8 ms·

If a bus driver is allergic to a dog, then it's usually not an issue because the dog won't be very close to the driver, but in the case of an uber, it could be

If a bus driver is allergic to a dog, then it's usually not an issue because the dog won't be very close to the driver, but in the case of an uber, it could be a real problem. I'm sympathetic to this person wanting to take an uber, but uber needs to be able to allow drivers to mark their cars as "dog friendly". That way she can get a ride, and allergic drivers won't suffer.

RangerScience 9y ago
This makes sense. If instead of a dog it's a wheelchair, it's undeniably "not your fault" if you car literally can't handle it. The other issue is that we, as a society, subsidize the additional cost for the handicapped; I doubt that Uber subsidizes the additional cleaning for transporting a service dog.
- jstarfish 9y ago
  Cleaning aside, I'm surprised that having unsecured bodies in a passenger vehicle is a requisite for being a service provider. Letting your dog loose in your own car is your own choice, but the trunk exists for unsecured cargo so in an accident, you don't have large objects flying around inside the cabin. The correct solution would be to identify the handicapped passenger with animal and dispatch an appropriate vehicle. Instead, Uber puts both driver and passenger in danger with this policy.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    People do not put their dogs in the trunk and they may or may not use carriers in vehicles with a back cargo hatch.
    - jstarfish 9y ago
      I'm aware people do not put dogs in the trunk, nor was I suggesting that-- hence dispatching an alternative vehicle to accommodate an animal. A van with a carrier, or an SUV with a partitioned front/rear would suffice. Instead of calling Uber X, you call Uber Furry or somesuch.
      - DanBC 9y ago
        The entire point of disability discrimination laws (which have existed for many years now) is prevent this kind of segregation.
        BadCookie 9y ago
        I see what you're saying, but let's be realistic. Is every Uber/Lyft vehicle going to be outfitted with a wheelchair lift, just in case? That's definitely not going to happen. Most vehicles cannot accommodate a wheelchair, and the ones that can (vans) are very expensive to modify. I am not completely wheelchair-dependent, but I cannot get into a tall vehicle (like an SUV). Last time I used Lyft, I had to call a vehicle and just cross my fingers that I would be assigned to one that would work for me. If not, I had to cancel and try again. I would much rather have a special vehicle dispatched to me than be assigned a vehicle that is inadequate.
        ghaff 9y ago
        Stereotypes notwithstanding, a lot of regulations/laws do make reasonable tradeoffs. In this case, it appears as if the ADA guidelines do require a taxi driver to help stow a wheelchair but they don't require every cab to be a van equipped with a wheelchair lift. It would be nice if Uber allowed special requests although, of course, the number of options could explode quickly and it probably doesn't fit well with the Uber automated dispatch model.
- black_puppydog 9y ago
  the equivalent might be that every uber ride would become .001% more expensive. For confirmed (as in, by a doctor) dog allergic drivers I'm cool, for everything else this just seems like a cheap excuse and shifting of responsibilities...
- gaius 9y ago
  it's undeniably "not your fault" if you car literally can't handle it If you are working as a commercial driver or employing commercial drivers then yes, complying with the law is very much "your fault".
  - RangerScience 9y ago
    Most taxis can't do wheelchairs, either. No-one blames the taxi driver.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > The other issue is that we, as a society, subsidize the additional cost for the handicapped The only way this is generally true of privately-offered public accommodations covered by ADA is that the requirements impose additional costs on business which they pass on to all customers. > I doubt that Uber subsidizes the additional cleaning for transporting a service dog. The occasional need to do so is a cost of doing business which should factor into the minimum rate that drivers are willing to accept. No specific subsidy should be needed.
  - RangerScience 9y ago
    Yes, this is exactly what I'm saying. It should factor in, but AFAIK doesn't.
verelo 9y ago
Major frustration i personally experience! My dog isn't a service dog, he's just a friend, but sometimes I take the street car in to the office and my dog (Elvis) joins me. If it rains, or if i'm leaving in rush hour (when dogs are not allowed on transit here in Toronto), i take an uber or taxi home. Often Ubers reject me due to the dog, but i have no way of letting them know in advance other than by calling as soon as they accept (which i always do, but even when they say "yeah no worries" they often still reject after the call). I just want to be able to mark that I have a dog with me, and for the uber drivers to know this when they accept. Surprising them with an animal is to no ones advantage. We're talking about a Beagle, completely silent, normally just sleeps in cars, 22lbs, sits on my lap.
- jwilk 9y ago
  Translation for metric units users: 22 lbs ≈ 10 kg
  - verelo 9y ago
    Thanks! I actually failed at this myself just now, he's 11.2kg (as of last week) so more like 24.5lb. From Australia i think in kg but constantly convert to lb for everyone else.
- DanBC 9y ago
  There's a big difference between proper service dogs and pets.
  - verelo 9y ago
    Totally! I would never suggest otherwise. My point is that animals appearing in your rides as a driver shouldn't come as a surprise. Example: UberX, do you reserve a seat for your service dog, or do you just select 1 seat? There should be no ambiguity here, it should be a clear and well understood process for both the rider and driver.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
oldcynic 9y ago
Then they should not be driving an Uber. Everywhere else, be that shops, taxis, trains etc, there is a legal requirement to allow guide dogs and other service animals. This is the case in the EU at least. Allowing drivers to opt in or out of providing adequate, and legally mandated, service should not be an option.
- black_puppydog 9y ago
  why is this being downvoted? saying you think that people acting in a commercial setting (and they just are, even if you consider them self-employed, not employees) should abide by the law regulating commercial activity seems like a valid point...? are people confusing "they" in the first sentence to mean the customer? or what's the angle here?
- pkaye 9y ago
  But that brings up the question if an Uber driver with a severe dog allergy has a disability that needs accommodation?
  - gaius 9y ago
    No it doesn't. There's no law granting the right to work as an Uber driver.
    - jackhack 9y ago
      Employers must provide "reasonable accommodation" to those with disabilities.
      - vuln 9y ago
        Employers must provide "reasonable accommodation" to their employeers. Uber drivers are not "Employees" of Uber they are Independent Contractors. The driver has the right to refuse letting anyone in their vehicle. The vehicle is owned/leased by the driver not Uber. Uber has very minimal control and liability when it comes to said vehicle. Gotta love "disruption" /s
paulcole 9y ago
https://www.ada.gov/archive/qasrvc.htm https://www.ada.gov/archive/qasrvc.htm Q: I operate a private taxicab and I don't want animals in my taxi; they smell, shed hair and sometimes have "accidents." Am I violating the ADA if I refuse to pick up someone with a service animal? A: Yes. Taxicab companies may not refuse to provide services to individuals with disabilities. Private taxicab companies are also prohibited from charging higher fares or fees for transporting individuals with disabilities and their service animals than they charge to other persons for the same or equivalent service. "A driver-partner CANNOT lawfully deny service to riders with service animals because of allergies, religious objections, or a generalized fear of animals." https://accessibility.uber.com/service-animal-policy/ https://accessibility.uber.com/service-animal-policy/
- lotsofpulp 9y ago
  Does that mean people who are allergic to dogs aren't allowed to be taxi drivers?
  - kevinh 9y ago
    People with allergies are also protected by the ADA, so I doubt the answer is as clear cut as that.
    - kbutler 9y ago
      Allergies are not universally classed as a disability - it must be severe enough to significantly impair a common life function.
  - naeo98th34tao 9y ago
    No, it means they have to be prepared for it, possibly with face masks they can wear and epi-pens if necessary. How do they deal with walking down the street when there are dogs coming around a blind corner? Do you expect people to not ever own or walk dogs because people on the street might be allergic? Besides, most proper cabs have bullet proof glass between the front and back seat, so it's probably not really an issue anyway.
gaius 9y ago
Uber's whole business model is finding ways to dodge the regulations. The price of dog handling is priced into regular cab fares. Why should Uber be able to undercut those prices by not providing the same service?
- pasbesoin 9y ago
  What I've said: They "crowdsourced" making an end-run around existing regulations. Regulatory authorities were/are not staffed to handle mass, individual violations. And the Fed's continued to turn a blind eye. Ra-ra, "tech economy". Like the people made miserable by their new AirBnB "neighbors". (Another "crowdsourcing" effort.) These services have victims. Often the same people regulation was designed, negotiated, and put into place over years and decades, to protect. -- P.S. Like some unfortunate souls get larger payouts from insurance -- because of misfortune they'd rather have avoided. We pay a bit more for rides and hotel rooms, to make sure those with physical challenges have equal access. And to make sure those who want to live in peace and safety, aren't victimized by unfettered opportunism. Regulation goes wrong, sure. But ultimately, it's a process of governance -- here in the U.S., democratic governance. So, govern. If you pass your governance off onto private entities, well, then that's who will own your government. Today's election day, in my state. Primaries, here. Turnout will be abysmal. And then, people will complain about what they get. "Government doesn't work!" Well, that's because you didn't.
- 111_1_111 9y ago
  Because the vast majority of passengers don't need dog handling. Why should millions of people who don't need dog handling be forced to subsidize the thousands that do?
ddunkin 9y ago
I have had to, on the opposite end, had an Uber take me home/cancel after a few miles because the previous rider had been wearing thick perfume and it was too cold for the driver to drive around with all the windows open. If someone with pet allergies responds the same way I did in a closed environment, I have sympathy for them.

RangerScience 9y ago

This makes sense. If instead of a dog it's a wheelchair, it's undeniably "not your fault" if you car literally can't handle it. The other issue is that we, as a society, subsidize the additional cost for the handicapped; I doubt that Uber subsidizes the additional cleaning for transporting a service dog.

jstarfish 9y ago
Cleaning aside, I'm surprised that having unsecured bodies in a passenger vehicle is a requisite for being a service provider. Letting your dog loose in your own car is your own choice, but the trunk exists for unsecured cargo so in an accident, you don't have large objects flying around inside the cabin. The correct solution would be to identify the handicapped passenger with animal and dispatch an appropriate vehicle. Instead, Uber puts both driver and passenger in danger with this policy.
- ghaff 9y ago
  People do not put their dogs in the trunk and they may or may not use carriers in vehicles with a back cargo hatch.
  - jstarfish 9y ago
    I'm aware people do not put dogs in the trunk, nor was I suggesting that-- hence dispatching an alternative vehicle to accommodate an animal. A van with a carrier, or an SUV with a partitioned front/rear would suffice. Instead of calling Uber X, you call Uber Furry or somesuch.
    - DanBC 9y ago
      The entire point of disability discrimination laws (which have existed for many years now) is prevent this kind of segregation.
      - BadCookie 9y ago
        I see what you're saying, but let's be realistic. Is every Uber/Lyft vehicle going to be outfitted with a wheelchair lift, just in case? That's definitely not going to happen. Most vehicles cannot accommodate a wheelchair, and the ones that can (vans) are very expensive to modify. I am not completely wheelchair-dependent, but I cannot get into a tall vehicle (like an SUV). Last time I used Lyft, I had to call a vehicle and just cross my fingers that I would be assigned to one that would work for me. If not, I had to cancel and try again. I would much rather have a special vehicle dispatched to me than be assigned a vehicle that is inadequate.
        ghaff 9y ago
        Stereotypes notwithstanding, a lot of regulations/laws do make reasonable tradeoffs. In this case, it appears as if the ADA guidelines do require a taxi driver to help stow a wheelchair but they don't require every cab to be a van equipped with a wheelchair lift. It would be nice if Uber allowed special requests although, of course, the number of options could explode quickly and it probably doesn't fit well with the Uber automated dispatch model.
black_puppydog 9y ago
the equivalent might be that every uber ride would become .001% more expensive. For confirmed (as in, by a doctor) dog allergic drivers I'm cool, for everything else this just seems like a cheap excuse and shifting of responsibilities...
gaius 9y ago
it's undeniably "not your fault" if you car literally can't handle it If you are working as a commercial driver or employing commercial drivers then yes, complying with the law is very much "your fault".
- RangerScience 9y ago
  Most taxis can't do wheelchairs, either. No-one blames the taxi driver.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> The other issue is that we, as a society, subsidize the additional cost for the handicapped The only way this is generally true of privately-offered public accommodations covered by ADA is that the requirements impose additional costs on business which they pass on to all customers. > I doubt that Uber subsidizes the additional cleaning for transporting a service dog. The occasional need to do so is a cost of doing business which should factor into the minimum rate that drivers are willing to accept. No specific subsidy should be needed.
- RangerScience 9y ago
  Yes, this is exactly what I'm saying. It should factor in, but AFAIK doesn't.

verelo 9y ago

Major frustration i personally experience! My dog isn't a service dog, he's just a friend, but sometimes I take the street car in to the office and my dog (Elvis) joins me. If it rains, or if i'm leaving in rush hour (when dogs are not allowed on transit here in Toronto), i take an uber or taxi home. Often Ubers reject me due to the dog, but i have no way of letting them know in advance other than by calling as soon as they accept (which i always do, but even when they say "yeah no worries" they often still reject after the call). I just want to be able to mark that I have a dog with me, and for the uber drivers to know this when they accept. Surprising them with an animal is to no ones advantage. We're talking about a Beagle, completely silent, normally just sleeps in cars, 22lbs, sits on my lap.

jwilk 9y ago
Translation for metric units users: 22 lbs ≈ 10 kg
- verelo 9y ago
  Thanks! I actually failed at this myself just now, he's 11.2kg (as of last week) so more like 24.5lb. From Australia i think in kg but constantly convert to lb for everyone else.
DanBC 9y ago
There's a big difference between proper service dogs and pets.
- verelo 9y ago
  Totally! I would never suggest otherwise. My point is that animals appearing in your rides as a driver shouldn't come as a surprise. Example: UberX, do you reserve a seat for your service dog, or do you just select 1 seat? There should be no ambiguity here, it should be a clear and well understood process for both the rider and driver.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

oldcynic 9y ago

Then they should not be driving an Uber. Everywhere else, be that shops, taxis, trains etc, there is a legal requirement to allow guide dogs and other service animals. This is the case in the EU at least. Allowing drivers to opt in or out of providing adequate, and legally mandated, service should not be an option.

black_puppydog 9y ago
why is this being downvoted? saying you think that people acting in a commercial setting (and they just are, even if you consider them self-employed, not employees) should abide by the law regulating commercial activity seems like a valid point...? are people confusing "they" in the first sentence to mean the customer? or what's the angle here?
pkaye 9y ago
But that brings up the question if an Uber driver with a severe dog allergy has a disability that needs accommodation?
- gaius 9y ago
  No it doesn't. There's no law granting the right to work as an Uber driver.
  - jackhack 9y ago
    Employers must provide "reasonable accommodation" to those with disabilities.
    - vuln 9y ago
      Employers must provide "reasonable accommodation" to their employeers. Uber drivers are not "Employees" of Uber they are Independent Contractors. The driver has the right to refuse letting anyone in their vehicle. The vehicle is owned/leased by the driver not Uber. Uber has very minimal control and liability when it comes to said vehicle. Gotta love "disruption" /s

paulcole 9y ago

https://www.ada.gov/archive/qasrvc.htm https://www.ada.gov/archive/qasrvc.htm Q: I operate a private taxicab and I don't want animals in my taxi; they smell, shed hair and sometimes have "accidents." Am I violating the ADA if I refuse to pick up someone with a service animal? A: Yes. Taxicab companies may not refuse to provide services to individuals with disabilities. Private taxicab companies are also prohibited from charging higher fares or fees for transporting individuals with disabilities and their service animals than they charge to other persons for the same or equivalent service. "A driver-partner CANNOT lawfully deny service to riders with service animals because of allergies, religious objections, or a generalized fear of animals." https://accessibility.uber.com/service-animal-policy/ https://accessibility.uber.com/service-animal-policy/

lotsofpulp 9y ago
Does that mean people who are allergic to dogs aren't allowed to be taxi drivers?
- kevinh 9y ago
  People with allergies are also protected by the ADA, so I doubt the answer is as clear cut as that.
  - kbutler 9y ago
    Allergies are not universally classed as a disability - it must be severe enough to significantly impair a common life function.
- naeo98th34tao 9y ago
  No, it means they have to be prepared for it, possibly with face masks they can wear and epi-pens if necessary. How do they deal with walking down the street when there are dogs coming around a blind corner? Do you expect people to not ever own or walk dogs because people on the street might be allergic? Besides, most proper cabs have bullet proof glass between the front and back seat, so it's probably not really an issue anyway.

gaius 9y ago

Uber's whole business model is finding ways to dodge the regulations. The price of dog handling is priced into regular cab fares. Why should Uber be able to undercut those prices by not providing the same service?

pasbesoin 9y ago
What I've said: They "crowdsourced" making an end-run around existing regulations. Regulatory authorities were/are not staffed to handle mass, individual violations. And the Fed's continued to turn a blind eye. Ra-ra, "tech economy". Like the people made miserable by their new AirBnB "neighbors". (Another "crowdsourcing" effort.) These services have victims. Often the same people regulation was designed, negotiated, and put into place over years and decades, to protect. -- P.S. Like some unfortunate souls get larger payouts from insurance -- because of misfortune they'd rather have avoided. We pay a bit more for rides and hotel rooms, to make sure those with physical challenges have equal access. And to make sure those who want to live in peace and safety, aren't victimized by unfettered opportunism. Regulation goes wrong, sure. But ultimately, it's a process of governance -- here in the U.S., democratic governance. So, govern. If you pass your governance off onto private entities, well, then that's who will own your government. Today's election day, in my state. Primaries, here. Turnout will be abysmal. And then, people will complain about what they get. "Government doesn't work!" Well, that's because you didn't.
111_1_111 9y ago
Because the vast majority of passengers don't need dog handling. Why should millions of people who don't need dog handling be forced to subsidize the thousands that do?

ddunkin 9y ago

I have had to, on the opposite end, had an Uber take me home/cancel after a few miles because the previous rider had been wearing thick perfume and it was too cold for the driver to drive around with all the windows open. If someone with pet allergies responds the same way I did in a closed environment, I have sympathy for them.