is allegedly to level the proverbial playing field, far too often they tilt it too far in favour of the class that is supposed to be "protected".

If you want to park in handicapped spaces, you must submit documentation and get an official placard with a registration number or some sign of official approval. You can not just park there and tell the authorities "I am handicapped". Why is it that those who use these animals can not carry a card that proves the legitimacy of the animal?

As it is, any time that you show the smallest objection to an animal, it suddenly becomes a "service" animal. My experience and what others have told me is that Uber merely requires you to haul them and deal with the consequences thereof (usually shedding). Lyft, however, not only requires you to haul them and deal with the consequences, it also requires you to like it.

Currently, those charged with enforcement of the ADA recognise only two kinds of service animals: dogs and one specific breed of a small pony. This means that you are under no obligation to haul "service" bears and "service" skunks. Further, if you can not accommodate the pony in your vehicle, you do not have to take it. If you are driving a Ford Focus, the pony will not fit, so you need not haul it. If, however, you are diving a Chevrolet Suburban, you might have to carry it.


----------



## JaxUberLyft (Jan 9, 2019)

"Why is it that those who use these animals can not carry a card that proves the legitimacy of the animal?"

I assume such a card might violate medical privacy?

Illini has it right, unfortunately. Load the dogs or find another gig.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

JaxUberLyft said:


> I assume such a card might violate medical privacy?


......if you can explain to me how a placard with the wheelchair icon and some official stamp on it does not violate HIPPA but a card that identifies a dog as a legitimate service animal does.......................................

All that the card would need do is be of a universal design, issued by whatever is authorised to do so that simply states that the animal is a legitimate service animal. Remember, asking the two questions is specifically permitted, thus THAT does not violate HIPPA,



JaxUberLyft said:


> Illini has it right, unfortunately. Load the dogs or find another gig.


I would expect that my posting " arrowheads' " bracketing "read and pay heed" would indicate that I understand this. The Federal law does not, however, require you to like it or agree with it, Y-E-T (if Bloomberg wins, though, that might change). Currently, only Lyft requires you to like it.

Uber: Do it or be de-activated.
Lyft: Do it and like it, or be de-activated.

I do not know what VIA does.


----------



## Ssgcraig (Jul 8, 2015)

Uber has "Uber Pet" now in my market. I turn it off, no one should get into my car with an animal.


----------



## JaxUberLyft (Jan 9, 2019)

Ssgcraig said:


> Uber has "Uber Pet" now in my market. I turn it off, no one should get into my car with an animal.


Let us know how that works out!


----------



## Ssgcraig (Jul 8, 2015)

JaxUberLyft said:


> Let us know how that works out!


I will. It's an option, just like XL, 5 PAX don't get into my car on an X request.


----------



## welikecamping (Nov 27, 2018)

I gave a ride to a service cat the other day. Woman was really nice and asked beforehand if it was okay. Her cat was in a carrier and she was taking it to the vet for some tests. Apparently cat is diabetic and needs regular injections. You gotta hand it to someone with that much compassion for their cat. Some people would just take it out in the desert and feed it to the coyote.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

welikecamping said:


> I gave a ride to a *service* cat the other day.


(emphasis added)

Those charged with enforcement of the ADA recognise only dogs and one specific breed of small pony as service animals protected by the ADA. No breed of cat has any recognition, therefore no driver is under any obligation to haul any kind of cat.


----------



## IR12 (Nov 11, 2017)

Another Uber Driver said:


> (emphasis added)
> 
> Those charged with enforcement of the ADA recognise only dogs and one specific breed of small pony as service animals protected by the ADA. No breed of cat has any recognition, therefore no driver is under any obligation to haul any kind of cat.


Good luck with that.


----------



## 5☆OG (Jun 30, 2019)

the few times i have taken dogs i have done so without incident. in over 10,000 rides i have maybe done it like 5 times,so the chances are slim. with that said,i love dogs so for me its a chance to go into baby talk mode lol


----------



## FLKeys (Dec 27, 2018)

The last "service dog" I took started licking my elbow as I was driving down the road. I highly doubt it was a service dog, however the owner sure did mention it several time and had a cute little service dog vest on it.

I don't mind taking people with dog. One rule, service dog or not, it can not get on the seat. Must stay on floor board or ride in the back cargo area behind the back seat. No one has had any objections yet.


----------



## Jon Stoppable (Dec 11, 2019)

Another Uber Driver said:


> This means that you are under no obligation to haul "service" bears


I only service bear sows, and a human would *not* like if I provided that service to them! :ninja:


----------



## 5☆OG (Jun 30, 2019)

passanger calls...i have service dog with me i hope you dont mind lol


----------



## UberMeansSuper (Aug 3, 2015)

I had a Service Dog ride once, and only once. Legitimate. Guy was in a wheelchair and the dog (a German Shepherd) was highly obedient and got in before him and everything.

The only problem, yes, was the shedding. Dog left more hair than I could imagine, even though he never really moved from his seat (wasn't jumping around, wagging his tail, nothing... just sat the whole ride, watching his master and looking out the window every now and then).

I still requested a cleaning fee. Sorry, hope Lyft ate the charge and didn't pass it down to the owner. But it was necessary for me to stop and vacuum for 20 minutes.


----------



## Jst1dreamr (Apr 25, 2019)

Dumb people.....This post was not about what you as a driver can do but rather just information that you can share with pax that have their pet with them. Also a true service dog as defined will not be carried in a bag or stroller. A lot of you people here are so stuck on your self that you will never be able to accept information for what it is. No one said you should deny someone just inform them. Maybe post an information card in you car for them to read. You might find some of them tip better when they realize you did them a favor by not denying them service.


----------



## Elmo Burrito (Feb 3, 2017)

I am sooo tired of this subject! Just take the pups or kitties or be prepared to get the axe which will suit us just fine cuz too many drivers on the roads  already ayspaicially PTs!


----------



## John oceans (Feb 12, 2020)

5☆OG said:


> uber does not care if you turn down this ride be prepared to look for another line of work..the end


In other words, if you turn down any dog you will be deactivated. Most pax dont care about your work and will otherwise claim being denied of an service dog.


----------



## Freddie Blimeau (Oct 10, 2016)

Jst1dreamr said:


> Dumb people.....This post was not about what you as a driver can do but rather just information that you can share with pax that have their pet


Like OK, you tell us all about how to do our job, see


----------



## Coachman (Sep 22, 2015)

UberMeansSuper said:


> I still requested a cleaning fee. Sorry, hope Lyft ate the charge and didn't pass it down to the owner. But it was necessary for me to stop and vacuum for 20 minutes.


Were you sure to charge $150 for that 20 minutes of vacuuming?


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Another Uber Driver said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^READ and pay heed^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> That law that Original Poster quoted is all wonderful, good and right, but it is almost unenforceable. You, as the driver, are required to believe them if they claim that it is a "service" animal.
> 
> ...


You're comparing apples to oranges. What you're suggesting would create more "fake" service animals.


----------



## Freddie Blimeau (Oct 10, 2016)

Demon said:


> What you're suggesting would create more "fake" service animals.


See, like what he's saying is right cause like it would make a lot less like totally bogus fake service animals, see? See, if you like had to go to this place and get one of these cert. papers like where the govt. approves, see? Then they couldn't have no bogus service animals cause like thy'd have to get this paper that like says it's like this real service animal, you know?

So see, you really shouldn't post something when you don't even know what you're talking about, you know?


----------



## Terri Lee (Jun 23, 2016)

Had an interesting dog(s) encounter recently.
For years I've picked up pax w/canines no questions asked.
And never had a problem.
But something about this lady and her dog in a purse and holding another one struck me as...unnecessary.
I asked her, "Do you have papers for the dogs?"
Reply was unintelligible Espanol.
I tried again, "What is the dogs status?"
She turned around, shoved the dogs through her front door, and returned to my car. 

You might have noticed that at no time did I refuse the pets.

Of course, she could have just lied about the encounter and I'd be sweeping up a warehouse.


----------



## 5☆OG (Jun 30, 2019)

Freddie Blimeau said:


> See, like what he's saying is right cause like it would make a lot less like totally bogus fake service animals, see? See, if you like had to go to this place and get one of these cert. papers like where the govt. approves, see? Then they couldn't have no bogus service animals cause like thy'd have to get this paper that like says it's like this real service animal, you know?
> 
> So see, you really shouldn't post something when you don't even know what you're talking about, you know?


Did you grow up in the valley dude? Like for sure...haha


----------



## welikecamping (Nov 27, 2018)

Jst1dreamr said:


> Dumb people.....This post was not about what you as a driver can do but rather just information that you can share with pax that have their pet with them. Also a true service dog as defined will not be carried in a bag or stroller. A lot of you people here are so stuck on your self that you will never be able to accept information for what it is. No one said you should deny someone just inform them. Maybe post an information card in you car for them to read. You might find some of them tip better when they realize you did them a favor by not denying them service.


Oh, here I was thinking this must be a regularly scheduled announcement. Instead, you are just beating a dead service horse. I'm guessing that most people are already aware of this issue.

Thanks for the learnin', I feel smarter already.


----------



## DriveLV (Aug 21, 2019)

Terri Lee said:


> I asked her, "Do you have papers for the dogs?"
> Reply was unintelligible Espanol.
> I tried again, "What is the dogs status?"


She was probably afraid you were going to ask for her papers/status next. She just didn't want you calling ICE on her doggie!


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Demon said:


> What you're suggesting would create more "fake" service animals.


When you consider that any animal to which the driver objects suddenly becomes a "service" animal, you would be hard put to support this statement that you are trying to pass off as an "argument". I will pass over your other unsupported statement that you are attempting to pass off as an "argument".


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Freddie Blimeau said:


> See, like what he's saying is right cause like it would make a lot less like totally bogus fake service animals, see? See, if you like had to go to this place and get one of these cert. papers like where the govt. approves, see? Then they couldn't have no bogus service animals cause like thy'd have to get this paper that like says it's like this real service animal, you know?
> 
> So see, you really shouldn't post something when you don't even know what you're talking about, you know?


I'd love to hear you explain how they get the animal to this government place. Looking forward to your answer.



Another Uber Driver said:


> When you consider that any animal to which the driver objects suddenly becomes a "service" animal, you would be hard put to support this statement that you are trying to pass off as an "argument". I will pass over your other unsupported statement that you are attempting to pass off as an "argument".


It would already be a "service animal" because who I was replying to was suggesting an easier way to be fake.
It's only supported by facts.


----------



## UberAdrian (May 26, 2018)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Uber: Do it or be de-activated.
> Lyft: Do it and like it, or be de-activated.
> 
> I do not know what VIA does.


VIA: Do it, like it and suck it - or be derailed.


----------



## UberMeansSuper (Aug 3, 2015)

Coachman said:


> Were you sure to charge $150 for that 20 minutes of vacuuming?


They only gave me $25.


----------



## Amsoil Uber Connect (Jan 14, 2015)

Thanks for that. I've probably copied 365.7 twenty times here. Every time the subject comes up. 

Sure , it's hard to enforce it. The Siberian Husky I had last was the most well behaved 3.5 month old I've ever seen. And not a service dog. Yes I was deactivated uber, this was on lyft.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Ssgcraig said:


> Uber has "Uber Pet" now in my market. I turn it off, no one should get into my car with an animal.


A legit service animal is not a pet. Uber is charging more for Uber Pet. The law says they can't charge more for accomodation of SAs.


----------



## Wildgoose (Feb 11, 2019)

I am a very proud of myself guy. To make myself feel small, I decided to pet this mammal as emotional support animal. I wonder Uber and Lyft will allow it to ride with me. Please advice. :biggrin: Hopefully, Lyft and Uber would pay driver $25 for their damage claim.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Demon said:


> It would already be a "service animal" because who I was replying to was suggesting an easier way to be fake. It's only supported by facts.


Your statements remain unsupported. As an extra added bonus, they are now disjointed and incoherent. Of course, given what you are attempting, that gets you even more bonus points.


----------



## Ssgcraig (Jul 8, 2015)

SuzeCB said:


> A legit service animal is not a pet. Uber is charging more for Uber Pet. The law says they can't charge more for accomodation of SAs.


Great, no animals in my car, pet or fake service animals.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Your statements remain unsupported. As an extra added bonus, they are now disjointed and incoherent. Of course, given what you are attempting, that gets you even more bonus points.


Your ignorance doesn't mean what I'm saying is unsupported.


----------



## Ssgcraig (Jul 8, 2015)

Freddie Blimeau said:


> See, like what he's saying is right cause like it would make a lot less like totally bogus fake service animals, see? See, if you like had to go to this place and get one of these cert. papers like where the govt. approves, see? Then they couldn't have no bogus service animals cause like thy'd have to get this paper that like says it's like this real service animal, you know?
> 
> So see, you really shouldn't post something when you don't even know what you're talking about, you know?


Whoa, did you mean to sound like a teenager? I have a hard time listening to people talk like that let alone reading it.


----------



## Freddie Blimeau (Oct 10, 2016)

Demon said:


> I'd love to hear you explain how they get the animal to this government place. Looking forward to your answer.


Now, like see, you could even figure that out when you're high, you know? You don't take no animal there, you take the paper the place that gave you the dog gives you, see?

Nah, I guess you ain't on no drugs, you know? Naw, see, you're like this troll, see?


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Freddie Blimeau said:


> Now, like see, you could even figure that out when you're high, you know? You don't take no animal there, you take the paper the place that gave you the dog gives you, see?
> 
> Nah, I guess you ain't on no drugs, you know? Naw, see, you're like this troll, see?


I have to hear more about this. 
So how does someone who needs a service animal get to this magical place without their service animal to hand in this magical paper that the service animal gave them?


----------



## 5☆OG (Jun 30, 2019)

Freddie Blimeau said:


> Now, like see, you could even figure that out when you're high, you know? You don't take no animal there, you take the paper the place that gave you the dog gives you, see?
> 
> Nah, I guess you ain't on no drugs, you know? Naw, see, you're like this troll, see?


im more interested in his writing style lol


----------



## Freddie Blimeau (Oct 10, 2016)

Demon said:


> So how does someone who needs a service animal get to this magical place without their service animal to hand


Like the same way they got anywhere before they got their service animal, see? What do you think they did? Somebody told you they were like born with this service animal?

But lemme like ask you, man, do you like get in trouble if you charge somebody like more bucks to cross over your bridge cause they like got this service doggy with them?


----------



## Legalizeit0 (Jul 26, 2017)

Funny that PETA would say “Uber Pet” is derogatory.

To be PC, according to PETA, we are no longer “owners“ and they are not our “pets.”

On a side note, I’ve owned my dog (in my picture) for almost 5 years, he is a great pet.

Please hold your replies, we don’t want to beat a dead horse 😂😂😂😂😂


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Demon said:


> Your ignorance doesn't mean what I'm saying is unsupported.


What you are trying to pass off as "arguments" are _still_ unsupported.


----------



## 5☆OG (Jun 30, 2019)

customers think they can get away with anything thank god i had a sunroof


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Another Uber Driver said:


> What you are trying to pass off as "arguments" are _still_ unsupported.


They're actually not. The poster I replied to wanted to make it easier to fake a service animal. Under their proposal anyone could print out a certificate saying their dog was a service animal, or go online and buy some vest that has "service animal" printed on it. Someone in this thread posted about a dog in their car with a "service animal" vest on but licking their elbows while they were driving. Requiring certificates or paper work just makes it easier for fakers to fake. That's one of the reasons that legit service animals don't need paperwork.



Freddie Blimeau said:


> Like the same way they got anywhere before they got their service animal, see? What do you think they did? Somebody told you they were like born with this service animal?
> 
> But lemme like ask you, man, do you like get in trouble if you charge somebody like more bucks to cross over your bridge cause they like got this service doggy with them?


Before they had their service animal they were probably a young child and an adult took them everywhere, but we're talking about adults here because kids can't ride in Uber/Lyft without an adult.

You're really working hard to avoid answering a simple question.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Demon said:


> They're actually not.


You have now offered something that you are trying to pass off as "support". If your statements were true, people could print out fake placards with wheelchair icons and everyone would be parking in a handicapped spot. While I am sure that there are some quite convincing fakes out there, they are not numerous. If they were, there would be no empty handicapped spots. I do not know about Orlando, Florida, as it has been some time since I have been there, but, you may rest assured that in the Capital of Your Nation and its metropolitan area, at times you must wonder if a place has more handicapped spots than there are handicapped people in the given jurisdiction.

If these people with their service animals had to go through a process similar to those who want handicapped placards, and, had to get their certifications from sources similar to those for the handicapped placards, there would be far fewer fake service animals.



Demon said:


> The poster I replied to wanted to make it easier to fake a service animal.


If you were replying to another poster, why did you quote my post?


----------



## Tony73 (Oct 12, 2016)

Jst1dreamr said:


> Just FYI:
> Here is something to share with those pax that carry their dog around in a pusre or stroller claiming it is a "service dog". *They are not protected by the ADA regulations.*
> There are 31 states that have laws making it a crime to misrepresent a pet as a service dog. only three classifications are covered under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) which are "guide dogs", "signal dogs" and "service dogs".
> In California this is defined by penal code 365.5 (d), (e) and (f) as described below. Although (ESA) Emotional Support Animals are legitimate but they are not protected under the ADA regulations.
> ...


Well yeah in theory service and support animals are under different statutes, if I'm not mistaken. However if paxhole cries to uber about support animal claiming it as a service animal, you're deactivated for investigation. Odds will always be against driver.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Tony73 said:


> Odds will always be against driver.


A poster to a different topic on this matter managed to get hold of some instructions from Uber Senior Management to those charged with looking into these complaints. The instructions specifically stated that if there is no clear cut indication of who is in the right or the wrong, it must *always *be resolved in favour of the customer. This applies, among other situations, to a question of driver's word against customer's or, the customer's inability to prove his case coupled with the driver's inability to disprove it.


----------



## Lute Byrt (Feb 20, 2020)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/miniat...ice-animal-flight-could-be-his-last-airlines/
Originally I was not sure which one the horse was....






I just want to see a picture of the Uber ride!


----------



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

Illini said:


> Take ALL dogs or risk being deactivated. You and Uber cannot request the pax to prove it's a service dog. Therefore, if you deny a ride to a dog, and they claim it was a service dog, you're done.


I heard that if you even _look_ at a pax' dog the wrong way you're toast.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Another Uber Driver said:


> You have now offered something that you are trying to pass off as "support". If your statements were true, people could print out fake placards with wheelchair icons and everyone would be parking in a handicapped spot. While I am sure that there are some quite convincing fakes out there, they are not numerous. If they were, there would be no empty handicapped spots. I do not know about Orlando, Florida, as it has been some time since I have been there, but, you may rest assured that in the Capital of Your Nation and its metropolitan area, at times you must wonder if a place has more handicapped spots than there are handicapped people in the given jurisdiction.
> 
> If these people with their service animals had to go through a process similar to those who want handicapped placards, and, had to get their certifications from sources similar to those for the handicapped placards, there would be far fewer fake service animals.
> 
> If you were replying to another poster, why did you quote my post?


You're ascribing me a position and debating that instead of what I wrote. 
You're proposing a system where anyone can fill out a form and viola they now have a service animal. That's going to lead to more fakes and that's why we don't have that system now.


----------



## Cold Fusion (Aug 28, 2019)

Legalizeit0 said:


> Funny that PETA would say "Uber Pet" is derogatory.
> 
> To be PC, according to PETA, we are no longer "owners" and they are not our "pets."
> 
> ...


Is this not your dog?


----------



## MiamiUberGuy5 (Feb 20, 2019)

Illini said:


> Take ALL dogs or risk being deactivated. You and Uber cannot request the pax to prove it's a service dog. Therefore, if you deny a ride to a dog, and they claim it was a service dog, you're done.


The power is in the drivers hand. As long as the driver lies correctly:
The driver simply can cancel And claim he couldn't find the rider. Problem solved


----------



## ghrdrd (Jun 26, 2019)

They show you a false dog, you tell them a false name.
See dog, ask paxhole name, she says "Sharon" you say "sorry the app says Maddie" and drive off.

But much simpler just 'cancel safety' and keep driving. I did that the other day. Don't want no animals stuffing up the leather of my ride.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

ghrdrd said:


> They show you a false dog, you tell them a false name.
> See dog, ask paxhole name, she says "Sharon" you say "sorry the app says Maddie" and drive off.
> 
> But much simpler just 'cancel safety' and keep driving. I did that the other day. Don't want no animals stuffing up the leather of my ride.


Thankfully both of those will get drivers deactivated.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Demon said:


> You're ascribing me a position and debating that instead of what I wrote.


I recognise an attempt at obfuscation when I see it if for no other reason than in another life I dealt extensively with lawyers.



Demon said:


> You're proposing a system where anyone can fill out a form and viola they now have a service animal.


That is false.

You do not fill out a form and _voilà_!; now you have a handicapped placard. You are complaining about my "ascribing positions" and telling me that you were not responding to me, initially. Despite this, you put words onto my keyboard.............double standard much?

....oh, and a "viola" is a relatively common stringed musical instrument that is slightly larger than a violin, hence has a somewhat lower/deeper tone. It is much smaller than a cello, the next relatively common stringed instrument in size. The word that you wanted was _"voilà", _which is a combination of the imperative singular of the French verb "_voir_", "to see" and the locative adverb "_là_", "there"; hence "see there" which became "look", "poof", "here it is".



Demon said:


> That's going to lead to more fakes and that's why we don't have that system now.


As your premise is false and has been convincingly debunked, your conclusion can only be false.



MiamiUberGuy5 said:


> The driver simply can cancel And claim he couldn't find the rider. Problem solved


We have had posters on this forum complain about de-activation due to allegedly denying transport due to "racial considerations" or a service animal. These posters have insisted that they never saw the customer or cancelled when they were a given distance from the customer, so they never could have seen him. Despite this, these same posters stated that neither Uber nor Lyft would even consider their arguments.. If they did cancel a given distance from the pickup address, both Uber and Lyft would know where the driver was when he cancelled. Still, these posters complained that neither Lyft nor Uber would discuss the matter.

The trend appears to be that if a customer complains about denial of transport due to being a member of a "protected class" or having a service animal, the customer is presumed to have a legitimate complaint and the driver is penalised no questions asked.


----------



## IR12 (Nov 11, 2017)

5☆OG said:


> Did you grow up in the valley dude? Like for sure...haha


Piss poor communication skills are acceptable even in the workplace now.
Can you imagine listening to a convo where every other word is LIKE?
Insufferable.


----------



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

I'm going to start asking the dog what tasks the human is trained to perform. No answer = no ride. Problem solved.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Another Uber Driver said:


> I recognise an attempt at obfuscation when I see it if for no other reason than in another life I dealt extensively with lawyers.
> 
> That is false.
> 
> ...


Thank you for admitting you're trying to distort the conversation by continuing to ascribe me a position I have not adopted.

You're now trying to compare two different things, the process of obtaining a handicapped parking permit and the imaginary process you've made up for service animals. The problem is that you remain ignorant of what makes a service animal. A person can train their own service animal and that's all the background that's required. So when they show up at the government at the government building all they will need to do is fill out paperwork and voila their pet is now a service animal. That's going to lead to more fakes because anyone can claim they have trained a pet to be a service animal. I'd still love to hear how you propose a person who needs a service animal to get around gets to this government building without a service animal.

The basis of your argument stems from your ignorance and your sense of entitlement to avoid doing a job you agreed to do.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Demon said:


> Thank you for admitting you're trying to distort the conversation by continuing to ascribe me a position I have not adopted.


I have admitted to nothing. Once more, you are putting words onto my keyboard.

Twice you have accused me of "ascribing to you a position". I have done no such thing.



Demon said:


> imaginary process you've made up for service animals.


I have "made up" no such process. I have suggested the possibility of something similar to what people who want a handicapped placard do. I have not delineated the process. Once more, you put words onto my keyboard.



Demon said:


> The problem is that you remain ignorant of what makes a service animal.


The "problem" is that you have no basis on which to make such a statement.



Demon said:


> A person can train their own service animal and that's all the background that's required.


You are telling me something that I already know.



Demon said:


> So when they show up at the government at the government building all they will need to do is fill out paperwork and voila their pet is now a service animal.


If you think that there would not have to be changes to what is currently in effect, your analytical abilities are sorely lacking. Keep in mind that despite your stating that I have "made up an imaginary process", I have not delineated any such process. All that I have done is suggest something similar to what is done regarding a handicapped placard. "Similar" is a key word.



Demon said:


> I'd still love to hear how you propose a person who needs a service animal to get around gets to this government building without a service animal.


You directed that question at @Freddie Blimeau , not me. You seem to have a problem remembering whose posts you are quoting and at whom you are directing your questions.



Demon said:


> The basis of your argument stems from your ignorance and your sense of entitlement to avoid doing a job you agreed to do.


You do not know me, thus you have no basis on which to make such a statement.

You have failed to prove any "ignorance" on my part.
You are confusing "entitlement" with "disagreement". Currently, the law requires that I transport the animal. It does not require that I like ti Y-E-T. There is nothing that keeps me from expressing disagreement with current policies, laws and regulations. Lyft does require that I like it, but, that is the subject of another discussion. I am not sure if Uber requires me to like it, or not, but, again..............

All of these statement from certain posters about "you agreed to do this job....." display an ignorance of history, among other things.
People have agreed to do jobs despite their disagreement with the conditions for years. People have discussed their disagreements and considered alternatives for years. When action has been practical, they have taken it. You are confusing "liking" with "agreement".

As long as I carry the dog, I am complying with the law. This is all that is required at present.

As usual, your "arguments" fail. You put words onto my keyboard. You confuse terms. You can not remember at whom you are directing your questions. You quote posts of one poster while you claim to have been responding to another. You make statements that lack any basis. All of this adds up to two possible results. One is failure. The other is what another of your interlocutors has suggested.


----------



## UberMeansSuper (Aug 3, 2015)

It's sad that people feel entitled to circumvent what is a right reserved for those truly needing the assistance of a service animal because they feel they should be entitled to take their pets with them everywhere.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Another Uber Driver said:


> I have admitted to nothing. Once more, you are putting words onto my keyboard.
> 
> Twice you have accused me of "ascribing to you a position". I have done no such thing.


Except you literally did. I quoted you both times that you did it.



Another Uber Driver said:


> I have "made up" no such process. I have suggested the possibility of something similar to what people who want a handicapped placard do. I have not delineated the process. Once more, you put words onto my keyboard.


What makes the process magical is that you're the only one who knows what it is and you won't tell anyone. It's now a magical thing and you can move the goal posts anywhere you like. I haven't put anyone words on to you, I'm just addressing what you wrote. I'll come back to this.



Another Uber Driver said:


> The "problem" is that you have no basis on which to make such a statement.


The basis is your writing. You keep proposing something that you can't offer any support to show it will work & was refuted 30 years ago when ADA came into existence.



Another Uber Driver said:


> You are telling me something that I already know.


If you knew this you wouldn't be proposing what you're proposing.



Another Uber Driver said:


> If you think that there would not have to be changes to what is currently in effect, your analytical abilities are sorely lacking. Keep in mind that despite your stating that I have "made up an imaginary process", I have not delineated any such process. All that I have done is suggest something similar to what is done regarding a handicapped placard. "Similar" is a key word.


And that would lead to MORE fake service animals out there with less tools for drivers and government to address the fakers. As I previously pointed out it would lead to a situation where anyone could buy legitimacy for a pet that is not a service animal. There are websites where anyone can buy a handicapped placard, there are multiple accounts of doctors asking for cash to write phony paperwork so people could get handicapped placards. This is the "similar" process you're advocating & offering zero support on how it would be better.






https://onlinestore.worldwideticketcraft.com/product/handicapped-parking-hang-tags--HHH-1


Another Uber Driver said:


> You directed that question at @Freddie Blimeau , not me. You seem to have a problem remembering whose posts you are quoting and at whom you are directing your questions.


And you since you're also proposing it. You realize it's a point you can't address so you're running from it as fast as he did.



Another Uber Driver said:


> You do not know me, thus you have no basis on which to make such a statement.


But I can see what you've written and that is what I am addressing. 


Another Uber Driver said:


> You have failed to prove any "ignorance" on my part.
> You are confusing "entitlement" with "disagreement". Currently, the law requires that I transport the animal. It does not require that I like ti Y-E-T. There is nothing that keeps me from expressing disagreement with current policies, laws and regulations. Lyft does require that I like it, but, that is the subject of another discussion. I am not sure if Uber requires me to like it, or not, but, again..............


More ascription, no one said you had to like it



Another Uber Driver said:


> All of these statement from certain posters about "you agreed to do this job....." display an ignorance of history, among other things.
> People have agreed to do jobs despite their disagreement with the conditions for years. People have discussed their disagreements and considered alternatives for years. When action has been practical, they have taken it. You are confusing "liking" with "agreement"..


I'm not the one confusing them at all, based on what you've written you're confusing them. You signed a contract saying you would do it and people do not sign contracts agreeing to conditions they disagree with. If you did that's something you'll have to live with or you can just stop driving for Uber & Lyft, it's your choice to continue.



Another Uber Driver said:


> As long as I carry the dog, I am complying with the law. This is all that is required at present.
> 
> As usual, your "arguments" fail. You put words onto my keyboard. You confuse terms. You can not remember at whom you are directing your questions. You quote posts of one poster while you claim to have been responding to another. You make statements that lack any basis. All of this adds up to two possible results. One is failure. The other is what another of your interlocutors has suggested.


You not being able to refute my arguments doesn't mean they fail. I've cited 3 specific examples of you using ascription, I haven't done that. 
You're trolling. You posted some nonsense and you're not able to cite a single bit of support to back it up.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Demon said:


> Except you literally did.


That is false.



Demon said:


> I quoted you both times that you did it.


That is false.



Demon said:


> What makes the process magical is that you're the only one who knows what it is and you won't tell anyone.


That is false.



Demon said:


> It's now a magical thing and you can move the goal posts anywhere you like.


That is false.



Demon said:


> I haven't put anyone words on to you,


That is false.



Demon said:


> I'm just addressing what you wrote.


That is false.



Demon said:


> something that ...................was refuted 30 years ago when ADA came into existence.


That is false.



Demon said:


> As I previously pointed out it would lead to a situation where anyone could buy legitimacy for a pet that is not a service animal.


If you think for one minute that something invented by humans can not be foiled by humans, you are hopelessly naive. I did state that abuse of the placards is not widespread and offered my local experience to support that. I did offer a disclaimer that I am not aware of what happens in Florida. If abuse is widespread in Florida, you would know that better than would I. I never stated that any system could not be gamed or abused. The gaming and abuse, however, can be kept to a minimum.

If you think for one minute that I stated that any certification process for service animals could not be abused, then you are once more flying your double standard on "ascription". I will pass over your sham assertions that I am "ascribing" anything to you.

The abuse, however, can be kept to a minimum. It would be far less than it is, now. As it is, there is nothing to stop the abuse that currently occurs. .............oh, and ineffective, unenforceable laws do not constitute "something to stop the abuse".....



Demon said:


> And you since you're also proposing it. You realize it's a point you can't address so you're running from it as fast as he did.


You did not ask me the question, so I can not run from it. Do not bother trying to concoct some sort of Socratic dialectic on it, either. I do not get into Socratic dialectic. I recognise it for the rhetorical trap that it is.



Demon said:


> But I can see what you've written and that is what I am addressing.


............disconnected and disjointed; therefor invalid......................



Demon said:


> More ascription, no one said you had to like it


You called me "entitled" for expressing my disagreement with current policy. This implies that you believe that I should not express my disagreement with it. If you think the opposite, do not criticise me for expressing my disagreement. As long as you criticise me for my disagreement, I will take that as expecting me to like it. Do not try your "ascription" sham on this. As it has failed thus far, it will once more fail.



Demon said:


> I'm not the one confusing them at all, based on what you've written you're confusing them.


This is false.



Demon said:


> You signed a contract saying you would do it


............and your point is_______________________________________________________?



Demon said:


> and people do not sign contracts agreeing to conditions they disagree with.


This is false.



Demon said:


> If you did that's something you'll have to live with


Stop trying to be my nanny.



Demon said:


> or you can just stop driving for Uber & Lyft, it's your choice to continue.


Uber Shills, Uber Trolls, Uber Thralls and other people who make blanket statements such as this have nothing on which to make those statements. None of the above know everyone's situation.



Demon said:


> You not being able to refute my arguments doesn't mean they fail.


You have not made any "arguments" to refute. You have tried to pass of things as "arguments", but they failed a-borning.



Demon said:


> I've cited 3 specific examples of you using ascription,


Any examples of "ascription" that you cited all have been false.



Demon said:


> I haven't done that.


You have put words onto my keyboard.



Demon said:


> You're trolling.


You have that backwards.



Demon said:


> You posted some nonsense


Yow have that backwards.



Demon said:


> and you're not able to cite a single bit of support to back it up.


You have that backwards.

....false statements, double standards, backwards accusations and your denial of what is obvious all add up to one thing: you fail, again.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Another Uber Driver said:


> That is false.


No, I literally cited the words you used to do it.



Another Uber Driver said:


> That is false.


No, I literally cited the words you used to do it.



Another Uber Driver said:


> That is false.


No, I literally cited the words you used to do it.



Another Uber Driver said:


> That is false.


No, I literally cited the words you used to do it.



Another Uber Driver said:


> That is false.


No, I literally cited the words you used to do it.



Another Uber Driver said:


> That is false.


No, I literally cited the words you used to do it.



Another Uber Driver said:


> That is false.


No, I literally cited the words you used to do it.



Another Uber Driver said:


> If you think for one minute that something invented by humans can not be foiled by humans, you are hopelessly naive. I did state that abuse of the placards is not widespread and offered my local experience to support that. I did offer a disclaimer that I am not aware of what happens in Florida. If abuse is widespread in Florida, you would know that better than would I. I never stated that any system could not be gamed or abused. The gaming and abuse, however, can be kept to a minimum.


Well that just negates any point you've tried to make here. You're openly admitting that the system you want to move to can be gamed. Your local experience is meaningless because your personal experience is worth zero in a debate. Unless you have hard data that there is limited abuse of the handicapped parking system in the country, why would you want to move to that system and violate peoples' rights?



Another Uber Driver said:


> If you think for one minute that I stated that any certification process for service animals could not be abused, then you are once more flying your double standard on "ascription". I will pass over your sham assertions that I am "ascribing" anything to you.
> 
> The abuse, however, can be kept to a minimum. It would be far less than it is, now. As it is, there is nothing to stop the abuse that currently occurs. .............oh, and ineffective, unenforceable laws do not constitute "something to stop the abuse".....


And you still haven't presented anything that would support that position. There are multiple ways to stop abuse now. You personally not liking the laws doesn't mean they don't exist or are unenforceable. You've offered zero to support all these things you're making up.



Another Uber Driver said:


> You did not ask me the question, so I can not run from it. Do not bother trying to concoct some sort of Socratic dialectic on it, either. I do not get into Socratic dialectic. I recognise it for the rhetorical trap that it is..


I asked you in writing, you quoted me asking you.You're advocating that disabled people be forced to stay inside and not me members of society & you're getting called out for it. That's why you ran from the question, and that's why you're still running from the question.



Another Uber Driver said:


> ............disconnected and disjointed; therefor invalid......................


Your writing is.



Another Uber Driver said:


> You called me "entitled" for expressing my disagreement with current policy. This implies that you believe that I should not express my disagreement with it. If you think the opposite, do not criticise me for expressing my disagreement. As long as you criticise me for my disagreement, I will take that as expecting me to like it. Do not try your "ascription" sham on this. As it has failed thus far, it will once more fail.


I haven't used ascription, that was you, and quite a few times. This law is 30 years old and suddenly you disagree with it? If you really disagreed with it you wouldn't be driving the public in your own vehicle. It's something you agreed to do in writing repeatedly and it's something no one is forcing you to do. You're under no obligation to continue picking up Uber & Lyft passengers. What makes you entitled is your feeling that even though it's the law and you agreed to do it, you still should be able to avoid it.



Another Uber Driver said:


> This is false.


You're trolling.



Another Uber Driver said:


> ............and your point is_______________________________________________________?


The same thing I've said over & over again. The system you're proposing will lead to more fake service animals and give drivers and the law less opportunity to stop fakers. I've provided evidence and cites, you've provided nothing in the way to back up your made up claims.



Another Uber Driver said:


> This is false.
> 
> Stop trying to be my nanny.
> 
> ...


You're just writing nonsense because you can't offer any logical points on this. Do you have any evidence at all to support your claim that going to some kind of unknown system that is "similar" to handicapped placards will reduce the number of fake service animals? So far you haven't posted anything, just made stuff up and tried to debate things that I haven't said.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Demon said:


> No, I literally cited the words you used to do it.


That is false.



Demon said:


> No, I literally cited the words you used to do it.


That is false.



Demon said:


> No, I literally cited the words you used to do it.


That is false.



Demon said:


> No, I literally cited the words you used to do it.


That is false.



Demon said:


> No, I literally cited the words you used to do it.


That is false.



Demon said:


> No, I literally cited the words you used to do it.


That is false.



Demon said:


> No, I literally cited the words you used to do it.


That is false.



Demon said:


> Well that just negates any point you've tried to make here.


That is false.



Demon said:


> You're openly admitting that the system you want to move to can be gamed


Do you know of anything invented by humans that can not be gamed or foiled? This will HAVE to be interesting.



Demon said:


> Your local experience is meaningless because your personal experience is worth zero in a debate.


.......not necessarily. If you think that I am going to research statistics on fake handicapped placards, you are sadly mistaken. Anyone who could get me to do that for a disagreement on a driver's forum truly would be trolling me and succeeding. I have only my experience on which to go. If yours is different, let me know.



Demon said:


> Unless you have hard data that there is limited abuse of the handicapped parking system in the country, why would you want to move to that system and violate peoples' rights?


HUH?



Demon said:


> And you still haven't presented anything that would support that position.


.............and I am still not going to get taken in by some attempt at a ten cent Socratic dialectic. How many ways do you want me to state that?



Demon said:


> There are multiple ways to stop abuse now.


You are the one calling for examples. You have offered none in this entire topic.



Demon said:


> You personally not liking the laws doesn't mean they don't exist


This statement is, at best, self-contradictory. At worst, it is totally incoherent.



Demon said:


> You've offered zero to support all these things you're making up.


I have not "made up" anything.



Demon said:


> You personally not liking the laws doesn't mean they ..............are unenforceable.


Where did I state that anyone's not liking a law makes it unenforceable?



Demon said:


> I asked you in writing,


You asked @Freddie Blimeau the question.



Demon said:


> You're advocating that disabled people be forced to stay inside and not me members of society


..............and you accuse _ME_ of "ascription"? Once more, we see your double standard.



Demon said:


> & you're getting called out for it


I can not get "called out" for something that I am not doing.

.


Demon said:


> That's why you ran from the question, and that's why you're still running from the question.


I am running from nothing. I am merely refusing to get caught into whatever rhetorical trap you are trying to concoct for me. State your case. I will state mine. I am not going to be stuck in some trap where you twist questions to get the answers that you want. That will not happen. Can the Socratic dialectic and state your case.



Demon said:


> Your writing is.


You have that backwards.



Demon said:


> I haven't used ascription, that was you, and quite a few times


That is three false statements in one sentence......congratulations.



Demon said:


> This law is 30 years old and *suddenly* you disagree with it?


(emphasis added)

From where do you get the emphasised part?



Demon said:


> If you really disagreed with it you wouldn't be driving the public in your own vehicle.


You know neither me nor my situation, thus, you have no basis on which to make such a statement.



Demon said:


> It's something you agreed to do in writing repeatedly and it's something no one is forcing you to do. You're under no obligation to continue picking up Uber & Lyft passengers.


............and your point is_____________________________________________?



Demon said:


> What makes you entitled is your feeling that even though it's the law and you agreed to do it, you still should be able to avoid it.


That is false. When did advocating for changes in the law become "entitlement"?



Demon said:


> You're trolling.


You have that backwards.



Demon said:


> The same thing I've said over & over again.


............and has been incorrect "over and over again".................



Demon said:


> The system you're proposing will lead to more fake service animals and give drivers and the law less opportunity to stop fakers.


................incorrect...................



Demon said:


> I've provided evidence


That is false.



Demon said:


> and cites


..........that are irrelevant........................



Demon said:


> ,made up claims.


I have "made up" nothing.



Demon said:


> You're just writing nonsense because you can't offer any logical points on this


You have that backwards.



Demon said:


> Do you have any evidence at all to support your claim that going to some kind of unknown system that is "similar" to handicapped placards will reduce the number of fake service animals?


I have as much evidence as you claim to have to support your claims that it will lead only to more abuse.



Demon said:


> just made stuff


.............false.........................



Demon said:


> tried to debate things that I haven't said.


You have that backwards.


----------



## Rae (Feb 27, 2016)

One word-dashcam. 
If you know that the dog is fake, be ready with your 2 legit questions and tell Granny(or whomever) that you just want her on camera verifying the service pet questions. Usually they will huffily get out & cancel.

I have taken dogs. Usually small clean dogs & its when the owners said "hes a pet". I dont like to take dogs



Demon said:


> Thank you for admitting you're trying to distort the conversation by continuing to ascribe me a position I have not adopted.
> 
> You're now trying to compare two different things, the process of obtaining a handicapped parking permit and the imaginary process you've made up for service animals. The problem is that you remain ignorant of what makes a service animal. A person can train their own service animal and that's all the background that's required. So when they show up at the government at the government building all they will need to do is fill out paperwork and voila their pet is now a service animal. That's going to lead to more fakes because anyone can claim they have trained a pet to be a service animal. I'd still love to hear how you propose a person who needs a service animal to get around gets to this government building without a service animal.
> 
> The basis of your argument stems from your ignorance and your sense of entitlement to avoid doing a job you agreed to do.


The person would be certified by a physician just like they do with the parking permit. You might be certified bc your service dog detects low blood sugar, I might be certified for vision problems. Neither of us would have 4lb service dogs in slings, strollers, carts, licking all the meats at Publix(saw one last week), etc.


----------



## 5☆OG (Jun 30, 2019)

had this passanger yesterday. i suspect this was a fake service animal...what do you think? thx in advance


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Rae said:


> One word-dashcam.
> If you know that the dog is fake, be ready with your 2 legit questions and tell Granny(or whomever) that you just want her on camera verifying the service pet questions. Usually they will huffily get out & cancel.
> 
> I have taken dogs. Usually small clean dogs & its when the owners said "hes a pet". I dont like to take dogs
> ...


The blood sugar dogs get carried up on the handler's chest so they can smell the breath. Like one of those baby carriers, but with a small dog in it instead.

Seizure detection dogs can be any size, and can be "four on the floor" or on the handler's chest.


----------



## Infinite (Jan 18, 2020)

I welcome animals. One can even sit on my lap when I drive.


----------



## Cary Grant (Jul 14, 2015)

I've denied over 200 fake service animals (I keep records). I self-report all cancels for cause, and keep the videos forever. I've been waitlisted only once for this issue and was re-activated before I even knew about it, because the Uber investigator learned that the malingerer only had an emotional support animal, which is just a pet.

If you ask the two questions, you will weed out the fakers, frauds, criminals, non-hackers, and malingerers with regularity. Most pax are well within one standard deviation of the mean on the bell curve, so they haven't thought this through, and have failed to actually do any research to make sure they don't trip over their own stupidity and hang theirselves by their own petard.

Some of the answers I get are glorious.

_"You can't ask me that!"_ the wench screams. I bust out laughing because I have it all on video.

Because I ask the two questions I've only had to transport a handful of legitimate service dogs. They are exceedingly rare.

People who have a legitimate service animal KNOW all about the two questions because they are trained to answer them without objection when they are introduced to their service animal.

I recommend a dashcam, AND it pays dividends to use your smartphone to video the faker while you ask the two questions. When you have that evidence, you are not going to be deactivated. Moreover, you now have the evidence necessary to swear out a criminal complaint against the perp, which I highly recommend.

I keep a copy of the law in my logbook. I have shown it to pax that threatened me with a complaint, and I am pretty sure it has stopped these pikers that Cannot Understand Normal Thinking.

*



§ 121.006. Penalties for Improper Use of Assistance Animals

Click to expand...

*


> (a) A person who uses a service animal with a harness or leash of the type commonly used by persons with disabilities who use trained animals, in order to represent that his or her animal is a specially trained service animal when training has not in fact been provided, is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction shall be punished by:
> (1) a fine of not more than $300; and
> (2) 30 hours of community service to be performed for a governmental entity or nonprofit organization that primarily serves persons with visual impairments or other disabilities, or for another entity or organization at the discretion of the court, to be completed in not more than one year.


Over the last few years I've noticed changes in pax behaviors. These days when I ask the two questions, most pax just turn and walk away without even answering anything. I still write them all up because I maintain a paper trail for my protection.

Texas also has this law, which I use on a regular basis:

*



§ 2402.109. PASSENGER ACTING IN UNLAWFUL, DISORDERLY, OR ENDANGERING MANNER. A driver who has accepted a digitally prearranged ride may refuse to transport a passenger acting in an unlawful, disorderly, or endangering manner.

Click to expand...

I use this primarily to deal with open containers of alcohol, but I also cite it when presented with a fake service animal, as well as when that fifth pax suddenly jumps into my backseat thinking I won't trespass them immediately.*


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Cary Grant said:


> I've denied over 200 fake service animals (I keep records). I self-report all cancels for cause, and keep the videos forever. I've been waitlisted only once for this issue and was re-activated before I even knew about it, because the Uber investigator learned that the malingerer only had an emotional support animal, which is just a pet.
> 
> If you ask the two questions, you will weed out the fakers, frauds, criminals, non-hackers, and malingerers with regularity. Most pax are well within one standard deviation of the mean on the bell curve, so they haven't thought this through, and have failed to actually do any research to make sure they don't trip over their own stupidity and hang theirselves by their own petard.
> 
> ...


I actually have no problem transporting clean, healthy, well-behaved animals.

I DO have a problem with pax that try to scam. If they'll lie and try to scam about one thing, what else might they lie and scam about? In that case, it's really not the animal I'm rejecting, but the P.O.S. on the other end of the leash.


----------



## doyousensehumor (Apr 13, 2015)

Infinite said:


> I welcome animals. One can even sit on my lap when I drive.


I like animals too. They are so tasty. Especially chicken &#129316;


----------



## Karen Stein (Nov 5, 2016)

These threads touting clever ways to avoid transporting animals pop up with such frequency I have to question the motives of the poster.

I say to the OP: You go first. Let us know what happens.

Otherwise, you are but a pot stirrer, trying to con some noob into taking your advice. When he suffers, you will protest your innocence and giggle at his naivete. You're evil. Go back under your rock and leave good folks alone.


----------



## UberAdrian (May 26, 2018)

Animals are not pets, they are friends. Would you leave a friend hanging?


----------



## Karen Stein (Nov 5, 2016)

As for cats: Cats may not be officially recognized, but I've actually seen one who helper his deaf human by alerting her to the doorbell and phone.
(Yes, there are specially amplified phones for the partially deaf - and not all of those have flashers).

It's a moot point. Every cat I've carriers Hass been in a carrier. Can't risk a panicked cat running off.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Rae said:


> One word-dashcam.
> If you know that the dog is fake, be ready with your 2 legit questions and tell Granny(or whomever) that you just want her on camera verifying the service pet questions. Usually they will huffily get out & cancel.
> 
> I have taken dogs. Usually small clean dogs & its when the owners said "hes a pet". I dont like to take dogs
> ...


The issue there is that the person is being certified, not the animal. My mom has blood sugar issues and she has 2 dogs, they're great dogs, but they're not service animals. So my mom could get a note from a physician no problem and now those 2 pets become service animals. She could take them with her in an Uber/Lyft or to Publix even though they won't behave as service dogs.



Another Uber Driver said:


> That is false.
> 
> That is false.
> 
> ...


You're continuing to post nonsense and are ascribing me positions that I've never adopted. You've offered no support to back up your wild claims, and I've spent time giving you reasons and cites. You're trolling.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Demon said:


> You're continuing to post nonsense and are ascribing me positions that I've never adopted.


You have that backwards.



Demon said:


> You've offered no support to back up your wild claims,


You have that backwards.



Demon said:


> You've offered no support to back up your wild claims,


You have just described your own posts. You are stating the obvious about your posts.



Demon said:


> I've spent time giving you *reasons*


 (emphasis added)

Using "reasons" as a description of your posts is, at best, a stretch.



Demon said:


> I've spent time giving you........................*invalid and irrelevant *cites


FIFY



Demon said:


> You're trolling.


Once more, you describe your own posts. When you do that, you are stating the obvious.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Another Uber Driver said:


> You have that backwards.
> 
> You have that backwards.
> 
> ...


You're still trolling and avoiding discussing the conversation. Do you have anything at all to back up your claims?


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

somebody needs to be introduced to 'ignore'. sheesh. Path of least resistance. :thumbup:


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Demon said:


> You're still trolling


You have that backwards.



Demon said:


> avoiding discussing the conversation.


.............discussing the "conversation".......................? HUH?



Demon said:


> avoiding discussing the conversation.


My best guess at a possible response to this incoherent phrase is: "When I see something of actual substance to discuss, I will discuss it." . Another possibility is "When I see an actual serious attempt to discuss something rather than an attempt to set a rhetorical trap in order to find imaginary faults,, I will attempt to discuss whatever it is that requires discussion." Perhaps it is best expressed in this way: If you want to discuss this seriously and in an adult and civilised manner, I will discuss it. If you want to try to set rhetorical traps and find imaginary faults for the sole purpose of your own self-gratification, I am not interested..



Demon said:


> Do you have anything at all to back up your claims?


I have told you twice, now it is three times, that I do not deal with anything that resembles Socratic dialectic as I recognise it for the rhetorical trap that it is. I will not be taken in by your attempts at a trap nor anyone else's. That is three times. How many times and how many ways do I need to state this?

This, of course, passes over wondering what you are expecting when discussing something that is, at this state, purely theoretical, anyhow.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

I G N O R E try it. you will like it.


----------



## BIGSHOW (Dec 28, 2019)

Another Uber Driver said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^READ and pay heed^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> That law that Original Poster quoted is all wonderful, good and right, but it is almost unenforceable. You, as the driver, are required to believe them if they claim that it is a "service" animal.
> 
> ...


Just a heads up... if the pax automatically, by their own volition and free will, state it is an "emotional support" pet, they are neither covered by ADA nor are they covered via Uber as they are testing active listening on pax apps. Since "emotional support" isn't in ADA guidelines, their ride can be declined. Chance it if you wish, I'm no law major, but common sense and logic don't require degrees lol


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

BIGSHOW said:


> if the pax.................state it is an "emotional support" pet, they are neither covered by ADA nor are they covered via Uber as they are testing active listening on pax apps


That is correct, "emotional support animals" are not covered. Currently, those charged with enforcement of the ADA recognise only dogs and one specific breed of small pony as a legitimate service animal. If you are going to deny the ride because of an emotional support animal, be sure that you have it on your dashboard or telephone camera, as when the customer complains to F*ub*a*r* or Gr*yft*, it will suddenly become a "service animal" and you will get the consequences.

If ever you do run across someone with the pony, if the pony will not fit into your car, you do not have to haul it. If you are driving a Ford Focus, you probably do not have to carry the pony. If you are driving a van, you might have to carry the pony.


----------



## DriveLV (Aug 21, 2019)

Another Uber Driver said:


> If ever you do run across someone with the pony, if the pony will not fit into your car, you do not have to haul it. If you are driving a Ford Focus, you probably do not have to carry the pony. If you are driving a van, you might have to carry the pony.


----------



## Freddie Blimeau (Oct 10, 2016)

Demon said:


> You're really working hard to avoid answering a simple question.


See, you got that like all wrong, you know? Like there ain't no such thing like no "simple question" when it comes to Uber trolls like you, you know?

So like you're just better off going away & playing in the sandbox with your other Uber troll buddies on this forum, see? Nobody wants to hear from an Uber troll, nohow.

Wh


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Freddie Blimeau said:


> See, you got that like all wrong, you know? Like there ain't no such thing like no "simple question" when it comes to Uber trolls like you, you know?
> 
> So like you're just better off going away & playing in the sandbox with your other Uber troll buddies on this forum, see? Nobody wants to hear from an Uber troll, nohow.
> 
> Wh


Sorry I exposed you as a troll & your lack of logic.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Freddie Blimeau said:


> See, you got that like all wrong, you know? Like there ain't no such thing like no "simple question" when it comes to Uber trolls like you, you know?
> 
> So like you're just better off going away & playing in the sandbox with your other Uber troll buddies on this forum, see? Nobody wants to hear from an Uber troll, nohow.
> 
> Wh


http://geekxgirls.com/article.php?ID=12824


----------



## 5☆OG (Jun 30, 2019)

SuzeCB said:


> http://geekxgirls.com/article.php?ID=12824


Learn something new everyday. I always thought it was just being a dhead


----------



## Freddie Blimeau (Oct 10, 2016)

Demon said:


> Sorry I exposed you as a troll & your lack of logic.


Like you ain't gotta be sorry for something you ain't done, you know? It's cause like you got enough to be sorry for like it is , see? You don't need to make it worse for you than it is , troll, & like especially in your case it's like pretty bad, you know?


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Jst1dreamr said:


> Just FYI:
> Here is something to share with those pax that carry their dog around in a pusre or stroller claiming it is a "service dog". *They are not protected by the ADA regulations.*
> There are 31 states that have laws making it a crime to misrepresent a pet as a service dog. only three classifications are covered under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) which are "guide dogs", "signal dogs" and "service dogs".
> In California this is defined by penal code 365.5 (d), (e) and (f) as described below. Although (ESA) Emotional Support Animals are legitimate but they are not protected under the ADA regulations.
> ...


You know what I say? It's a losing battle. Sure, most "service dogs" are probably fake, but what are you gonna do?

Just take the little pooch, install rubber mats and require the pooch to sit on the floor. I have a hatch back, and for larger dogs, they go in the back, no ifs or buts. I've never had an issue. once in while, I have to stop and vacuum, okay, but it doesn't happen that often, in fact, it rarely happens.

Real or fake, you keep turning pooches away and I swear UBer will deactivate you, they are not in the mood to challenge service dogs.


----------



## Woohaa (Jan 15, 2017)

Do yourself a favor and purchase a backseat cover for that dog. It's cheaper than deactivation. &#129315;


----------



## BIGSHOW (Dec 28, 2019)

Just like how pax are responsible for child seats when traveling, they should also be responsible for seat covers.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

BIGSHOW said:


> Just like how pax are responsible for child seats when traveling, they should also be responsible for seat covers.


That would be illegal.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

BIGSHOW said:


> Just like how pax are responsible for child seats when traveling, they should also be responsible for seat covers.


Service animals don't get on the seats, unless tasking.


----------



## FLKeys (Dec 27, 2018)

SuzeCB said:


> Service animals don't get on the seats, unless tasking.


Every person with a dog I have drove has had no issue with my simple rule that the dog must remain on the floor or in the back cargo area. Dogs are not permitted to get on the seat.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

FLKeys said:


> Every person with a dog I have drove has had no issue with my simple rule that the dog must remain on the floor or in the back cargo area. Dogs are not permitted to get on the seat.


If you ever encounter someone who service dog needs to be right up near their handler to work it might be your last ride.


----------



## 25rides7daysaweek (Nov 20, 2017)

JaxUberLyft said:


> "Why is it that those who use these animals can not carry a card that proves the legitimacy of the animal?"
> 
> I assume such a card might violate medical privacy?
> 
> Illini has it right, unfortunately. Load the dogs or find another gig.


I think in any case load the dog 
and apply for cleaning if the dog
makes a mess in the car.
If you tell them to seat the dog
in the lap or on the floor 
its usually not a problem



Terri Lee said:


> Had an interesting dog(s) encounter recently.
> For years I've picked up pax w/canines no questions asked.
> And never had a problem.
> But something about this lady and her dog in a purse and holding another one struck me as...unnecessary.
> ...


Maybe she just didnt want to risk
having the dogs getting deported


----------



## BIGSHOW (Dec 28, 2019)

Demon said:


> That would be illegal.


How would it be illegal if I said they should be... as in, legally held accountable for? Please read what I say and don't jump to conclusions on what you think the meaning is..


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

BIGSHOW said:


> How would it be illegal if I said they should be... as in, legally held accountable for? Please read what I say and don't jump to conclusions on what you think the meaning is..


Unless you're asking ALL pax to put down seat covers it's illegal.


----------



## BIGSHOW (Dec 28, 2019)

*facepalm* I'm asking there to be a LAW requirement. Jesus.. not hard to figure out what I was talking about


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

BIGSHOW said:


> *facepalm* I'm asking there to be a LAW requirement. Jesus.. not hard to figure out what I was talking about


Obviously you didn't write it well. 
That's not a law that can be made.


----------



## FLKeys (Dec 27, 2018)

Demon said:


> If you ever encounter someone who service dog needs to be right up near their handler to work it might be your last ride.


Every ride may be my last ride.

I'm not saying the dog can't be by them, it just can't be on my seat. I have a roomy vehicle and people have no issues getting their dog in my car and keeping it next to them while it remains on the floor.

It's a risk I'm willing to take.


----------



## BIGSHOW (Dec 28, 2019)

Demon said:


> Obviously you didn't write it well.
> That's not a law that can be made.


So you're a legislative attorney working for Uber?? REALLY?? Sweet!

_*grabs a megaphone*_

*GUYS! HE'S AN ATTORNEY! HE KNOWS WHAT WILL AND WON'T PASS AS LAWS, EVEN BEFORE THEY ARE PROPOSED TO STATE LEGISLATURE AND LEGISLATIVE JUDGES!! HE MIGHT EVEN BE A 'LAW ORACLE'!*

Also... I wrote it well, you obviously need to have things explained and laid out for you in a way that allows you to understand and process easily.


----------



## FLKeys (Dec 27, 2018)




----------



## BIGSHOW (Dec 28, 2019)

Just pointing out his ignorance, that's all.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

BIGSHOW said:


> So you're a legislative attorney working for Uber?? REALLY?? Sweet!
> 
> _*grabs a megaphone*_
> 
> ...


You didn't but that's ok. Sorry you didn't know what you were talking about.


----------



## BIGSHOW (Dec 28, 2019)

If you're ignorant, how would you know if I pointed it out or not..?


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

BIGSHOW said:


> If you're ignorant, how would you know if I pointed it out or not..?


And on that I'll rest my case.


----------



## Poo (Aug 31, 2017)

Jst1dreamr said:


> Just FYI:
> Here is something to share with those pax that carry their dog around in a pusre or stroller claiming it is a "service dog". *They are not protected by the ADA regulations.*
> There are 31 states that have laws making it a crime to misrepresent a pet as a service dog. only three classifications are covered under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) which are "guide dogs", "signal dogs" and "service dogs".
> In California this is defined by penal code 365.5 (d), (e) and (f) as described below. Although (ESA) Emotional Support Animals are legitimate but they are not protected under the ADA regulations.
> ...


Just don't stop keep driving by their [email protected]@, you can always say you never saw them.



5☆OG said:


> passanger calls...i have service dog with me i hope you dont mind lol


These mf's and their dogs are annoying and getting out of control. I think it's very disrespectful to bring your smelly dog in anyone's vehicle!


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Poo said:


> Just don't stop keep driving by their [email protected]@, you can always say you never saw them.
> 
> 
> These mf's and their dogs are annoying and getting out of control. I think it's very disrespectful to bring your smelly dog in anyone's vehicle!


That's a very quick way to deactivation.


----------



## Poo (Aug 31, 2017)

Demon said:


> That's a very quick way to deactivation.


I never stopped. I never saw them. I also keep my orange dash light on to lie and say oooops my tire is going flat I can't take you lol!!!


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Poo said:


> I never stopped. I never saw them. I also keep my orange dash light on to lie and say oooops my tire is going flat I can't take you lol!!!


All that is a quick deactivation, as it should be.


----------



## Poo (Aug 31, 2017)

Demon said:


> All that is a quick deactivation, as it should be.


As it shouldn't be. Keep your nasty [email protected]@ animals at home they don't belong in no ones car. I smell enough humans that smell like wet dog so i [email protected] sure don't want to smell the actual dog!


----------



## Rae (Feb 27, 2016)

I will take the fake service mutt but the owner has to sit on the curb & stay.

We have a big prob in FL with dumbass people bringing little dogs into grocery stores. I watched 2 weeks ago as some idiot clutching a chihuahua felt up every steak in publix. The dog was licking the packages. When I said something she launched into "its a service dog" and when I said it was a filthy dog licking everyones food she screamed at me & left the store. Perhaps she really did need emotional support to buy milk ....&#128078; Gross.

I love animals but I dont want to clean up after yours while Im working OR be distracted by them. I also dont want strangers pets in my food.



Demon said:


> The issue there is that the person is being certified, not the animal. My mom has blood sugar issues and she has 2 dogs, they're great dogs, but they're not service animals. So my mom could get a note from a physician no problem and now those 2 pets become service animals. She could take them with her in an Uber/Lyft or to Publix even though they won't behave as service dogs.
> 
> 
> You are 100% wrong. Mom could be an ass & get a note from a shady doctor(maybe)but the dogs would still be emotional support pets. Those are N. O. T. service animals. They have some housing rights but are not service animals in stores & vehicles. Service animals must be
> ...





Poo said:


> Just don't stop keep driving by their [email protected]@, you can always say you never saw them.
> 
> 
> These mf's and their dogs are annoying and getting out of control. I think it's very disrespectful to bring your smelly dog in anyone's vehicle!


If the dog doesnt have its feet....paws....on the floor its NOT a service animal. I think its disrespectful toi but I have taken small nonshedding pet dogs who had honest owners

If uber backed us up when the pax lied, this wouldnt be such a problem



BIGSHOW said:


> Just a heads up... if the pax automatically, by their own volition and free will, state it is an "emotional support" pet, they are neither covered by ADA nor are they covered via Uber as they are testing active listening on pax apps. Since "emotional support" isn't in ADA guidelines, their ride can be declined. Chance it if you wish, I'm no law major, but common sense and logic don't require degrees lol


And uber will say f-you and deactivate you anyway.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Poo said:


> As it shouldn't be. Keep your nasty [email protected]@ animals at home they don't belong in no ones car. I smell enough humans that smell like wet dog so i [email protected] sure don't want to smell the actual dog!


It's the law and you agreed to it in the TOS.



Rae said:


> I will take the fake service mutt but the owner has to sit on the curb & stay.
> 
> We have a big prob in FL with dumbass people bringing little dogs into grocery stores. I watched 2 weeks ago as some idiot clutching a chihuahua felt up every steak in publix. The dog was licking the packages. When I said something she launched into "its a service dog" and when I said it was a filthy dog licking everyones food she screamed at me & left the store. Perhaps she really did need emotional support to buy milk ....&#128078; Gross.
> 
> ...


That's wrong.


----------

