# Riders should have to prove their "service dog" is a service dog.



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Nothing I hate more than having to transport someone's "service dog" just because they say it's a service dog. Is this not fraud? Don't you have to register and get government authorization to park in a handicap spot? What's the difference? Other than me having to drive around with the windows open for half an hour to get the dog smell out of my car, and cleaning the hair off the carpet. Much like I have to do after driving hipsters to Starbucks.

Uber doesn't give a crap what happens to our cars, but we do. As drivers we need to fight this fraud. I understand if you're driving a Corolla, it really doesn't matter, but not everyone is driving a Corolla. If I had a dog I still wouldn't let him ride in my car, I'd make other arrangements. Yes, it really bugs me that people think they have the right to bring their dog into my car when I wouldn't even bring my own dog in my car.

I actually love dogs, but not in my house and not in my car. If Uber were a decent company they'd work with drivers rather than just telling us "YOU HAVE TO!" Plenty of drivers don't mind and can put the dog in the back of the SUV were passengers don't sit. Heck, I'd even be willing to contribute to a fund where drivers get paid an extra ten bucks per ride for taking dogs. Yeah yeah I know, it's the law. Uber can work within the law, their are plenty of drivers willing to take dogs, especially if they if get paid extra.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

Yes it is fraud. How to detect? who to report to? Who the heck knows...

No there is no such registration, governmental or otherwise.

It's not Uber's fault. Uber was sued and they paid the settlement, now they are strictly applying Federal Law in regards to Service Animals.

I suggest you get a Dash Cam.

There's video of a guy that rejects Fake Service Animals on video and showcased exactly how to deny a ride to a non-Service Animal

"Is that a service animal?"

"What task is it trained to perform"

Most people stupidly believe that registering their dog on those fake registries, getting a nifty certificate and service dog vest and they're dogs are officially service animals. Airlines have to take them because airlines are required to accept emotional support animals, but vehicle for hire only requires actual service animals. An emotional support animal is not a service animal. If they say "Emotional support" you can deny them all day. Now, that won't guarantee they won't complain to Uber, but with footage of the entire incident, with you citing ADA law that states emotional support is NOT a service animal, you should be at the very least reactivated within 2 days.

Some might be savvy and say that their dog is trained to detect seizure, in which case you must take them, but most of these people passing their pets as service animals don't know this.

Uber cannot charge extra for a service animal and they certainly aren't going to pay you out of their own pocket for something they can make you do, by federal law, for free....


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

We need to make an issue out of this. Uber says they need to change to take it to the next level. Hey Uber! you can start here. Stop allowing pax to abuse the system and drivers. Hey drivers, let your voice be heard.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

I'd personally enjoy being marked as a "dog" driver willing to take pets. I don't have an SUV, but I have no problem with the dogs sitting in the pax compartment. I've had a few dogs and none caused any problem with hair on the seats and if they did I bet I could fix it easily before the next ride.

Uber could require a certain percent of drivers are "dog" drivers in each town and have pax choose that they have a dog in the account, and then Uber can automatically simply pair those drivers to those pax. Then no anti-dog driver has to ever refuse a pax for a pet or a service animal because they never get paired to begin with. The driver would still have to accept a service animal no doubt if the pax didn't report that he had one, but I think most pax would be honest and choose that they had a dog and thus be paired with a driver like me happier to do the service.

Instead of being anti-gun, Uber could also allow drivers to opt-in to transport gun toting pax. I would gladly opt-in here, because I'm not an anti-gun fraidy-cat like those in Uber corporate apparently are.

I think refusing gun toting passengers is far worse than banning drivers from carrying, which they could possibly say would alienate their fraidy-cat pax. The only case where this really applies to riders is during pool or line. A rider should be allowed to choose an UberX ride that is pro-gun. Gun people are my people and I hate that they are discriminated against. 

Uber taking this leftist stance alienates a huge percentage of Americans by saying they are no good. I bet a lot of people who are not leftists take taxicabs since both Uber and Lyft have adopted a policy against gun toters. I guarantee the companies lose more conservative riders than they gain liberal riders by banning riders from possessing firearms.

A lot of guys and even gals also open carry. In some cases they cannot legally carry concealed, and even if they could refuse out of principal or do not have an adequate cover garment in a moment of need for a ride. If they unexpectedly have their car breakdown they can't even call an Uber without being banned from the platform. They have no choice but to call a taxicab.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

tomatopaste said:


> We need to make an issue out of this. Uber says they need to change to take it to the next level. Hey Uber! you can start here. Stop allowing pax to abuse the system and drivers. Hey drivers, let your voice be heard.


It's not Uber's responsibility. You can yell at Uber until you are blue in the face, Uber cannot change Federal law. If you want change, you need to write your congressmen and have the Americans with Disability Act of 1990 repealed or amended. The fact that neither has happened in 27 years means the likelihood of it changing is slim to none. it was intentionally written in a way to prevent "Undue stress" to those with disabilities.

You think you're the only one that has had an issue with the strictness of the ADA? Businesses have been shut down or forced to pay for renovations that costs 10's of thousands of dollars. The inconvenience you go through to vacuum out your car of Dog hairs pails in comparison to what many businesses have had to go through over the 27 year life span of this law. Millions, perhaps billions of dollars at this point, have been spent and wasted by businesses to renovate their properties to comply with ADA regulation, yet you think your need to vacuum some dog hair is going to get the law changed?

Power to the driver! Rise up!


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Trafficat said:


> I'd personally enjoy being marked as a "dog" driver willing to take pets. I don't have an SUV, but I have no problem with the dogs sitting in the pax compartment. I've had a few dogs and none caused any problem with hair on the seats and if they did I bet I could fix it easily before the next ride.
> 
> Uber could require a certain percent of drivers are "dog" drivers in each town and have pax choose that they have a dog in the account, and then Uber can automatically simply pair those drivers to those pax. Then no anti-dog driver has to ever refuse a pax because they never get paired to begin with.
> 
> ...


Exactly. This is what should be done. There enough drivers like you that are happy to take dogs. But it's wrong to allow riders to just show up with a dog and say: 'you have to take him.' This is a simple fix on Uber's part. I'm sure there'll get push back from certain groups but Uber needs to be willing to fight for drivers, not just say it's too much trouble. Enough talk Uber.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> I'd personally enjoy being marked as a "dog" driver willing to take pets. I don't have an SUV, but I have no problem with the dogs sitting in the pax compartment. I've had a few dogs and none caused any problem with hair on the seats and if they did I bet I could fix it easily before the next ride.
> 
> Uber could require a certain percent of drivers are "dog" drivers in each town and have pax choose that they have a dog in the account, and then Uber can automatically simply pair those drivers to those pax. Then no anti-dog driver has to ever refuse a pax for a pet or a service animal because they never get paired to begin with. The driver would still have to accept a service animal no doubt if the pax didn't report that he had one, but I think most pax would be honest and choose that they had a dog and thus be paired with a driver like me happier to do the service.
> 
> ...


Even a 1 minute delay in service can be constituted as a down grade of services to those with disabilities. By law, you cannot treat those with disabilities any different then normal customers. Even a 10 second delay can constitute as discrimination based on disability. The law suit will be filed with a quickness. Proponents of the ADA law are a highly litigious group of people, that's how they got such a great, sweetheart of a law enacted.

No one is checking whether a pax is carrying or not and I doubt even if a driver reports it that Uber would do anything to the pax, policy or no policy. That's just in there to cover their asses if a shootout happens.

Well, we told them not to!

lol


----------



## MonkeyTOES (Oct 18, 2016)

Just cancel if you see a dog next time if it really bothers you since you cannot know for certain if he's telling the truth or not. Or get a seat protector like what I did. Picked up someone with a dog and my car was still immaculate after the trip.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

steveK2016 said:


> Even a 1 minute delay in service can be constituted as a down grade of services to those with disabilities. The law suit will be filed with a quickness. Proponents of the ADA law are a highly litigious group of people.


Good point. Uber could say that service animal owners are not required to check the box and they are still guaranteed a ride. I bet most would check the box anyway, especially since probably at least half, (if not most), of the folks are just trying to pass their pet off as a service animal anyway. Even if it was a voluntary election, I bet it would probably spare anti-dog drivers 90+% of their dog rides.

I believe that most people with dogs saying they are service dogs are fake, because I personally know about 3 people that have fake service dogs and don't know anyone that actually has a dog that performs a service. Creating a "legit" service dog is pretty much as easy as identifying a service the dog can perform for you, yet most of these folks could not even answer the question "What service does the animal perform" if you asked them... all they know is that they bought their dog a vest (which isn't even required) and they expect to bring their dog everywhere. It doesn't really bother me because I love pets, but I know a lot of drivers really don't like the dogs.



> No one is checking whether a pax is carrying or not and I doubt even if a driver reports it that Uber would do anything to the pax, policy or no policy. That's just in there to cover their asses if a shootout happens.


I'd hope you're right. I'd be willing to test this theory if I didn't feel like my driver account might be at risk too.

In any case Uber loses business simply by having this policy.

I know a lot of guys that refuse to go to Costco as a matter of principal because of the gun banner sign. even though they carry concealed and would never be caught.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

steveK2016 said:


> It's not Uber's responsibility. You can yell at Uber until you are blue in the face, Uber cannot change Federal law. If you want change, you need to write your congressmen and have the Americans with Disability Act of 1990 repealed or amended. The fact that neither has happened in 27 years means the likelihood of it changing is slim to none. it was intentionally written in a way to prevent "Undue stress" to those with disabilities.
> 
> You think you're the only one that has had an issue with the strictness of the ADA? Businesses have been shut down or forced to pay for renovations that costs 10's of thousands of dollars. The inconvenience you go through to vacuum out your car of Dog hairs pails in comparison to what many businesses have had to go through over the 27 year life span of this law. Millions, perhaps billions of dollars at this point, have been spent and wasted by businesses to renovate their properties to comply with ADA regulation, yet you think your need to vacuum some dog hair is going to get the law changed?
> 
> Power to the driver! Rise up!


I agree with Trafficat. 99 percent of the issue could be solved by just having riders notify Uber they might have a service dog and it first goes to those happy to take dogs. But no drivers would be able to opt out of taking dogs. Also you are correct about the abuses of the ADA and that there are people that spend their whole lives finding ways to be a pain in the ass and make life miserable for as many people as they can.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> Good point. Uber could say that service animal owners are not required to check the box and they are still guaranteed a ride. I bet most would check the box anyway, especially since probably at least half, (if not most), of the folks are just trying to pass their pet off as a service animal anyway. Even if it was a voluntary election, I bet it would probably spare anti-dog drivers 90+% of their dog rides.
> 
> I believe that most people with dogs saying they are service dogs are fake, because I personally know about 3 people that have fake service dogs and don't know anyone that actually has a dog that performs a service. Creating a "legit" service dog is easy, yet most of these folks could not even answer the question "What service does the animal perform" if you asked them. It doesn't really bother me because I love pets, but I know a lot of drivers really don't like the dogs.
> 
> ...


You are creating a segregation. With segregation comes discrimination. Lawsuit = light speed. Another $2,300,000 in the lawyers bank account. Easy money.

Again, not an Uber policy. Uber is merely enforcing Federal Law.


----------



## mikes424 (May 22, 2016)

Here is a question, somewhat related.

What is Uber's position if a driver needs a service animal. Just curious


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

It wouldn't be discrimination, because it is a voluntary opt-in option. The option could literally say "pet" and then service animal owners could be free not to check the box, but I bet most of the riders that currently claim to have service dogs would be checking that box.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

tomatopaste said:


> I agree with Trafficat. 99 percent of the issue could be solved by just having riders notify Uber they might have a service dog and it first goes to those happy to take dogs. But no drivers would be able to opt out of taking dogs. Also you are correct about the abuses of the ADA and that there are people that spend their whole lives finding ways to be a pain in the ass and make life miserable for as many people as they can.


In principle I agree too. I wish there was a way to officially identify real service animals, but what I wish does not change the existence of the law and I don't care enough about it to write my congressmen.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

mikes424 said:


> What is Uber's position if a driver needs a service animal. Just curious


There is nothing in the Uber terms and conditions about drivers with animals.

My dog has generated some lower ratings (and some positive comments) but so far neither Uber or Lyft have messaged me about it.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> It wouldn't be discrimination, because it is a voluntary opt-in option. The option could literally say "pet" and then service animal owners could be free not to check the box, but I bet most of the riders that currently claim to have service dogs would be checking that box.


What good would that check mark for the pax do if drivers who will or wont take an animal isn't segregated into those groups? If a driver is allowed to opt out of taking animals, i guarantee you most would. I know I would, without hesitation! Any form of delay will be construed as discrimination of service to the disabled. There is literally nothing that can be done to avoid this situation without changing the words written in the ADA law.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

A driver could be allowed to opt-out for "pets" and still be prohibited to refuse a service animal. It wouldn't solve the problem completely for the anti-dog drivers, but I think the number of riders who have dogs that wouldn't check the pet box would be low in the long run if riders were required to elect whether they preferred to be limited to a pet friendly driver when they signed up. Preexisting riders could get an ad on their screen for new "pet friendly driver" feature to encourage them to make the election.

This election would probably also put riders at ease who do bring their pets and don't try to pass them off as service animals.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> A driver could be allowed to opt-out for "pets" and still be prohibited to refuse a service animal. It wouldn't solve the problem completely for the anti-dog drivers, but I think the number of riders who have dogs that wouldn't check the pet box would be low in the long run if riders were required to elect whether they preferred a pet friendly vehicle when they signed up.


Ok i get what you're saying now. So an option for someone to say "I want to bring my pet" similar to when you order a ride and it asks you if the ride is for you or for someone in your contact list. It's not for service animals but it will match those Pets with drivers who are ok with pets. So the only delay would be for those that want to bring their pets with them, but they're guaranteed to get a driver who will be ok with it. someone with a service animal would not select pet and would get the first available driver who cannot refuse service. if Uber were smart, it would allow people to select pets and pre-pay a tip to encourage drivers to take pets.

That could be interesting...

Something like this would be nice


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

Trafficat said:


> I'd personally enjoy being marked as a "dog" driver willing to take pets. I don't have an SUV, but I have no problem with the dogs sitting in the pax compartment. I've had a few dogs and none caused any problem with hair on the seats and if they did I bet I could fix it easily before the next ride.
> 
> Uber could require a certain percent of drivers are "dog" drivers in each town and have pax choose that they have a dog in the account, and then Uber can automatically simply pair those drivers to those pax. Then no anti-dog driver has to ever refuse a pax for a pet or a service animal because they never get paired to begin with. The driver would still have to accept a service animal no doubt if the pax didn't report that he had one, but I think most pax would be honest and choose that they had a dog and thus be paired with a driver like me happier to do the service.
> 
> ...


What are you talking about lol is there issues with people bringing guns in ubers?


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

steveK2016 said:


> It's not Uber's responsibility. You can yell at Uber until you are blue in the face, Uber cannot change Federal law. If you want change, you need to write your congressmen and have the Americans with Disability Act of 1990 repealed or amended. The fact that neither has happened in 27 years means the likelihood of it changing is slim to none. it was intentionally written in a way to prevent "Undue stress" to those with disabilities.
> 
> You think you're the only one that has had an issue with the strictness of the ADA? Businesses have been shut down or forced to pay for renovations that costs 10's of thousands of dollars. The inconvenience you go through to vacuum out your car of Dog hairs pails in comparison to what many businesses have had to go through over the 27 year life span of this law. Millions, perhaps billions of dollars at this point, have been spent and wasted by businesses to renovate their properties to comply with ADA regulation, yet you think your need to vacuum some dog hair is going to get the law changed?
> 
> Power to the driver! Rise up!


No, it is Uber's responsibility to take drivers concerns into account and fight for them. Are the ADA types going to fight every single unnoticeable tweak? Yes. So what? We need to fight these people. Uber can go to court on the right side of an issue every now and then.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

tomatopaste said:


> No, it is Uber's responsibility to take drivers concerns into account and fight for them. Are the ADA types going to fight every single unnoticeable tweak? Yes. So what? We need to fight these people. Uber can go to court on the right side of an issue every now and then.


Lol, they brought the fight. They settled the fight. They paid $2.3 million dollars for the privilege of the fight.

You want to pay the next $2.3 million for the next fight?

Uber going to battle in the Supreme Court to have the ADA law repealed. Talk about a PR nightmare!

You're joking right?


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

steveK2016 said:


> Ok i get what you're saying now. So an option for someone to say "I want to bring my pet" similar to when you order a ride and it asks you if the ride is for you or for someone in your contact list. It's not for service animals but it will match those Pets with drivers who are ok with pets. So the only delay would be for those that want to bring their pets with them, but they're guaranteed to get a driver who will be ok with it. someone with a service animal would not select pet and would get the first available driver who cannot refuse service. if Uber were smart, it would allow people to select pets and pre-pay a tip to encourage drivers to take pets.
> 
> That could be interesting...
> 
> Something like this would be nice


I like it.


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

steveK2016 said:


> Ok i get what you're saying now. So an option for someone to say "I want to bring my pet" similar to when you order a ride and it asks you if the ride is for you or for someone in your contact list. It's not for service animals but it will match those Pets with drivers who are ok with pets. So the only delay would be for those that want to bring their pets with them, but they're guaranteed to get a driver who will be ok with it. someone with a service animal would not select pet and would get the first available driver who cannot refuse service. if Uber were smart, it would allow people to select pets and pre-pay a tip to encourage drivers to take pets.
> 
> That could be interesting...
> 
> Something like this would be nice


A lot to ask from most who can't even type their own pick up address.

What happens if the original account holder isnt the owner of the service animal, the friend or family member is.....


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

steveK2016 said:


> Lol, they brought the fight. They settled the fight. They paid $2.3 million dollars for the privilege of the fight.
> 
> You want to pay the next $2.3 million for the next fight?
> 
> ...


2.3 million to show drivers you care. pocket change


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

If you charge pax with pets more they'll still lie. 


steveK2016 said:


> Ok i get what you're saying now. So an option for someone to say "I want to bring my pet" similar to when you order a ride and it asks you if the ride is for you or for someone in your contact list. It's not for service animals but it will match those Pets with drivers who are ok with pets. So the only delay would be for those that want to bring their pets with them, but they're guaranteed to get a driver who will be ok with it. someone with a service animal would not select pet and would get the first available driver who cannot refuse service. if Uber were smart, it would allow people to select pets and pre-pay a tip to encourage drivers to take pets.
> 
> That could be interesting...
> 
> Something like this would be nice


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

I was way off in my estimates. I found this interesting article from just TWO years after the ADA law was passed:

http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1140&context=cjlpp

After just two years, the ADA cost to business was $150 BILLION DOLLARS

Yet 25 years after this law journal article, it remains....

Yet you still think your inconvenience of having to vacuum up dog hair after a trip will be the camel that breaks the camel's back and get this law repealed, huh?!



Fuzzyelvis said:


> If you charge pax with pets more they'll still lie.


You're not charging them, they are doing so voluntarily. They can put $0 and probably still get a ride. Maybe in a 2002 Corolla, but still a ride. The incentive is to guarantee a quick, nice car that will guarantee that they will accept the pet. They may not be good at lying about the service animal bit, $5 to take spark to the vet may be worth it rather than hassle. It's at least a good option, I like it.

I think the same concept should be used for long rides. When it shows long rides, drop the minutes notification but say that they're willing to pay a bonus for the trip. If I saw "Long Trip ($50 bonus) I'd take that in a heart beat.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

tomatopaste said:


> No, it is Uber's responsibility to take drivers concerns into account and fight for them. Are the ADA types going to fight every single unnoticeable tweak? Yes. So what? We need to fight these people. Uber can go to court on the right side of an issue every now and then.


The "ADA types"?

You mean those trying to make sure driver after driver doesn't ignore the blind guy with his guide dog? Thus has been a huge issue with taxis in the past.

YOUR inconvenience is so much less than that of the person who NEEDS that service dog. I'd rather carry 100 assholes with fake service dogs than turn down the one person who needs their service dog, but lost their paperwork. Which is why it is NOT required or even exists.

Clean up the fur and be thankful you don't need a service dog, and that if you ever do the ADA "types" will be fighting for you.



steveK2016 said:


> I was way off in my estimates. I found this interesting article from just TWO years after the ADA law was passed:
> 
> http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1140&context=cjlpp
> 
> ...


Your graphic does not make it look voluntary.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> The "ADA types"?
> 
> You mean those trying to make sure driver after driver doesn't ignore the blind guy with his guide dog? Thus has been a huge issue with taxis in the past.
> 
> ...


The voluntary aspect of it is on the pax side. So as described, say you need a ride with Sparky. So you request an uber and you click "I have a pet with me" and then it says "Would you like to offer your driver an incentive?" much like giving them an option to tip but before the ride. So in my screenshot, that rider selected $10 as incentive. It could be $5. it could be $2. It could be $0. it could be $50!


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

steveK2016 said:


> I was way off in my estimates. I found this interesting article from just TWO years after the ADA law was passed:
> 
> http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1140&context=cjlpp
> 
> ...


Yup. This is the ticket. Basically allow pets like some hotels do. Some hotels don't. Customers chose the hotel based on their upfront pet policy and everyone is happy. This would resolve most of the issue with pax having to lie about their hamster being a service dog.


----------



## Blatherskite (Nov 30, 2016)

What if my service wolverine is carrying a gun, is some liberal Democrat gonna force me to show my animal's papers before granting me my entitled ride? Also, is the pinko driver gonna look at me askance when I bring out my comfort bong and light up mid-ride? My bong is registered as a comfort service animal at the bureau of my imagination and I've named it Ayn Rand.


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> No, it is Uber's responsibility to take drivers concerns into account and fight for them. Are the ADA types going to fight every single unnoticeable tweak? Yes. So what? We need to fight these people. Uber can go to court on the right side of an issue every now and then.


Honestly, this is the most ridiculous debate posible. Dogs are a part of the American culture. We love dogs. Dogs are welcome in restaurants, stores, etc in many states. Dude you are an uber driver....not a limo service. A little bit of fur or a muddy paw print is NOT going to kill you. Get over yourself. If have taken dogs, cas, chickens and even a goat. No issues. You have issues!!!!!


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

UBERPROcolorado said:


> Honestly, this is the most ridiculous debate posible. Dogs are a part of the American culture. We love dogs. Dogs are welcome in restaurants, stores, etc in many states. Dude you are an uber driver....not a limo service. A little bit of fur or a muddy paw print is NOT going to kill you. Get over yourself. If have taken dogs, cas, chickens and even a goat. No issues. You have issues!!!!!





UBERPROcolorado said:


> Honestly, this is the most ridiculous debate posible. Dogs are a part of the American culture. We love dogs. Dogs are welcome in restaurants, stores, etc in many states. Dude you are an uber driver....not a limo service. A little bit of fur or a muddy paw print is NOT going to kill you. Get over yourself. If have taken dogs, cas, chickens and even a goat. No issues. You have issues!!!!!


Never said we don't love dogs. I love dogs. We had dogs my whole childhood. I currently don't have a dog, mostly because I found out I'm allergic to pet hair. Even as a kid though I found that my friends with outdoor dogs, their homes seemed; cleaner, nicer, smelled better, less hair on the sofas. Did that make me a bad person for making that observation?

Dogs are welcome in some restaurants, stores, hotels, and not in others. Are those that choose not to allow dogs in their establishments bad people? Should families that choose not to have an inside dog be branded with a scarlet 'D?'

Now I am a bit concerned about the whole 'goat' thing. Exactly whose goat was it? What music was playing on the radio? Did you open the door for the goat or did he open it? Did the goat tip? Did you give him a 5? Did he give you a 5?


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> Never said we don't love dogs. I love dogs. We had dogs my whole childhood. I currently don't have a dog, mostly because I found out I'm allergic to pet hair. Even as a kid though I found that my friends with outdoor dogs, their homes seemed; cleaner, nicer, smelled better, less hair on the sofas. Did that make me a bad person for making that observation?
> 
> Dogs are welcome in some restaurants, stores, hotels, and not in others. Are those that choose not to allow dogs in their establishments bad people? Should families that choose not to have an inside dog be branded with a scarlet 'D?'
> 
> Now I am a bit concerned about the whole 'goat' thing. Exactly whose goat was it? What music was playing on the radio? Did you open the door for the goat or did he open it? Did the goat tip? Did you give him a 5? Did he give you a 5?


A small ranch in the foothills.

YES I opened the back gate, put her in on the blanket, gave her a treat and secured her.

Not by the goat but it's owner was very gracious.

Sorry about your allergies. That is truely a game changer.

No, ppl that can't or just don't want to be around dogs are not bad. But in a nation full of dogs/pets it has to be rough as an uber driver.

I get your points. Well made. Drive safe.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> The "ADA types"?
> 
> You mean those trying to make sure driver after driver doesn't ignore the blind guy with his guide dog? Thus has been a huge issue with taxis in the past.
> 
> ...


Not that easy Fuzzy. I, like 15 percent of the population have allergies to pet dander. 100 percent of the time I'm forced to transport someone's pet my eyes water, nose runs, and I start to sneeze. For me I just feel like I have a slight cold for the rest of the day.

For some people with severe pet allergies they can go into anaphylactic shock and it can be life threatening. Am I a safer driver when my eyes are watering and I'm constantly sneezing, um no, I'm not. Those of us with pet allergies know that "cleaning up the fur" is not just "cleaning up the fur." It's like cleaning up a mild form of anthrax.

Also every 6.6 passenger that sits close to where the dog was seated is going to have an allergic reaction. They won't know why, but they'll start to feel sick. Should I be forced to transport an animal that's going to cause an allergic reaction? Answer: yes. I don't believe in global warming so what ever happens to me, I deserve it for destroying the entire planet.


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

tomatopaste

You have to be diligent when picking up a passenger. 

Park away from the pickup area. As an example, park 3 or 4 doors away if a house. Also have a good exit strategy, make sure you can just drive away without having to back up. 

Once a passenger comes out staring at their phone like an idiot with a dumb Yorkie under their arm, this is your queue to rotate away, but stay close to the pin as best as you can. Like maybe rotate around to the next street. When they call, answer, and immediately hang up. Once the timer hits 5 mins - cancel no show that ass.

Easily fixed.


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

UberUber81 said:


> tomatopaste
> 
> You have to be diligent when picking up a passenger.
> 
> ...


That idea will NOT work. After jumping all over Mr. Tomato paste about dogs, I got a good lesson on ppl with allergies. So I called uber today and asked a bunch of questions. Foremost, how does a driver with allergies deal with dogs. The answer floored me. "Sorry but allergies cannot be used as a reason to refuse a rider and can get you deactivated. If a driver cannot transport dogs then the driver might want to consider switching to uber eats." I was really surprised by the response. Further, if a pax reports a driver twice, over a dog issue, the driver can be deactivated. So hiding down the street won't work. The pax can see you on their app, down the road and report you if you take off.

I called my doctor this morning. He recommended XYZAL. It is an over the counter medication that he says really works for dander of all types. And it is not expensive. This might help.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

And your access to the app is easily fixed when the pax files a complaint that you canceled on them because of the service dog (second time for good).

If you're honestly just wanting to avoid the fake service dogs (and not trying to avoid real ones), the initial suggestion of having a dash cam and asking the 2 questions, especially the "what tasks does it perform?" is really the best advice. That is going to get 90%+ of the fakes, and cover you when they complain. 

Now if you're trying to get around taking even real ones, then that's been tried and failed before and frankly you'd deserve whatever happens to you because of it. You can believe that those with a real service dog wish they could just take an Allegra and their disability would go away for a car ride.

It was intentionally set so that public transportation couldn't reject rides because of the delays caused by making it "optional" for drivers.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

UBERPROcolorado said:


> I was really surprised by the response.


Not uber policy, its part of the actual federal law. Allergies and religion is not a valid excuse to deny a service animal.

Best strategy is to record all conversations and ask the two questions. If you drive away after seeing the dog, thats enough to report you. You had a family emergency? Flat tire? But you went back online 5 min later and took a trip.

They aren't stupid. But if you get video and audio of them failing that second question, youll have something to fight a deactivation with.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> And your access to the app is easily fixed when the pax files a complaint that you canceled on them because of the service dog (second time for good).
> 
> If you're honestly just wanting to avoid the fake service dogs (and not trying to avoid real ones), the initial suggestion of having a dash cam and asking the 2 questions, especially the "what tasks does it perform?" is really the best advice. That is going to get 90%+ of the fakes, and cover you when they complain.
> 
> ...


This is the problem with America today. Fraudulent hypocritical companies like Uber won't lift a finger to help out their "contractors" with legitimate medical issues, but the 90 percent frauds that abuse the system, hey no problem. And look who you blame. Not the 90 percent frauds but rather the drivers with real medical issues. "Just take an Allegra. All you have to do is take an Allegra and you're back to 100 percent."

So when I have a stacked ping at the Marriot and the new pax sees the previous pax get out of the car with a dog and he/she says: I have dog allergies, I should just tell them to shut up and get in. "You big willow." No, that's not what would happen. Uber would immediately send for a stretch limo and give them 50 free rides.

Fortunately not all companies are soulless hypocrites like Uber. Hobby Lobby didn't believe in having to pay for certain types of abortifacients for employees so they risked their entire business and fought all the way to the Supreme Court. America still has a soul. Although less and less everyday.


----------



## rman954 (May 31, 2016)

The only thing that pisses me off is that "service animal" owners aren't financially responsible for any mess the animal may cause in the car. That's a load of bullshit. I know service animals are well trained but that's aside the point. 
"No one wants to be responsible for their own shit".


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

rman954 said:


> The only thing that pisses me off is that "service animal" owners aren't financially responsible for any mess the animal may cause in the car. That's a load of bullshit. I know service animals are well trained but that's aside the point.
> "No one wants to be responsible for their own shit".


90 percent of the dogs we're forced to take aren't even service animals. Yet Uber won't lift a finger to address this fraud. Some panicked dog starts chewing on your leather seats and that's just the cost of doing business. I love the "just take an Allegra" response. Allergies affect your entire system. Some people with severe pet allergies can have trouble controlling their bowels.

So you begin to have an allergic reaction on the 405 in stop and go traffic, "hey just deal with it." This is someone with severe allergies:

https://userscontent2.emaze.com/ima...7ad3/071ca78c-48b2-4ba5-8805-4bc978f03702.jpg

but hey, just suck it up. Take an Allegra. Oh, and I need to stop at Taco Bell.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

tomatopaste said:


> This is the problem with America today. Fraudulent hypocritical companies like Uber won't lift a finger to help out their "contractors" with legitimate medical issues, but the 90 percent frauds that abuse the system, hey no problem. And look who you blame. Not the 90 percent frauds but rather the drivers with real medical issues. "Just take an Allegra. All you have to do is take an Allegra and you're back to 100 percent."
> 
> So when I have a stacked ping at the Marriot and the new pax sees the previous pax get out of the car with a dog and he/she says: I have dog allergies, I should just tell them to shut up and get in. "You big willow." No, that's not what would happen. Uber would immediately send for a stretch limo and give them 50 free rides.
> 
> Fortunately not all companies are soulless hypocrites like Uber. Hobby Lobby didn't believe in having to pay for certain types of abortifacients for employees so they risked their entire business and fought all the way to the Supreme Court. America still has a soul. Although less and less everyday.


I don't think you are grasping this. The law has been in effect for 27 years. Within the first 2 years, the overwhelming burden of cost to business was up to 150 BILLION dollars. Trust me, many people have fought and lost against the ADA law over the course of 27 years, that's why it still exist. You think Uber has any chance to fight and win? Yea right, if they did, they would have fought against the National Federation of the Blind.

Then just read the headline for that battle....

You aren't going to get Uber or any business to fight ADA, not anymore. If businesses who were losing billions weren't enough to motivate the private sector to fight back against the ADA law, Uber ain't gonna have a chance just because some drivers don't like to vacuum dog hairs. It's been long established that allergies is not an excuse to the law. If you don't like it, petition your congressmen and team up with other american's with allergies to have the laws change.

Hobby Lobby didn't fight against ADA, I guarantee you if they tried, they'd lose too but they would not only because it would be an act of futility, it would be a PR nightmare. Standing up for your religious beliefs, ok you can get some kudo points for that, but fighting so you can discriminate against the disabled?

That ain't the kind of press Hobby Lobby would ever consider fighting.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

rman954 said:


> The only thing that pisses me off is that "service animal" owners aren't financially responsible for any mess the animal may cause in the car. That's a load of bullshit. I know service animals are well trained but that's aside the point.
> "No one wants to be responsible for their own shit".


I am a service dog handler and even I agree with this. I think the problem came from the drivers who were upset about having to take the service animals claiming cleaning fees for simple hair (which can't be charged to pax per federal law), so they started making up stuff about "accidents". But if a service dog does have an actual accident in the car (very rare, but even service dogs can get sick), the handler absolutely should cover clean up for that.

If I'm ever a pax and my service dog has an accident in a drivers car (even knowing the policy), I will absolutely make it right with the driver (and I think you'll find a lot of legitimate handlers feeling the same way). It's a shame that a few bad apples have to ruin it for everyone (but an important reminder that "fraud" can happen on both sides of the coin).


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

steveK2016 said:


> I don't think you are grasping this. The law has been in effect for 27 years. Within the first 2 years, the overwhelming burden of cost to business was up to 150 BILLION dollars. Trust me, many people have fought and lost against the ADA law over the course of 27 years, that's why it still exist. You think Uber has any chance to fight and win? Yea right, if they did, they would have fought against the National Federation of the Blind.
> 
> Then just read the headline for that battle....
> 
> ...


How is allowing pax to say they have a pet, fighting the ADA? Also I don't accept the premise that government and regulations have to always go in one direction until we become Cuba.



tomatopaste said:


> How is allowing pax to say they have a pet, fighting the ADA? Also I don't accept the premise that government and regulations have to always go in one direction until we become Cuba.


Part of the reason Trump won is because he fights back. People are sick of the PC left telling us we better do this or that and if we push back we're racist, or we hate dogs.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> How is allowing pax to say they have a pet, fighting the ADA? Also I don't accept the premise that government and regulations have to always go in one direction until we become Cuba.


Allowing the pax to say they have a pet wouldn't violate ADA, letting drivers decide they want to turn down pax that have service dogs would.

Before you ask I'll preemptively answer you. If I flag that I have a dog and you turn me down for a ride and my dog happens to be a service dog, THAT violates Ada, or more likely those with service dogs wouldn't mark the flag (as service dogs aren't pets, they're medical equipment) and you roll up and get upset that I have a dog. Which, depending on your reaction could violate Ada.

As someone else tried to point out, this has all been hashed out before. Many times, and frankly the system that is in place now is in place for a reason, too many people were discriminating (go YouTube search "service dog denied access", the treatment of the blind especially will likely infuriate you).

People with service dogs have the right to transportation at the same level as those without. If you want to get upset about people faking service dogs, I'll be upset about it with you. As many of us probably will. But trying to "figure out a way around taking" even real service dogs makes you discriminatory and you won't find many allies here on that.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

steveK2016 said:


> I don't think you are grasping this. The law has been in effect for 27 years. Within the first 2 years, the overwhelming burden of cost to business was up to 150 BILLION dollars. Trust me, many people have fought and lost against the ADA law over the course of 27 years, that's why it still exist. You think Uber has any chance to fight and win? Yea right, if they did, they would have fought against the National Federation of the Blind.
> 
> Then just read the headline for that battle....
> 
> ...


You're argument is that companies lost 150 billion fighting the ADA and would have been better off just giving in. No, the 150 billion was the cost of rolling over to the ADA's ridiculous overreach. Companies would be better off if they spent the 150 billion fighting the ADA.

Uber won't fight the ADA because Uber is in bed with the ADA types and the trial lawyers. The Holders, the Huffingtons, the Obamas, the arsehole Kalanicks.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> Uber won't fight the ADA because Uber is in bed with the ADA types and the trial lawyers. The Holders, the Huffingtons, the Obamas, the arsehole Kalanicks.


Did you not read the link they gave you earlier? Uber did fight the ada (claimed they weren't bound by it lol) and when that failed and it was clear that they were going to lose going further anymore they paid out a settlement (and that's why we have the 2 complaints to permanent deactivation now). You're starting to sound downright paranoid now.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> Allowing the pax to say they have a pet wouldn't violate ADA, letting drivers decide they want to turn down pax that have service dogs would.
> 
> Before you ask I'll preemptively answer you. If I flag that I have a dog and you turn me down for a ride and my dog happens to be a service dog, THAT violates Ada, or more likely those with service dogs wouldn't mark the flag (as service dogs aren't pets, they're medical equipment) and you roll up and get upset that I have a dog. Which, depending on your reaction could violate Ada.
> 
> ...


Nobody is talking about being able to refuse service dogs. What has been suggested is to allow pax to click on a box that says I have a pet. Basically change the policy to accept pets and then pax wouldn't have to lie about their pet being a service animal.



Pawtism said:


> Did you not read the link they gave you earlier? Uber did fight the ada (claimed they weren't bound by it lol) and when that failed and it was clear that they were going to lose going further anymore they paid out a settlement (and that's why we have the 2 complaints to permanent deactivation now). You're starting to sound downright paranoid now.


Are you saying Uber fought the ADA trying to say drivers shouldn't have to take service animals?


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Yes, they did. Actually first they claimed that is was the drivers problem not theirs (typical uber), when that failed then they claimed that because they were a technology company, not a transportation company, their drivers didn't have to take service animals as the ada didn't apply to them. When that failed, they had to settle as the verdict that was coming for them would have been even more costly.

It was like a year and a half long lawsuit process.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> Yes, they did. Actually first they claimed that is was the drivers problem not theirs (typical uber), when that failed then they claimed that because they were a technology company, not a transportation company, their drivers didn't have to take service animals as the ada didn't apply to them. When that failed, they had to settle as the verdict that was coming for them would have been even more costly.
> 
> It was like a year and a half long lawsuit process.


Uber's business model from the start has been pure fraud. They've always been a taxi company but they've been able to buy off local politicians. I'd make the argument that Uber didn't have to settle. Uber's defacto policy now is that drivers have to accept pets. That Uber would have lost in court and they had no recourse. I disagree. Uber could have gone public and made an issue out of the fact that the ADA was essentially forcing Uber into taking pets. Uber could have sent pax to a link at the end of each ride explaining their position.

I would have explained to every pax what the ADA was forcing Uber to do and ask them to go to the link and weigh in. 99 percent of drivers and pax would agree the blind with a service dog should be accepted. 99 percent would also agree that forcing Uber to take pets is an abuse of the system and actually hurts those with honest needs.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Again, this has already happened with many other businesses, the Ada is a 27 year old law, you can imagine the upheaval when it first went into effect, you act like this is a new thing. Many businesses have tried many excuses for why they shouldn't have to allow service animals (people who lie for an uber will lie for a restaurant or store too). It got really crazy for a while where people were claiming service monkies and other such things. 

In 2010 they clarified the law to allow only dogs and mini horses as service animals and setup the 2 questions. It was all a very long drawn out process with lots of public input over serveral years before 2010.

You really should research this, you're coming in here on your high horse acting first like it's Uber's policy, then saying they just need to fight it (and they did, but anyone with an ounce of sense knew they were going to fail but uber being uber they tried anyway).

I would submit that if you actually educated yourself on it, you'd ultimately come to the conclusion that everyone else who has researched it has... the problem is with people faking service dogs (because they are selfish).

If you ask the 2 questions, most of the fakes can't answer because they are too lazy to research too. You're way behind in the game here and really need to go research it if you want to continue on this line of thought.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> Again, this has already happened with many other businesses, the Ada is a 27 year old law, you can imagine the upheaval when it first went into effect, you act like this is a new thing. Many businesses have tried many excuses for why they shouldn't have to allow service animals (people who lie for an uber will lie for a restaurant or store too). It got really crazy for a while where people were claiming service monkies and other such things.
> 
> In 2010 they clarified the law to allow only dogs and mini horses as service animals and setup the 2 questions. It was all a very long drawn out process with lots of public input over serveral years before 2010.
> 
> ...


What the hell got your panties in a bunch?
Nobody's arguing Uber or drivers should be allowed to deny service animals. Nobody's coming in on a high horse either. What percentage of Uber drivers do you suppose have researched this? The only reason I became interested is cause I had a girl that bought a fake service dog vest. Nobody's too lazy to research either. Most people have actual lives and don't give a crap about stuff til they run into it.

Since your panties are already bunched up anyway let me ask you a few more questions.

1. Does Uber make this policy of asking 2 questions known to drivers or do they expect us to discover this on our own?
2. Why do you think Uber would fire drivers for not accepting service animals without first making sure drivers are aware of the 2 question loophole?


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> What the hell got your panties in a bunch?
> Nobody's arguing Uber or drivers should be allowed to deny service animals. Nobody's coming in on a high horse either. What percentage of Uber drivers do you suppose have researched this? The only reason I became interested is cause I had a girl that bought a fake service dog vest. Nobody's too lazy to research either. Most people have actual lives and don't give a crap about stuff til they run into it.
> 
> Since your panties are already bunched up anyway let me ask you a few more questions.
> ...


I have been told two stories. First no questions and now two questions. I must have missed a memo somewhere.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

The Ada made the 2 questions, uber informed both the drivers and the pax about it via their policy https://accessibility.uber.com/service-animal-policy/ and have reminded drivers about it at least twice now via a pop up on the app that we're required to accept in order to get pings.

As for other drivers researching this, do a search on this site alone for "service animals" and you'll find years worth of research and debate (and the same arguments you're making) repeated over and over.

Which, incidentally, is what "has my panties in a bunch". You are making claims about things you haven't even bothered to really look into, which makes you look a lot like the very liberals you are claiming to separate yourself from ("the holders, huffingtons, obamas, etc").

Bottom line, I dislike ignorance, if you want to ask about why something is, fine, but coming out and saying they are doing it wrong when you don't even understand why they do it the way they do is just plain silly.

I have nothing against you personally and would be happy to tell you why they do it the way they do, but in the end, this isn't even Uber's choice (nor is it a choice for any business). As an independent contractor (also a business), it's not our choice either, and ultimately the responsibility is on the business owner (us) to know the laws that affect our businesses.


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

UBERPROcolorado said:


> That idea will NOT work. After jumping all over Mr. Tomato paste about dogs, I got a good lesson on ppl with allergies. So I called uber today and asked a bunch of questions. Foremost, how does a driver with allergies deal with dogs. The answer floored me. "Sorry but allergies cannot be used as a reason to refuse a rider and can get you deactivated. If a driver cannot transport dogs then the driver might want to consider switching to uber eats." I was really surprised by the response. Further, if a pax reports a driver twice, over a dog issue, the driver can be deactivated. So hiding down the street won't work. The pax can see you on their app, down the road and report you if you take off.
> 
> I called my doctor this morning. He recommended XYZAL. It is an over the counter medication that he says really works for dander of all types. And it is not expensive. This might help.


Are you dumb? They have no evidence you declined the ride because of an animal. The passenger can't even rate you. The data they look at will show that you moved at and around the pin, they will tell the person they should have been outside. You are not canceling because of an animal, you are canceling because no one was outside.

This idea works in my market, I've canceled so many rides with animals, kids without car seats, young kids obviously under 18, bimbos coming out of high dollar hotels that are obviously not going to the airport.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

They don't need to rate you, they will only need to file a complaint at https://accessibility.uber.com/service-animal-policy/ (there is a link in there to complain). You'll be deactivated (temp) on first complaint while they get your side (unless there is some outright proof that you canceled because of the service animal, or you are foolish enough to admit it), and on the second complaint it's a perm deactivation.

Uber purposely made that policy because drivers (many on here even) were saying exactly that (just claim it's something else). They give you the benefit of the doubt the first time, as once could be a coincidence (maybe you actually didn't see them or whatever), but twice likely isn't. Now just pets (not service animals), you certainly can refuse, and the rest of them you can as well (kids without car seats you're actually supposed to lol), but if you do it for a real service animal, and you can be sure the handler is well aware of his/her rights and is aware of the policy.


----------



## Spotscat (May 8, 2017)

UBERPROcolorado said:


> Honestly, this is the most ridiculous debate posible. Dogs are a part of the American culture. We love dogs. Dogs are welcome in restaurants, stores, etc in many states. Dude you are an uber driver....not a limo service. A little bit of fur or a muddy paw print is NOT going to kill you. Get over yourself. If have taken dogs, cas, chickens and even a goat. No issues. You have issues!!!!!


"A dog is a good meal!" - Benjamin Martin (Mel Gibson) / _"The Patriot"

_


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> The Ada made the 2 questions, uber informed both the drivers and the pax about it via their policy https://accessibility.uber.com/service-animal-policy/ and have reminded drivers about it at least twice now via a pop up on the app that we're required to accept in order to get pings.
> 
> As for other drivers researching this, do a search on this site alone for "service animals" and you'll find years worth of research and debate (and the same arguments you're making) repeated over and over.
> 
> ...


Yup, Uber's right. Their policy is reasonable, clear and they've met their obligation to inform us. I like most drivers clicked on the tab explaining the policy and said: yeah yeah we have to take service dogs, got it. A couple of days ago I finally got fed up with having to take people's pets. A 20 something girl had even gone to the trouble of buying a service dog vest. I've never taken an actual service dog. I'd be more than happy to take a real blind person and his service dog even though I do have pet allergies.

But yes, Uber's has met their obligations and now it's up to each driver to comply or say it's not worth it. My new policy is, if they're blind I'm happy to take them. Otherwise I'm not taking them. If I get kicked off Uber, sobeit.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

There are real service dogs for things other than blindness. So keep that in mind. But as for the fake service dogs, I'm right there with you on that. I hate people who fake a disability (and thus a service dog) just because they can't leave their fluffy at home. I think you'll find the grand majority of drivers (and even a lot of pax) will agree with you on that one. People who fake service dogs are just plain disgusting.

The two questions (especially the second) will help greatly. Have a dash cam (or your phone recording) and ask the 2 questions, very few fakes will be able to answer them correctly. There is driver on here who has famously done it at least twice I think (I've personally seen one of the videos) and posted his videos here. It's actually really smooth how he does it.  He does get deactivated (temp) when they complain, but then he sends in the video, and gets reactivated quickly and they remove the "warning" (or whatever they call it) from his record. If someone knows the link for that video please put it here, I'm afraid I never saved it. He's stated that he's willing to take a real service dog but like most of us, hates the self entitled fakers, and refuses to take those (as is his right).

Is it possible someone who is faking has done enough research to be able to answer the second question? Sadly, yes, and there really isn't a lot we can do about that unless the dog misbehaves, but thankfully that number is very low for now. 

BTW, just as a side note, the ACAA (Air Carrier Access Act, although there is probably no reason you would know about this one as it doesn't affect drivers typically) is starting to look at possible reforms (it's what allows "emotional support animals", who aren't service dogs, to fly, and why you hear about pigs and turkeys and such on planes), and they may be cracking down on the emotional support animals (also called ESAs, which are often faked as service dogs). It's theoretically possible that if they do a reform there, a look at ADA again my happen (it will be 2020 at least before they make any change to ACAA if we're honest, probably later), but at least some progress may be coming. A crack down on ESAs would probably help with the fake service dog stuff.

At any rate, I definitely agree with you that fake service dog handlers suck.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> There are real service dogs for things other than blindness. So keep that in mind. But as for the fake service dogs, I'm right there with you on that. I hate people who fake a disability (and thus a service dog) just because they can't leave their fluffy at home. I think you'll find the grand majority of drivers (and even a lot of pax) will agree with you on that one. People who fake service dogs are just plain disgusting.
> 
> The two questions (especially the second) will help greatly. Have a dash cam (or your phone recording) and ask the 2 questions, very few fakes will be able to answer them correctly. There is driver on here who has famously done it at least twice I think (I've personally seen one of the videos) and posted his videos here. It's actually really smooth how he does it.  He does get deactivated (temp) when they complain, but then he sends in the video, and gets reactivated quickly and they remove the "warning" (or whatever they call it) from his record. If someone knows the link for that video please put it here, I'm afraid I never saved it. He's stated that he's willing to take a real service dog but like most of us, hates the self entitled fakers, and refuses to take those (as is his right).
> 
> ...


I don't agree with government mandates for private businesses or private individuals, period. The desired outcome can be accomplished better with incentives and the free market than with mandates. Uber could start a whole new level of service called Uber Dog. Buy tow bar dog carriers like this in bulk and then sell them to drivers at cost. They could be climate controlled as well. Service dogs are charged X rates, Uber Dog is at the Select rate.

Everyone's happy.

http://www.bicyclerack-mottez.com/img/produits/28_2_1_280x280.jpg


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

In many things that's probably true (and I do believe there is too much government regulation overall), but they tried that prior to the ADA (which is why we didn't have an official law for service dogs until 1990). It was technically covered (having a service dog) under the rehabilitation act of 1973, but there were no mandatory requirements for access back then (they too assumed that businesses would use common sense and the incentive of having a customer visit your store instead of another store would be enough). They were wrong, blind people were being outright discriminated against (at that time, seeing eye dogs were the majority, it's expanded since then). It really goes back to the establishment of protected classes (race, gender, etc). Back in the 50's for many businesses simply having a paying customer was enough, but alas, for some the color of their skin (or gender) was more important than making money (crazy I know, the only color I care about is green lol, but that's how it was). The free market was certainly helping, but by itself it could not overcome the discrimination.

It simply wasn't right that someone couldn't go into a store with their friends just because of their color, or gender. Thus, we have specifically protected classes now (disability is one of them now). I know it's a bit of a tired saying, but try to put yourself in their shoes. Imagine being told you couldn't be a pax because you were *insert race here* or *insert gender here*, it's the same as being told you can't be a pax because you have a service dog for your epilepsy. Denial of service, is denial of service. It's being told that you are less than the others.

Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% with you about fakers and their self entitled attitudes, I'm even with you about too much government regulation and not enough free market freedoms, but in this case, they really did try it, and even WITH the 27 year old law, disabled people are still having to fight tooth and nail about this stuff (did you see the videos about people, especially the blind, being simply left, literally out in the cold?). 

Maybe in 100 years a law like this won't be necessary, but sadly, it still is today. I always tell people to insert either the other protected classes or other medical equipment into their thoughts and see if it still makes sense. "I'm sorry sir, you can't come into this store (or uber) because you're *insert race here*." or "I'm sorry ma'am you can't come into this store (or uber) because you have a walker." If those don't make sense, then "I'm sorry, you can't come into this store (or uber) because you have a service dog" doesn't either.

Oh, and the tow bar dog carriers would never work, as the whole point of a service dog is to not be separated from the handler (it's going to have a hard time warning of the impending seizure from a tow bar carrier), then the person starts seizing in the back of your car lol. Anyone who would be willing to be separated from their service dog like that probably has a fake service dog. I think maybe that's another reason why the free market wasn't able to successfully incentivize, they come up with solutions they think will solve the problem but they don't (and can't really, as the electronics store probably doesn't have a reason to specialize in epilepsy) truly understand the problem. That's probably also why the disabled community is so protective about their ADA rights, they kind of have to be.


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> I don't agree with government mandates for private businesses or private individuals, period. The desired outcome can be accomplished better with incentives and the free market than with mandates. Uber could start a whole new level of service called Uber Dog. Buy tow bar dog carriers like this in bulk and then sell them to drivers at cost. They could be climate controlled as well. Service dogs are charged X rates, Uber Dog is at the Select rate.
> 
> Everyone's happy.
> 
> http://www.bicyclerack-mottez.com/img/produits/28_2_1_280x280.jpg


Holly crap. I better understand the issues ppl with allergies face in this business. BUT if someone put one of my dogs in that contraption, I would castrate them. THAT damn thing is dangerous.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> In many things that's probably true (and I do believe there is too much government regulation overall), but they tried that prior to the ADA (which is why we didn't have an official law for service dogs until 1990). It was technically covered (having a service dog) under the rehabilitation act of 1973, but there were no mandatory requirements for access back then (they too assumed that businesses would use common sense and the incentive of having a customer visit your store instead of another store would be enough). They were wrong, blind people were being outright discriminated against (at that time, seeing eye dogs were the majority, it's expanded since then). It really goes back to the establishment of protected classes (race, gender, etc). Back in the 50's for many businesses simply having a paying customer was enough, but alas, for some the color of their skin (or gender) was more important than making money (crazy I know, the only color I care about is green lol, but that's how it was). The free market was certainly helping, but by itself it could not overcome the discrimination.
> 
> It simply wasn't right that someone couldn't go into a store with their friends just because of their color, or gender. Thus, we have specifically protected classes now (disability is one of them now). I know it's a bit of a tired saying, but try to put yourself in their shoes. Imagine being told you couldn't be a pax because you were *insert race here* or *insert gender here*, it's the same as being told you can't be a pax because you have a service dog for your epilepsy. Denial of service, is denial of service. It's being told that you are less than the others.
> 
> ...


No, I agree with Walter Williams on this. If Uber didn't accept blacks, not only would Uber lose their black customers buy they'd lose most of their white customers as well.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

In theory, I would too, but it actually happened with service dogs (for about 80 years now since the first service dogs started guiding), and it didn't work in practice. Oh, and btw, private clubs CAN refuse access to service dogs. 

EDIT: I actually re-watched that video, and he's basically saying the way it is. If there is enough public discrimination that a law is required to correct it, fine, but for private matters, it shouldn't be mandated. And that's exactly how it is. Uber's can't refuse service dogs (public transport) but if I come to your house, you don't have to let me in with a service dog. Private clubs don't have to allow them (say the country club for example, anything where you have to have a special membership that not just anyone in the public could get).


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> In theory, I would too, but it actually happened with service dogs (for about 80 years now since the first service dogs started guiding), and it didn't work in practice. Oh, and btw, private clubs CAN refuse access to service dogs.


Then why can't private transportation companies?


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Because it's not private, it's public (specifically "public accomodation"). IE, just anyone moron (aka pax lol) can log onto the app and order an uber.

EDIT: Costco actually tried to get around this claiming they were a private club, and they failed because while they do have memberships (and you have to have one to get in), any fool can go get one (thus, public).

For full disclosure of my biases, I despise Costco.  Not really because of this, but just in general, way too much chaos and not nearly enough logic.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> No, I agree with Walter Williams on this. If Uber didn't accept blacks, not only would Uber lose their black customers buy they'd lose most of their white customers as well.





UBERPROcolorado said:


> Holly crap. I better understand the issues ppl with allergies face in this business. BUT if someone put one of my dogs in that contraption, I would castrate them. THAT damn this is dangerous.


Not much more dangerous than having a dog in the back of an SUV. Plus I believe they could improve on the design to aleve your fears, with bumpers etcetera.


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> No, I agree with Walter Williams on this. If Uber didn't accept blacks, not only would Uber lose their black customers buy they'd lose most of their white customers as well.


FASCINATING


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Dunno if you noticed them because I did them while you were posting Tomato, but I did some edits to 2 posts above to expand on answers.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> In many things that's probably true (and I do believe there is too much government regulation overall), but they tried that prior to the ADA (which is why we didn't have an official law for service dogs until 1990). It was technically covered (having a service dog) under the rehabilitation act of 1973, but there were no mandatory requirements for access back then (they too assumed that businesses would use common sense and the incentive of having a customer visit your store instead of another store would be enough). They were wrong, blind people were being outright discriminated against (at that time, seeing eye dogs were the majority, it's expanded since then). It really goes back to the establishment of protected classes (race, gender, etc). Back in the 50's for many businesses simply having a paying customer was enough, but alas, for some the color of their skin (or gender) was more important than making money (crazy I know, the only color I care about is green lol, but that's how it was). The free market was certainly helping, but by itself it could not overcome the discrimination.
> 
> It simply wasn't right that someone couldn't go into a store with their friends just because of their color, or gender. Thus, we have specifically protected classes now (disability is one of them now). I know it's a bit of a tired saying, but try to put yourself in their shoes. Imagine being told you couldn't be a pax because you were *insert race here* or *insert gender here*, it's the same as being told you can't be a pax because you have a service dog for your epilepsy. Denial of service, is denial of service. It's being told that you are less than the others.
> 
> ...


The tow bar dog carrier would totally work. A fraction of a fraction of service dogs would be affected. That's why ADA can blow off allergy sufferers. They can show the odds of someone dying are just too low to worry about.

But even if all the service dogs road upfront, this could open up a whole new revenue stream to Uber. Taking dogs to doggie day school or to the dog park. By themselves.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

if you're talking about just pets (not service dogs), uber already has you beat on that idea. https://www.uber.com/en-TR/blog/uberpet-a-ride-for-all-paws/


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> The tow bar dog carrier would totally work. A fraction of a fraction of service dogs would be affected. That's why ADA can blow off allergy sufferers. They can show the odds of someone dying are just too low to worry about.
> 
> But even if all the service dogs road upfront, this could open up a whole new revenue stream to Uber. Taking dogs to doggie day school or to the dog park. By themselves.


Rear end crash, becoming detached, rain, snow, cold. My wife and I have fostered rescue dogs for more than 20 years. Thousands of dogs over the years. I and can promise you that the dog would be horrified in that contraption. BUT, I am not allergic to dogs and have devoted my life to saving dogs. Thus I am very prejudice. Mr. Tomato Paste has very valid points about the allergy issues. Very valid.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

It's sad, but I'm kind of surprised they didn't have UberBoats charging rescue fees in Houston...


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> It's sad, but I'm kind of surprised they didn't have UberBoats charging rescue fees in Houston...


I bet the driver of the uber boat would get 5 stars every time.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

I can definitely understand the allergies concern, but very, very few people have allergies severe enough to dog dander that an Allegra or allergy shot wouldn't resolve, and the very few that do (usually because of Asthma too), would qualify as a disability in their own right and would unfortunately likely prevent them from driving as even the dander on a pax that had just left their dog would set them off.



UBERPROcolorado said:


> I bet the driver of the uber boat would get 5 stars every time.


ROFL, probably so.


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> I can definitely understand the allergies concern, but very, very few people have allergies severe enough to dog dander that an Allegra or allergy shot wouldn't resolve, and the very few that do (usually because of Asthma too), would qualify as a disability in their own right and would unfortunately likely prevent them from driving as even the dander on a pax that had just left their dog would set them off.
> 
> ROFL, probably so.


I think there is a simple answer that all ride shares should seriously consider. Designated doggy drivers. When a pax orders a ride, they check the doggy box. Then the algorithm chooses only a driver that has signed up for doggy transport.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

That option was looked at as well, the problem is that in some markets (especially during surging), there isn't another driver available within a 1 to 2 minute window, and making a disabled pax wait longer than that (more than 1 to 2 minutes longer than any other pax that is) is considered discrimination still (legally). The only way they could make that fly is to make all the drivers employees, and ensure everyone was spread out evenly (which, even taxi cab companies weren't able to do, and yeah, right, like uber is going to make everyone employees lol).

Actually, even in my market (which is pretty over saturated, like most) there is usually more than a 1 to 2 minute wait to the next driver except in hot spots. I suppose like at the airport if I really didn't want to take a service animal, I could just ask the next in queue to do so, assuming I didn't lose my spot lol. But even then, there have been news reports of taxi's at the airport (before uber became really popular, 2012 or so) 5 deep all trying to refuse and the cab company getting fined because of it, so I doubt uber is willing to take the chance.

In the UK taxi drivers can get a medical exemption (there isn't one here), but it is darn near impossible to get, you have to have allergies that are basically at the level of disability in their own right (like I'd mentioned before, you'd have to be one of those very, very few people).


----------



## Spider-Man (Jul 7, 2017)

Ever since this had been implemented I have made 250$ (5 x pax w/dogs ) they always leave hair behind . Smile take there dog. Snap some pix you should get a 50$ cleaning fee. Look it as a 50$ animal fee  works every time


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

That's probably a great way to deal with the fakers, they probably don't know any better hehe. 

The real service dog handlers will dispute it as just hair is not legal to be charged for. But despite what Uber's policy states, legally they are responsible for any accidents the dog has (as are non service dog handlers too).

The fakers probably won't know any better and that's a great way to deal with them, I love it!


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

tomatopaste said:


> We need to make an issue out of this. Uber says they need to change to take it to the next level. Hey Uber! you can start here. Stop allowing pax to abuse the system and drivers. Hey drivers, let your voice be heard.


Scream and cry all you want. Won't change a thing. This is the law.



Spider-Man said:


> Ever since this had been implemented I have made 250$ (5 x pax w/dogs ) they always leave hair behind . Smile take there dog. Snap some pix you should get a 50$ cleaning fee. Look it as a 50$ animal fee  works every time


Uber won't charge a cleaning fee.



Pawtism said:


> That's probably a great way to deal with the fakers, they probably don't know any better hehe.
> 
> The real service dog handlers will dispute it as just hair is not legal to be charged for. But despite what Uber's policy states, legally they are responsible for any accidents the dog has (as are non service dog handlers too).
> 
> The fakers probably won't know any better and that's a great way to deal with them, I love it!


The dog gets to shit in your car three times before Uber will charge a cleaning fee



tomatopaste said:


> Exactly. This is what should be done. There enough drivers like you that are happy to take dogs. But it's wrong to allow riders to just show up with a dog and say: 'you have to take him.' This is a simple fix on Uber's part. I'm sure there'll get push back from certain groups but Uber needs to be willing to fight for drivers, not just say it's too much trouble. Enough talk Uber.


You are a contractor. The obligation to comply with the law is on you, not Uber. If you don't want to take service animals, you have the option not to, but you can't take any other pax either.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Rat said:


> The dog gets to shit in your car three times before Uber will charge a cleaning fee


Yeah, that's the part of the policy I do strongly disagree with (and is actually counter to the law). Most real service dog handlers would make it right with the driver directly (because it would be very rare for a real service dog to actually have an accident in a car, but not impossible, they can get sick too). I know I would if I were ever a pax.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

tomatopaste said:


> No, it is Uber's responsibility to take drivers concerns into account and fight for them. Are the ADA types going to fight every single unnoticeable tweak? Yes. So what? We need to fight these people. Uber can go to court on the right side of an issue every now and then.


No, Uber must comply with the law. Just as you must comply with the law.


----------



## Spider-Man (Jul 7, 2017)

Rat said:


> Scream and cry all you want. Won't change a thing. This is the law.
> 
> Uber won't charge a cleaning fee.
> 
> ...


Then why am I 5 for 5? I didn't lie I showed proof and I got my fee every time


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

They probably weren't real service dogs, so they didn't dispute it when it came in as a pet cleaning fee?

Uber has no way to know it's a service dog unless the pax (or the driver, but no driver is gonna tell them when they are trying to get the cleaning fee lol) tells them, so the way it would usually work (for a real service dog where the handler knows they can't be charged for it) is you'd submit for it, pax gets the notice, and disputes it stating it's a service dog, your fee gets denied.

The reason I love that you did try to charge it is that the real service dog handlers know better, so they'll dispute it everytime (doesn't really hurt the real ones), but the fakes don't know any better (or at least most of them) so they get charged and think twice about bringing fluffy next time lol.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

tomatopaste said:


> Never said we don't love dogs. I love dogs. We had dogs my whole childhood. I currently don't have a dog, mostly because I found out I'm allergic to pet hair. Even as a kid though I found that my friends with outdoor dogs, their homes seemed; cleaner, nicer, smelled better, less hair on the sofas. Did that make me a bad person for making that observation?
> 
> Dogs are welcome in some restaurants, stores, hotels, and not in others. Are those that choose not to allow dogs in their establishments bad people? Should families that choose not to have an inside dog be branded with a scarlet 'D?'
> 
> Now I am a bit concerned about the whole 'goat' thing. Exactly whose goat was it? What music was playing on the radio? Did you open the door for the goat or did he open it? Did the goat tip? Did you give him a 5? Did he give you a 5?


Families that choose to leave their pets outside in the weather should be chained to a tree by the neck for a year so they can experience what that is like. Kind of like the branding idea, too.



UberUber81 said:


> tomatopaste
> 
> You have to be diligent when picking up a passenger.
> 
> ...


Even easier fix: deactivated!



tomatopaste said:


> 90 percent of the dogs we're forced to take aren't even service animals. Yet Uber won't lift a finger to address this fraud. Some panicked dog starts chewing on your leather seats and that's just the cost of doing business. I love the "just take an Allegra" response. Allergies affect your entire system. Some people with severe pet allergies can have trouble controlling their bowels.
> 
> So you begin to have an allergic reaction on the 405 in stop and go traffic, "hey just deal with it." This is someone with severe allergies:
> 
> ...


If you were allergic to dogs, would you apply for a job at a kennel? Same with providing transportation. If you are incapable of doing the job, don't apply.



tomatopaste said:


> I don't agree with government mandates for private businesses or private individuals, period. The desired outcome can be accomplished better with incentives and the free market than with mandates. Uber could start a whole new level of service called Uber Dog. Buy tow bar dog carriers like this in bulk and then sell them to drivers at cost. They could be climate controlled as well. Service dogs are charged X rates, Uber Dog is at the Select rate.
> 
> Everyone's happy.
> 
> http://www.bicyclerack-mottez.com/img/produits/28_2_1_280x280.jpg


Except the customer and the dog.


----------



## ChortlingCrison (Mar 30, 2016)

I wonder if they have "service cats".


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

tomatopaste said:


> Then why can't private transportation companies?


Transportation providers are not private. They are by law a public accommodation.



Spider-Man said:


> Then why am I 5 for 5? I didn't lie I showed proof and I got my fee every time


You didn't show us any proof of your claim. No factcheck on the internet. If Uber gave you a fee, they did it out of their own pocket.



ChortlingCrison said:


> I wonder if they have "service cats".


No, only service dogs and miniature horses, but you are not required to accept horses. This is the Federal law. Individual states may differ. They may require you to take horses, cats, monkeys, etc. I took a pax with a lemur once. But not a service animal. The lemur was pretty cool.


----------



## Spider-Man (Jul 7, 2017)

Rat said:


> Transportation providers are not private. They are by law a public accommodation.
> 
> You didn't show any proof. That's one lie right there. Credibility = zero


I did , I took multiple pictures of my backseat , and I got my fees. If I didn't uber never would of gave me a fee w/o it.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Spider-Man said:


> I did , I took multiple pictures of my backseat , and I got my fees. If I didn't uber never would of gave me a fee w/o it.


I misunderstood what you were saying. I already edited my post. Uber may have given you a fee, but they didn't charge the pax.


----------



## Spider-Man (Jul 7, 2017)

Rat said:


> I misunderstood what you were saying. I already edited my post. Uber may have given you a fee, but they didn't charge the pax.


Hmm like a cancel fee? That could be true . I'll never know. But as long I'm payed by uber or the pax I'm goood.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Spider-Man said:


> Hmm like a cancel fee? That could be true . I'll never know. But as long I'm payed by uber or the pax I'm goood.


At $250 you sure are good!


----------



## rembrandt (Jul 3, 2016)

Why not write a petition directly to Trump for an executive order on this issue ? See what he does. He doesn't have a dog at the White House as far as I know.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

UBERPROcolorado said:


> Rear end crash, becoming detached, rain, snow, cold. My wife and I have fostered rescue dogs for more than 20 years. Thousands of dogs over the years. I and can promise you that the dog would be horrified in that contraption. BUT, I am not allergic to dogs and have devoted my life to saving dogs. Thus I am very prejudice. Mr. Tomato Paste has very valid points about the allergy issues. Very valid.


Why would the dog be any more afraid than in this: http://msbusiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/GunnerKennelsRed_feature_rgb-620x330.jpg
It could be kept the same temp as the car.
Detach not an issue.
Rear end would be an issue, but I've already solved it. Two pillars on each side. Carrier is spring loaded, force of the crash would release the springs forcing the dog carrier upward out of the way of the impact.
Carrier could have a monitor so you could see,  he could see you, and talk to the dog from your iphone.

Would have to be a very sleek professional design but it could totally work. 
I give Uber credit for trying everything, such as Uber Pet. It's a good idea but I don't see many drivers being willing to do it.

https://www.uber.com/en-TR/blog/uberpet-a-ride-for-all-paws/

However if you decouple the dog from the pax compartment it could work. You could even incorporate a modified pool. You pick up the dog, then get a ping for a human. You pick up the human and the human never even knows there's a dog in the back. You get two fares for the same miles. It would be easy to attach and detach. Take only a few seconds.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> Why would the dog be any more afraid than in this: http://msbusiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/GunnerKennelsRed_feature_rgb-620x330.jpg
> It could be kept the same temp as the car.


Bumps would be much more pronounced behind the bumper (lever effect past the rear wheels), plus it would cost more to keep it the same temp as the car than is practical. Bottom line, that idea would simply never catch on.

We get it, you don't want to take dogs, and other than service dogs you don't have to. Real service dogs are pretty rare, only 10% of the population has disabilities, of that, roughly 5% have service dogs (that's roughly half of 1% of the entire population). That means that, statistically, that you'll encounter a service dog once every 200 or so rides (in reality it's actually likely less than that as some have had thousands of rides with no service dog, but those are the statistical numbers). Ask the two questions, weed out the fakes, then only very, very rarely (if ever) you'll wind up taking an actual service dog. Problem solved lol.


----------



## tryingforthat5star (Mar 12, 2017)

If your approaching the pick up and you notice a service dog can't you just hit cancel and keep on driving by. Ride was never started, you didn't ask any questions you just didn't want to take the ride simple as that. Like any other ride it was never started nor did you even exchange any words with the customer.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Sure you can... then they can go complain at the website and you get deactivated (first time only temp as they wouldn't be able to prove that it was because of the dog, second time perm though).


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> Bumps would be much more pronounced behind the bumper (lever effect past the rear wheels), plus it would cost more to keep it the same temp as the car than is practical. Bottom line, that idea would simply never catch on.
> 
> We get it, you don't want to take dogs, and other than service dogs you don't have to. Real service dogs are pretty rare, only 10% of the population has disabilities, of that, roughly 5% have service dogs (that's roughly half of 1% of the entire population). That means that, statistically, that you'll encounter a service dog once every 200 or so rides (in reality it's actually likely less than that as some have had thousands of rides with no service dog, but those are the statistical numbers). Ask the two questions, weed out the fakes, then only very, very rarely (if ever) you'll wind up taking an actual service dog. Problem solved lol.


You do realize we're talking about a dog, right? If it doesn't have the same ride as a Rolls Royce Phantom, most dogs are still going to give you a five. It would cost exactly zero to keep the dog comfortable. All dogs come standard with a fur coat. As a sales tactic to the pet owner you would have a small electric heater, although you would almost never need it. In phoenix on 115 degree days a small mister would suffice.

https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/23a6f1c7-16ed-4d91-898b-
ddd2e47727db_1.c937bcf26f7d5cf12d49ef7ae398431b.jpeg

I don't think you do get it. We've transitioned the discussion into making Uber Pet into a profitable business.

Limitations with Uber Pet:
1. The owner has to be present during the ride.
2. A modified pool option is not possible with current Uber Pet
3. Time it takes to transition the vehicle from Uber Pet to being able to accept regular passengers
4. To me it looks like only XL's are available for Uber Pet.
5. Most drivers don't want to have animals in the passenger compartment.

All of these issues become moot when you decouple the dog from the pax compartment. The number one reason drivers drive is become of the money. If driver could make more of it with almost no extra work or hassle, they'd do it.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

tomatopaste said:


> 99 percent of drivers and pax would agree the blind with a service dog should be accepted. 99 percent would also agree that forcing Uber to take pets is an abuse of the system and actually hurts those with honest needs.


Talk about grossly exaggerated and pulled out of the ass statistics.


Rat said:


> Scream and cry all you want. Won't change a thing. This is the law.
> 
> Uber won't charge a cleaning fee.
> 
> ...


The policy is that the dog owner wont get charged until after 3 messes but it does not say the driver cant or wont be compensated on any of those.



Rat said:


> I misunderstood what you were saying. I already edited my post. Uber may have given you a fee, but they didn't charge the pax.


I agree they more than likely didnt charge the pax. The policy is they won't charge pax for first 2 dog messes, doesnt day they won't compensate the drivers.



tomatopaste said:


> Why would the dog be any more afraid than in this: http://msbusiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/GunnerKennelsRed_feature_rgb-620x330.jpg
> It could be kept the same temp as the car.
> Detach not an issue.
> Rear end would be an issue, but I've already solved it. Two pillars on each side. Carrier is spring loaded, force of the crash would release the springs forcing the dog carrier upward out of the way of the impact.
> ...


You want to have that contraption on your tow bar for 100 s of trips without a dpg for the off chance that you get a dog? Ive had 2 dog request in my 1700 trips. Neither were service animals, both were deined and I have yet to have a service animal request. Yet youd be willing to have that monstrosity on your tow bar for all 1700 trips for use on 2 of them.

How often are you actually running into dog request?



tryingforthat5star said:


> If your approaching the pick up and you notice a service dog can't you just hit cancel and keep on driving by. Ride was never started, you didn't ask any questions you just didn't want to take the ride simple as that. Like any other ride it was never started nor did you even exchange any words with the customer.





Pawtism said:


> Sure you can... then they can go complain at the website and you get deactivated (first time only temp as they wouldn't be able to prove that it was because of the dog, second time perm though).


And you would have nothing to argue against to overturn the deactivation because you didnt ask the chiwawa owner then 2 questions.

If you stop and ask the 2 questions, if they are fake they more than likely will fail to answer the question.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

steveK2016 said:


> You want to have that contraption on your tow bar for 100 s of trips without a dpg for the off chance that you get a dog? Ive had 2 dog request in my 1700 trips. Neither were service animals, both were deined and I have yet to have a service animal request. Yet youd be willing to have that monstrosity on your tow bar for all 1700 trips for use on 2 of them.
> 
> How often are you actually running into dog request?


Uber could allow pax to schedule an Uber Pet pick up and you would only put the contraption on you car when you had an Uber Pet pick up.

Is Uber Pet even available in the U.S? From their site it looks like it's only in one test city in the middle east somewhere. You've probably only had requests for a few 3/8 inch galvanized lag bolts as well. But if Uber actually sold 3/8 inch galvanized lag bolts, my guess is you'd have more requests.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

tomatopaste said:


> We need to make an issue out of this. Uber says they need to change to take it to the next level. Hey Uber! you can start here. Stop allowing pax to abuse the system and drivers. Hey drivers, let your voice be heard.


Why would Uber (or any business) want to turn customers away?



tomatopaste said:


> I agree with Trafficat. 99 percent of the issue could be solved by just having riders notify Uber they might have a service dog and it first goes to those happy to take dogs. But no drivers would be able to opt out of taking dogs. Also you are correct about the abuses of the ADA and that there are people that spend their whole lives finding ways to be a pain in the ass and make life miserable for as many people as they can.


That would be incredibly illegal.



tomatopaste said:


> Not that easy Fuzzy. I, like 15 percent of the population have allergies to pet dander. 100 percent of the time I'm forced to transport someone's pet my eyes water, nose runs, and I start to sneeze. For me I just feel like I have a slight cold for the rest of the day.
> 
> For some people with severe pet allergies they can go into anaphylactic shock and it can be life threatening. Am I a safer driver when my eyes are watering and I'm constantly sneezing, um no, I'm not. Those of us with pet allergies know that "cleaning up the fur" is not just "cleaning up the fur." It's like cleaning up a mild form of anthrax.
> 
> Also every 6.6 passenger that sits close to where the dog was seated is going to have an allergic reaction. They won't know why, but they'll start to feel sick. Should I be forced to transport an animal that's going to cause an allergic reaction? Answer: yes. I don't believe in global warming so what ever happens to me, I deserve it for destroying the entire planet.


You are NEVER forced to transport an animal.


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

Demon said:


> Why would Uber (or any business) want to turn customers away?
> 
> That would be incredibly illegal.
> 
> You are NEVER forced to transport an animal.


Yes, all drivers in the US must transport service animals. First violation is a warning, second is deactivation.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

UBERPROcolorado said:


> Yes, all drivers in the US must transport service animals. First violation is a warning, second is deactivation.


There is no requirement that someone HAS to drive for Uber or Lyft, it's 100% voluntary.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

steveK2016 said:


> And you would have nothing to argue against to overturn the deactivation because you didnt ask the chiwawa owner then 2 questions.
> 
> If you stop and ask the 2 questions, if they are fake they more than likely will fail to answer the question.


This really is the best way to avoid the fakes.

As for the best way to do UberPet, the test version seems pretty solid, but then that's why they have a test version in another country, so they can work out some of the pros and cons before bringing it here. And when they come here they'll pick a city or two and start it there (just like they did with UberAssist and so on), then roll it out in phases. It will take a while but that's why they do it that way, to make sure they are figuring out the best way.

No offense to you Tomato, but you're just about the last person I'd come to for advice on how to transport pets lol. I seriously mean that with no offense to you directly, it's just that you don't seem to view pets the same way that pet owners do. I'd probably love to have a conversation with you about getting rid of some of the overbearing EPA regulations, but probably not about how to transport pets hehe.

And Technically Demon is right, you can cancel on the service dog, log out, and go get a real job hehe. No one is "forcing" you to comply with the law lol (I do understand where you were coming from too though UberPro).  I used to use an analogy like that when someone claimed they were forced to go to work. I mean you don't have to go to work, you can sleep in all day if you want. You'll likely wind up getting fired (eventually at least), and wind up homeless because you can't pay your rent, but it's not like the work gestapo is gonna show up and drag you into work lol.

Military service on the other hand.....


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> This really is the best way to avoid the fakes.
> 
> As for the best way to do UberPet, the test version seems pretty solid, but then that's why they have a test version in another country, so they can work out some of the pros and cons before bringing it here. And when they come here they'll pick a city or two and start it there (just like they did with UberAssist and so on), then roll it out in phases. It will take a while but that's why they do it that way, to make sure they are figuring out the best way.
> 
> ...


No offense taken. I'd argue there are different levels of commitment and love people have toward their pets. Some truly love their pets, almost like children. Others get a dog just to shut the kids up. If the dog falls out of the back of the pickup, they just stop off at the pet store and buy a new one.

These people are my target market to begin with. Then when it's been proven to be safe, we bring on the true dog lovers.


----------



## M.209 (Aug 16, 2017)

Only trunk is available. Still wanna go? Oh, ok. Next please


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

M.209 said:


> Only trunk is available. Still wanna go? Oh, ok. Next please


I hope you're joking.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> In theory, I would too, but it actually happened with service dogs (for about 80 years now since the first service dogs started guiding), and it didn't work in practice. Oh, and btw, private clubs CAN refuse access to service dogs.
> 
> EDIT: I actually re-watched that video, and he's basically saying the way it is. If there is enough public discrimination that a law is required to correct it, fine, but for private matters, it shouldn't be mandated. And that's exactly how it is. Uber's can't refuse service dogs (public transport) but if I come to your house, you don't have to let me in with a service dog. Private clubs don't have to allow them (say the country club for example, anything where you have to have a special membership that not just anyone in the public could get).


No, Williams is making the exact opposite point. Jim Crow laws mandated that blacks be discriminated against. Williams makes that point that Jim Crow laws were only necessary because not all white people would have discriminated against blacks. So they passed laws that made discrimination against blacks mandatory.

Same thing applies today. Nnot all private companies would have banned seeing eye dogs. Your hated Costco would have banned them but then Sams Club would have created ads saying how they allow seeing eye dogs, unlike those heartless bastards at Costco.

Unelected bureaucrats like the ADA types, aka liberals, made the arbitrary decision that a private company like Costco must allow seeing eye dogs because any member of the public can shop at their business. In other words, if humans sell products or services to other humans it's no longer is a private business and the ADA types, aka liberals, get to tell them what to do.


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

The issue lies with the people that abuse the law~






REAL Service Animal acting as one should (and funny funny owner)~






FAKE Service Animal acting as one shouldn't~


----------



## M.209 (Aug 16, 2017)

Demon said:


> I hope you're joking.


Maybe the answer is - yes


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

M.209 said:


> Maybe the answer is - yes


Then I hope you don't mind deactivation and possibly a fine.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

UberLaLa said:


> The issue lies with the people that abuse the law~
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It also lies with society in general willing to hand over more and more freedom to unelected bureaucrats and idiot politicians who will vote for stupid laws like the ADA in the first place. Once you open up that can of worms you end up with Uber drivers interrogating and filming passengers about their pets. "Excuse me, excuse me, I need you to come back, I forgot to push record."

Who in the H made the determination that dogs and small horses are service animals however drivers aren't required to take small horses into their sedan. Answer: Unelected bureaucrats, ADA types, aka liberals. And who in the H can up with the "two questions?" Same answer.

This is also how you end up with bakeries being forced to bake a cake for a gay couple and having to buy health insurance that covers pap smears even though you're a dude.


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> It also lies with society in general willing to hand over more and more freedom to unelected bureaucrats and idiot politicians who will vote for stupid laws like the ADA in the first place. Once you open up that can of worms you end up with Uber drivers interrogating and filming passengers about their pets. "Excuse me, excuse me, I need you to come back, I forgot to push record."
> 
> Who in the H made the determination that dogs and small horses are service animals however drivers aren't required to take small horses into their sedan. Answer: Unelected bureaucrats, ADA types, aka liberals. And who in the H can up with the "two questions?" Same answer.
> 
> This is also how you end up with bakeries being forced to bake a cake for a gay couple and having to buy health insurance that covers pap smears even though you're a dude.


_Discriminate much?_


----------



## M.209 (Aug 16, 2017)

Demon said:


> Then I hope you don't mind deactivation and possibly a fine.


"if Uber receives plausible complaints on more than one occasion that a Driver denied service to a Rider because the Rider was traveling with a service animal, Uber will terminate the Driver's contract and the Driver will be permanently removed from the Driver platform. "

The keyword here is "denied". Let's imagine, that some drivers saying "Only trunk is available. Still wanna go? Oh, ok. Next please" is not a joke. Here there's no denying. As an independent contractor, rideshare drivers should have the right to choose how to use the their car. In most cases, those services animals are fake. Of course, it is a different story, if the blind man asks for a ride...


----------



## ServiceDogHandler (Sep 3, 2017)

MonkeyTOES said:


> Just cancel if you see a dog next time if it really bothers you since you cannot know for certain if he's telling the truth or not. Or get a seat protector like what I did. Picked up someone with a dog and my car was still immaculate after the trip.


Cancel like that and you won't be driving for them much longer. Disabled people aren't stupid.



M.209 said:


> "if Uber receives plausible complaints on more than one occasion that a Driver denied service to a Rider because the Rider was traveling with a service animal, Uber will terminate the Driver's contract and the Driver will be permanently removed from the Driver platform. "
> 
> The keyword here is "denied". Let's imagine, that some drivers saying "Only trunk is available. Still wanna go? Oh, ok. Next please" is not a joke. Here there's no denying. As an independent contractor, rideshare drivers should have the right to choose how to use the their car. In most cases, those services animals are fake. Of course, it is a different story, if the blind man asks for a ride...


Service Dogs are for much more than blind people. Canceling a ride is still denying service.



UberUber81 said:


> tomatopaste
> 
> You have to be diligent when picking up a passenger.
> 
> ...


And that's how you lose your job.


----------



## Cary Grant (Jul 14, 2015)

Print it out, keep a copy in your car.

https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm


----------



## ServiceDogHandler (Sep 3, 2017)

ChortlingCrison said:


> I wonder if they have "service cats".


Some states allow it like here in Montana. They still have to be able to do tasks so you can still ask "Is that a service animal required because of a disability?" & "What tasks or works does the animal do?"


----------



## ServiceDogHandler (Sep 3, 2017)

rembrandt said:


> Why not write a petition directly to Trump for an executive order on this issue ? See what he does. He doesn't have a dog at the White House as far as I know.


Trump has actually met my Service Dog. I let him pet him too.


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

M.209 said:


> "if Uber receives plausible complaints on more than one occasion that a Driver denied service to a Rider because the Rider was traveling with a service animal, Uber will terminate the Driver's contract and the Driver will be permanently removed from the Driver platform. "
> 
> The keyword here is "denied". Let's imagine, that some drivers saying "Only trunk is available. Still wanna go? Oh, ok. Next please" is not a joke. Here there's no denying. As an independent contractor, rideshare drivers should have the right to choose how to use the their car. In most cases, those services animals are fake. Of course, it is a different story, if the blind man asks for a ride...


Does the blind man have to ride in the trunk too?


----------



## charmer37 (Nov 18, 2016)

steveK2016 said:


> Ok i get what you're saying now. So an option for someone to say "I want to bring my pet" similar to when you order a ride and it asks you if the ride is for you or for someone in your contact list. It's not for service animals but it will match those Pets with drivers who are ok with pets. So the only delay would be for those that want to bring their pets with them, but they're guaranteed to get a driver who will be ok with it. someone with a service animal would not select pet and would get the first available driver who cannot refuse service. if Uber were smart, it would allow people to select pets and pre-pay a tip to encourage drivers to take pets.
> 
> That could be interesting...
> 
> Something like this would be nice


If uber increased the fees like that and played fair with the drivers i might start driving again...lol.


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

I believe that Uber needs to approach the pet issue one market at a time. 

Take Colorado for an example......we probably have as many pets as humans. Not kidding. We allow them on patios of restaurants, in grocery stores etc. Does not matter If they are service dogs or not. If you abuse an animal in Colorado, there is a good chance you will go to jail. Abuse your spouse and will probably get probation. 

In other markets it may be less common to see dogs everywhere and anywhere...other markets may still eat dogs. 

Thus, Uber must look at the market. If the market is pro dogs then drivers must accept that or move on..... service dog or just the family pet. Does not matter. If the market still considers dogs as dinner, then give drivers an option.

My family has fostered rescue dogs for close to 30 years. Thousands of dogs have come to us broken, got fixed and were adopted out to loving families. So I am anything but impartial on the pet issue. 

Drive safe and bring a lint brush.


----------



## ServiceDogHandler (Sep 3, 2017)

UBERPROcolorado said:


> I believe that Uber needs to approach the pet issue one market at a time.
> 
> Take Colorado for an example......we probably have as many pets as humans. Not kidding. We allow them on patios of restaurants, in grocery stores etc. Does not matter If they are service dogs or not. If you abuse an animal in Colorado, there is a good chance you will go to jail. Abuse your spouse and will probably get probation.
> 
> ...


Pets are not allowed in grocery stores. Federal health codes prohibit this.
Uber is cautious because any dog could be a Service Dog even if the driver doesn't ask. If they back the driver and it turns out the dog is actually a Service Dog then they can face massive fines. The smallest find you can encounter for denying a Service Dog is $50,000 from the DOJ. The handler could file a civil suite as well and seek damages.


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

ServiceDogHandler said:


> Pets are not allowed in grocery stores. Federal health codes prohibit this.
> Uber is cautious because any dog could be a Service Dog even if the driver doesn't ask. If they back the driver and it turns out the dog is actually a Service Dog then they can face massive fines. The smallest find you can encounter for denying a Service Dog is $50,000 from the DOJ. The handler could file a civil suite as well and seek damages.


Dogs are in all of the grocery stores in Colorado. The law limits them to service animals, however, the stores turn a blind eye and never ever ask.


----------



## ServiceDogHandler (Sep 3, 2017)

UBERPROcolorado said:


> Dogs are in all of the grocery stores in Colorado. The law limits them to service animals, however, the stores turn a blind eye and never ever ask.


That does not mean it's legal. That's the businesses responsibility to comply with the laws.


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

ServiceDogHandler said:


> That does not mean it's legal. That's the businesses responsibility to comply with the laws.


As I am sure you are aware, the ppl of this nation are sick and tired of the federal laws and the stupid politicians that create them. Same deal as with legal weed, immigration and a host of other laws and rules that do not serve the best interests of the individual states and it's ppl.

So, you are correct in your interpretation of the law, but very off base when it comes to how individual states deal with federal laws.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

UberLaLa said:


> _Discriminate much?_


You do have to take your hat off to the liberals for being able to turn everyone into victim with such ease. Women, blacks, hispanics, basically any minority group, gays, lgbtwxdmklddnkdlskdadkaj's.

So those with service dogs can't be discriminated against by having to wait more than 2 minutes beyond what an X passenger would. What about someone in a wheelchair? Why are they made to wait longer for a ride? Why is anyone allowed to operate a taxi/rideshare that isn't wheelchair accessible? Answer: because the unelected bureaucrats, ADA types, aka liberals, said so.


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> You do have to take your hat off to the liberals for being able to turn everyone into victim with such ease. Women, blacks, hispanics, basically any minority group, gays, lgbtwxdmklddnkdlskdadkaj's.
> 
> So those with service dogs can't be discriminated against by having to wait more than 2 minutes beyond what an X passenger would. What about someone in a wheelchair? Why are they made to wait longer for a ride? Why is anyone allowed to operate a taxi/rideshare that isn't wheelchair accessible? Answer: because the unelected bureaucrats, ADA types, aka liberals, said so.


You do have a point there...I'm not certain what it is, but yup.


----------



## ServiceDogHandler (Sep 3, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> You do have to take your hat off to the liberals for being able to turn everyone into victim with such ease. Women, blacks, hispanics, basically any minority group, gays, lgbtwxdmklddnkdlskdadkaj's.
> 
> So those with service dogs can't be discriminated against by having to wait more than 2 minutes beyond what an X passenger would. What about someone in a wheelchair? Why are they made to wait longer for a ride? Why is anyone allowed to operate a taxi/rideshare that isn't wheelchair accessible? Answer: because the unelected bureaucrats, ADA types, aka liberals, said so.


Everyone should be able to fit a manual wheelchair in their vehicle. They aren't that big. The ADA guarantees equal access. Making me wait extra because of my Service Dog is not equal access and thus illegal.


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

ServiceDogHandler said:


> Everyone should be able to fit a manual wheelchair in their vehicle. They aren't that big. The ADA guarantees equal access. Making me wait extra because of my Service Dog is not equal access and thus illegal.


I'd rather put 10 Service Animals in my ride than one wheelchair. Dog gets in and out on it's own! : )


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

UberLaLa said:


> I'd rather put 10 Service Animals in my ride than one wheelchair. Dog gets in and out on it's own! : )


Discriminate much?



UberLaLa said:


> You do have a point there...I'm not certain what it is, but yup.


The point is simple: If you're a member of the "approved" disability group that brings political clout to its advocates, then you can't be discriminated against. Otherwise, piss off.


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> *Discriminate much?*
> 
> The point is simple: If you're a member of the "approved" disability group that brings political clout to its advocates, then you can't be discriminated against. Otherwise, piss off.


Absolutely, since I do not have an ADA vehicle I have not opted into UberAssist.

I also discriminate against 5 passengers and/or people with lumber or a 1,000 lbs of bricks they want to put in my ride from Home Depot.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

ServiceDogHandler said:


> Everyone should be able to fit a manual wheelchair in their vehicle. They aren't that big. The ADA guarantees equal access. Making me wait extra because of my Service Dog is not equal access and thus illegal.


How is it equal access to make a person with an electric wheelchair wait?


----------



## M.209 (Aug 16, 2017)

ServiceDogHandler said:


> Service Dogs are for much more than blind people. Canceling a ride is still denying service.
> 
> And that's how you lose your job.


Not quite. There is nothing illegal in offerening to the rider whatever is available( since drivers are independente contractors). In this example, a trunk. There is nothing about denying the ride.

Also decided to ask Uber the same question( if allowing for "service" animal to be in trunk is unlawful and leads to deactivation), and here is the reply( especcially the top part)


----------



## ServiceDogHandler (Sep 3, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> How is it equal access to make a person with an electric wheelchair wait?


Most vehicles cannot make reasonable accommodations for a power chair. The ADA doesn't expect 100% equal access. Only when it's reasonable. Just keep a towel in your car so you don't get oil on the seat.



UberLaLa said:


> I'd rather put 10 Service Animals in my ride than one wheelchair. Dog gets in and out on it's own! : )


And I can get my wheelchair in and out on my own too.


----------



## M.209 (Aug 16, 2017)

ServiceDogHandler said:


> Most vehicles cannot make reasonable accommodations for a power chair. The ADA doesn't expect 100% equal access. Only when it's reasonable. Just keep a towel in your car so you don't get oil on the seat.
> 
> And I can get my wheelchair in and out on my own too.


Towel costs money. Time to get this towel is also not free. Moreover, the towel does not protect from oil, animals liquids. It can easily go thru the towel and get on the seat.
So you need smth as painters use. Like leak resistant drop cloth https://goo.gl/Z3uUbk .
Why do I need to spent my time and money to get it? Will you or uber/lyft pay for it? I doubt it...


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

ServiceDogHandler said:


> Most vehicles cannot make reasonable accommodations for a power chair. The ADA doesn't expect 100% equal access. Only when it's reasonable. Just keep a towel in your car so you don't get oil on the seat.
> 
> And I can get my wheelchair in and out on my own too.


In other words the ADA types get to decide what's reasonable. Who made them God? Oh, that's right, they're good people, so they get to lord over us.


----------



## freeFromUber (Mar 1, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> I'd personally enjoy being marked as a "dog" driver willing to take pets. I don't have an SUV, but I have no problem with the dogs sitting in the pax compartment. I've had a few dogs and none caused any problem with hair on the seats and if they did I bet I could fix it easily before the next ride.
> 
> Uber could require a certain percent of drivers are "dog" drivers in each town and have pax choose that they have a dog in the account, and then Uber can automatically simply pair those drivers to those pax. Then no anti-dog driver has to ever refuse a pax for a pet or a service animal because they never get paired to begin with. The driver would still have to accept a service animal no doubt if the pax didn't report that he had one, but I think most pax would be honest and choose that they had a dog and thus be paired with a driver like me happier to do the service.
> 
> ...


STOP THE MADDNESS!!!


----------



## M.209 (Aug 16, 2017)

freeFromUber said:


> STOP THE MADDNESS!!!


Are you asking uber/lyft to stop maddness?
I agree they must stop it. Stop making drivers loosing money. Because after rides with animals, drivers have to spend extra time cleaning after them, so next rider will not complain about their allergy, or smell, or shed. Simply pay drivers more and should be good.

Im with you, freeFromUber, - stop the maddnessss


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

M.209 said:


> Not quite. There is nothing illegal in offerening to the rider whatever is available( since drivers are independente contractors). In this example, a trunk. There is nothing about denying the ride.
> 
> Also decided to ask Uber the same question( if allowing for "service" animal to be in trunk is unlawful and leads to deactivation), and here is the reply( especcially the top part)


"Please not that by law you cannot request paperwork or any other proof of a disability or that the animal is a service animal"

What utter BS! This nothing short of institutionalized fraud. I don't blame Uber for the ADA but I do blame them for paying the 45k and $250k Jesse Jackson style shakedowns from these two leftist shakedown thug groups. I also blame Uber for rolling over and agreeing to the two strikes and you're out rule. EFF! the ADA.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

UberLaLa said:


> REAL Service Animal acting as one should (and funny funny owner)~


If you want to see real service dog standards (that even mine doesn't quite live up to), and more video of Stella and Drew, then you want this video instead (although that last one was funny hehe, I've been a Drew Lynch subscriber for a long time now).








tomatopaste said:


> You do have to take your hat off to the liberals for being able to turn everyone into victim with such ease. Women, blacks, hispanics, basically any minority group, gays, lgbtwxdmklddnkdlskdadkaj's.
> 
> So those with service dogs can't be discriminated against by having to wait more than 2 minutes beyond what an X passenger would. What about someone in a wheelchair? Why are they made to wait longer for a ride? Why is anyone allowed to operate a taxi/rideshare that isn't wheelchair accessible? Answer: because the unelected bureaucrats, ADA types, aka liberals, said so.


Actually there are some time limits on the wheelchair equipped vehicles too (taxi companies have to have x% of their fleet with them as well, and shuttles have to have the lifts and so on. I don't know those laws nearly as well as I do service dog law (as I'm not in a wheelchair), but I do know they exist. And Uber drivers are also required to take collapsible wheelchair pax as long as they can transfer themselves into the vehicle (drivers should not assist with the actual transfer unless they have that "assist" training, as that's a law suit waiting to happen lol). Some driver got in trouble in another thread I read somewhere on here for not picking up a wheelchair pax some time back.



tomatopaste said:


> The point is simple: If you're a member of the "approved" disability group that brings political clout to its advocates, then you can't be discriminated against. Otherwise, piss off.


It actually comes back to that protected classes I was talking earlier about. Race, gender, religion, disability, etc. There are a lot of people who think there are protected classes that simply don't exist though. One guy swore that "smokers" were a protected class ROFL. While I do see your point about those who are in the protected classes vs those who aren't, I also think it's important to remember those protected classes were set up not because some law maker just decided they were his (or her) favorite, but because those classes actually needed protection (the free market just wasn't making it happen even though they had been given the opportunity). If you look historically, there were many, many years that those classes were just outright abused before they got protected.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> If you want to see real service dog standards (that even mine doesn't quite live up to), and more video of Stella and Drew, then you want this video instead (although that last one was funny hehe, I've been a Drew Lynch subscriber for a long time now).


Seems like a really nice guy but to me no way should he be allowed to take a dog in the passenger compartment of an airplane. For what reason? In fact, I can't think of any reason anyone would need to take a dog, service or not, into the passenger compartment of an airplane. It's simply heavy handed government overreach.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> "Please not that by law you cannot request paperwork or any other proof of a disability or that the animal is a service animal".


I actually would support some sort of national (legitimate) registry, the problem is, how do you do it? sure for just guide dogs there are some fairly straight forward tests you could do, for all of them there are public access tests out there, but how you are going to test a seizure alert dog? strap the owner to a chair and flash strobes in their face and see if the dog alerts before they go full seizure? There are so many types of service dogs out there now for so many disabilities, they really couldn't possibly test them all (and even if they could how would they pay for it)? You see? People who know a lot more about this than me have tried to come up with a system and they determined it was best to leave it as it is (even with just the knowledge of the system that I have, I can point out a ton of issues, imagine all the issues they are aware of).



tomatopaste said:


> Seems like a really nice guy but to me no way should he be allowed to take a dog in the passenger compartment of an airplane. For what reason?


Drew told the world on America's Got Talent (he got 2nd place) about getting hit with a softball during a game. It turns out he had a concussion but chose to ignore it (which even he admits was a poor choice) and wound up with a speech impediment (the stutter) and seizures. Stella is a seizure alert dog. So he has her on the plane (and everywhere else he goes) so that if she alerts, he has about a 5 minute window to get into an appropriate position, let those around him know, and put a mouth guard in (to protect his tongue as people having seizures have actually bitten theirs off before during the seizure).



tomatopaste said:


> In fact, I can't think of any reason anyone would need to take a dog, service or not, into the passenger compartment of an airplane. It's simply heavy handed government overreach.


Oh you're gonna love hearing about Emotional Support Animals then lol.











These have no training at all (often not even basic obedience), and a lot of these "fake service dogs" are actually ESAs. All they need is a note from any medical professional (doesn't even have to be a doctor) saying that they need the animal for "emotional support" and they can take it on the plane (thankfully, NOT into ubers though, which is why you ask the 2 questions).


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> Drew told the world on America's Got Talent (he got 2nd place) about getting hit with a softball during a game. It turns out he had a concussion but chose to ignore it (which even he admits was a poor choice) and wound up with a speech impediment (the stutter) and seizures. Stella is a seizure alert dog. So he has her on the plane (and everywhere else he goes) so that if she alerts, he has about a 5 minute window to get into an appropriate position, let those around him know, and put a mouth guard in (to protect his tongue as people having seizures have actually bitten theirs off before during the seizure).


I'll venture to guess there are monitors similar to an I-Watch that detect seizures better than a dog. And the dog is not going to prevent the seizure. If biting his tongue is the worst that could happen, then wear the mouth guard during the flight.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> I'll venture to guess there are monitors similar to an I-Watch that detect seizures better than a dog. And the dog is not going to prevent the seizure. If biting his tongue is the worst that could happen, then wear the mouth guard during the flight.


Actually there isn't, in fact even doctors can't spot a seizure coming before the dog can, it's actually kinda crazy. Mine isn't seizure alert so I don't know exactly what it is that triggers then, a smell would be my guess, but the seizure alert dogs really are the best on the market right now (with tech growing so quickly, maybe in the future it will be different).

And if he's not in the right position (IE standing, walking near traffic, etc) death is the worst that could happen lol.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> I actually would support some sort of national (legitimate) registry, the problem is, how do you do it? sure for just guide dogs there are some fairly straight forward tests you could do, for all of them there are public access tests out there, but how you are going to test a seizure alert dog? strap the owner to a chair and flash strobes in their face and see if the dog alerts before they go full seizure? There are so many types of service dogs out there now for so many disabilities, they really couldn't possibly test them all (and even if they could how would they pay for it)? You see? People who know a lot more about this than me have tried to come up with a system and they determined it was best to leave it as it is (even with just the knowledge of the system that I have, I can point out a ton of issues, imagine all the issues they are aware of).
> 
> Drew told the world on America's Got Talent (he got 2nd place) about getting hit with a softball during a game. It turns out he had a concussion but chose to ignore it (which even he admits was a poor choice) and wound up with a speech impediment (the stutter) and seizures. Stella is a seizure alert dog. So he has her on the plane (and everywhere else he goes) so that if she alerts, he has about a 5 minute window to get into an appropriate position, let those around him know, and put a mouth guard in (to protect his tongue as people having seizures have actually bitten theirs off before during the seizure).
> 
> ...


That's why I think the entire ADA is fraudulent. It's done more harm than good. What purpose does a blind person have to bring a seeing eye dog into a Costco?

Blind person: Fido, is this a Vlasick jar of pickles or the Kirkland brand?
Fido: Bark bark, vrrrrasick.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

See, this is why disabilities are a protected class. You know next to nothing about various disabilities, and just make general assumptions, and then believe that your assumptions must be correct and everything is fine. You also seem to assume that service dogs are just for the blind lol. This is why laws like the ADA had to be made, if people weren't so self consumed and stubborn about the world around them, maybe those kind of laws wouldn't be needed.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> See, this is why disabilities are a protected class. You know next to nothing about various disabilities, and just make general assumptions, and then believe that your assumptions must be correct and everything is fine. You also seem to assume that service dogs are just for the blind lol. This is why laws like the ADA had to be made, if people weren't so self consumed and stubborn about the world around them, maybe those kind of laws wouldn't be needed.


I have an open mind. Convince me. Please give me the top ten reasons why the ADA is needed and that the desired outcomes could only be accomplished with mandates.

My cursory google search on seizure dogs points to them being fraudulent. At best a poor substitute for what can be better accomplished with technology. Like the Smart Watch.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

That watch only detects after the seizure, not gives warnings. That could be good for Parkinson tho lol Seriously tho, that would be good to notify family, docs, etc that it has happened. Still not a pre-warning though.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> That watch only detects after the seizure, not gives warnings. That could be good for Parkinson tho lol Seriously tho, that would be good to notify family, docs, etc that it has happened. Still not a pre-warning though.


They also have smart watches for epilepsy. My gut tells me a watch would be a lot more valuable than a dog. Watches monitor 24/7. No dog is going to be two feet away from you 24/7 and awake and not busy licking himself.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

This is still in testing, but like I said, the way tech is moving, in the future there may be a watch for it (looks like this one might be it, if it pans out). Watching the video it seems like it only does some kinds of seizures, not all, and it doesn't seem to pre-warn either. But eventually they'll come up with something, it's just a matter of time. Until then, dog is only option really.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> This is still in testing, but like I said, the way tech is moving, in the future there may be a watch for it (looks like this one might be it, if it pans out). Watching the video it seems like it only does some kinds of seizures, not all, and it doesn't seem to pre-warn either. But eventually they'll come up with something, it's just a matter of time. Until then, dog is only option really.


*Diabetes Alert Dogs Are An Unproven Concept*
Bill Quick, M.D. , Health Professional

This doctor says diabetes alert dogs are pretty much a hoax.

"I recently wrote to a number of websites that train diabetes service dogs, and asked if they were aware of any published peer-reviewed studies to support the claims that the dogs are useful: there are none. There are anecdotal reports, mainly in the media, but nothing more."​Are there any published peer-reviewed studies on seizure alert dogs?
​


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

You found one quack that says it's a hoax lol, I have no idea on how many peer reviewed studies there are on seizure alert dogs, I don't have epilepsy. Do some research on it if you want. But don't go and find just one random quack (either for or against it), do some real research.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> This is still in testing, but like I said, the way tech is moving, in the future there may be a watch for it (looks like this one might be it, if it pans out). Watching the video it seems like it only does some kinds of seizures, not all, and it doesn't seem to pre-warn either. But eventually they'll come up with something, it's just a matter of time. Until then, dog is only option really.





Pawtism said:


> You found one quack that says it's a hoax lol, I have no idea on how many peer reviewed studies there are on seizure alert dogs, I don't have epilepsy. Do some research on it if you want. But don't go and find just one random quack (either for or against it), do some real research.


Sorry, I forgot to include the link

https://www.healthcentral.com/article/diabetes-alert-dogs-are-an-unproven-concept

I've only been researching this for 10 minutes, but it's not looking good for the magical powers of dogs.


----------



## Amsoil Uber Connect (Jan 14, 2015)

California 
*Penal Code - PEN*
*PART 1. OF CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS [25 - 680]*
_ ( Part 1 enacted 1872. )_ 
*TITLE 9. OF CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON INVOLVING SEXUAL ASSAULT, AND CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC DECENCY AND GOOD MORALS [261 - 368.5]*
_ ( Heading of Title 9 amended by Stats. 1982, Ch. 1111, Sec. 2. )_

*CHAPTER 12. Other Injuries to Persons [346 - 367g]*
_ ( Chapter 12 enacted 1872. )_

*365.7. *
(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.

_(Added by Stats. 1994, Ch. 1257, Sec. 12. Effective January 1, 1995.)_


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

We have a similar law here, but a lower fine lol (we're poorer hehe). A lot more states are starting to pass them (about half have them now), now if only they would start prosecuting some of the fakers.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> You found one quack that says it's a hoax lol, I have no idea on how many peer reviewed studies there are on seizure alert dogs, I don't have epilepsy. Do some research on it if you want. But don't go and find just one random quack (either for or against it), do some real research.


You said:

"Stella is a seizure alert dog. So he has her on the plane (and everywhere else he goes) so that if she alerts, he has about a 5 minute window to get into an appropriate position, let those around him know, and put a mouth guard in"

Is there any to show that this is anything but anecdotal evidence?


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

I'm not going to do your research for you lol, there are a ton of videos where people have been on camera doing live streams or whatever and their dogs have alerted and then they wind up having a seizure, feel free to go look them up. Maybe the dogs are fakes and the people just have very good ESP and can predict their own seizures rofl..


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

rman954 said:


> The only thing that pisses me off is that "service animal" owners aren't financially responsible for any mess the animal may cause in the car. That's a load of bullshit. I know service animals are well trained but that's aside the point.
> "No one wants to be responsible for their own shit".


Yes they are. By law, they are. Uber chooses not to charge them for stop it the first time it happens, but will charge them for any subsequent issues. This does not mean that we do not get compensated for it. We won't be compensated for shedding hair, but any other mass or damage that the dog does, we will. My best suggestion for the dog hair is to have latex gloves and use them to gather the hair together to get it out of the car. Or find a very good vacuum that will run off of the car.



tomatopaste said:


> I don't agree with government mandates for private businesses or private individuals, period. The desired outcome can be accomplished better with incentives and the free market than with mandates. Uber could start a whole new level of service called Uber Dog. Buy tow bar dog carriers like this in bulk and then sell them to drivers at cost. They could be climate controlled as well. Service dogs are charged X rates, Uber Dog is at the Select rate.
> 
> Everyone's happy.
> 
> http://www.bicyclerack-mottez.com/img/produits/28_2_1_280x280.jpg


Service animal has to be accessible to the disabled person that is its Handler. You can't force it into a separate compartment.


----------



## UberCheese (Sep 3, 2017)

You are not qualified to verify what type of dog or what their condition is.



tomatopaste said:


> Nothing I hate more than having to transport someone's "service dog" just because they say it's a service dog. Is this not fraud? Don't you have to register and get government authorization to park in a handicap spot? What's the difference? Other than me having to drive around with the windows open for half an hour to get the dog smell out of my car, and cleaning the hair off the carpet. Much like I have to do after driving hipsters to Starbucks.
> 
> Uber doesn't give a crap what happens to our cars, but we do. As drivers we need to fight this fraud. I understand if you're driving a Corolla, it really doesn't matter, but not everyone is driving a Corolla. If I had a dog I still wouldn't let him ride in my car, I'd make other arrangements. Yes, it really bugs me that people think they have the right to bring their dog into my car when I wouldn't even bring my own dog in my car.
> 
> I actually love dogs, but not in my house and not in my car. If Uber were a decent company they'd work with drivers rather than just telling us "YOU HAVE TO!" Plenty of drivers don't mind and can put the dog in the back of the SUV were passengers don't sit. Heck, I'd even be willing to contribute to a fund where drivers get paid an extra ten bucks per ride for taking dogs. Yeah yeah I know, it's the law. Uber can work within the law, their are plenty of drivers willing to take dogs, especially if they if get paid extra.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Exactly SuzeCB, and most real service dog handlers would probably offer to make any real mess (accident or something) right with the driver directly anyway. It would be up to the driver I guess to decide if they want to go that route or go the cleaning fee route, but the handler would likely at least offer as they tend to be very responsible about that kind of stuff and it's very rare for a real service dog to have an accident (so they'll probably be embarrassed about it).


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

UberCheese said:


> You are not qualified to verify what type of dog or what their condition is.


Wouldn't make any difference even if I were qualified. They don't have to prove jack. That's why I say this is nothing short of institutionalized fraud.



SuzeCB said:


> Yes they are. By law, they are. Uber chooses not to charge them for stop it the first time it happens, but will charge them for any subsequent issues. This does not mean that we do not get compensated for it. We won't be compensated for shedding hair, but any other mass or damage that the dog does, we will. My best suggestion for the dog hair is to have latex gloves and use them to gather the hair together to get it out of the car. Or find a very good vacuum that will run off of the car.
> 
> Service animal has to be accessible to the disabled person that is its Handler. You can't force it into a separate compartment.


Why? For what purpose would anyone need access to a service dog while on a flight? The two year old girl that's deathly afraid of big dogs just has to suck it up and stop being a little B.

But I know, I know, I'm not allowed to ask any questions. Valid or otherwise. I just have to accept it as truth, like global warming, or I'm a bad person.


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

ServiceDogHandler said:


> Cancel like that and you won't be driving for them much longer. Disabled people aren't stupid.
> 
> Service Dogs are for much more than blind people. Canceling a ride is still denying service.
> 
> And that's how you lose your job.


Oh really? I've been doing this a while. Please let them deactivate me and I'll come so hard with Attorneys. The burden of proof is on them I'm denying people with animals. It will just be another no show and another cancel fee for dumb pax that isn't outside. And when we go to court, I'd love to hear the passenger visable description of my self, my voice, and my vehicle. Oh wait, imagine that, won't be able to answer these questions...

I've already had my friends request me and leave 5 star comments about how nice I was for allowing their pet to come on ride. If I get deactivated I'm ready for my lotto ticket. Lol get bent.


----------



## Jerry888 (Jun 25, 2017)

All service dogs for the Blind comes with a tag around their neck,
no tags means no ride.

If the pets are in a cage i'm kool with that and i will put them in the boot that is the way i roll,
if they don't like it they can catch another Uber.

Around Eastern Sub including Vaucluse and Rose Bay there is a few passenger with dogs and always catch Uber,
when i see the dog coming not on cages i quickly lock the door and just cancelled the job on them.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Jerry888 said:


> All service dogs for the Blind comes with a tag around their neck,
> no tags means no ride.


Well it seems you're in Sydney, the US laws are different, not all service dogs (not even the guide dogs) have a tag here.

A system where they had to have a tag would make things easier ultimately, but the problem comes (at least here in the US) with a system that can do the tags, here we're allowed to owner train our own dogs (some countries require it be a specific approved trainer, but the problem with that is that then there aren't enough service dogs for those who need them).

If only we could do like Tomato thinks we do, and just force the trainers to train the dogs faster 



UberUber81 said:


> Oh really? I've been doing this a while. Please let them deactivate me and I'll come so hard with Attorneys. The burden of proof is on them I'm denying people with animals. It will just be another no show and another cancel fee for dumb pax that isn't outside. And when we go to court, I'd love to hear the passenger visable description of my self, my voice, and my vehicle. Oh wait, imagine that, won't be able to answer these questions...
> 
> I've already had my friends request me and leave 5 star comments about how nice I was for allowing their pet to come on ride. If I get deactivated I'm ready for my lotto ticket. Lol get bent.


Well, they'd have already seen your picture and your vehicle from just the app, so yeah, they could describe that. 

Also, they don't need to have your voice, per the policy, they just have to complain. First is temp deactivation, second is perm deactivation. They can complain right from the website (and the second one, the one who gets you perm deactivated gets $25 for their trouble).

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

There have already been people deactivated because of it, but you go right on with your bad self, I'd wish you luck on it but... well.. I don't lol


----------



## kdyrpr (Apr 23, 2016)

Had my first the other day. Received a text a minute before arriving . Stated she was blind and had a service animal. Was that OK? So, I took the ride. I know she was just waiting for me text back that it wasn't. Goodbye UBER. The entire issue is the state of the back seat when the ride is over. Hair all over, and not easy to get up. Drove them 35 miles to a state I am not allowed to pick up in. Full luggage scenario. Dead head back. No tip.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Both drivers and handlers seem to have different views (different within their own groups even) on if they should tell the driver or not. Some drivers want people with service dogs to ask them about it first (I think because it's their car and even though policy and the law say they don't have an option, it's more of a respect thing), others are afraid they are being set up. Same is true with handlers, some want to be respectful (and ask, even though they don't have to), and others are concerned about being discriminated against right away. I suppose it's a bit like liberals and conservatives, we just think differently.

Regardless though, she really should have tipped, for the luggage if nothing else.

Oh, and about the hair, get a towel to throw down (not just for dogs, but good for them too, but for rain soaked people, dusty construction workers, etc).


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Amsoil Uber Connect said:


> California
> *Penal Code - PEN*
> *PART 1. OF CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS [25 - 680]*
> _ ( Part 1 enacted 1872. )_
> ...


You create stupid laws, i.e. the ADA, then have to create 20 new laws to deal with the people abusing the initial stupid law. Hey America, Stop being stupid.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

tomatopaste said:


> Wouldn't make any difference even if I were qualified. They don't have to prove jack. That's why I say this is nothing short of institutionalized fraud.
> 
> Why? For what purpose would anyone need access to a service dog while on a flight? The two year old girl that's deathly afraid of big dogs just has to suck it up and stop being a little B.
> 
> But I know, I know, I'm not allowed to ask any questions. Valid or otherwise. I just have to accept it as truth, like global warming, or I'm a bad person.


Not every service animal is a seeing eye dog. They perform quite a number of other services. You wouldn't take them away from your passenger any more than you would make your passenger take their eyeglasses off or remove their prosthetic limbs so you could pop it into the trunk.



Jerry888 said:


> All service dogs for the Blind comes with a tag around their neck,
> no tags means no ride.
> 
> If the pets are in a cage i'm kool with that and i will put them in the boot that is the way i roll,
> ...


You are incorrect about the tag. And not all service dogs are seeing eye dogs. What part of this is so difficult to understand? A Chihuahua could be a service dog if it's purpose is to detect a diabetic's fluctuations in glucose levels. Other dogs can detect when their owners are going to have epileptic seizures, or can be trained to stand over them and protect them while they do have one. There are a lot of different Services provided by service animals. Just because you don't know what that service might be doesn't mean it doesn't exist and isn't covered by the law. And they do not have to be indicate with a tag or a vest or a ribbon on the leash or anything else, the same way that a disabled person does not have to have a tattoo on their forehead indicating what their disability is. It's not about the animal it's about the person that needs the animal, and if you can't accommodate that, maybe you should seriously hope that you're never in that position.


----------



## ServiceDogHandler (Sep 3, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> In other words the ADA types get to decide what's reasonable. Who made them God? Oh, that's right, they're good people, so they get to lord over us.


Ah yes we are asking to be superior to be treated equally...



tomatopaste said:


> "Please not that by law you cannot request paperwork or any other proof of a disability or that the animal is a service animal"
> 
> What utter BS! This nothing short of institutionalized fraud. I don't blame Uber for the ADA but I do blame them for paying the 45k and $250k Jesse Jackson style shakedowns from these two leftist shakedown thug groups. I also blame Uber for rolling over and agreeing to the two strikes and you're out rule. EFF! the ADA.


It's a federal civil rights law. It doesn't care if you don't like it.



tomatopaste said:


> You create stupid laws, i.e. the ADA, then have to create 20 new laws to deal with the people abusing the initial stupid law. Hey America, Stop being stupid.


Just hope you're never disabled.



tomatopaste said:


> That's why I think the entire ADA is fraudulent. It's done more harm than good. What purpose does a blind person have to bring a seeing eye dog into a Costco?
> 
> Blind person: Fido, is this a Vlasick jar of pickles or the Kirkland brand?
> Fido: Bark bark, vrrrrasick.


So they can walk around and not run into things? You do realize that not all blind people are completely blind?



tomatopaste said:


> Wouldn't make any difference even if I were qualified. They don't have to prove jack. That's why I say this is nothing short of institutionalized fraud.
> 
> Why? For what purpose would anyone need access to a service dog while on a flight? The two year old girl that's deathly afraid of big dogs just has to suck it up and stop being a little B.
> 
> But I know, I know, I'm not allowed to ask any questions. Valid or otherwise. I just have to accept it as truth, like global warming, or I'm a bad person.


I need my Service Dog because I get migraines that can put me in shock. They can and have killed me. I had to be revived twice.
Since I've gotten my Service Dog I've had no issues and I've been able to do things again. If I didn't have my Service Dog any flight I went on would likely have to make an emergency landing so I don't die.
I have medical documentation to prove this including video from inside a hospital where my Service Dog alerts and shortly afterwards I got a migraine and went into shock.
Normally I take meds to reduce the pain caused by the migraine so I don't need a hospital.



UberUber81 said:


> Oh really? I've been doing this a while. Please let them deactivate me and I'll come so hard with Attorneys. The burden of proof is on them I'm denying people with animals. It will just be another no show and another cancel fee for dumb pax that isn't outside. And when we go to court, I'd love to hear the passenger visable description of my self, my voice, and my vehicle. Oh wait, imagine that, won't be able to answer these questions...
> 
> I've already had my friends request me and leave 5 star comments about how nice I was for allowing their pet to come on ride. If I get deactivated I'm ready for my lotto ticket. Lol get bent.


The burden of proof would be on you. Your comments in this thread are more than enough to end your case before it begins.


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

ServiceDogHandler said:


> Ah yes we are asking to be superior to be treated equally...
> 
> It's a federal civil rights law. It doesn't care if you don't like it.
> 
> ...


I keep my UP post anonymous from my driver account. Don't come on here trying to scare drivers. If I got deactivated, the burden of proof would be on the company when I start to sue them in a court of law, not only to get my account reactivated but also for my lost wages that I routinely earn, and any pain and suffering my attorney could dollop on.

God forbid terrible passengers figure out how to complain about service animals cancellation just because they are mad they got a no show fee for no being ready to go.

Yes, if I take it to court, they will have to prove the client's allegations are true, to which it will come up so short. It will be apparent that they never met me, seen my actual car. So how could they just assume I cancelled because of a service animal? What proof would they have? Absolutely nothing. It would be pure conjecture, and my behaviour would be lost on a sea of no -show cancellations, and all I have to do is play dumb.

Now if the driver talks to the client over the phone, or in person, or via text, declining to transport service animal. Then RIP stupid driver.

All the drivers have to do is be aware of their surroundings and not get ambushed by dumb passengers trying to ride with their pet when it's unwanted.

And if the drivers heed my advice, they will be in line for their lotto ticket when they approach their attorneys to sue Uber for false allegations.

A perfect solution to this dumb problem. This is rideshare, I am not beholden to cater to your whims under the guise of a "service animal". I can choose what rides I take and why.

By all means, let the foreign guy using a fake/duplicate account pick up the dogs in their crappy 2007 Toyota Corolla with 300,000 miles on it that already smells like animal faeces.

I'll be sure to update this thread when I dunk on another abuser, just to show you how much it doesn't matter. Quit spreading propaganda to scare drivers.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

UberUber81 said:


> the burden of proof would be on the company when I start to sue them in a court of law, not only to get my account reactivated but also for my lost wages that I routinely earn, and any pain and suffering my attorney could dollop on.
> 
> God forbid terrible passengers figure out how to complain about service animals cancellation just because they are mad they got a no show fee for no being ready to go.
> 
> Yes, if I take it to court, they will have to prove the client's allegations are true, to which it will come up so short. It will be apparent that they never met me, seen my actual car. So how could they just assume I cancelled because of a service animal? What proof would they have? Absolutely nothing. It would be pure conjecture, and my behavior would be lost on a sea of no -show cancellations, and all I have to do is play dumb.


So clearly you know nothing about the law. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the plaintiff (the person bringing the case). Thus, you if you sue them.

You clearly seem to be under the illusion that you are an employee. I hate to break it to you, but you're an independent contractor, the key word there being contract. In said contract there is a clause that you will obey all laws and failure to do so will result in deactivation. This is Uber's reasoning for severing the contract. This is "Merica", anyone can sue anyone else for anything here. However, the burden of proof still remains on the plaintiff, so if you sue them for breach of contract, claiming that you didn't break a law, the burden of proof of that is still on you, not them.

Another important aspect of civil law is that the evidence requirements are different than criminal law. Most people are used to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" requirement, however civil cases work on a "preponderance of the evidence" clause. The main difference between these is that "beyond a reasonable doubt" means you have to be pretty darn sure (as in, there isn't any other likely explanation) and "preponderance of the evidence" means it's more likely than not (ie, it's like a 51% to a 49% split).

So, even though the burden of proof would be on you, not them, let's see what they have... They have your GPS location coming in visual range of the pax, thus they can say that it's likely that you saw them (and their service dog). They have that you have been warned about this before (your first temp deactivation). Which is likely why they only first time deactivate if there is actual proof the first time, they make it seem like they are giving you the benefit of the doubt, but it's Uber we're talking about, covering their ass is a more likely reason (see? "preponderance" of that evidence lol). They have pax's complaint (where they likely said something like you looked right at them, as they were also looking for you and knew your car and photo from the app, true or not, they'll have a statement from the pax about it). And it's even possible they may have some evidence from the pax. I walk around with a body cam, and if I were a pax, I could probably actually show you stopping then leaving when you got close enough to see my service dog.

Even assuming they don't have any direct evidence (like a video from a pax) and knowing the burden of proof isn't on them, the preponderance of the evidence they would have (ie, their defense) would make it far more likely that you were violating ADA and thus your contract than not. So even if the burden of proof was on them, they still win. Again, I'd wish you luck with that, but.. well.. I don't. Driver's like you give the rest of us a bad name, and frankly, there are too many ants out there anyway, and I'd be happy to see you go if you actually discriminate against real service dogs. If it's just the fakes you are trying to get rid of (and that I'd actually support you on that), as everyone else has said, ask the 2 questions. That's the fastest, and easiest way to eliminate the fakes, not discriminate against real service dogs, and cover your rear with Uber all at the same time.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

ServiceDogHandler said:


> Ah yes we are asking to be superior to be treated equally...


No, you are being hypocritical. Why doesn't someone in an electric wheelchair get to be treated equally?



ServiceDogHandler said:


> It's a federal civil rights law. It doesn't care if you don't like it.


It's a stupid civil rights law that doesn't care if it does more harm than good. The workforce participation rate for the disabled actually has gone down since the ADA was enacted. But I'm not supposed to point that out. I pointed it out anyway.



ServiceDogHandler said:


> Just hope you're never disabled.


That's not really an argument on whether the ADA is a good law or not.



ServiceDogHandler said:


> So they can walk around and not run into things? You do realize that not all blind people are completely blind?


So the goal is to walk around and not bump into things?


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> No, you are being hypocritical. Why doesn't someone in an electric wheelchair get to be treated equally?


They do, in fact, this is where being an independent contractor saves your bacon in that situation. The ADA requires that businesses of "public accommodation" (ie, you) provide ADA approved modifications (this is why cab companies are required by law to have vans with WC lifts). However, it provides an exemption for very small businesses (ie, you, as you're an independent contractor lol).

Why do people who understand the American legal system so little always feel so compelled to comment on it? It would be like me saying that those stupid scientists are conducting their experiments wrong because they should be using (insert some made up ridiculous standard that would never actually work in the real world here) standards instead (I don't even know enough to make something good up lol). Know the law before trying to "fix" the law lol.

BTW tomato, did you ever see those Emotional Support Animal videos I left for you on page 8? I figured you'd be all over that (even I think that's ridiculous).


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

ServiceDogHandler said:


> I need my Service Dog because I get migraines that can put me in shock. They can and have killed me. I had to be revived twice.
> Since I've gotten my Service Dog I've had no issues and I've been able to do things again. If I didn't have my Service Dog any flight I went on would likely have to make an emergency landing so I don't die.
> I have medical documentation to prove this including video from inside a hospital where my Service Dog alerts and shortly afterwards I got a migraine and went into shock.
> Normally I take meds to reduce the pain caused by the migraine so I don't need a hospital.


BS. If your condition is so severe then you shouldn't fly. If you're going to have a migraine, you're going to have a migraine whether the dog is there or not. Please explain how the dog is going to keep you from dying?


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> BS. If your condition is so severe then you shouldn't fly. If you're going to have a migraine, you're going to have a migraine whether the dog is there or not. Please explain how the dog is going to keep you from dying?


While I can claim no knowledge of SDH's specific condition, I believe his/her answer is in the quote you gave. Dog alerts, meds are taken, hospital is avoided (I admit this isn't the order he/she put it in, but a little deductive reasoning reorders it, if I'm incorrect SDH, please feel free to correct me). The video in question (I have not seen it) seems to have happened while he/she was already at the hospital (and may not have had immediate access to their meds).

*points up to Tomato at my question about the ESA videos*


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> They do, in fact, this is where being an independent contractor saves your bacon in that situation. The ADA requires that businesses of "public accommodation" (ie, you) provide ADA approved modifications (this is why cab companies are required by law to have vans with WC lifts). However, it provides an exemption for very small businesses (ie, you, as you're an independent contractor lol).
> 
> Why do people who understand the American legal system so little always feel so compelled to comment on it? It would be like me saying that those stupid scientists are conducting their experiments wrong because they should be using (insert some made up ridiculous standard that would never actually work in the real world here) standards instead (I don't even know enough to make something good up lol). Know the law before trying to "fix" the law lol.
> 
> BTW tomato, did you ever see those Emotional Support Animal videos I left for you on page 8? I figured you'd be all over that (even I think that's ridiculous).


_"The ADA requires that businesses of "public accommodation"_
In other words the ADA in their infinite wisdom is able to tell private businesses what do do. Because they're good people. And whatever they say to do is the right thing to do.

But I thought the goal was to make everyone equal. Why are some people allowed to be less equal than others? And who gets to make these calls? Answer: the all knowing all seeing ADA infinite wisdom people.

Most people are cowed by the ADA thugs and know if they say anything negative about it they are automatically label as disabled deniers and horrible people. This homie don't play dat game.

Yes those I saw the emotional support animal videos. But they are only slightly more fraudulent than a real blind person bringing a real service dog into the passenger cabin. Neither have any need whatsoever to bring a dog into the passenger cabin.


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

I guarantee you I would get reactivated with pay.

Uber has to weigh the cost of defense and what they really have.

1) GPS data showing me driving around the area to pickup. GPS data isn't 100% accurate, it's approximate. It will show that I made an attempt to call the pax (disconnected), drove around in the area, etc. 
2) I'm 100% sure when I no show cancel a bimbo trying to transport a Yorkie "service animal", they will receive no help from the passenger when they reach out to them because, guess why? ITS NOT A SERVICE ANIMAL LOL.
3) They will have to hire attorney's to defend when I bring suit. That can cost a lot of money, just to lose their case for deactivation. Once again they have to prove I'm in breach of contract when I bring the case to them.

It will be a business decision. What is cheaper? reactivate with pay, or defend a loose allegation with no real evidence and most likely no cooperation from the customer?

I've already successfully gotten reactivated, from an actual false complaint from a passenger. I hired an attorney and presented my argument in writing with my demands. I was reactivated so quick with pay with +earnings and my attorney's fees in the promotion breakdown for that week. What a joke. Go to some other forums and try and scare people.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> While I can claim no knowledge of SDH's specific condition, I believe his/her answer is in the quote you gave. Dog alerts, meds are taken, hospital is avoided (I admit this isn't the order he/she put it in, but a little deductive reasoning reorders it, if I'm incorrect SDH, please feel free to correct me). The video in question (I have not seen it) seems to have happened while he/she was already at the hospital (and may not have had immediate access to their meds).
> 
> *points up to Tomato at my question about the ESA videos*


Well what about the person with pet allergies sitting next the dog and goes in anaphylactic shock, what about them? Answer: who cares, they're not an approved disability group and bring no political clout. Eff them.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

UberUber81 said:


> I guarantee you I would get reactivated with pay.
> 
> Uber has to weigh the cost of defense and what they really have.


You're forgetting the $55,000 DOJ fine if pax brings ADA complaint. IF it's a false accusation (ie, not a real service animal), then that won't happen, but if it is a real service animal, it can (and probably will). Trust me, tossing you is cheaper. Since you won't just ask the questions, you won't know if it's fake or not. Furthermore, they've already made that decision, at least 2 drivers that I know of (probably more) have already been tossed under the service dog policy. And just look at this forum, everyone always says they are going to sue Uber and get reactivated, then we never hear from them again. Either they sued, won a multi million dollar settlement and retired (and I think we would have heard about that in the news, especially involving service animals), or they lost and had to get a real job. What is the preponderance of that evidence?

Ask the questions, bounce the fakes. I'm totally with you about not transporting the fakes, no one likes them. But by simply avoiding them all together, you're going to also discriminate against real service dogs, and then you're the one who is gonna get bounced.



tomatopaste said:


> _"_Answer: the all knowing all seeing ADA infinite wisdom people.


Who do you think the "ADA people" are? Congress passed the ADA, and while I think most of us would agree Congress is a bit on the ignorant side, I don't think anyone would realistically say they are all pro disabilities and anti everyone else.



tomatopaste said:


> Well what about the person with pet allergies sitting next the dog and goes in anaphylactic shock, what about them? Answer: who cares, they're not an approved disability group and bring no political clout. Eff them.


Actually anyone that allergic to dog dander (which is incredibly rare, as in, more likely to be struck by lighting than encounter that person rare), would also be considered to have risen to the level of disabled (and thus subject to the ADA's protection), and would have the same reaction to the dog danger on the jacket of the guy who left his dog at the kennel. They would be well aware of their condition and would carry an EpiPen, and being disabled, would advise the airline and ensure they were not seated anywhere near not only a service dog, but also anyone who even owned or lived with a dog (as their dander would still be on their clothing most likely).

I'm sure it would be a very convoluted and invasive undertaking with them asking other passengers if they owned or lived with a dog. You'd probably love it. I'll never see it as either I'll be struck by lightning first, or I'll be the first person they eliminate as a possibility for sitting near to that guy/gal.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> You're forgetting the $55,000 DOJ fine if pax brings ADA complaint. IF it's a false accusation (ie, not a real service animal), then that won't happen, but if it is a real service animal, it can (and probably will). Trust me, tossing you is cheaper. Since you won't just ask the questions, you won't know if it's fake or not. Furthermore, they've already made that decision, at least 2 drivers that I know of (probably more) have already been tossed under the service dog policy. And just look at this forum, everyone always says they are going to sue Uber and get reactivated, then we never hear from them again. Either they sued, won a multi million dollar settlement and retired (and I think we would have heard about that in the news, especially involving service animals), or they lost and had to get a real job. What is the preponderance of that evidence?
> 
> Ask the questions, bounce the fakes. I'm totally with you about not transporting the fakes, no one likes them. But by simply avoiding them all together, you're going to also discriminate against real service dogs, and then you're the one who is gonna get bounced.
> 
> ...


So why can't the migraine sufferer take the same preemptive steps as the allergy sufferer? What are the odds a migraine sufferer's dog is going to keep them from dying by being in the passenger cabin. I've done the math. 1 in 5 trillion.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> So why can't the migraine sufferer take the same preemptive steps as the allergy sufferer? What are the odds a migraine sufferer's dog is going to keep them from dying by being in the passenger cabin. I've done the math. 1 in 5 trillion.


Not knowing his/her condition I couldn't even begin to speculate on that lol, but I think the reason he/she would take the dog is because it will alert him/her when they need to take their meds to avoid the incident (as opposed to having a medical episode aboard an aircraft and ruining everyone's trip by having to make an emergency landing elsewhere).

There are some meds that are taken only at the start (or just before) an episode (like epinephrine for those who are alergic to things, they don't take a regular dose of epinephrine, they take it only when exposed to something that they are going to have a reaction to). If it's possible for them to know ahead of time that they are going to be exposed, they can actually take it just before the exposure and prevent most of the reaction. That's probably what SDH's dog does for them, pre-alerts so they can take the meds.

Again, you're making generalized assumptions about things you don't even begin to understand. I'm very happy for you that you don't have any disabilities and don't have to think about this kind of stuff, but that's also what makes you unqualified to say what someone does or does not need. I do have disabilities and even I'm unqualified to say if SDH needs their dog or not (as I don't have his/her disability).


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> Not knowing his/her condition I couldn't even begin to speculate on that lol, but I think the reason he/she would take the dog is because it will alert him/her when they need to take their meds to avoid the incident (as opposed to having a medical episode aboard an aircraft and ruining everyone's trip by having to make an emergency landing elsewhere).
> 
> There are some meds that are taken only at the start (or just before) an episode (like epinephrine for those who are alergic to things, they don't take a regular dose of epinephrine, they take it only when exposed to something that they are going to have a reaction to). If it's possible for them to know ahead of time that they are going to be exposed, they can actually take it just before the exposure and prevent most of the reaction. That's probably what SDH's dog does for them, pre-alerts so they can take the meds.
> 
> Again, you're making generalized assumptions about things you don't even begin to understand. I'm very happy for you that you don't have any disabilities and don't have to think about this kind of stuff, but that's also what makes you unqualified to say what someone does or does not need. I do have disabilities and even I'm unqualified to say if SDH needs their dog or not (as I don't have his/her disability).


I'm calling BS on all these magical dog powers. My sister suffers from migraines and it's not like having a heart attack. You don't immediately become incapacitated. So he/she is living in his/her own body but has no idea a migraine is coming on, but the dog in the corner licking himself magically detects it 5 minutes beforehand. I'm calling BS.

I'm guessing SDH is on this forum because he/she drives for Uber. So either SDH has the dog with her on every trip subjecting every 6.6 passenger with pet allergies to an allergic reaction or the dog is just a ruse. I'm told if my pet allergies are that bad I shouldn't drive for Uber. This of course doesn't apply to someone with an approved disability. BTW, I don't consider myself to have a disability.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

So your theory is that he/she (or I for that matter) just bring our dog along as a ruse because... what? we like making our lives more complicated than they need to be? I mean stop and think it though. Yeah, I get that the fakes who take a dog with them once in a blue moon because they want to have a purse accessory are jerks, no doubt. But can you imagine having to take a dog, literally everywhere, with you? True service dog handlers have their dog with them 24/7 (or pretty darn close, dogs do get sick once in a while or something). Imagine what a complication on life that is, and then remember that they do this because it's better than not doing it (or they would not do it). So your theory is we just like to make our lives complicated and that it's all a ruse? You sound like one of those crazy "sovereign citizen" loons when you say things like that.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

tomatopaste said:


> I'm calling BS on all these magical dog powers. My sister suffers from migraines and it's not like having a heart attack. You don't immediately become incapacitated. So he/she is living in his/her own body but has no idea a migraine is coming on, but the dog in the corner licking himself magically detects it 5 minutes beforehand. I'm calling BS.
> 
> I'm guessing SDH is on this forum because he/she drives for Uber. So either SDH has the dog with her on every trip subjecting every 6.6 passenger with pet allergies to an allergic reaction or the dog is just a ruse. I'm told if my pet allergies are that bad I shouldn't drive for Uber. This of course doesn't apply to someone with an approved disability. BTW, I don't consider myself to have a disability.


Disabilities and their affects are on a broad spectrum. Just because your sister has mild migraines doesn't means others can't have migraines that can cause their body to go into shock. Can't believe this topic is still going on.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> So your theory is that he/she (or I for that matter) just bring our dog along as a ruse because... what? we like making our lives more complicated than they need to be? I mean stop and think it though. Yeah, I get that the fakes who take a dog with them once in a blue moon because they want to have a purse accessory are jerks, no doubt. But can you imagine having to take a dog, literally everywhere, with you? True service dog handlers have their dog with them 24/7 (or pretty darn close, dogs do get sick once in a while or something). Imagine what a complication on life that is, and then remember that they do this because it's better than not doing it (or they would not do it). So your theory is we just like to make our lives complicated and that it's all a ruse? You sound like one of those crazy "sovereign citizen" loons when you say things like that.


I'm still waiting for a reason anyone would need to take a dog into the passenger compartment. Obviously a blind person doesn't need a dog in the passenger compartment. So we've made up other fake reasons, like diabetes. Which the previous post of the MD with diabetes says is a hoax. If diabetes dogs are a hoax, so are migraine dogs and seizure dogs. It's easy enough to do studies to prove they're not a hoax but we're not allowed to make them prove anything. We just have to accept it.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

*imagines Tomato screaming on the plane "I do not consent!"*


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

steveK2016 said:


> Disabilities and their affects are on a broad spectrum. Just because your sister has mild migraines doesn't means others can't have migraines that can cause their body to go into shock. Can't believe this topic is still going on.


So are pet allergies. Why do allergy sufferers have to just suck it up? Why does anyone with diabetes get to take a dog into the passenger cabin, no matter how severe? Because it's about politics, not the disabled.

We can go back to more important topics, like the best places to pee, if that'd make you feel better.



Pawtism said:


> *imagines Tomato screaming on the plane "I do not consent!"*


You do admit you're not exactly unbiased on this topic, right. As a dog trainer it's in your interest to have as much demand for trained dogs as possible.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> You do admit you're not exactly unbiased on this topic, right. As a dog trainer it's in your interest to have as much demand for trained dogs as possible.


I'm a disabled handler, who trains his own dog (I don't train any for anyone else). As a user of a service dog, I'll admit I've got that bias (for service dog access) at least. I don't have a bias for others to get a dog though.

In fact, I would argue that for some people the stress of dealing with the realities of having a service dog would cause them more harm than good. But for others, a service dog could provide greater quality of life, it would be up to them and their specific condition as to if it's right for them or not.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> I'm a disabled handler, who trains his own dog (I don't train any for anyone else). As a user of a service dog, I'll admit I've got that bias (for service dog access) at least. I don't have a bias for others to get a dog though.
> 
> In fact, I would argue that for some people the stress of dealing with the realities of having a service dog would cause them more harm than good. But for others, a service dog could provide greater quality of life, it would be up to them and their specific condition as to if it's right for them or not.


I'm sure that's true. The part that I don't agree with is mandating compassion at the end of a gun. Trying to make everyone equal is not possible, it does more harm than good. By evidence of the do-gooder ADA forced compassion law. More people with disabilities are unemployed than before the ADA. Well how can that be you ask? We've spent 100's of billion's on walkways and elevators and ramps and 'you name it.' Because businesses can't afford to take the chance. They want to stay as far away from the ADA's lawyers as they can get.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> They want to stay as far away from the ADA's lawyers as they can get.


That's probably true, and so you can too, just ask the 2 questions then you can both not have to take the fakes, and also avoid the ADA lawyers.

Or, just keep taking the fakes too I guess lol, up to you. I'll ask the 2 questions though.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

tomatopaste said:


> I'm sure that's true. The part that I don't agree with is mandating compassion at the end of a gun. Trying to make everyone equal is not possible, it does more harm than good. By evidence of the do-gooder ADA forced compassion law. More people with disabilities are unemployed than before the ADA. Well how can that be you ask? We've spent 100's of billion's on walkways and elevators and ramps and 'you name it.' Because businesses can't afford to take the chance. They want to stay as far away from the ADA's lawyers as they can get.


Nothing in ADA demands that everyone be treated equally. ADA simply mandates that when reasonable, accommodations are given.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

tomatopaste said:


> I'm sure that's true. The part that I don't agree with is mandating compassion at the end of a gun. Trying to make everyone equal is not possible, it does more harm than good. By evidence of the do-gooder ADA forced compassion law. More people with disabilities are unemployed than before the ADA. Well how can that be you ask? We've spent 100's of billion's on walkways and elevators and ramps and 'you name it.' Because businesses can't afford to take the chance. They want to stay as far away from the ADA's lawyers as they can get.


You are the prime example as to why the ADA law was required.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Pawtism said:


> So your theory is that he/she (or I for that matter) just bring our dog along as a ruse because... what? we like making our lives more complicated than they need to be? I mean stop and think it though. Yeah, I get that the fakes who take a dog with them once in a blue moon because they want to have a purse accessory are jerks, no doubt. But can you imagine having to take a dog, literally everywhere, with you? True service dog handlers have their dog with them 24/7 (or pretty darn close, dogs do get sick once in a while or something). Imagine what a complication on life that is, and then remember that they do this because it's better than not doing it (or they would not do it). So your theory is we just like to make our lives complicated and that it's all a ruse? You sound like one of those crazy "sovereign citizen" loons when you say things like that.


You are far too patient an individual. I'm absolutely awestruck.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

steveK2016 said:


> You are the prime example as to why the ADA law was required.


You are the prime example of the wussification of America



Demon said:


> Nothing in ADA demands that everyone be treated equally. ADA simply mandates that when reasonable, accommodations are given.


Reasonable my ass.

"ADA lawsuits follow a fairly standard formula. For example, if a sign is slightly askew, a door handle misaligned by 3/8th of an inch, or a disabled parking sign doesn't properly note the exact amount of a potential parking violation, and a plaintiff's attorney brings suit, the business pays an average of $16,000 cash. The reason why this is a forced, extorted settlement, is because the cost of fighting the allegation is typically four to five times the average $75,000 in annual income generated by the business. And the trial lawyers know this."​The ADA is tantamount to the mafia.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> The ADA is tantamount to the mafia.


ADA Lawyer...


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> That's probably true, and so you can too, just ask the 2 questions then you can both not have to take the fakes, and also avoid the ADA lawyers.
> 
> Or, just keep taking the fakes too I guess lol, up to you. I'll ask the 2 questions though.


Uber isn't that important to me. I'm bringing a baseball with me and tossing it at each service dog pax. If they let it hit them in the chest, they ride. If they reach for it, they walk. I'm taking my two strikes and I'm out.



Pawtism said:


> ADA Lawyer...


The dog is cute. Not so cute when you have 5 kids and the ADA mafia shuts down your business simply because they can.


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

tomatopaste - just relax, trust me I've danced the Uber dance. They don't want to spend any more money than they have to. So if you threaten legal they will reactivate. Just drive around the pin area, text customer stuff like "I'm here and I don't see you outside." ; "Sorry I waiting 5+ minutes for you to come out, please order a ride when you are ready." then cancel no show.

You might initially get deactivated but read my previous posts, they will reactivate you because you have set yourself up in a fashion as to create great doubt regarding the passenger's complaint. It's just not worth it for Uber to hire attorneys (spend money) to defend some loose accusations. If it's a fake service animal, you can almost guarantee that the customer isn't going to respond to Uber's request for help to defend a case brought against them. And attorney's currently, they hear "Uber wronged me", they are going to be more than happy to assist you lol $$$$$. 

Also, Uber gets to tell their passenger they "deactivated that driver". Which is true, that doesn't mean they have to tell the passenger they reactivated you two days later after you threatened legal.

I would have friends request you and leave 5 star comments that say "Thanks for taking me and my dog to the vet, your awesome." It's money well spent. It will create a comment trail your attorney can use to create more doubt that the complaint was probably just a butt hurt pax about a cancellation fee.

It's sad we have to do this to protect our accounts, but if Uber and terrible passengers can work an angle, so can we.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

UberUber81 said:


> tomatopaste - just relax, trust me I've danced the Uber dance. They don't want to spend any more money than they have to. So if you threaten legal they will reactivate. Just drive around the pin area, text customer stuff like "I'm here and I don't see you outside." ; "Sorry I waiting 5+ minutes for you to come out, please order a ride when you are ready." then cancel no show.
> 
> You might initially get deactivated but read my previous posts, they will reactivate you because you have set yourself up in a fashion as to create great doubt regarding the passenger's complaint. It's just not worth it for Uber to hire attorneys (spend money) to defend some loose accusations. If it's a fake service animal, you can almost guarantee that the customer isn't going to respond to Uber's request for help to defend a case brought against them. And attorney's currently, they hear "Uber wronged me", they are going to be more than happy to assist you lol $$$$$.
> 
> ...


You'd be laughed out of court.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

UberUber81 said:


> tomatopaste - just relax, trust me I've danced the Uber dance. They don't want to spend any more money than they have to. So if you threaten legal they will reactivate. Just drive around the pin area, text customer stuff like "I'm here and I don't see you outside." ; "Sorry I waiting 5+ minutes for you to come out, please order a ride when you are ready." then cancel no show.
> 
> You might initially get deactivated but read my previous posts, they will reactivate you because you have set yourself up in a fashion as to create great doubt regarding the passenger's complaint. It's just not worth it for Uber to hire attorneys (spend money) to defend some loose accusations. If it's a fake service animal, you can almost guarantee that the customer isn't going to respond to Uber's request for help to defend a case brought against them. And attorney's currently, they hear "Uber wronged me", they are going to be more than happy to assist you lol $$$$$.
> 
> ...


If its between hiring a lawyer to deactivate you versus hiring a lawyer to defending against an ada suit, they'll gladly pay to fight you. Guarantee they already have lawyers in most jurisdictions on standard retainer

Youve gotten away with it so far because you haven't had a real service dog complaint yet. When that happens, you'll regret your decision if you value earning any amount from Uber.


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

I've gotten away with it because I'm smart and I don't create an atmosphere indicative of someone turning a "service animal" down.

I highly doubt I would be apart of the ADA suit. They will look at each driver information individually in order to build a case against Uber. My data will reflect someone not being ready/couldn't find them, previous comments supporting animals in the vehicle. If there were a list of drivers that cancelled on the "service animal" person, I would be the one that gets scratched off the list because of conflicting data that doesn't support that narrative.

My activation would be a separate case that I would bring against them.

Hell I'd take on the whatever they throw at me. They have to prove intent from the driver and they will fail miserably with the data they would have in hand.

Please stop trying to scare drivers, it's annoying.

They are going to go after the guy that shows up right in front of the house and turns someone down verbally, or in the text message. It's not just going to be for some random no-show/confused driver.



Demon said:


> You'd be laughed out of court.


I highly doubt that. I feel that all the supporting data I have and my attorney, it would boil down to why the individual felt I cancelled on them.

Did you speak with him? No
Did you see him arrive and drive away? No
What was the context of his texts to you? He seemed confused about my location couldn't find me.
What makes you think he turned you down because of a service animal? ???
Did he indicate that transporting your service animal was a problem? No
I see that he has taken animals before from many other people given the comments on his account.

As a regular person just trying to get by in the world, I would be more than happy to bring suit against false allegations about me regarding my account. I would be happy to sue Uber, the ADA, and anyone else attempting to keep me from gaining income to support my family.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

UberUber81 said:


> I've gotten away with it because I'm smart and I don't create an atmosphere indicative of someone turning a "service animal" down.
> 
> I highly doubt I would be apart of the ADA suit. They will look at each driver information individually in order to build a case against Uber. My data will reflect someone not being ready/couldn't find them, previous comments supporting animals in the vehicle. If there were a list of drivers that cancelled on the "service animal" person, I would be the one that gets scratched off the list because of conflicting data that doesn't support that narrative.
> 
> ...


You have no idea what the pax will say on the stand. You are aware you'll also need to take the stand.

Did you speak with him? We communicated via text and the driver let me know he was on his way. 
Did you see him arrive and drive away? The app indicated that the driver drove right by me without stopping.
What was the context of his texts to you? He told me he was going to pick me up
What makes you think he turned you down because of a service animal? Because the app shows he drove by me, and saw my service animal and decided because I had a service animal he would keep on driving.
Did he indicate that transporting your service animal was a problem? He kept on driving once he realized I had a service animal.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Also a lot of service dog handlers tend to have cams going (body cams or their phones, just in case), because the discrimination with cabs and Uber's had gotten so bad. People like UberUber81 are why we still have to sadly.


----------



## ServiceDogHandler (Sep 3, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> BS. If your condition is so severe then you shouldn't fly. If you're going to have a migraine, you're going to have a migraine whether the dog is there or not. Please explain how the dog is going to keep you from dying?


I can take a medication that reduces the severity of the migraine. If I were to take that daily it would cause a rebound migraine that would make things much worse. I take it when he alerts so it can take effect before the migraine starts.


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

I'm not sure if you are a driver. We make so little money per ride it's ridiculous, one screw up from an animal and I'm out of work the rest of the day. I have to drop what I'm doing, get my car clean again, notify Uber of the damage that's occurred (more time), and they only pay for clean up and not lost wages and time I've incurred from dealing the ordeal.

Hire a cab, describe to them you have a service animal, and pay for a service befitting the risk. 

Whos going to pay my bills when I'm down and out because of what a service animal did to my vehicle? Why do I have to explain to my children they can't see me because someone's "service animal" took a dump, piss, or threw up in my vehicle and now I have to work later to recoup my time to make my bills.

But I should feel good about not seeing my children and the lingering odor of animal feces in my vehicle, I've done a great service to help someone....I'll pass. 

Also, complain to Uber all you want, get a driver deactivated. I mean it's not like they don't have the passenger's address and I'm sure becoming unemployed because of your complaint wouldn't have ANY negative side effects whatsoever. I swear the lapse in critical thinking is amazing. 

It's all about you, don't even consider what effect your behavior could have on someone else. My life is just as important as yours and I shouldn't have to lose out because someone doesn't want to make reasonable accommodations for their lifestyle.

So thank you for that, thanks, really appreciate it. Just another reminder of how little people think of us and our lives.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

You think the one real service dog you get every 1000 rides or so is going to pick that specific ride to be sick enough to break years of training and have an accident in your car? You must have the worst luck ever. 

As for keeping car clean, try having a service dog EVERY trip then talk to me about how often you have to worry about cleaning (still no accidents in the car though, admittedly it's only been just over 400 trips so far in just under 6 months and I know some of you probably do that in a month). I have to vacuum constantly, but that's just part of the way it works.

The critical thinking comment is especially humorous coming from someone whose logic is "just discriminate against the disabled by driving around and pretending not to see them, uber won't figure out that it was because of the service dog because I've commit fraud ahead of time in the futile attempt to trick them (as if they care)". 

As I said, you go on with your bad self, it's not like you'll be missed when you get deactivated.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> You think the one real service dog you get every 1000 rides or so is going to pick that specific ride to be sick enough to break years of training and have an accident in your car? You must have the worst luck ever.
> 
> As for keeping car clean, try having a service dog EVERY trip then talk to me about how often you have to worry about cleaning (still no accidents in the car though, admittedly it's only been just over 400 trips so far in just under 6 months and I know some of you probably do that in a month). I have to vacuum constantly, but that's just part of the way it works.
> 
> ...


I'm glad you're able to drive for Uber, but I do find it a bit odd that I'm told if my pet allergies are bad enough then I should not drive for Uber. However you subject every 6.6 passenger to an allergic reaction.

How do your passengers react when you show up with a dog in the car? I'm sure pax with pet allergies are not pleased, whether they show it or not. Are you able to maintain a good rating? What do you do when you show up and there are 4 pax? I applaud your work ethic cause it has to be twice as hard for you than for the avg Uber driver. And it's barely worth it for the average Uber driver. What's it like on your end?


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

Pawtism said:


> You think the one real service dog you get every 1000 rides or so is going to pick that specific ride to be sick enough to break years of training and have an accident in your car? You must have the worst luck ever.
> 
> As for keeping car clean, try having a service dog EVERY trip then talk to me about how often you have to worry about cleaning (still no accidents in the car though, admittedly it's only been just over 400 trips so far in just under 6 months and I know some of you probably do that in a month). I have to vacuum constantly, but that's just part of the way it works.
> 
> ...


I will get deactivated, then reactivated because the complaint will be wild speculation, and I will get reactivated with pay just like last time.
tomato paste you can also just change the passenger rating to 1 star after a couple days to ensure you don't even get a ping from them again.

I don't care if someone is disabled, I care about a live animal being in my car that is a ticking time bomb of piss, crap, and vomit.

I hope you get cancelled into oblivion, and if you get a driver deactivated I hope and pray nothing bad happens to you as a result. 
If you got me deactivated my attorney would sue the living piss out of you for slander and defamation.

Stop trying to scare drivers. Stop being cheap and use a service that is setup to handle a ride like that.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> I'm glad you're able to drive for Uber, but I do find it a bit odd that I'm told if my pet allergies are bad enough then I should not drive for Uber. However you subject every 6.6 passenger to an allergic reaction.
> 
> How do your passengers react when you show up with a dog in the car? I'm sure pax with pet allergies are not pleased, whether they show it or not. Are you able to maintain a good rating? What do you do when you show up and there are 4 pax? I applaud your work ethic cause it has to be twice as hard for you than for the avg Uber driver. And it's barely worth it for the average Uber driver. What's it like on your end?


Overall the reaction is very positive. There really aren't that many people who are allergic to dogs. Out of just over 400 rides, I've had 3 people not want to go (2 of them stated allergies but were nice about it, 1 didn't say why specifically but did mention the dog and was fairly rude, so I assume that's why). I respected their choice and canceled - do not charge for them (and even logged out so they could find another).

One other lady specifically stated that she didn't think "people like you should be out in public" (I presume she meant people with service dogs, or the disabled), but didn't want me to cancel the ride for her (and in hindsight, maybe she was just trying to see if she could get me to say something rude to file a complaint about me or something). I just chalked that one up to her being a hateful discriminatory shrew.  I have gotten a ton of people (I lost count long ago) who say positive things about her, and several have even tipped telling me to get her a treat. 

Since only 15% of the population is allergic to dogs, and those allergies vary in intensity with most being minor (I'm actually allergic to dogs, although minor as well, and I get regular allergy shots) it's just not a problem that comes up often. I suppose, statistically, I'm actually behind the curve (and have probably now jinxed myself into getting several with allergies in a row lol), but thus far it hasn't come up often anyway.

My rating is good (not "uber", pardon the pun lol). I'm sitting at 4.91 atm. As for being worth it, it still is worth doing, but I really don't know how some of the people who do this as a full time gig make it (and I'm not downing anyone who does do it full time, clearly you still think it's worth it or you wouldn't do it, but I don't think I could make it work full time anyway). It's a decent "side hustle" (gah, I can't believe I actually used their slogan lol), most importantly to me that I can do it when I want and not when I don't.

I have a vacuum I carry with me, and just have to regularly (every trip or two) vacuum out, but then it comes in handy for all the random stuff pax bring in too. I've found all kinds of stuff in the back seat that shouldn't have gotten there. Ashes for example, and I don't even think that pax smokes (certainly wasn't when I picked them up or in my car), so how they tracked ashes in is beyond me.

In the end, I've gotten far more complaints about my sense of humor (I don't often get sarcasm, so I miss jokes a lot, or worse, I think someone is joking when they are serious or serious when they are joking) than I have my service dog.



UberUber81 said:


> I will get deactivated, then reactivated because the complaint will be wild speculation, and I will get reactivated with pay just like last time.
> tomato paste you can also just change the passenger rating to 1 star after a couple days to ensure you don't even get a ping from them again.
> 
> I don't care if someone is disabled, I care about a live animal being in my car that is a ticking time bomb of piss, crap, and vomit.
> ...


Sure you will, you and everyone else who claimed that and has never been heard from again. lol

I've never even been a pax in an uber or lyft, but I have in a cab and some of them are just as discriminatory as you are. If given the opportunity I would certainly get you deactivated for discrimination, as you would clearly deserve it.

I'm not trying to scare anyone, I'm just putting the correct info out there so someone who doesn't know any better doesn't follow your foolish advice and get deactivated. What about them and their not being able to provide for their children because they followed your idiocy? Are you going to take care of them? I thought not...


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

You will make a false complaint with wild speculation, which would lead you down into a slander/defamation lawsuit. 
You have no evidence to support your claim that you were turned down because of a service animal.
I'd love to take your income and assets for a ride. I'd also love to hear your own attorney advise you to withdraw the complaint because of lack of evidence, and settle with my attorney as soon as possible. Because honestly, what you FEEL isn't what happened. 
God I'd love to pound you in a court room. I pray there is a driver like me in your area that already consulted an attorney regarding this matter and got all his ducks in a row to go to battle.

I'm just waiting for my lotto ticket, and it will be at your and Uber's expense.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

As I said, I'd wish you luck with that.. but well.. I don't.. 

Discriminatory fools like you always think they will get around the law, and they always fail.. One less ant on the road.


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

People that think they can say or do anything they want without consequence usually find themselves in terrible extraordinary circumstances.
It's not around the law, it is the law. You make a complaint and get me deactivated on wild speculation. Be prepared to learn about quite a deal about slander and defamation of character lawsuits.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

You're the one saying to get around having to pick up service dogs one should just drive around and pretend not to be able to locate the pax. That's trying to get around the law. Now you're screaming slander and defamation lol. You're starting to sound like one of those "sovereign citizen" loons. 

Let me guess... You do not consent to the ADA and you refuse to enter joinder with the representatives for the corporation known as THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (all capital letters)?

What a loon.


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

Sorry, I'm not one of those loons. I'm just a highly intelligent individual that covers his bases. 

Actually tomato paste, just let most of the air out of your tire prior to your arrival. Pull up with a mostly flat tire. Apologize to the dumbshit with an animal that you just ran over something that popped the tire. Show it to them. Apologize that you have to cancel. Exchange pleasantries etc.

Turn application off, pull around the corner, pull out the portable inflator, fill up your tire, good to go.

There fixed.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

UberUber81 said:


> Sorry, I'm not one of those loons. I'm just a highly intelligent individual that covers his bases.
> 
> Actually tomato paste, just let most of the air out of your tire prior to your arrival. Pull up with a mostly flat tire. Apologize to the dumbshit with an animal that you just ran over something that popped the tire. Show it to them. Apologize that you have to cancel. Exchange pleasantries etc.
> 
> ...


Well, assuming they buy that (and even I might) at least you'll reduce the amount of deactivated time (and it won't count as one of your two strikes). So, not that I support trying to discriminate against the disabled (clearly I don't), I'll actually agree that if you're going to do it, this is a better method.

When the pax reports that you had a flat, they'll restrict your vehicle access in the app, but then after an hour or so you can claim you fixed it and get reactivated. So while simply not discriminating is certainly best, I'll at least agree this is a better method (if you're going to discriminate).

https://uberpeople.net/threads/pax-literally-report-everything.198124/

Now, all you have to do is go to every pickup with a flat tire, and hope the non-service dog pax don't mind you filling it, or hope the pax that you're close enough to see their service dog doesn't notice you get out of the car and let the air out lol. 

I'd suggest front left, as it could look like you were checking it as they made their way to your car. Seems like an awful lot of trouble (remember that precious time you were talking about) just to discriminate against a pax with an animal better trained than you are.

But I admit, I'd probably buy that one...


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

UberUber81 said:


> You will make a false complaint with wild speculation, which would lead you down into a slander/defamation lawsuit.
> You have no evidence to support your claim that you were turned down because of a service animal.
> I'd love to take your income and assets for a ride. I'd also love to hear your own attorney advise you to withdraw the complaint because of lack of evidence, and settle with my attorney as soon as possible. Because honestly, what you FEEL isn't what happened.
> God I'd love to pound you in a court room. I pray there is a driver like me in your area that already consulted an attorney regarding this matter and got all his ducks in a row to go to battle.
> ...


It clearly woullsnt be wild assumptions or defamation because youve clearly stated multiple times on this thread that you would see the animal and intentionally drive around for the no show, pretending to just not be able to find them.

You think youre brilliant, youre not. The only reason you were deactivated was because it wasn't a legit service dog. You do that to a real one, better believe youre ass is gone.


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

Yes, because you don't have any evidence to support your claim to a certainty. 

I'm really sorry you don't understand how the world works. If a Chinese restaurant moves into a vacant space in a strip mall and you live by that strip mall, you can't just claim their Kung Pow Chicken is made from cat, just because you don't see any more stray cats roaming your neighborhood.

That's speculation and spreading that as fact, making unfounded complaints can all result in a slander/defamation suit. 

Just because a driver couldn't find you, or was confused about where you were, does not mean he was dodging taking a service animal. The evidence doesn't support that. And when you go to court, you can sit there and speculate all you want, but they are going to ask some hard questions. 

Did the driver see you? "I don't know"
Did you see the driver? "No."
Describe the vehicle. "The application said it was a XYZ vehicle" 
Did you see the vehicle? "No"
Describe the driver. "I never met him"
Describe the communication you had with the driver? "He sent texts that he couldn't find me or see me outside"
Did you tell him you had a service animal? "No"

If you didn't see the driver or his vehicle, how do you know he cancelled the ride due to you having a service animal? "Uh, I'm just guessing because his car drove around according to the GPS data."

The GPS data shows he did drive by your house at least once. 
***** Since no one is outside and ready anymore before I pull up and scope a location out, I always drive by the location at least once*****
Could you explain how it is that he drove by, but you didn't see him? " I guess I wasn't outside yet."

So basically, you just made something up and filed a complaint that had an impact on my client...
YUP
AAAAAAAAAAAAAND, IM RICH. I'm going to hit you up personally, and Uber as well. 
Thanks guys!

Basically, you better have evidence before you complain, yes the driver will get deactivated, but for the smart ones, that won't be the end of it, you could find yourself getting registered mail and having to hire an attorney to defend against a slander/defamation suit.

That coupled with 5-star comments providing more evidence the driver has taken dogs before will seal your doom. The judge will acknowledge you are a disabled prick that was butt hurt about a cancel no-show fee, and filed a complaint based on speculation that ended my income. You will lose against me.

And if you send a text or call that you have a service animal, excellent. We will just divert to the flat tire scenario above.

tomato paste, I hope this helps you out on the road. I know it's hard out there, people expect a lot for nothing.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

You're going to be laughed out of court.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

UberUber81 said:


> Yes, because you don't have any evidence to support your claim to a certainty.
> 
> I'm really sorry you don't understand how the world works. If a Chinese restaurant moves into a vacant space in a strip mall and you live by that strip mall, you can't just claim their Kung Pow Chicken is made from cat, just because you don't see any more stray cats roaming your neighborhood.
> 
> ...


You assume that's what they would say, whether or not it's true. You clearly are willing to lie, you'd assume they wouldn't? The law will be on their side and you know it. Especially if you already have a report and deactivation (even if overturned) on your Uber account for discriminating against service animals.

Did the driver see you? "I saw his eyes lock onto me and my service animal"
Did you see the driver? "Yes"
Describe the vehicle. "it was a XYZ vehicle"
Did you see the vehicle? "Yes"
Describe the driver. "I never met him, he saw me and my service animal then just drove off"
Describe the communication you had with the driver? "He sent texts that he couldn't find me even though we locked eyes as he drove past and around me"
Did you tell him you had a service animal? "By law I'm not required to do so but he clearly saw my service animal as he was close enough for the app to notify me that he had arrived. Uber has provided their data that says that the notification will be sent when a driver is well within visual range of the pickup point. I saw his vehicle and I saw him look at me and my service animal He didn't bother to stop to find out otherwise"

"I was outside on the curb at my pin waiting for 5 minutes before the app indicated the driver had arrived."

Now how will you combat those answers?

It will be his word versus your word and I bet they'll have better lawyers than you can afford.


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

Easily if they lie. 

Follow up questions would lead them into a trap to which they wouldn't be able to answer. 

Such as a visual description of the driver, if you see such detail as locking eyes, then you would have to have the information on facial hair and the dyed color of hair. 
Also my interior dash cam would show me with sunglasses, so that would be hilarious.
The location and the placement of huge stickers on my car. 
Color of my shirt as shown in dashcam.
And many other variables they would not be able to answer correctly if at all.
If they lie about any aspect of the event would make it so easy. Slam dunk slander and defamation suit. 

One or more lies can escalate the suit in my favor rapidly. I would hope they lie.

Their attorney would never recommend their client lie on stand to get caught.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

UberUber81 said:


> Easily if they lie.
> 
> Follow up questions would lead them into a trap to which they wouldn't be able to answer.
> 
> ...


Hilarious.
You do know you're going to have to testify and the only option you have is to lie, they don't have to.


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

Yes I will craft a very plausible scenario, the burden of proof is going to on the person making the complaint in the first place and having to defend themselves against the suit I bring.

Just because you are disabled doesn't give you free range in a court of law. They will be subject to the same scrutiny as everyone would. So they rely on speculation in a court of law, they will lose, if they lie and get caught, lose as well.

But whatever dude, the only thing that will be funny is when assets are seized or a personal liabity coverage pays out from some type of homeowner's policy.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

UberUber81 said:


> Yes I will craft a very plausible scenario, the burden of proof is going to on the person making the complaint in the first place and having to defend themselves against the suit I bring.
> 
> Just because you are disabled doesn't give you free range in a court of law. They will be subject to the same scrutiny as everyone would. So they rely on speculation in a court of law, they will lose, if they lie and get caught, lose as well.
> 
> But whatever dude, the only thing that will be funny is when assets are seized or a personal liabity coverage pays out from some type of homeowner's policy.


That's not at all how a civil case works. The burden of proof is on you, the plaintiff, and you're basing that all on all out lying. This is why you're going to be laughed out of court.


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

They made a complaint. Their actions caused something to happen. My loss of income. I'll challenge it in a court of law. They will have to choose to defend the complaint or let it go, if they retract complaint, I'll sue. Most likely someone will settle out of court, Uber/Their HO policy etc.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

UberUber81 said:


> They made a complaint. Their actions caused something to happen. My loss of income. I'll challenge it in a court of law. They will have to choose to defend the complaint or let it go, if they retract complaint, I'll sue. Most likely someone will settle out of court, Uber/Their HO policy etc.


None of that changes that the burden of proof falls squarely on you and that you won't have the truth on your side. There's no incentive for the other side to settle since you're lying.


----------



## Koolbreze (Feb 13, 2017)

steveK2016 said:


> It's not Uber's responsibility. You can yell at Uber until you are blue in the face, Uber cannot change Federal law. If you want change, you need to write your congressmen and have the Americans with Disability Act of 1990 repealed or amended. The fact that neither has happened in 27 years means the likelihood of it changing is slim to none. it was intentionally written in a way to prevent "Undue stress" to those with disabilities.
> 
> You think you're the only one that has had an issue with the strictness of the ADA? Businesses have been shut down or forced to pay for renovations that costs 10's of thousands of dollars. The inconvenience you go through to vacuum out your car of Dog hairs pails in comparison to what many businesses have had to go through over the 27 year life span of this law. Millions, perhaps billions of dollars at this point, have been spent and wasted by businesses to renovate their properties to comply with ADA regulation, yet you think your need to vacuum some dog hair is going to get the law changed?
> 
> Power to the driver! Rise up!


service dogs are identified as such by a vest......quit being an ass


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

Koolbreze said:


> service dogs are identified as such by a vest......quit being an ass


That is not a legal requirement.



Demon said:


> That's not at all how a civil case works. The burden of proof is on you, the plaintiff, and you're basing that all on all out lying. This is why you're going to be laughed out of court.


That's why OJ was acquitted on criminal charges but found liable in civil court. The rules for proof is different in criminal and civil proceedings.


----------



## Koolbreze (Feb 13, 2017)

Just think, if the folks who post this nonesense actually put the same effort into driving, they may actually make some money.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

UberUber81 said:


> They made a complaint. Their actions caused something to happen. My loss of income. I'll challenge it in a court of law. They will have to choose to defend the complaint or let it go, if they retract complaint, I'll sue. Most likely someone will settle out of court, Uber/Their HO policy etc.


This is clearly a troll who has never even been inside a civil courtroom, let alone filed suit against anyone for anything. I stand by my original statement, one less ant on the road. Good riddance to bad rubish, no one is going to miss you.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

Pawtism said:


> This is clearly a troll who has never even been inside a civil courtroom, let alone filed suit against anyone for anything. I stand by my original statement, one less ant on the road. Good riddance to bad rubish, no one is going to miss you.





UberUber81 said:


> They made a complaint. Their actions caused something to happen. My loss of income. I'll challenge it in a court of law. They will have to choose to defend the complaint or let it go, if they retract complaint, I'll sue. Most likely someone will settle out of court, Uber/Their HO policy etc.


Technically, it was your action that caused your loss of income not theirs. You blame the legit complaint for your loss of income when it was your action that caused the complaint.

I mean, most of this is pointless anyways. The chances of him, or any of us, running into a legit service animal is slim. Slim enough that I, personally, wouldn't be hassled to take anyone to court even if I were in the right, which I wouldn't be and UberUber81 clearly wouldn't be either by his own admission.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

steveK2016 said:


> Technically, it was your action that caused your loss of income not theirs. You blame the legit complaint for your loss of income when it was your action that caused the complaint.
> 
> I mean, most of this is pointless anyways. The chances of him, or any of us, running into a legit service animal is slim. Slim enough that I, personally, wouldn't be hassled to take anyone to court even if I were in the right, which I wouldn't be and UberUber81 clearly wouldn't be either by his own admission.


Very true, and the odds of getting 2 complaints (even getting 2 real service dogs, let alone refusing them both), is so low that the few people who do have that happen are clearly purposely discriminating (that's a big factor in the 2 strike rule, I'm sure). Don't get me wrong, I'm totally against people faking service dogs. But what he's describing (pretend not to see them) is just blanket discrimination.

Ask the two questions, eliminate the fakers (I wouldn't give the fakes a ride either), and take the real ones (or at least the ones you can't be sure are fakes). It's going to be so rare anyway, and the real ones are super unlikely to have an accident (and if they do, and the handler doesn't make it right, submit for the cleaning fee). Just take them. That's really the best way to cover yourself, not discriminate against real service animals, and avoid problems.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

Pawtism said:


> Very true, and the odds of getting 2 complaints (even getting 2 real service dogs, let alone refusing them both), is so low that the few people who do have that happen are clearly purposely discriminating (that's a big factor in the 2 strike rule, I'm sure). Don't get me wrong, I'm totally against people faking service dogs. But what he's describing (pretend not to see them) is just blanket discrimination.
> 
> Ask the two questions, eliminate the fakers (I wouldn't give the fakes a ride either), and take the real ones (or at least the ones you can't be sure are fakes). It's going to be so rare anyway, and the real ones are super unlikely to have an accident (and if they do, and the handler doesn't make it right, submit for the cleaning fee). Just take them. That's really the best way to cover yourself, not discriminate against real service animals, and avoid problems.


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> Seems like a really nice guy but to me no way should he be allowed to take a dog in the passenger compartment of an airplane. For what reason? In fact, I can't think of any reason anyone would need to take a dog, service or not, into the passenger compartment of an airplane. It's simply heavy handed government overreach.


You and I have talked about the dog issues, some time ago. I get your allergies. But it seems you have turned this into an obsession. My friend you will not win this battle. Our nation is obsessed with their pets. In Colorado any dog can be certified as a service dog. A vet can issue the paperwork for about $25. No medical paperwork required. I tested it with one of our dogs. My Penny Sue is now a service dog. Took about 15 min and $38. I claimed that I had anxiety attacks as a result of my work....driving UBER. I LMAO when the vet said no problem. Again no medical paperwork at all.

I would give up on this fight and invest in Benadryl.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

UBERPROcolorado said:


> You and I have talked about the dog issues, some time ago. I get your allergies. But it seems you have turned this into an obsession. My friend you will not win this battle. Our nation is obsessed with their pets. In Colorado any dog can be certified as a service dog. A vet can issue the paperwork for about $25. No medical paperwork required. I tested it with one of our dogs. My Penny Sue is now a service dog. Took about 15 min and $38. I claimed that I had anxiety attacks as a result of my work....driving UBER. I LMAO when the vet said no problem. Again no medical paperwork at all.
> 
> I would give up on this fight and invest in Benadryl.


Thats an emotional support dog, may pass in many places in Colorado but in other states, an Uber does not have to take you. A service animal as defined in the ADA has to be trained for a specific life saving task. Be it leading the blind or detecting seizures. Emotional support is not a trained aspect, all dogs are emotional support with or without a doctors prescription. My mode changes when I get home after a long day at some and play with my dogs.


----------



## ShinyAndChrome (Aug 18, 2017)

I have only done one dog so far. Small dog, guy texted while on way, he gave a tip.

I don't expect uber to be decent about this but they should allow drivers to set "no service animal" rides. Then the customer needs to specify it. If I am deathly afraid of dogs why is somebody else's handicap more important than mine? Probably illegal because the law expects people to bend over backwards even if they may have their own handicap (phobia) that makes them unable to service somebody with their own.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

ShinyAndChrome said:


> I have only done one dog so far. Small dog, guy texted while on way, he gave a tip.
> 
> I don't expect uber to be decent about this but they should allow drivers to set "no service animal" rides. Then the customer needs to specify it. If I am deathly afraid of dogs why is somebody else's handicap more important than mine? Probably illegal because the law expects people to bend over backwards even if they may have their own handicap (phobia) that makes them unable to service somebody with their own.


I'm very critical of most of what Uber does, but service animals are the one thing they got right, this is the one thing Uber is decent about. 
You're not handicapped, period. A fear of something isn't a handicap. No one is expecting anyone to bend over backwards, all that's required is that people make reasonable accomodations.


----------



## ubergirl182 (Jun 14, 2017)

I really don't get why people care so much about take a dog in there car.... Don't like it then don't do ride share where people might have dogs... good grief..... Id rather shuttle dogs around then half the pax there are least the dog isn't gonna down rate you.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

ShinyAndChrome said:


> I have only done one dog so far. Small dog, guy texted while on way, he gave a tip.
> 
> I don't expect uber to be decent about this but they should allow drivers to set "no service animal" rides. Then the customer needs to specify it. If I am deathly afraid of dogs why is somebody else's handicap more important than mine? Probably illegal because the law expects people to bend over backwards even if they may have their own handicap (phobia) that makes them unable to service somebody with their own.


You are correct that it's illegal. And I have to agree with Demon. If you had a fear of dogs (phobia) that rose to the level of disability (exceptionally rare, but not impossible), then you would be unable to drive (likely prevented by the DMV, as there are dogs walking on the sidewalks with people too and any fear that strong, even that would set you off) for Uber. As the law requires compliance with the ADA, the potential of having to transport a service dog is a job requirement, and if your disability prevents you from meeting that job requirement, you wouldn't be able to be a contractor for them.

People always act like this is some new thing. This has been hashed out over 27 years of case law history. Uber ignored the law for a few years, and it cost them (quite a bit). They are now complying because they really have no choice (Lyft saw what happened to Uber and is complying so it won't happen to them too). Everyone always thinks they are the first to bring up something, but it's a pretty sure bet that anything you think of, someone else has not only thought of but actually tried before. It's also why allergies and fear of dogs was specifically included as not being reasons to deny in the 2010 revision to the ADA (even the lawmakers are sick of hearing people try it).


----------



## Brian G. (Jul 5, 2016)

Stop the *****ing! I had over 20k rides with cab and rideshare probably only had 10 or so rides with an animal.


----------



## ShinyAndChrome (Aug 18, 2017)

Demon said:


> I'm very critical of most of what Uber does, but service animals are the one thing they got right, this is the one thing Uber is decent about.
> You're not handicapped, period. A fear of something isn't a handicap. No one is expecting anyone to bend over backwards, all that's required is that people make reasonable accomodations.


of course a phobia can be a disability. As for reasonable accomodations not requiring somebody with a fear of dogs to have one in the car is quite reasonable I am sure we can all agree. As it is spelled out now a person could be a 1000 trip five star driver but if they have a petrifying fear of dogs they will be summarily dismissed from uber because they refuse to have one in the car even though the person with the dog may need only wait two min extra for the next furthest car. So if reasonable accommodation is our standard we must agree it is not met in this fashion.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Service dogs are a fact of life. As a driver, you're going to get one sooner or later (probably later, something like 0.5 % of the population uses a service dog). If you want to prevent fakes, ask the 2 questions (and have a dash cam). If a real service dog, just take it. It's really quite simple. At this point we're just beating a dead horse here, this has all been long established, and even Uber has given in on the fight (when Uber quits fighting against it, you know it's a dead horse).


----------



## Brian G. (Jul 5, 2016)

ShinyAndChrome said:


> of course a phobia can be a disability. As for reasonable accomodations not requiring somebody with a fear of dogs to have one in the car is quite reasonable I am sure we can all agree. As it is spelled out now a person could be a 1000 trip five star driver but if they have a petrifying fear of dogs they will be summarily dismissed from uber because they refuse to have one in the car even though the person with the dog may need only wait two min extra for the next furthest car. So if reasonable accommodation is our standard we must agree it is not met in this fashion.


It's simple if your and driver who are in complete fear of a domesticated animal and can't handle a ride with a service animal then this job isn't for you period.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

UberUber81 said:


> I'm not sure if you are a driver. We make so little money per ride it's ridiculous, one screw up from an animal and I'm out of work the rest of the day. I have to drop what I'm doing, get my car clean again, notify Uber of the damage that's occurred (more time), and they only pay for clean up and not lost wages and time I've incurred from dealing the ordeal.
> 
> Hire a cab, describe to them you have a service animal, and pay for a service befitting the risk.
> 
> ...


A human being is more likely to puke, urinate, or defecate in your car then a service animal is. Maybe you should switch to only doing Uber Eats?



Koolbreze said:


> service dogs are identified as such by a vest......quit being an ass


No, actually the vast majority of them are not. In fact, the vast majority with a vest are not legitimate service animals, but rather animals that people went to one of these agencies and got listed as being emotional support animals. EMA's are not covered under the ADA.

What part of the word disability is it that some of you are having so much trouble understanding? You want your allergies to be recognized as a disability, and they are, but having a disability means that there are certain things you are just not ever going to be able to do. Someone who is stone deaf is never going to be able to have a career as a music critic. Someone who is blind is never going to be able to drive. Someone who is mute is never going to have a stellar career as an opera singer. And these are things that no service dog can fix. What a service dog can fix is that someone who is blind will have, at least some, mobility and a chance at Independence. Someone who has diabetes will be notified before they get hit with diabetic shock. Someone who has epilepsy will be notified that they need to go find a safe place to sit or lie down before they fall over the edge of a cliff or down a flight of stairs while having a seizure.

Some of you really need to get over yourselves.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

<--- Service Dog (in a Cowboys jersey no less). When she's in her vest, she's a service dog, and when she's not in her vest, she's still a service dog (although she's allowed to be a little looser in her behavior). Ironically, she's associated wearing anything with being in a vest (while we did intend to train in vest vs. out of vest behavior, we didn't intend things like a jersey to count as a vest, but alas, that's what she learned anyway). So in this jersey, she'll behave just as she would in a vest.

I have to agree with most of SuzeCB's post. I don't think I can agree with "the vast majority" part, but SuzeCB is correct that a vest doesn't make a service dog (it's all about the training). Some fakers do use vests and some legit ones are in vests. Some legit service dogs aren't in vests (either because they choose not to use them, or they don't feel the need at that moment, especially when traveling). To my mind, it's about a 50/50 shot as to if a vested dog is legit or not, and that's why they included the 2 questions.

I had wanted to be a cop. Alas, both my disability and my reliance on a service dog (she's a great service dog, but would be a horrible K-9 lol) prohibit me from doing that. I could scream about how unfair it is, or I can choose to channel my love of the law into a profession I am able to do with my disabilities. Anyone who's allergies/asthma or cynophobia (phobia or fear of dogs) is so great as to rise to the level of disability, would be well aware of that fact and wouldn't be driving Uber/Lyft (same as I know I can't be a cop).

If you do rise to that level, then you already know you shouldn't be driving. If you don't (and most won't), then put on your big boy/girl pants take an Allegra or meditate at the pet store or something and keep on ubering. Again, this has been covered with 27 years of case law history and isn't going to change. It's not a new thing by any means. As SuzeCB said:



SuzeCB said:


> Some of you really need to get over yourselves.


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

steveK2016 said:


> Thats an emotional support dog, may pass in many places in Colorado but in other states, an Uber does not have to take you. A service animal as defined in the ADA has to be trained for a specific life saving task. Be it leading the blind or detecting seizures. Emotional support is not a trained aspect, all dogs are emotional support with or without a doctors prescription. My mode changes when I get home after a long day at some and play with my dogs.


Great point....i checked and in Colorado service or companion counts. Sort of.....public transportation allows companions. Businesses are find with companions, But ADA does not seem to mention companions???

But since we cannot ask for papers or proof that a dog is one or the other or neither, the subject may be mute when it comes to uber. Per support, " if your rider says that the dog is a service animal, you are obligated to transport the rider and the animal".

I am not sure what is really right here.



ShinyAndChrome said:


> I have only done one dog so far. Small dog, guy texted while on way, he gave a tip.
> 
> I don't expect uber to be decent about this but they should allow drivers to set "no service animal" rides. Then the customer needs to specify it. If I am deathly afraid of dogs why is somebody else's handicap more important than mine? Probably illegal because the law expects people to bend over backwards even if they may have their own handicap (phobia) that makes them unable to service somebody with their own.


It appears but not 100% sure that Uber can't let drivers opt out...at least per the ADA. However, your idea could solve the whole issue.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Here you go UberProColorado.

https://disabilitylawco.org/issues/category/service-assistance-animals

Companion (most often called Emotional Support Animals or ESAs) do not have public access rights (neither through the ADA, or the state).

"Only people with disabilities are entitled to have companion animals and even then, companion animals are only allowed in a person's home. Business owners and other places of public accommodation are not required to allow companion or assistance animals into their businesses."

Not only can drivers not opt out, handlers aren't required to notify (and often don't out of a fear of discrimination right off the bat). I always tell people when they are talking about service animals and disabilities to substitute in the other protected classes and see if it makes sense. In this case, that would sound something like "they should let the drivers set to "no Asian pax", and then have the pax report that they are Asian so that the drivers who don't want to take them won't have to". Doesn't make sense right?


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> Here you go UberProColorado.
> 
> https://disabilitylawco.org/issues/category/service-assistance-animals
> 
> ...


I read the same thing you did, today. The link spells it out. Still, per uber since we cannot ask for proof, whatever the pax says.....what we have to go with.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

UBERPROcolorado said:


> I read the same thing you did, today. The link spells it out. Still, per uber since we cannot ask for proof, whatever the pax says.....what we have to go with.


True, if they can lie well enough, you ultimately have to take it still. That's why I like the 2 questions so much. It's possible they did enough research on it to be able to lie through the second one, most frankly haven't (usually too lazy). That second question will catch most the fakers. If they did do the research and are still lying through the second one, really not much else we can do about it (unless the dog acts up in the car).


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> True, if they can lie well enough, you ultimately have to take it still. That's why I like the 2 questions so much. It's possible they did enough research on it to be able to lie through the second one, most frankly haven't (usually too lazy). That second question will catch most the fakers. If they did do the research and are still lying through the second one, really not much else we can do about it (unless the dog acts up in the car).


Good point. Scary thing is that unless you have audio and video, uber is going to side with the pax. They cannot afford anymore bad press at this point.

I also feel the issue may be more prevalent in other states. I take a prise goat to shows now and then. The pax lives in the mountains close to me, so getting the trip is simple. Ma'am sits quietly in the back seat and is much easier than many human riders. I doubt such an arrangement would work in many states.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

The goat's name is Ma'am? That's awesome. 

I think the difference there is you choose to take the goat. I definitely agree that no one should be forced to take a goat (if they don't want to). That's actually one of the reasons they clarified the ADA in 2010 (to dogs and mini horses only), some of the service animal claims were getting out of hand. People had monkeys, pigs, people joke about snakes, but I actually knew of someone who had a boa constrictor and claimed it was their service snake. While I never got to see it in action, he claimed it was trained. 

By simplifying it to dogs (ubers won't have to take mini horses citing size restriction), it made it alot simpler, people should be glad that uber wasn't much of a thing prior to 2010. People complain about dogs, imagine how they'd feel about a service pig in their car. 

I do agree that the goat is probably better behaved (and likely smells better) than some of the pax tho. 

As for the audio/video, yeah, if you ask the 2 questions, at least get it recorded on your phone. Better yet, have a dash cam, as that can save your bacon (service pig, get it?) in a lot of different ways (beyond just service dogs).


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> The goat's name is Ma'am? That's awesome.
> 
> I think the difference there is you choose to take the goat. I definitely agree that no one should be forced to take a goat (if they don't want to). That's actually one of the reasons they clarified the ADA in 2010 (to dogs and mini horses only), some of the service animal claims were getting out of hand. People had monkeys, pigs, people joke about snakes, but I actually knew of someone who had a boa constrictor and claimed it was their service snake. While I never got to see it in action, he claimed it was trained.
> 
> ...


At first I was mad at drivers that complained about taking pets, period. But I am not afraid of dogs, allergic to dogs or have a car that is easily damaged or soiled. I also don't make my living driving. Just a retirement gig.

This takes us back to common sense. There must be a way to designate drivers that are ok with dogs/pets and those that are not. Just not sure how ride shares could do that without running into ADA issues.

However, the excuse that a driver cannot transport a dog because if their religious beliefs offends me. I am a Christian, thus I should not have to transport hookers, boozers, drug dealers, gays, ppl that eat she'll fish...etc. That would eliminate 25% or my riders and several of my friends.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

UBERPROcolorado said:


> At first I was passed at riders that complained about taking pets, period. But I am not afraid of dogs, allergic to dogs or have a car that is easily damaged or soiled. I also don't make my living driving. Just a retirement gig.
> 
> This takes us back to common sense. There must be a way to designate drivers that are ok with dogs/pets and those that are not. Just not sure how ride shares could do that without running into ADA issues.
> 
> However, the excuse that a driver cannot transport a dog because if their religious beliefs offends me. I am a Christian, thus I should not have to transport hookers, boozers, drug dealers, gays, ppl that eat she'll fish...etc. That would eliminate 25% or my riders and several of my friends.


UberPet is coming down the pike, and that should work out for those who want to take pets (and gives them an incentive to do so), which should hopefully help a bit with some of the fake service dogs anyway. It probably won't help with real service dogs though.

The religious excuse failed too (it was heavily tried though). While they didn't include specific wording in the ADA about it, they did include it in the ADA "technical assistance manual" (basically a guide book for more specifics on how the law is intended to be implemented). Religion is not a vaild excuse either. The muslims were trying this heavily (both service dogs and alcohol actually). They failed and many were fined.

I want to be able to claim that taking people who don't tip is against my religion, but alas I'm sure that would fail too. 

Oh, just for clarification (for others that might be reading this), by "religion excuse failed", I mean that businesses, transportation (uber), etc claiming that having a dog near them was against their religions failed (most notably cab drivers). Not that they have to take them into churches/houses of worship.

The ADA did specifically exclude churches/houses of worship from being required to take service animals, although most will do so on their own accord. Even most muslim faiths allow service dogs (on their own volition, not because of ADA), except in certain areas (like the temple). Churches/houses of worship are treated the same as private clubs (like a country club), and can choose for themselves to allow or not.


----------



## ChortlingCrison (Mar 30, 2016)

SuzeCB said:


> A human being is more likely to puke, urinate, or defecate in your car then a service animal is. Maybe you should switch to only doing Uber Eats?
> 
> No, actually the vast majority of them are not. In fact, the vast majority with a vest are not legitimate service animals, but rather animals that people went to one of these agencies and got listed as being emotional support animals. EMA's are not covered under the ADA.
> 
> ...


Very well put Suze!!


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

I really didn't give up. It's just circle talking at some point. I've got my ducks in a row and prepared to go to battle. You can say this doesn't work that way, or whatever. 

Let me give you the parameters again.

1) The passenger will never see me.
2) All of our communication will be via text, and it will be about location, not outside, etc.
3) I turn off my location on my cell phone prior to my arrival. From the passengers vantage looking at the application it will look like I'm stuck at a light or something of this nature.
4) After I identified if I want the ride, I will rotate back around to where I turned my location off at. 
5) I will continue to drive around and "look" for the passenger.
6) Our communication will end at, "please be ready prior to order a ride, thank you."
7) Cancel no show.

NOW - From that information. It yields no evidence that I came in contact with the passenger to avoid a pickup with a service animal. If a complaint is made and I lose my income stream. I will fight the complaint on all ends. Uber and the passenger will get registered mail from my attorney unless I get satisfaction. 

The reality of it is. The first letter will go to Uber, I will be reactivated with pay. The passenger will never be bothered and I'm sure they will make it to where we won't be paired again.

So the passenger will receive some kind of e-mail about the complaint made on wild speculation that I was deactivated. Then after sometime, I will be reactivated will my average earnings and attorney's fees, and this is the part they will not inform the passenger of. 

If they try and stick with the deactivation, both Uber and the passenger will have cases brought against them and I will fight to keep my income stream.
If they have a contents policy or a homeowner owner's policy my attorney will most likely open up a claim under the personal liability section of those coverage's. The homeowner's insurance company or Uber will more than likely not want to spend money defending a case they will most likely lose. Due to the passenger not cooperating and or the passenger admitting they don't have any definite evidence/certainty as to why the ride was cancelled. Also, if they start to lie, then it will be really auto slam dunk on a lotto ticket.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

You're such a moron, I really can't wait till you're gone. I tried being polite and educating you, but you just can't fix stupid. Welcome to ignore.


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

UberUber81 said:


> I really didn't give up. It's just circle talking at some point. I've got my ducks in a row and prepared to go to battle. You can say this doesn't work that way, or whatever.
> 
> Let me give you the parameters again.
> 
> ...


This is truly the most ridiculous post I have ever seen.

First of all, every time you turn off your location or app, once a trip is accepted, a flag comes up on Uber's end. Do you really think that Uber does not monitor for such games?

Secondly, you seem to be loosing money and time playing this game. If you accept a trip, be a man and take the rider to their destination and collect your fee. You are acting like a cab driver.

Lastly, your legal arguments are completely bogus.

Please find a new line of work, preferably one that does NOT require contact with the public.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

UberUber81 said:


> I really didn't give up. It's just circle talking at some point. I've got my ducks in a row and prepared to go to battle. You can say this doesn't work that way, or whatever.
> 
> Let me give you the parameters again.
> 
> ...


Ive been taking uber a lot this week and the GPS tracker for where the driver is is very accurate. Gps and uber will know if you avoid driving down the exact street past the pin location and if you do, a savy pax will spot you from down the street.


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

You guys are just mad because I insulate myself from stupidity. I make around $3 on a minimum fare. You get what you pay for, stop being cheap and use a service that is designed to transport your animals. 

What else do you want me to do for $3? Make you a sandwich? Notarize a document? Help you move your entire apartment? 

It's getting pretty ridiculous out here.

Hmmmmm.....take a ticking time bomb of crap, piss and vomit for $3? Shedding hair everywhere just to have the next passenger complain about dog hair on their closes before they show up for work. People sneezing like crazy with snot because of allergies from animal dander. 

Nope.

Call a cab and pay a price befitting the risk.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

UberUber81 said:


> You guys are just mad because I insulate myself from stupidity. I make around $3 on a minimum fare. You get what you pay for, stop being cheap and use a service that is designed to transport your animals.
> 
> What else do you want me to do for $3? Make you a sandwich? Notarize a document? Help you move your entire apartment?
> 
> ...


UBER is designed to take service animals and you agreed to do it. Maybe you should drive a cab.


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

Demon said:


> UBER is designed to take service animals and you agreed to do it. Maybe you should drive a cab.


No, it isn't designed to transport animals. Get real. Hey, ill pay you $3 to transport someone with an animal, they can take it out of my earnings. I'm not doing it, and if I get deactivated I'm going to raise all types of legal hell with my attorney.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

UberUber81 said:


> No, it isn't designed to transport animals. Get real. Hey, ill pay you $3 to transport someone with an animal, they can take it out of my earnings. I'm not doing it, and if I get deactivated I'm going to raise all types of legal hell with my attorney.


Its no more or less designed to take service animal then a cab is.


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

My vehicle is not equipped to transport an animal. 
I would prefer not to have a 10 to 60 lb piece of meat (service dog) injury me when a car accident occurs at whatever speed.
Should I carry a dog crate now (for $3 lol)? How many snide remarks will I get from idiot passengers that want their service animal in their lap or whatever, when it's clearly safer for the animal to be in a crate just in case of an accident.
Why should I suffer a serious injury from a huge piece of meat getting flailed around my car at high speeds in the event of a traffic accident?
It's absurd. I hope an attorney is smart enough to figure this out when a driver is seriously injured, dead or disabled because they were forced to take a service animal. Sue the living piss out of everyone involved.


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

If a car crashes at a speed of just 25mph, an unrestrained dog can be projected forward at a force equal to 40 times its weight. A large-size dog weighing 75 lbs., for example, can achieve an impact force of 3,000 pounds in a car crash, which could be a lethal blow for both a passenger and the pet. (Allianz website - Keeping pets safe in the car)
Even for smaller pets traveling at just 30 miles per hour, an unrestrained 10-lbs dog will exert 300 pounds of pressure in an accident, according to Jennifer Huebner-Davidson, traffic safety programs manager for AAA. Without a crash tested safety restraint, that pint-size pooch can injure passengers and become severely injured on impact. (CNN - Rethink your dog roaming freely)


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

UberUber81 said:


> If a car crashes at a speed of just 25mph, an unrestrained dog can be projected forward at a force equal to 40 times its weight. A large-size dog weighing 75 lbs., for example, can achieve an impact force of 3,000 pounds in a car crash, which could be a lethal blow for both a passenger and the pet. (Allianz website - Keeping pets safe in the car)
> Even for smaller pets traveling at just 30 miles per hour, an unrestrained 10-lbs dog will exert 300 pounds of pressure in an accident, according to Jennifer Huebner-Davidson, traffic safety programs manager for AAA. Without a crash tested safety restraint, that pint-size pooch can injure passengers and become severely injured on impact. (CNN - Rethink your dog roaming freely)


I transport any animal. I have a SUV that is perfect for any animal. I bought 2 dog restraints. One for small to med size and one for large breeds. Pax love me for it and always uses them and tip well.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

UberUber81 said:


> I really didn't give up. It's just circle talking at some point. I've got my ducks in a row and prepared to go to battle. You can say this doesn't work that way, or whatever.
> 
> Let me give you the parameters again.
> 
> ...


The reality is that while you're doing all of this floating around and turning off your app so that Uber can't see where you are, the Pax has left their app up and running. Uber can also track them. Think about when you pull up to a pickup location how you can position yourself right on that little Circle. They will be able to see the passenger just as clearly. Do you really think that Uber will accept the responsibility of a lawsuit from a disabled passenger if they can possibly get out of it? They will have the proof that they need to back the passenger and dump it all on you. You will end up providing the proof that the passenger needs. If your lawyer told you that what you're doing will keep you from being sued and have you living under a judgement for the rest of your days, I strongly suggest you find a different attorney, perhaps one who actually graduated law school.


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

You can't be sued for being confused about where they are located, or they aren't ready to go. Get real. 

I've insulated myself from this terrible policy, and setup to where I can rain down all types of legal hell if it goes beyond a temporary deactivation with pay.

Disabled or not, you make complaints off wild speculation that aren't grounded in reality, be prepared for the legal consequences of getting someone wrongful terminated. Ill tap into that personal liability policy/assets so quick, my only regret would not being able to witness the extreme anguish and headache from the person that lied about me. Bottom line, don't lie or speculate on why a ride was cancelled. Make the complaint on the idiot driver that you meet, and he verbally declined the ride, or you actually do see them drive by.


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

UberUber81 said:


> You can't be sued for being confused about where they are located, or they aren't ready to go. Get real.
> 
> I've insulated myself from this terrible policy, and setup to where I can rain down all types of legal hell if it goes beyond a temporary deactivation with pay.
> 
> Disabled or not, you make complaints off wild speculation that aren't grounded in reality, be prepared for the legal consequences of getting someone wrongful terminated. Ill tap into that personal liability policy/assets so quick, my only regret would not being able to witness the extreme anguish and headache from the person that lied about me. Bottom line, don't lie or speculate on why a ride was cancelled. Make the complaint on the idiot driver that you meet, and he verbally declined the ride, or you actually do see them drive by.


It is unreal the amount of anger you have displayed in this thread. You clearly display a hatred towards the disabled and dogs. I think you should consider getting professional help.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

UberUber81 said:


> You can't be sued for being confused about where they are located, or they aren't ready to go. Get real.
> 
> I've insulated myself from this terrible policy, and setup to where I can rain down all types of legal hell if it goes beyond a temporary deactivation with pay.
> 
> Disabled or not, you make complaints off wild speculation that aren't grounded in reality, be prepared for the legal consequences of getting someone wrongful terminated. Ill tap into that personal liability policy/assets so quick, my only regret would not being able to witness the extreme anguish and headache from the person that lied about me. Bottom line, don't lie or speculate on why a ride was cancelled. Make the complaint on the idiot driver that you meet, and he verbally declined the ride, or you actually do see them drive by.


So what happens when your lawyer meets with you and asks why you turned your locator off. This seems like the last thing someone who wants to be found would do.

Let's be honest, you don't have a lawyer, and no lawyer would take this case without you paying them a retainer first.


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

Demon said:


> So what happens when your lawyer meets with you and asks why you turned your locator off. This seems like the last thing someone who wants to be found would do.
> 
> Let's be honest, you don't have a lawyer, and no lawyer would take this case without you paying them a retainer first.


Never turned my location off, if something through Uber indicates otherwise must have been a random GPS glitch, too many trees, etc. But I never touched it. Technology isn't infallible.

I have no problem with disabled people. If they have an animal, they should use a service designed to transport a live animal safely.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

UberUber81 said:


> Never turned my location off, if something through Uber indicates otherwise must have been a random GPS glitch, too many trees, etc. But I never touched it. Technology isn't infallible.


So it worked on every other ride but this one?
That's when Uber brings in their expert to say the GPS was working fine and you turned it off.
You also need to explain why you didn't just call the pax. With everything you say the evidence mounts against you and a lawyer is going to see that.


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

Demon said:


> So what happens when your lawyer meets with you and asks why you turned your locator off. This seems like the last thing someone who wants to be found would do.
> 
> Let's be honest, you don't have a lawyer, and no lawyer would take this case without you paying them a retainer first.


Free consultation when Uber is mentioned and potential damages, I reviewed a number of things including "tip glitches" among others.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

UberUber81 said:


> Free consultation when Uber is mentioned and potential damages, I reviewed a number of things including "tip glitches" among others.


The consultation is free, that doesn't mean they're filing suit for free in a case where you chose not to follow policy.


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

I never talk with passengers on the phone. Only text, per my lawyer. Lol GPS expert. Technology can fail us all at any given time.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

UberUber81 said:


> I never talk with passengers on the phone. Only text, per my lawyer. Lol GPS expert. Technology can fail us all at any given time.


So how do you prove the technology failed?
Not calling hurts your case.


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

Not calling doesn't hurt the case, it's actually preferred as it provides an accurate record that can retrieved by all parties.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

UberUber81 said:


> Not calling doesn't hurt the case, it's actually preferred as it provides an accurate record that can retrieved by all parties.


It certainly does. Calling is a reasonable step you could take to get to the passenger. Calling also provides a record, just record the conversation on your dash cam. 
Again, how do you intend to prove that the technology failed?


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

UBERPROcolorado said:


> It is unreal the amount of anger you have displayed in this thread. You clearly display a hatred towards the disabled and dogs. I think you should consider getting professional help.


Kinda gotta wonder if he doesn't kick crutches out from under little kids...


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

SuzeCB said:


> Kinda gotta wonder if he doesn't kick crutches out from under little kids...


Well if they want to get around they should learn to fly as the sidewalk wasn't built which crutches in mind! 

And just on the off chance someone mistook me actually believing that... It was sarcasm depicting UberUber's crazy belief system. (I know most will get it but still, don't want anyone thinking I'd actually believe something like that lol).


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> Well if they want to get around they should learn to fly as the sidewalk wasn't built which crutches in mind!
> 
> And just on the off chance someone mistook me actually believing that... It was sarcasm depicting UberUber's crazy belief system. (I know most will get it but still, don't want anyone thinking I'd actually believe something like that lol).


I believe that UberUber's rants are designed to gain attention. Maybe lonely or no friends? I wonder if he is a threat to the riders....hope not.


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

Note to other drivers, seek legal consultation regarding this issue. These people devolve to name calling and personal insults. They are going to claim I'm wrong to push their own agenda. They think it's ok to make complaints on wild speculation. I feel bad for the driver that just cancels a ride because they need a bathroom break, or their spouse needs them to come home, etc. And some snide demented disabled individual logs a complaint based on nothing resulting in a innocent driver being deactivated.

Demon is a professional troll, lol, so I wouldn't take anything it says seriously. 

Nothing but love for my fellow drivers, be safe!


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

UberUber81 said:


> Note to other drivers, seek legal consultation regarding this issue. *These people devolve to name calling and personal insults.* They are going to claim I'm wrong to push their own agenda. They think it's ok to make complaints on wild speculation. I feel bad for the driver that just cancels a ride because they need a bathroom break, or their spouse needs them to come home, etc. And some snide demented disabled individual logs a complaint based on nothing resulting in a innocent driver being deactivated.
> 
> *Demon is a professional troll, lol*, so I wouldn't take anything it says seriously.
> 
> Nothing but love for my fellow drivers, be safe!


I love that you denounce name calling, and then have no response to what I've presented so all you can do is call me names.

No one here has advocating making complaints based on wild speculation but you. 
No one is saying that drivers can't take bathroom breaks or work when they want. 
What people and the law are saying is that you can't cancel a ride based on the fact that the pax has a service animal with them, and drivers who do that are far from innocent.


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

Ah you are right, I don't think of troll as a derogatory term. Sorry about that, I feel you are insincere and are only posting to get emotional responses from people. Take it easy mate.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

UberUber81 said:


> Ah you are right, I don't think of troll as a derogatory term. Sorry about that, I feel you are insincere and are only posting to get emotional responses from people. Take it easy mate.


Yes, my goal is for people to have an emotional response to follow the law & UBER policy and not get themselves in trouble.


----------



## Tiendesmendez (Aug 11, 2017)

We are a dime a dozen as drivers. But those drivers who dont mind dogs in car are not a dime a dozen. I have had many trips with dogs that were not service dogs. I have been told upfront by rider a dog is with them. No problem. I have been lied to by riders saying dog is a service dog knowing we cannot deny service animals. No problem. If you need to get get special permission to not except dogs look into that option. Otherwise just face facts and except dogs. Use your cleansing wipes and your cordless vacuum before next ride request. Recommended that we sanitize our cars every couple or trips anyway. Oh yeah dead give away is type of dog. Most service dogs are non hypoallegenic. Look up non hypoallegenic dogs. I know right of the bat if dog is legit service . But rider needs to get somewhere dog or no dog.


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

Demon said:


> Yes, my goal is for people to have an emotional response to follow the law & UBER policy and not get themselves in trouble.


Just because it's a law, doesn't make it right. At one point it was illegal to be involved in an interracial marriage in some parts of the country. So please don't use that as logic. Tomatopaste has a real problem and I feel bad for him to suffer. I feel bad for a driver getting his car messed up from an animal because he was forced to take it and now has to suffer downtime and cleanup expenses. I feel bad for the occupants of the vehicle that gets in a wreck and a service animal goes flailing about, potentially injuring both the passenger and the driver.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Tiendesmendez said:


> We are a dime a dozen as drivers. But those drivers who dont mind dogs in car are not a dime a dozen. I have had many trips with dogs that were not service dogs. I have been told upfront by rider a dog is with them. No problem. I have been lied to by riders saying dog is a service dog knowing we cannot deny service animals. No problem. If you need to get get special permission to not except dogs look into that option. Otherwise just face facts and except dogs. Use your cleansing wipes and your cordless vacuum before next ride request. Recommended that we sanitize our cars every couple or trips anyway. Oh yeah dead give away is type of dog. Most service dogs are non hypoallegenic. Look up non hypoallegenic dogs. I know right of the bat if dog is legit service . But rider needs to get somewhere dog or no dog.


Aren't most dogs non hypoallergenic? I'd always thought that's why the hypoallergenic dogs were kind of a "big deal" because most aren't?

At any rate, the three most commonly used service dogs are golden retrievers, labrador retrievers, and german shepherds which are all non hypoallergenic.

While those aren't the only breeds that can be service dogs (there are no breed restrictions), I'd actually never heard the non hypoallergenic theory before, so there may be something to that.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

UberUber81 said:


> Just because it's a law, doesn't make it right. At one point it was illegal to be involved in an interracial marriage in some parts of the country. So please don't use that as logic. Tomatopaste has a real problem and I feel bad for him to suffer. I feel bad for a driver getting his car messed up from an animal because he was forced to take it and now has to suffer downtime and cleanup expenses. I feel bad for the occupants of the vehicle that gets in a wreck and a service animal goes flailing about, potentially injuring both the passenger and the driver.


This is the absolute worst logic you've ever tried to employ.

Yes, not all laws are good laws, but the ADA is a good law, just like the Loving decision was a good decision. Based on the logic you're trying to employ you'd have to be against interracial marriage, because according to you the Loving decision would "force" some clerks to issue marriage licenses to people they didn't want to give them to, just like you're trying to say that drivers should be allowed to deny people rides based on a disability.

Again, you saying that any driver was ever forced to take a service animal is you outright lying or just flat being wrong. No driver is ever forced to take a service animal in their own private car, unless they choose to do so. Once a driver chooses to take a commercial passenger in their car they are making the choice to take service animals, that's not being forced, that's a choice, and it's a choice the driver knows upfront. If a driver doesn't want to take service animals they can just do Uber Eats, or Shipped or whatever service just delivers things and doesn't take commercial passengers.

If you feel that your personal vehicle is not safe for commercial passengers don't use it, or install restraints that a leash or harness can hook into so that you aren't putting yourself and passengers at risk.


----------



## Doowop (Jul 10, 2016)

steveK2016 said:


> It's not Uber's responsibility. You can yell at Uber until you are blue in the face, Uber cannot change Federal law. If you want change, you need to write your congressmen and have the Americans with Disability Act of 1990 repealed or amended. The fact that neither has happened in 27 years means the likelihood of it changing is slim to none. it was intentionally written in a way to prevent "Undue stress" to those with disabilities.
> 
> You think you're the only one that has had an issue with the strictness of the ADA? Businesses have been shut down or forced to pay for renovations that costs 10's of thousands of dollars. The inconvenience you go through to vacuum out your car of Dog hairs pails in comparison to what many businesses have had to go through over the 27 year life span of this law. Millions, perhaps billions of dollars at this point, have been spent and wasted by businesses to renovate their properties to comply with ADA regulation, yet you think your need to vacuum some dog hair is going to get the law changed?
> 
> Power to the driver! Rise up!


Not that easy. It's Ruff.


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

Sorry man, law is flawed. It puts people in danger who aren't set up to transport animals. 

I'm not buying equipment or modifying my vehicle to safely transport an individual's live animal. This burden should be on the passenger, much like someone trying to transport a child without a car seat. 

Just another way to harass and crack the whip on X drivers. 

I'd rather just give the person I was supposed to pick up $3 to leave me alone. This would include.

People trying to transport animals.
Fitting more people in a vehicle than it can safely transport.
Kids without car seats.
The list could go on forever because people are scum.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

UberUber81 said:


> Sorry man, law is flawed. It puts people in danger who aren't set up to transport animals.
> 
> I'm not buying equipment or modifying my vehicle to safely transport an individual's live animal. This burden should be on the passenger, much like someone trying to transport a child without a car seat.
> 
> ...


Blind, and otherwise disabled, people are scum huh?


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

Nah they are cool, up until they demand transport of a live animal. Stop being cheap and order a service that is befitting the risk (one that can safely transport an animal, and one that will make money to recover from animal "accidents").


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

UberUber81 said:


> Sorry man, law is flawed. It puts people in danger who aren't set up to transport animals.
> 
> I'm not buying equipment or modifying my vehicle to safely transport an individual's live animal. This burden should be on the passenger, much like someone trying to transport a child without a car seat.
> 
> ...


What's the flaw in this law?

If your car is unsafe for commercial passengers that rests squarely on you. 
Car seats are the responsibility of the parent, they can take the car seat with them and a driver can refuse rides to kids. 
Uber policy and the law prohibit people riding without a seat belt.


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

Demon said:


> If your car is unsafe for commercial passengers that rests squarely on you.


Passengers are safe, live animals, nah.

The law is forcing people to take service animals. It isn't customary or routine to need safety restraints or crates for animals, this doesn't come installed from the factory from the manufacturer.

So the law is putting people in harm's way.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

UberUber81 said:


> Nah they are cool, up until they demand transport of a live animal. Stop being cheap and order a service that is befitting the risk (one that can safely transport an animal, and one that will make money to recover from animal "accidents").


They did order a service to transport them and their service animal.


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

I take the law as you must transport these people and their animals. Without regard of safety restraints for the animals.

It's basically like, you must take children without a car seat if it's a service child.

It's a heavy piece of meat that is going to do damage once the car gets in an accident.

Is it a law that I'm required to carry crates and restraints for service animals?

They should make a new law for all animals to be secured while being transported inside a vehicle.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

UberUber81 said:


> Passengers are safe, live animals, nah.
> 
> The law is forcing people to take service animals. It isn't customary or routine to need safety restraints or crates for animals, this doesn't come installed from the factory from the manufacturer.
> 
> So the law is putting people in harm's way.


The law isn't forcing anyone to follow ADA. If your car isn't safe for passengers don't drive them around.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Tiendesmendez said:


> We are a dime a dozen as drivers. But those drivers who dont mind dogs in car are not a dime a dozen. I have had many trips with dogs that were not service dogs. I have been told upfront by rider a dog is with them. No problem. I have been lied to by riders saying dog is a service dog knowing we cannot deny service animals. No problem. If you need to get get special permission to not except dogs look into that option. Otherwise just face facts and except dogs. Use your cleansing wipes and your cordless vacuum before next ride request. Recommended that we sanitize our cars every couple or trips anyway. Oh yeah dead give away is type of dog. Most service dogs are non hypoallegenic. Look up non hypoallegenic dogs. I know right of the bat if dog is legit service . But rider needs to get somewhere dog or no dog.


The hypoallergenic thing is completely false. Retrievers and Labs and German Shepards are just some of the most common larger-breed service dogs because their breeds' temperments lend quite well to training and staying focused on-task.


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> But even if all the service dogs road upfront, this could open up a whole new revenue stream to Uber. Taking dogs to doggie day school or to the dog park. By themselves.


have you ever owned a dog? I doubt most dog owners would do this


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Kodyhead said:


> have you ever owned a dog? I doubt most dog owners would do this


why the hell not?


----------



## Spotscat (May 8, 2017)

I posted this in a different thread, but it bears repeating here. Believe it or not, there is such a thing as a service rat.
(bold italics mine) --

"Dani Moore of Hesperia, Calif., owes much of what she can do in her life to a rat.

The rat, named Hiyo Silver, has the unique ability to feel when the 56-year-old Moore's body is just starting to shake because of muscle spasms. Because she suffered injuries to her spinal nerves, she can't feel those spasms until they become extremely bad. By then, it's sometimes too late to avoid a serious injury.

"Since I have osteporosis, if the spasms get too bad, they can fracture vertebrae, which has happened to me before."

When Hiyo licks her neck or face, Moore knows it's time to take action either by stretching her muscles or taking medication to stop the spasms.

She keeps Hiyo on a leash atop her shoulder wherever she goes because she never knows when she'll get spasms. "Before I got my service rat, I would sometimes spend weeks in bed because the spasms would not let up. I was so much more limited to where I could go or what I could do," Moore said.

Despite the freedom she's able to enjoy now, she wasn't always able to take Hiyo or her other rats with her anywhere. *The Americans With Disabilities Act only recognizes dogs and miniature horses as service animals, meaning that businesses are only required to allow these animals onto premises.

But back in March, Moore's home city of Hesperia voted to allow all species of service animals into businesses provided they behave appropriately."*










http://abcnews.go.com/Health/womans-service-rat-alert-spasms/story?id=13721547

This woman requests a ride, and when she shows up she has this service rat on her shoulder. What do you do - give her the ride or cancel and move on?

I may very well be wrong, but I suspect that if a driver was to cancel and refuse the ride, even though the ADA doesn't apply to service rats, that the resulting negative publicity (assuming she went public with the story) would cause Uber to permanently deactivate the driver in question.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

UberUber81 said:


> Passengers are safe, live animals, nah.
> 
> The law is forcing people to take service animals. It isn't customary or routine to need safety restraints or crates for animals, this doesn't come installed from the factory from the manufacturer.
> 
> So the law is putting people in harm's way.


How is your car any less safe then a taxi?


----------



## jlong105 (Sep 15, 2017)

Trafficat said:


> Uber could require a certain percent of drivers are "dog" drivers in each town and have pax choose that they have a dog in the account, and then Uber can automatically simply pair those drivers to those pax. Then no anti-dog driver has to ever refuse a pax for a pet or a service animal because they never get paired to begin with. The driver would still have to accept a service animal no doubt if the pax didn't report that he had one, but I think most pax would be honest and choose that they had a dog and thus be paired with a driver like me happier to do the service.


The only issue I see is in smaller markets. If there are no animal friendly drivers available, then Uber could once again be facing a lawsuit.


----------



## Willzuber (Aug 28, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> Nothing I hate more than having to transport someone's "service dog" just because they say it's a service dog. Is this not fraud? Don't you have to register and get government authorization to park in a handicap spot? What's the difference? Other than me having to drive around with the windows open for half an hour to get the dog smell out of my car, and cleaning the hair off the carpet. Much like I have to do after driving hipsters to Starbucks.
> 
> Uber doesn't give a crap what happens to our cars, but we do. As drivers we need to fight this fraud. I understand if you're driving a Corolla, it really doesn't matter, but not everyone is driving a Corolla. If I had a dog I still wouldn't let him ride in my car, I'd make other arrangements. Yes, it really bugs me that people think they have the right to bring their dog into my car when I wouldn't even bring my own dog in my car.
> 
> I actually love dogs, but not in my house and not in my car. If Uber were a decent company they'd work with drivers rather than just telling us "YOU HAVE TO!" Plenty of drivers don't mind and can put the dog in the back of the SUV were passengers don't sit. Heck, I'd even be willing to contribute to a fund where drivers get paid an extra ten bucks per ride for taking dogs. Yeah yeah I know, it's the law. Uber can work within the law, their are plenty of drivers willing to take dogs, especially if they if get paid extra.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/17/kangaroo-ban-service-animals-wisconsin_n_7602716.html

Enjoy!

Where can I please pick up a pax with a miniature horse as a service animal? Can't wait!


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

UberUber81 said:


> Sorry man, law is flawed. It puts people in danger who aren't set up to transport animals.
> 
> I'm not buying equipment or modifying my vehicle to safely transport an individual's live animal. This burden should be on the passenger, much like someone trying to transport a child without a car seat.
> 
> ...


This is a good point. There are a lot more pax with kids that need a car seat than pax with a legitimate service dog. Why is not every driver forced to have a car seat? Is it because you hate kids? No, it's because the ADA is a horrible law and does more harm than good. It's goal is political, not actually helping the disabled.


----------



## Willzuber (Aug 28, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> This is a good point. There are a lot more pax with kids that need a car seat than pax with a legitimate service dog. Why is not every driver forced to have a car seat? Is it because you hate kids? No, it's because the ADA is a horrible law and does more harm than good. It's goal is political, not actually helping the disabled.


Absolutely right. It was created by Democrats to generate votes. It has been nothing but a nightmare on businesses across America. Those who support this garbage legislation should be the ones to have to suffer. I am not hauling someones smell effing dog just because they have sensitive feelings (snowflake).


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Then I will be happy to see you get your discriminatory deactivation too. 

And no one is requiring you carry anything for a service dog. Just as you couldn't refuse to take someones child with them (yes they have to provide their own seat), you can't refuse a service dog. Now if the pax wants the dog belted, then they can provide the belt for sure.


----------



## Willzuber (Aug 28, 2015)

Pawtism said:


> Then I will be happy to see you get your discriminatory deactivation too.
> 
> And no one is requiring you carry anything for a service dog. Just as you couldn't refuse to take someones child with them (yes they have to provide their own seat), you can't refuse a service dog. Now if the pax wants the dog belted, then they can provide the belt for sure.


At what point do their rights end and mine begin?

I am all about peeps having service animals but the abuse of this government created fiasco is as rampant as Medicare fraud, welfare fraud and anything else our government creates. You have surely seen peeps pull up and park in a handicapped parking slot, hang the placard from the mirror and get out, run into the grocery store walking/running faster than you.

I have a friend who has a handicapped child. They have a service animal for her (Schnoodle). The dog cost them a fortune. It is certified. Trained. I would have no problem transporting them. BUT, what do I do with the animal? So the kid is buckled in, what about the dog? Run loose in my car? The kid holds the dog? So if I am in an accident and the dog launches into the back of my head? What if the dog gets in my lap while driving?

If I pull up and you come out with some smell-ass animal, you be seeing my taillights asap.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

There is no certification in the US. Perhaps you mean it has an ID card from the place that trained it? And I'm only talking about real service dogs, anyone who fakes a service dog is also faking a disability and is an example of a horrible human being. As someone who has been around a real service dog, you should know that they are trained to sit/lay at the handlers feet. That solves all your concerns (won't get in your lap, won't launch into your head).

If you pulled up, I came out with my service dog, and you "showed me your taillights", then you'd better hurry and get to that next ride. It would take me approximately 5 minutes to properly fill out the complaint form and send in my video. I have no idea how long it takes them to actually deactivate from that time, but based on what others here who have been deactivated for it have said, I'm guessing you have at max 2 hours to get in as many rides as you can.

And as I'd have video, likely no 2 chances for you (as they won't want the now impending law suit). I'd wish you luck with that plan, but I don't because anyone who would actually do that certainly doesn't deserve to drive (especially if they actually know someone with a real service dog and should know better).


----------



## Willzuber (Aug 28, 2015)

Pawtism said:


> There is no certification in the US. Perhaps you mean it has an ID card from the place that trained it? And I'm only talking about real service dogs, anyone who fakes a service dog is also faking a disability and is an example of a horrible human being. As someone who has been around a real service dog, you should know that they are trained to sit/lay at the handlers feet. That solves all your concerns (won't get in your lap, won't launch into your head).
> 
> If you pulled up, I came out with my service dog, and you "showed me your taillights", then you'd better hurry and get to that next ride. It would take me approximately 5 minutes to properly fill out the complaint form and send in my video. I have no idea how long it takes them to actually deactivate from that time, but based on what others here who have been deactivated for it have said, I'm guessing you have at max 2 hours to get in as many rides as you can.
> 
> And as I'd have video, likely no 2 chances for you (as they won't want the now impending law suit). I'd wish you luck with that plan, but I don't because anyone who would actually do that certainly doesn't deserve to drive (especially if they actually know someone with a real service dog and should know better).


I'm not talking about a known service animal goofball. I am talking about peeps with mutts, kangaroos, miniature horses and the like.

You know, I have never seen a pax recording me showing up or leaving. That would be funny. See how fast it takes you to get out your cell and record me driving off. Not gonna get anywhere with that one bud! They can complain all they want, don't care. Take my privilege to drive, don't care. It's a loser anyway. Just a hobby for me. ha ha haaa


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Willzuber said:


> I'm not talking about a known service animal goofball. I am talking about peeps with mutts, kangaroos, miniature horses and the like.
> 
> You know, I have never seen a pax recording me showing up or leaving. That would be funny. See how fast it takes you to get out your cell and record me driving off. Not gonna get anywhere with that one bud! They can complain all they want, don't care. Take my privilege to drive, don't care. It's a loser anyway. Just a hobby for me. ha ha haaa


I wear a body cam just because of such bad discriminatory behavior. So yeah, I'd have video.  As for kangaroos and such, those aren't real service animals. The ADA has limited service animals to dogs, and mini horses, however ubers will almost never have to worry about a mini horse (unless you're driving like an F350 or something and if you're ubering in that gas guzzler, that's kinda your fault lol). They included not enough reasonable space as a reason to decline in the mini horse section of the ADA.

If your issue is actually with fake service animals, then just say that. You didn't clarify that. In fact, you compared disabled people who have service dogs as snowflakes and actually said "I am not hauling someones smell effing dog just because they have sensitive feelings (snowflake)." Instead of trying to sound all big and bad, why not just say something like "I don't mind taking a real service dog but I'm going to haul around fakes and kangaroos and the like." That's a statement I think everyone would agree with.


----------



## Willzuber (Aug 28, 2015)

*A service animal means any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability.* Tasks performed can include, among other things, pulling a wheelchair, retrieving dropped items, alerting a person to a sound, reminding a person to take medication, or pressing an elevator button.

Emotional support animals, comfort animals, and therapy dogs are not service animals under Title II and Title III of the ADA. Other species of animals, whether wild or domestic, trained or untrained, are not considered service animals either. The work or tasks performed by a service animal must be directly related to the individual's disability. It does not matter if a person has a note from a doctor that states that the person has a disability and needs to have the animal for emotional support. A doctor's letter does not turn an animal into a service animal.

Dear Lyft: When I pulled up, pax Pawtism was standing outside his house with what looked like apit bull dog wearing a protective muzzle cage. I have severe allergies to dog dander. This causes me to sneeze and eyes water profusely. I have no idea if said dog was a service animal, he just looked menacing. Yes, I drove away because if said pax would get into said Lyfterizer vehicle, the lives and safety of Pawtism, his dog Barney the Biter, me, and others on the road would be at risk as my vision to drive would be impaired. I also have my own service animal in the car, a cat named Winnie. You know how dogs and cats go together? If you deactivate me, I will bring a lawsuit against you for discriminating against me as a result of my disability. Thank you. Willzuber


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

If you'd bother to read the rest of that, you'd have seen the part that states that allergies and a fear of dogs are not a vaild reason to deny service, and that the dog has to actually do something to be refused service (generalizations about what a dog might do are not vaild reasons). It's sad that they had to actually include that language, but it's exactly people like you that made them have to. And your cat isn't a real service animal (has to be a dog or mini horse). Really, you're going to try to argue service dog law with an expert on it by looking at a quarter of an ADA page?


----------



## Willzuber (Aug 28, 2015)

Pawtism said:


> If you'd bother to read the rest of that, you'd have seen the part that states that allergies and a fear of dogs are not a vaild reason to deny service, and that the dog has to actually do something to be refused service (generalizations about what a dog might do are not vaild reasons). It's sad that they had to actually include that language, but it's exactly people like you that made them have to. And your cat isn't a real service animal (has to be a dog or mini horse). Really, you're going to try to argue service dog law with an expert on it by looking at a quarter of an ADA page?


What part of my having a service animal did you not read? I have one of my own and she goes with me in my car. You not gonna nail old Willzuber with your baseless complaint. I be filing suit against you and Lyft so fast it make your head spin!


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> And your cat isn't a real service animal (has to be a dog or mini horse). Really, you're going to try to argue service dog law with an expert on it by looking at a quarter of an ADA page?


By your own quarter of an ADA page, in fact in the first sentence, you killed your cat (so to speak). "*A service animal means any dog "
*
I actually DO drive with a service dog, and while I haven't actually picked another one up yet, I would happily pick up a real service dog. You need to go talk to your "friend" about the training they get. Two real service dogs will effectively ignore each other.

Seriously, please go educate yourself, then come back with an actual valid argument (if you can find one).


----------



## ServiceDogHandler (Sep 3, 2017)

UberUber81 said:


> Easily if they lie.
> 
> Follow up questions would lead them into a trap to which they wouldn't be able to answer.
> 
> ...


So your dashcam would prove you lied? Nice going mr. Intelligence.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Pawtism said:


> By your own quarter of an ADA page, in fact in the first sentence, you killed your cat (so to speak). "*A service animal means any dog "
> *
> I actually DO drive with a service dog, and while I haven't actually picked another one up yet, I would happily pick up a real service dog. You need to go talk to your "friend" about the training they get. Two real service dogs will effectively ignore each other.
> 
> Seriously, please go educate yourself, then come back with an actual valid argument (if you can find one).


I actually saw this in play once. Family type of gatherings and two people there had service dogs. The dogs did indeed ignore each other while they were on duty. Eventually, it was decided that the dogs could get a break, to get something to eat and relax and expend some energy that may have built up. They played together quite nicely in the area that was provided for them until it was time to go back on duty and then they went right back to ignoring each other.


----------



## Julescase (Mar 29, 2017)

steveK2016 said:


> It's not Uber's responsibility. You can yell at Uber until you are blue in the face, Uber cannot change Federal law. If you want change, you need to write your congressmen and have the Americans with Disability Act of 1990 repealed or amended. The fact that neither has happened in 27 years means the likelihood of it changing is slim to none. it was intentionally written in a way to prevent "Undue stress" to those with disabilities.
> 
> You think you're the only one that has had an issue with the strictness of the ADA? Businesses have been shut down or forced to pay for renovations that costs 10's of thousands of dollars. The inconvenience you go through to vacuum out your car of Dog hairs pails in comparison to what many businesses have had to go through over the 27 year life span of this law. Millions, perhaps billions of dollars at this point, have been spent and wasted by businesses to renovate their properties to comply with ADA regulation, yet you think your need to vacuum some dog hair is going to get the law changed?
> 
> Power to the driver! Rise up!


I don't know where other people are driving, but none of the 10-15 dogs I've had in my car have left a bad smell, nor did they leave much fur behind. Nothing my lint roller couldn't take care of at least. Are you picking pax & dogs up from swamps? Horse stables? Muddy trails? It's just so much easier (and law-abiding) to transfer pax & dog, then move in.

I guess if you're driving in Seattle or Portland where wet, muddy streets and yards are the norm, it could get annoying. Otherwise save yourself the stress and just accept that if you're going to drive for Uber, you need to follow the law. Keep a big beach towel in the trunk for the rare occasions when a dog is involved, spread it on the backseat before the dog gets in, then put it away once the dog is out.

It's better than being deactivated for not accepting a service dog. I also highly recommend keeping a lint roller in your glove compartment for any residual fur.


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

It worked flawlessly. 

Got a call from a single-family residence, instantly got a text about having a service animal and that they screenshotted their phone screen with my information. 

Pulled over prior to arrival, let all the air out of my front tire that would be facing the customer's house when I pulled up. Pulled up and got out of the car and started looking at the flat tire. Lady finally comes out of the house with a stupid greasy Yorkie. 

I advised her I was sorry I had to cancel, I ran over something that blew out my tire in her neighborhood, and that I would have to repair it before I can accept rides. I acted frustrated and bothered. 

She sympathized and told me that the new construction in her neighborhood has been sloppy and a lot of people are getting flats from construction material being left in the roadways by the builder.

I canceled the ride and apologized profusely. She actually gave me $5 cash for the trouble. 

I went around the corner to a grocery store parking lot and reinflated my tire in less than 5 mins. 

I don't think Yorkies are a preferred service animal breed, but meh, looked bogus as hell.

The dog was yapping at me for the duration of the encounter.


----------



## Twinflower (Oct 31, 2017)

Just cancel if you see a dog next time if it really bothers you since you cannot know for certain if he's telling the truth or not. Or get a seat protector like what I did. Picked up someone with a dog and my car was still immaculate after the trip.


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

Twinflower said:


> Just cancel if you see a dog next time if it really bothers you since you cannot know for certain if he's telling the truth or not. Or get a seat protector like what I did. Picked up someone with a dog and my car was still immaculate after the trip.


This can lead to deactivation. All they have to do is make a simple report that you denied service because of a "service animal".
The method I've listed above is perfect insulation against any passengers attempting to transport a regular animal under the guise of a service animal.
This lady was thirsty to get people deactivated. Most likely from multiple cancellations because no one wanted to transport her and her nasty little Yorkie. How much effort is it worth to preserve your Rideshare account from some nut bag like this?
Unfortunately, due to the extreme narcissism in our society, we have to lean on angle shooting in order to come out clean and not get deactivated.

It didn't take me long to reinflate my tire (I had to stay offline anyways to make sure I didn't get her new request), also in this instance, I made a $5. 
The little tire inflator is the best $20 I've spent. It literally saved my account.


----------



## Emp9 (Apr 9, 2015)

Pawtism said:


> By your own quarter of an ADA page, in fact in the first sentence, you killed your cat (so to speak). "*A service animal means any dog "
> *
> I actually DO drive with a service dog, and while I haven't actually picked another one up yet, I would happily pick up a real service dog. You need to go talk to your "friend" about the training they get. Two real service dogs will effectively ignore each other.
> 
> Seriously, please go educate yourself, then come back with an actual valid argument (if you can find one).


you drive uber with a service animal?


----------

