Category: Animal House
Service Dog Forced To Ride In Taxi Trunk
Blind Woman Says Driver Gave Her Ultimatum
DENVER -- A blind woman says a driver told her she would have to put her guide dog in the trunk of his taxi if she wanted a ride.
Judie Brown says her black lab named Alberto isn't just a best friend; he's been her lifeline for the past four years.
"If something happened to him. I would just die," said Brown.
About a month ago, Brown called a cab.
When she walked out front with Alberto, the driver from Union Taxi initially refused to transport her with Alberto.
"He said, 'No dog in my cab,' " said Brown.
Brown said the driver told her he was allergic to dogs and would only drive her if Alberto went in the back of his cab.
"I asked him, 'Where in the back?' And he said, 'In the trunk,' " said Brown.
Late for an appointment, she reluctantly agreed.
"I never hear my dog whine or crying. Ever. Ever. I knew it was terribly wrong," said Brown.
Colorado law protects guide dogs and their owners, allowing them to ride together in taxis.
"A service dog is an appliance, similar to a wheelchair. Would you deny them a wheelchair?" said animal law expert Jay Swearingen.
A manager with Union Taxi tells 7NEWS the driver has been suspended and fined by the state.
But Judie is scarred and says she's been afraid to travel with Alberto ever since.
"I've lost my independence. And I do not like it. It makes me angry. And I want it back," said Brown.
The National Guide Dog Association says they get similar calls, three to 10 times per week.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/28151488/detail.html
I;m sorry but if I was her, I don't care if I was late for my appointment, I still would not put my dog in the trunk of a car. I would have called the cab company to talk to the manager and tell him what happened. I would have requested another cab to be sent out and remind the manager of the guide dog access laws. I would have called the place where I was having my appointment and told them that I was going to be late and if they could still see me or if they could reschedule. There are other things I might have done, but never put my dog in the trunk of a car. IMO, she should have her dog taken away. I think that was animal cruelty!
well, actually I think it depends.
If the "trunk" of the cab was completely enclosed with little space etc for the dog then she is right to complain. However if the car is a hatchback or estate where the dog can see into the main part of the car then I think it's fair enough to put the dog in there. There's more space for the dog for one, more space for the owner for another, and putting the dog in the back really isn't that big a deal - I've done it when cab drivers have really not wanted the dog in the front with them, maybe because of cultural beliefs etc.
Refusing outright to carry a guide dog is one thing and should be addressed.
Requesting the dog go in the back (assuming the back is sufficient space to carry the dog and is not closed off from the rest of the car) is fine, imho.
Claire, I'm guessing that, given the word trunk here, it is the kind that is closed off from the rest of the cab, with little space and breathing room, etc. I lived in Denver for three years, rode in many cabs there, and never once saw one that is a hatchback like you describe. If it was, I would agree with you on that point, but I seriously doubt it.
As far as cultural beliefs, I don't give a damn about that. If a person is going to drive a cab in this country, then they need to be willing to accept the responsibilities that the job and the law entail. One of those requirements is carrying guide dogs. If their cultural beliefs make that a problem for them, then driving a cab is not the job for them. I'm not blaming people for their belief systems, I'm just saying that they then should not take a job where the law and that culture does not mix. If they do, then in my opinion, the laws of this country, in which they live and work, must supercede their own cultural system.
As to that woman who owned the dog, I have a problem with her on two levels. Yes, the way she was treated was incredibly unfair, wrong, and she has every rite to be very upset. However, like the original poster, I think her putting the dog in the trunk was an act of cruelty. I too, never would have done that to Dusty, no matter how late I was to what. It simply would have been out of the question. I think she was incredibly dumb to do it, both because of the cruelty to her dog, and for giving into the driver's illegal demands.
Second, I think that, unfair as this treatment was, she is now being a baby about it. For one incident to make her lose her independence? If we all did that, allowing one bad experience to make us lose independence, make us not want to travel anymore, none of us would go anywhere outside our front door. What happened here is wrong, and there is an undeniable problem in Denver with foreign cab drivers not treating dog owners well. But fortunately, they are the minority. I'd say her whining about losing her independence now is an attention ploy: pity the poor blind woman, and I have no time for that.
I do agree that if someone isn't prepared to take on all aspects of the job then perhaps they shouldn't be doing it. I do however think that it can be difficult.
We have a lot of asian taxi drivers in the UK, and a lot of those subscribe to cultures and religions where dogs are seen as dirty animals. Not so long ago it used to be a real issue of drivers refusing to carry guide dogs, and in those instances I agree, if they're not prepared to do that then they shouldn't be doing the job. But I do also think that it's possible to compromise, and that if a driver is genuinely afraid of the dog being in such close proximity to him and would rather the dog travel in a different part of the car, so long as it's not detrimental to the dog and the driver isn't being agressive about it, then I see no issue with that. I've had drivers ask me whether I would mind putting the dog in the back (in a hatch, where the dog can see into the car, and actually has far more space than curled up in the front) and I've had no problem doing that.
However I recently had a driver flatly refuse to carry my dog even when I offered that compromise, and I feel he shouldn't have been doing that job.
For the taxis here in florida, I would never put my dog in the trunk, even if it was a hatch back. First, I've been in cabs where I could barely sit upright because the driver took turns so quickly, the only thing that kept my dog from sliding into the door nose first, was me grabbing the back of her harness. If she'd been in the trunk, I wouldn't have been able to do anything. I'd rather not take that risk. Secondly, you don't really know what else is back there that the dog could potentially get hurt with. And, personally, I don't like being out of arms reach of my dog when I'm travelling.
As for the cultures that don't like dogs, I understand that they exist and are even common in some areas, but this is how I see it. The law gives me the right to take my dog anywhere the public is allowed to, the law does not, however, give you the right to not be offended. There is no law written anywhere in our constitution that says that your feelings outweigh my rights. If this were asia or the middle east, that would be one thing, but it isn't.
When its taxi drivers, we agree because your not going to be in that cab very long, but what if a teacher said it, or a police officer, or a firemen, or a doctor refused treatment because you had a dog, then every blind person in the country would be up in arms about it. The person would be sued more times than they could possibly imagine, and they'd never work in that town again, because those are jobs you can't really get around that easily. Its not like, if someone is beating you up, and the police officer refuses you help because you have a guide dog, and he's muslim or what have you, that you could just say, "Ok, fair enough, would you mind sending another officer over here to stop these men from beating me?" Same for teachers and firemen and doctors. So why should we let cabdrivers dictate where we can and cannot take our dogs, or where they should put them?
I think the lady in question is weak and needs to grow up and grow a pair. If any cabdriver told me I had to put my dog in a trunk, I'd tell him he had to put his kids in the trunk, and he definantly would not be getting paid for the compliment.
I do totally take your point cody, and as I said before if being in the back was detrimental to the dog then of course she would be right to refuse.
Our cab drivers here don't tend to drive like maniacs, and whenever I've been asked if I would put the dog in the back it's always been a polite request and never a refusal to carry the dog in the front, more of a request as to whether it could be carried elsewhere. I don't see why I should refuse that just because I can - just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean that all consideration for others should go out the window.
Also a taxi is a small enclosed space, for someone who might be afraid of dogs it can be a daunting thought to have to have a dog sitting next to you while you're trying to drive if your fear of them is great enough.
I think perfectly fine to say if you don't want to carry dogs at all then you shouldn't be a cab driver, but I also think that there's sometimes nothing wrong with a bit of compromise on both sides. Plus for many of these cab drivers it's the only job they can do, what would we have them do instead, live off the state because of the couple of times a year they might request a guide dog travel in a different part of their car?
In the UK we also have the right to take our dogs anywhere, but I still think consideration is key here. I take my dog into classrooms full of children all the time, that is reasonable. However it would be unreasonable to expect a child with a fear of dogs to sit next to him purely because he is a guide dog and has a right to be there.
I saw this on twitter yesterday and made comments then, but seeing it just gets me riled up all over again.
This story makes me sick. I was in class with her when I got my first dog Steven at Guide Dogs For the Blind four years ago. I have half a mind to repost this in an email to graduate services to let them know what has happened, unless someone has already done that. Heck, maybe I should just call them. My only problem is wording the rest of it. I can't find the words; that's how upsetting this is. God, I can't believe I know her. This is outrageous. That poor dog.
As the second person pointed out, there are other ways she could have handled this. Now she sits there and claims, "I've lost my independence and I want it back." Give me a break! If she's so scared of traveling with him, then perhaps it's time to retire him and give him back. One little incident shouldn't make her afraid of all cab drivers. Not all of them are like that.
Okay, getting mad won't solve anything here. I'm just going to walk away now. Good day.
Claire, I disagree with your analogy of taking your dog into a classroom full of children. You are right, a child should not be forced to sit next to you and your dog if they are afraid of it. However, that child is not employed. That child is not getting paid for a service. Those cab drivers are. when they take that position, as I said before, part of their responsibility is carying blind people and their dogs, and there are times circumstances will dictate that the dog needs to ride in front. I understand consideration to a point. But, at the end of the day, I have no sympathy for the driver if they fear dogs. Once again, if your fear is that great, do not take a job that will very likely put you in contact with them on a frequent basis. If you're afraid of blood, dont' be a medical doctor. If you're afraid of guns, don't be a police officer. Same goes here.
I like the way you put it about her being weak and needing to grow a pair, Cody. And Reyami, also agree with you about maybe she should retire the dog. First, the fact that she put it in the trunk at all speaks ill of her ability to handle one. Second, her now supposed fear of traveling with him speaks ill of her capabilities as a blind person in general.
I second the thought of clare here. It depends. if the driver is asking us to do that politely, we have to adjust or compremise. rather if he is insisting to do that, we can go for lodging a complaint or whatever. It's just a mutual adjustment. provided, as long as the dog is not getting hurt.
Raaj.
I sort of think though, that it's perfectly fine to not want to have a dog, that will shed hair in your taxi if you are alergic to them.
this is the thing that annoys me about some guide dog owners, is that they assume that they should be able to take the dog anywhere and so on, even if it will inconvenience other people, and I don't mean cultural beliefs, though I do think if you're blind and want to walk into a restaurant owned by and predominantly for people who have cultural issues with dogs, you're stirring the pot.
I also agree with clair, if it was an open trunk, with space and air, which in my locale, all taxies have, then there's no issue.
drivers have to clean their own cabs for the most part. and not only might he have had issues with dog hair, but other passingers might too.
I agree with those who think this is wrong in every sense. I honestly can't believe people are excusing this incident, by saying compromising is ok in some instances.
I'm not a guide dog handler, but if I were, I'd flat out refuse to enclose said animal in a trunk regardless of how open it is. as has been said numerous times, if cab drivers don't want dogs in their cabs, they shouldn't be in such positions, period. the law is the law; that's all there is to it.
here in the UK all guide dog instructors' cars have dog cages in the back where the dogs travel. That's no different to putting a dog in the back of a taxi (and as I have previously expressed on more than one occasion, provided there is space and air for the dog).
Yes these people are employed. But the man didn't flatly refuse to carry the dog - he said the dog would have to travel in the back of the car. Now if the back of the car was an enclosed boot space then the woman was at fault for agreeing to it and then going to the press afterwards. If the back of the car was not an enclosed space then I really see no issue with it.
As long as the dog is safe in the car, what issue is there about whether the dog is at your feet or just behind you?
Loui, I do understand what you mean about some dog users thinking it's their rite to take the dog anywhere, without regard to someone else's preferences. But I have usually applied this to someone else's personal space. For example, if you're going to someone's house, and that person is afraid of dogs, or has allergies, etc, then I'd say don't bring your dog. You're going into their home, their space. But in public places, and cabs included, I'd say they're within their rites to bring the dog. Of course, then there's the issue of a poorly cared for dog being brought in public, but that's a whole other track and off topic.
I think the issue is what the meaning of trunk is. It sounds like, in the UK and likely other countries, a lot of cabs are hatchbacks, or would have adequate space and breathing room for the dog. But as I've also said, most American cabs are not that way. Most trunks of cabs in the US are the enclosed kind, without much space or much oxygen. That's certainly the only kind I've seen in Denver. That's why I fault the woman in question.
Your assuming that the dog will be safe there though. If a dog is in the back of a car, for instance, the cargo area of an SUV, it is very easy for them to get injured. Dogs have no idea of newton's three laws, all it would take is for the to sit up and the car to get cut off. Driver slams on the brakes and the dog can't stop themselves, so they slam into the backseat. That might not be a problem if its at a low speed and the seat is soft, but what if it isn't? The point of it is control, at least for me, I can't control my dog if I'm not holding onto my dog.
I was once asked to leave my dog at a buffet style restaurant. Now there was no one around, I could have easily left her there, she wouldn't have moved, everything would be fine, unless something happened. What if, while I was up, a family with young kids had come into the restaurant, and the kid had run across to play with my dog. Now I have a dog, in a harness, being played with, and I'm not there. that's a huge no no.
Also, I don't know about where you live, but where I live, the cab's pull up to the curb, in the street. That means that, instead of simply stepping out and calling my dog out after me, I have to walk around to the trunk, in traffic, and wait for my dog to climb or jump out of the back of the cab. Not only does that hold up traffic, but its inherently dangerous.
Those are my reasons for not doing it.
Guide dog owners "assume that they should be able to take the dog anywhere and so on, even if it will inconvenience other people, " because the law says we can do so. Access laws trump allergies and cultural beliefs. If someone decides to take on a job like driving a cab, then they need to be prepared to deal with the forseeable consequence of having to drive a service animal. Take some allergy pills, get a vacuum and obey the law. We're not talking about taking a service animal into a personal home or vehicle. It's a cab. I always ask before going into someone's house or personal car. If they have a problem with my dog then I'm willing to be reasonable. But the issue here is public access. It's public transportation. Guide dogs must be allowed with no extra charge. End of story. It makes no difference if the cabbie owns the car. If he doesn't want dogs in his car, then he shouldn't use it as a cab. same goes for restaurants. You have a cultural issue with dogs? Too damn bad. Get into another profession that doesn't require you to interact with service animals.
On the issue of inconveniencing others in public, boo hoo. Lots of things inconvenience me in public. Screaming kids, jerks on cell phones who don't watch where they're going or talk ridiculously loud, people with body odor or extra heavy perfume, etc. No one questions any of these people's rights to go to a restaurant or ride in a cab. Why are my dog and I any different? You don't like dogs? Fine. Stay home, because it is not unreasonable to expect to encounter dogs in public. Life is full of inconveniences. You suck it up and deal with it.
As for trunk lady, there is no appointment important enough for me to agree to putting my dog in a trunk. I'd consider a hatchback or SUV back compartment but I wouldn't be happy about it and I can't say for sure that I'd do it. It depends on the circumstances. However the story says trunk and the common understanding of that word in the US is small, closed compartment, completely seperated from the passenger compartment. There's no way in Hell that cabbie should have demanded that and the handler should have her dog taken away for agreeing to it. It's abuse and it's utterly ridiculous. And I agree with others that this woman has no business owning a guide dog if one incident is going to take away her independence. That's BS. Like someone already said, grow a pair. I honestly can't decide who the bad guy is in this story because they're clearly both idiots.
Islamic law the only info I have on guide dogs is if you're going to use one, keep it an outdoor dog, with a shelter in a shady area and clean food and water. These animals must be humanely treated and cared for and it is perfectly permissible to use them to assist you in your daily life.
I have heard nothing, however, about transporting them in cars, for or against. I know city of Boston cabs have a barrier between the driver and passenger. Do Denver cabs have something similar? Somali drivers in Minnesota were told "(Forget) you and the horse you rode in on" when they took offense to blind riders with guide dogs. They were told "This is Minnesota, USA, and you will transport ANYONE WHO WANTS A RIDE AND IS PAYING YOU FOR ONE" as they also were taking offense to transporting passengers who purchased liquor from airport duty free shops and were even proposing different color lights on their cabs to indicate who they wouldn't transport. Personally, I think anyone who isn't going to adapt at all to a dominant culture should stay home, and doesn't federal law prevent the blind/others with disabilities being separated from their guide dogs in public places? I know a Chinese restaurant in Tampa got fined for refusing service to a blind customer with a dog.
My wife had never been allergic to dogs before, and when we went to someone's house with a particular kind (I don't remember what kind it was), she immediately had difficulty breathing her eyes watering, etc., and it was the owners told us what was happening.
Fortunately it was a nice day so we just went outside. But it was quite scary. I get tired of the animal rights people claiming animal allergies aren't real: she wasn't getting air very well, not until we got outside etc.
And, as I said, she did not ever have this before, and now does with some kinds.
So, if this driver is allergic to dogs, perhaps at one time he wasn't, and now is. Is it that easy to give up his job, etc., because of that? Anyone who says yes should first give up their means of support and get a new one, tell us all how it works out for ya.
I get the whole hair thing too: that takes time to clean up.
Cab drivers pay to lease the cab, usually in the U.S. anyway, and work 14 hour days just to make it.How many people boiling and complaining about this supposedly wretched cab driver work 14 hour days? Or work at all?
In this economy any of us who were unemployed would take a cab driver's job if we could, right? I know I would have when I lost my business several years ago. It's the most common job for people between jobs: In other words, it's a job for people caught on hard times.
Many animal rights people who claim allergic reactions to dander is made-up spend countless thousands on pills and supplements for animals' allergies, so go figure.
I kept birds for years, and yet I know there are people who express an allergic reaction to certain birds' dander, especially if the environment is not kept clean.
Here in Nashville, I've only ridden in one cab that actually had a hatchback. Here in the US, the trunk is pretty small and is usually used for storage. It can get pretty hot in there. It is completely closed off from the passengers, unless you remove the back seat or the panneling behind it that usually holds the back stereo speakers. There's no telling what might be in there, from a spair tire to dirty laundry, maybe some illegal drugs.
Years ago, a cab pulled up to take me to work and the guy told me he wouldn't take my dog. I didn't say anything. I just reached in to my pocket for my cellphone and began to dial. He asked me what I was doing, and I told him that I was calling the dispatcher and that I was going to ask to speak to a supervisor and that I was willing to go as high up the chain of command as was necessary. His tune changed really fast. Sure, this isn't the same situation, but if she had a problem, she could have tried to deal with it a bit more effectively. She basically rewarded the driver for bad behavior.
I see the POV about actual allergies. Strangely enough I took a series of scratch tests...more annoying than truly painful...and came up positive for cat dander. Strange thing is, I don't react at all around cats, actually like 'em, so maybe it's a mild reaction. My biggest allergy is next to impossible to get away from...dust mites. Everyone carries 'em, on their clothes, on their person, they even drop onto bed sheets.
I was thinking Islamic law because many cab drivers here come from Muslim majority countries, and they caused trouble at the Minneapolis/St Paul Airport, but can't vouch for Denver. It's possible the driver shouldn't be in proximity to dogs, but I still wonder if there was a better way to handle the situation. Perhaps when the passenger called for a cab she could have stated she had a guide dog? Perhaps did he inform his dispatcher he couldn't transport dogs so the call could have gone elsewhere? Seems a little strange to put a dog in a trunk. Anyone whose been in Denver recall any barriers between drivers and passengers? They're like the barriers in cop cars up here.
Yeah, cab drivers work long hours, lots of people do that. I don't understand this argument that we should take sympathy on someone because they have a hard job. I have a hard life, I'm blind, I hate it, I'd change it if I could, but I can't; life sucks, get a helmet. Just because you work hard jobs, doesn't mean you get to break the law.
By that logic, a cop could go around shooting anyone they wanted, they have a hard job. Soldiers can go around stealing whatever they wanted, they have a hard job. But they can't do that, hard job or not, that's why its called a law.
I have no sympathy for people who claim that their job is hard. Everyone's job is hard. I don't know a single person who would rather go to work than spend time doing whatever their chosen hobby is. Jobs are jobs, they're not supposed to be fun; you work, you get paid, you go home.
As for alergies, this is just me but, if I knew I had alergies to dogs, or cats, or cotton, or whatever, and I had a job that might bring me into contact with a dog or cat or bird or whatever, I'd go out and get some alergy medication. Its cheap, its easy, its a pill. You take it, yeah maybe you have a runny nose, but they just released this new invention called a cleanex, they're also cheap and easy.
I will never understand why people want everything done for them when they are the ones providing a service. If you drive a cab, you provide a service, plumber, electrician, window washer, whatever, you provide a service. If you hired an electrician, and he said he'd only do your wiring if you had shag carpets, because he only walked on shag carpets, or he was alergic to berber, you'd get a new electrician. Why should anyone make concessions for someone they're hiring?
My thoughts exactly. if you show up at someone's place and realize they have a service dog, call your dispatcher and tell them the situation, and have them send a different cab, if your alergies are really that bad. the lady could've done the same thing, so no excuses there either. I don't know what the appointment was for, but I don't know of anything so important that you can't either be ten minutes late, or reschedule, especially for a situation like that one. yes, animal alergies are real, but so is the law. Hey, I have a food alergy, but I can't demand that a restaurant not serve that food because I'm alergic, can I? People who have asthma can't demand that people put out their cigarettes in a public parking lot, can they? If I'm taking a long plane trip and I'm trying to sleep, I can't demand that everyone around me be absolutely silent so I can sleep, can I?
I don't know how it works in the USA, but here in australia, cabs are not a public service. public transport services are busses and trains and so on, not cabs.
here also, most cab drivers actually own or partially own their cabs, they don't belong to the company, or at least many companies do it this way. so these guys have to pay for their own cleaning, their own repares etc.
now, firstly, if I were driving a cab and someone got in with a dog and I had a good open space in the back, i would certainly be asking that person if they would put the dog in the back of the car, especially if it was a hair shedding breed, out of courticy to myself, and all the other passingers I would be taking in my cab that day.
it's not just drivers who might be alergic to hair. Seriously I sometimes wonder why the hell it's so difficult to consider other people and why blind people get so up tight about not having everything their own way when they have a dog and the feelings of everyone else don't matter.
I mean, I go on the train every day and see people spraying perfume or whatever over themselves with no regard for other people who might have an alergy. and they are very real, a boy at my school almost died because someone sprayed it in the classroom one day.
and no, for the most part, if you're a cab driver you won't encounter dogs. blind people do not make up a huge majority of cab passingers and most cab companies will not transport other animals.
yes, cab companies should transport blind people with dogs, but they shouldn't have to ask people as a qualification that they not have alergies.
is it so difficult for a blind person to tell the company when they call up that they have a guide dog that will require transportation also?
mothers with young children often have to tell cab companies that they require a baby seat, people with wheelchairs often need larger taxies to accomedate them. so why can't people with a dog do the same?
but what if you drove a cab with a trunk as I described? What would you do then? Would you request or demand that the passenger close the dog up in a small space where air was limited? Oh sure, let's not consider the dog. Ah well.
laws, rules, regulations, all these are for our own convenience. for maintain a discipline of course. apart from this, mutual understandings and humanitorian considerations are also to be taken into account. we are not robots to act as per the /preprogramme.
As I always say, life is nothing but give and take. some of you said, the driver must act as per the law. some of them said, perfumes and etc etc are also allergy and we are not considering it at all. In fact, cabs are not only for blind and blind people are minority too. if he is taking a dog in his car and if that dog has hair fall, he has to clean that immediately. if not, the next passenger will surely refuse to get in. if the next passenger is a sighted that is.
We do have our own likings and dislikings, I agree. but we have to be bit flexible and we have to adjust with everyone if that is not a big deal.
If that driver is refusing to take the dog into the cab totally, then I'm sure that has to be punished. rather if there is a spacious place at the back and if that can be accommadated safely, I don't think it's a big deal for half an hour or one hour travel.
Just my opinion.
Raaj
but let's be honest here we're not talking about a cab driver having told this woman he wouldn't carry her dog. We are talking about a cab driver telling the woman that due to his alergy the dog should travel in a different part of that cab.
If the area of the cab was insufficient for the dog to travel in, then the woman should have said no and requested another cab. At that point she might well have been within her rights to be annoyed, but instead she allowed the dog to travel in the back of the cab and only after she'd undertaken the journey did she decide to play the victim.
In the UK if a driver has alergies they can apply for an exemption certificate which they are required by law to display in the front of their cab. If a driver has an exemption they can refuse to carry a dog - even a guide dog. I would imagine that would be the same in the US as an alergy is as much a medical condition as a disability.
But I do think this notion that if the driver has alergies then he shouldn't be in that job needs addressing. Let's look at that statement from a different point of view, let's say you get a job that 95% of the time is completely accessible. But let's say every few months there is a piece of post that needs opening and dealing with. It's a piece of hand-written mail, and you never know when it's going to arrive on your desk. Because it's hand-written you can't scan it, so cannot effectively deal with it - you need someone else to do this particular job. Do you think, perhaps, that you shouldn't be doing that job because of the very occasional piece of hand-written mail that you would have to deal with? Or do you perhaps think that your co-workers, knowing that you are very effective at your job the rest of the time, might deal with that particular aspect of your job for you? How many jobs are 100% accessible without sight? Should we say that the blind should only apply for jobs that they can 100% do without any need to delegate to others - ever?
It's the same thing you see. Just think about that.
The taxi driver carries maybe 1000 people a month. 999 of those people are carried in his cab without incident. But 10 of them have guide dogs and these exaserbate his alergies. By law he can't refuse to carry the dogs, so he compromises on that and asks the passengers to carry the dogs in a different part of his cab, or perhaps if the owner has previously stipulated that they have a guide dog the cab company will send a different driver. Would people prefer he live off the state rather than make that very occasional compromise? After all a dog alergy could put him into contact with dogs in lots of different areas. Couldn't work in a shop/restaurant/any public-facing job where guide dogs are permitted. The fact he's a taxi driver might indicate he is not highly educated and therefore an office-based job is perhaps beyond his remit. So what would people have him do?
The blind person might only need to undertake one journey in that cab. Going in a different cab is not a life-changing thing.
But the cab driver having to give up his job means giving up his livelyhood, and the knock-on effects of that.
I totally agree that she could have informed the dispatcher that she had a dog, and I agree that she shouldn't have allowed this to happen and then try to lay all the blame on the cabbie. Here in Nashville, not all cabs have a creditcard scanner, so if I know I'm going to be paying with my credit or debit card, I let them know right up front when I call, and after my incident with the driver not wanting to take my dog, I learned to let the dispatcher know that I had a dog.
she did say though that she wasn't used to her dog whining and crying like that, which leads me to believe that it was indeed a trunk, not a hatchback.
In most modern cars, there's a button inside the car to allow the trunk to be opened from the inside. from the outside, it can only be opened with a key. And if your dog is in there, you're having to go on faith alone that the driver will not gun the moter and drive away with your dog. These are usually purebreads and would be considered pretty valuable, seeing that they're already house trained and decently well mannered. If you get out of that cab and go around to get your dog, what if that driver doesn't press that magic button. This isn't like a hatchback. There's no handle that you can pull to open that door. Hmmm, and isn't this pretty close to where all these people are being run over by the busses? Well, we should just take in to consideration that those bus drivers were having a bad day. Accidents happen. I do see your point, Clair, and if she had let them know of her dog ahead of time, this could have been avoided. going back to your analogy of the job that I can do most of the time, except for that piece of hand written mail, it would be up to me to present my skills as well as my limitations at the time I was hired and we could work it out.
Some of these cabbies can't even speak enough English to get their point across, but they sure do know the meaning of the word, "Pay." So, exactly how much slack should we give them? Well, okay, they can't speak english, so they can't communicate with me, they can't transport my dog... Anything else? Sorry, but here in America, cabs are considered public transportation.
I'll grant you that a good number of cab drivers don't speak English well, but at the same time, I will point out, when you call a cab company to order one, usually you will get to speak to someone with decent English skills.
firstly, the cabby presented it as the option to her. it was a perfectly valid option. you put the dog in the trunk of my car or you have to have another cab.
she accepted that. she put herself in that situation because she didn't, for example, call the cab company earlier and explain her situation or simply wait for another cab.
sometimes you have to be the one inconvenienced, we can't all go through life as if we're the most important person in it.
alergies, as clair rightly said are a medical issue, just as much as disabilities are, and suffering from them is a very real thing for some people.
and I like that example, clair. I often need people to read things for me in my work, especially since I'm just starting and getting used to it all. my coworkers are understanding because they know that after a few weeks I will be fine and won't need the help. they were aware of that when they hired me.
while yes, blind people using dogs should be catered for, so should people who have alergies. there's nothing wrong with a person having to tell the company they have a dog, so they don't send someone who has an alergy to their home and create a drama like this.
Ah, then we pretty much agree. Since she put herself in the situation and allowed it to happen, she should just deal with it and move along, hopefully learning from the experience. All this whining about how it robbed her of her independence is utter bullshit, and is nothing more than an attention-seeking stratagy.
I agree with you that she should have alerted the dispatcher to the guide dog situation, and absolutely should not have agreed to put the dog in the trunk. I alert a place I'm going that I have a guide dog, and the cab I'm riding in to get there. I make it clearly known that I have a guide dog and will be bringing her.
However, we can't avoid everyone with alergies, and its not just people that have dogs with them that set off alergies. Are you going to tell the people in the far north, where its cold, that they can't wear a fur coat in your cab, because you have alergies? Are you going to tell the cat owner she'll have to put her clothes in the trunk because they have cat hair on them, and she'll have to ride naked? No you wouldn't, you go out, you get yourself some alergy medicine, and you fix the problem on your own.
I'm not saying that alergic people should be annoyed, I'm saying they should get off their ass and do something about it on your own. Frankly, I don't care if you have alergies, I have alergies, I don't bitch about them. I also hate loud rap music playing from cars, babies crying in movies, people talking on cell phones at restaurants, and do you know often I ask them to stop, or take the baby out of the theater, or turn down the music in their car, absolutely never. Annoyance does not give you the right to dictate what other people do.
If you supply a service, and I do not mean a public service, I mean an economic service, as in you perform a job that has a result, but that result is not a product. Building radios is a product, radio repair man is a service, see the difference? Now, if you provide a service, it is your responsibility to make sure that you are marketable to as many people as possible. certainly, there are people you will simply not be marketable too. If your a TV repair man, you can't work for people who don't own a TV for instance. If your a cabie, you aren't going to serve very many people that drive themselves everywhere. So you make yourself marketable, you don't ask that the world around you fit itself into this little bubble that your willing to market yourself too. That's called bad business policy, and it causes what's called a failing business.
I've had some friends that are cabies, and they quickly realized that they need to clean up after every driver to keep their car presentable. So, did they go to the state government and try to get a law passed that says no one can dirty up a cab unless they own it, no. Did they tell people who might make the cab dirty that they'd have to ride in the trunk, no. They went out, got a box of rubber gloves, a lint roller, and some moist towelettes. When the person got out of the cab, they took two minutes to give it a quick wipe down, and drove away. Not that hard, everyone was happy, they maybe spent ten dollars a week on cleaning supplies.
So if they can do that, why is it so difficult for someone to buy alergy medication? Its simple ligc, if you have a problem that is not public knowledge, you deal with it outside the public sectre, you don't make the public conform to you, you conform to the public. If you don't like that, find a rubber bubble and stick yourself inside it.
If your a service provider, you get paid to provide a convenient, quick, and comfortable service. If you drive a cab, it is your job to get the person where they're going in a fast, efficient, and safe way, in a relative degree of comfort. Now, should certain graces be practiced by the person provided to, sure. You shouldn't take a knife and slice up the backseat, for instance, and he can charge extra if you do. But that is the recourse, changing the money to service agreement that you had when you asked for a cab, and they agreed to drive you. You destroy the cab, you pay extra, that's it.
Something strikes me as curious. Loui and Claire, you know I like both of you. But I'm finding the difference of opinion seems to run along possibly cultural lines? I'm not sure. I just know that here in America, as Anthony says, cabs are consider public transportation, and I think it was Loui who said that in Australia they are not. It also seems like cabs in other countries may be built differently than they are here, hence the disagreement on the meaning of the word, trunk. That driver's request was not at all reasonable: there was no call for him to tell her to put the dog in the trunk or get another cab. Anthony is right, that's a good way to lose your dog.
It seems the one thing we do all agree on is that this woman is a whiney, attention-seeking idiot. Unfortunately, most of the public is going to fall for her sob story. Ugh.
Ok, just a little addition to the conversation.
Curious about this topic, I called a friend of mine who is a medical professional who specializes in alergies, I asked her if putting a dog in the trunk of a hatchback type vehicle would make any difference to the alergies of the person driving it. The answer was no. If you have a dog in the car, or someone who owns a dog and has dog fur on their clothes or person, and they are in that car, it will effect the alergies of the person driving. So the point is basically mute, even putting the dog in the trunk doesn't make any difference when it comes to alergies. You should get a different cab if you are ever faced with this situation.
The analogy concerning working with allergies versus working with blindness is interesting but not accurate. Allergies are inconvenient, a valid medical condition, etc. But, as far as I know, allergies are not considered a disability. When I occasionally have co-workers read things to me that I can't scan, I'm exercising a reasonable accommodation allowed to me by various laws pertaining to disabilities. I am not breaking the law nor is my employer. The cabbie with allergies, on the other hand, is breaking the law by refusing to transport a disabled person with a service animal. The cabbie is not disabled and there is no accommodation available to him that relieves him or the cab company of the legal obligation to allow a blind person to ride in a cab with a service dog. If someone takes a job, they should be prepared to obey the laws associated with that job or face the legal consequences. There are laws specific to my employment that, if I broke them, I would face legal penalties and my blindness would not get me off the hook just as allergies will not get this cab driver off the hook. I understand my legal obligations and am prepared to face the consequences if I should ever violate any of these laws. Someone with allergies who chooses to drive a cab should do the same. If they feel that strongly about not carrying dogs, then they should get another job or be prepared to be fined, fired, etc when they get called on discriminating against passengers with service animals. I know in rare instances, allergies can be life threatening. But most people I know with dog allergies have runny noses, itchy eyes, etc. It's inconvenient, not life threatening. Suck it up and deal with it. I don't go around bitching about all the inconveniences associated with my blindness. I adapt and get on with my life.
Additionally, while I agree that notifying the dispatcher that you are traveling with a service animal does make life easier and is the courteous thing to do, it is not required. If this woman wants to call a cab without informing the dispatcher she has a dog, she is within her rights to do so. Failing to notify the dispatcher does not relieve the driver or cab company of the legal obligation to transport her and her dog in the passenger compartment. I tell dispatchers about my dog because I don't want to get screwed around, but there is no requirement that I do so. The woman technically did nothing wrong there but the driver did break the law when he refused to allow the dog in the car. The handler went wrong by not demanding that another car be sent. Sure, she might have been late, but it's better than putting her dog in an unsafe situation plus, she wouldn't be over reacting right now and she would still have the same legal remedies available to her against the cabbie for refusing her a ride.
Many people on here seem to be dismissing the safety and welfare of the dog in reference to the trunk. My dog's safety is a responsibility I take seriously. I would always choose late over putting my dog in a trunk. This trunk thing is a big deal. Putting a dog in a trunk is never an acceptable option. This story wouldn't have made the news if we were talking about a hatchback or SUV compartment. A trunk is a small, unventilated storage space that is unsuitable for transporting any living being. Would you let your child ride in a trunk? Hell no, because it's abuse and you'd end up getting a visit from child protective services. A dog doesn't belong in a trunk either and I blame the handler for allowing this to happen.
The cabbie broke the law, the dog handler used poor judgement and clearly needs some work on advocating for herself. I stand by my previous assessment. They're both idiots.
Should I call up the school? i'm still tempted to do it since I know her and was in class with her when she got the dog four years ago. God, this still makes me sick ...
Odds are the school knows about it already given the media coverage. I've seen it posted on Twitter about 50 times by various blind people on my timeline so I'm sure the school has seen it too. The schools all seem to stay on top of guide dogs in the news. And it wouldn't surprise me at all if other grads of your school have called too. But, with that said, I don't think there's harm in calling. I'd call on one of my classmates or anyone I know with a dog if I had a legitimate concern about the welfare of the team. There's been no mention of the dog being harmed by the episode so I'm assuming he's OK. Still, either this woman is laying on the drama pretty thick for sympathy or she has some handling issues that the school could possibly help her with which would of course benefit the dog as well. I'm sure the school would protect your privacy and not tell her you called if that is a concern for you.
@TimeTravellingBunny @SilverLightning I stand corrected.
Onseveral counts: First the allergies: I thought about it after I posted yesterday, guess it pays to think about it before posting but anyway: my wife's allergic reaction at the friend's house was caused by the dog's fur but there was no dog, not in sight anyway. It was the owners who told us that was the matter.
So yes, a hatchback would not be sufficient.
Also, both of you have dogs, and if I'm not mistaken @TimeTravelingBunny you are an attorney so more aware of the legal issues.
And I can certainly see your point about the trunk. I would have never put my daughter, or an animal, in a trunk.
But others are right that those of us with kids have to tell the cab dispatcher if we are bringing a car seat along with us.
As to the public service thing: I think that depends on if you get a state-vouchered cab like for disabled ride services. If you get a cab from a private company like Yellow Cab, it is a private transaction. Apparently some cabs are both, because when I was a consultant, I almost got turned down by a cab driver once who thought it was a private payer when the call came in, and when he drove up to the building, saw a blind guy, said he couldn't take any more government runs. I had to ask what he meant, he explained it, I told him I was an out of state business person and paying regular fares like anywhere else. That was the end of that, and riding with him was like any other cab.
But yes there are government-sponsored cabs where they get half or less the fare as the rest of us pay, so a cab driver couldn't possibly lease a cab for that. I think that must be the mix up: whether it's a state-sponsored or private cab makes the difference between whether it is private or public.
Private or not, there are laws like people have said, so in the end it doesn't matter: they still have to accept the dog.
I can appreciate the challenges dog handlers face, well as much as anyone can who isn't one. So I didn't want to come off unsympathetic to what you all deal with.
Sugar Baby, you are so ignorant. Being in a secured crate in the back of a guide dog school training van is far different from being loose in an unknown, unseen, potentially dangerous, open space, where you have no control over your dog. Next you'll be saying it's ok for restaurant owners to sit us in seperate rooms in case our dogs offend someone. Get real. Also, so fucking what if it inconvienences someone if we bring our dogs? Don't you think being blind or having any other major disability severe enough to require the use of a service dog isn't about a million times more inconvenient? I'll tell you, if those wining about allergies had to run through the logistics of going on a simple shopping trip with a toddler, a guide dog, a folding shopping cart, on public transit, Walking the route to the bus stop with construction going on, walking the route to the grocery store in the pouring rain, dealing with 2 or 3 little kids trying to feed and distract my dog on the bus, working with a store employee with no high school deploma who does not listen very carefully to what I say and can hardly read the packages, to buy my food, dealing with a casheer who is profoundly deaf who can not produce understandable speech and uses only ASL and written communication, then having a cyclest hit my shopping cart as I walk back to the bus, then having a bus driver who speaks almost no English on the ride home. Yeah, no contest, my life is about a million times more inconvenient than that of any sighted allergy sufferer who can just hop in their car, pick out their own groceries and leasurely drive home, so I don't. want. to. hear. it. Let's talk about fear, shall we? You can not refuse service, or request something unsafe because you are afraid. A woman who was attacked by a black man can not refuse to serve black men in her waitressing job. You will find in your life that almost always the allergies complained of are nonexistant or are no more severe than mild allergies to polin on a spring day, and that insistance of fear of dogs is often ficticious, and if it is really and truly a fobia, then they need to seek mental health counsiling to resolve it and or change jobs. A child in a class room has no choice, education is compulsory, I would go visit a different class or keep my dog far from them. However, the cab driver chose this job, and chose to continue it even after recieving the training informing him that he is required to carry service animals. No sympathy what-so-ever.
To SquidwardQTentackles, You do not have to, and never, ever should tell a cab company that you have a guide dog, because then they can refuse you service and it's harder to get a cab there to get you, harder to prove discrimination, etc. You do not need to inform them that you are blind, deaf, black, white, pregnant, have a baby, have AIDS, have a guide dog, are a christian, are Jewish, etc.
To Ocean Dreams. I actually can think of one situation in which I'd put my guide in the trunk. If my son were dying and for whatever God awful reason we could not get an ambulance. I can not imagine how this would ever be the case, but if it was, and the only way I could get to the hospital was to put my guide into the trunk, in they would go and I'd pray to God that my son and my dog would both make it there. That is of course if I had absolutely no other choice. This is purely theoretical you understand.
To SwissGrif. They are still a public service where you are from in that anyone can hire one. Public transit is something that anyone can use. Anyone can get on the bus, but they still have to pay. Anyone can get into a cab, as long as they pay. If your cabs could not legally refuse to carry a black person or a Jewish person, then they can not refuse to transport the guide dog or admit the blind person. It's like a country club. The general public is not allowed in unless they pay and were invited, but if they are, by all of the usual channels that anyone else would be invited, then they must be allowed to bring their guide dog or service dog. Obviously a blind man can not bring his guide dog into the ladies' room, but that is because he is a man, and would not be allowed in there even with out his guide dog. A blind sex offender could not bring his guide dog into a school, but he couldn't be there even if he had no dog, etc. If you are allowed, then your guide dog is. Make sense? And, you would be wrong to ask them to put their dog in the back. It is not safe for the dog, it is not a reasonable risk for these highly valuable dogs, and, did it occur to anyone that some service dogs pick up on seizures or allert to low blood sugars, signal to their deaf handler that this or that sound is happening, or help those with PTSD, and to perform their jobs they must be right with the person? Sometimes it can be easy for blind people to think only of guide dogs, but thinking of all service dogs and their functions is important to prevent unintentional narrow mindedness. Also, it doesn't freaken matter if they own their cab or not. They chose to use it as a cab, so they can shut up and deal. If someone's dog comes randomly into my house and I don't like it, out they go. If I advertize that I cut hair from my home, have a cosmatology licence, or run a massage business, reiki practice, consultant business or child care from my home, because it is now my place of business, I can not legally refuse a service dog. Also, service dogs are almost always about ten times cleaner and more well groomed than pet dogs, so the amount of hair would be minimal.
To Sugarbaby, again, listen to me, an allergy. is. not. a. disability. This has gone to court, it has been proven, many many times. He can pop a pill and calm the fuck down, some sniffling won't kill him. And as I said before, if it is so severe as to be life threatening, then she could have put the dog in her house, gotten her cane came out, gotten into the cab, and the hair on her clothing still would have caused his life to be in danger. No one has an allergy that severe aside from a tiny minority, far smaller than blind or deaf or physically disabled percentages, and for them, they must work in offices with special air purifiers and not travel on, let alone drive public transpertation. Look, we have been over this over and over, this was a trunk, not a hatch back, it was wrong, end of story, not a hatch back, a trunk. Do you think the poor dog would have been crying and wining if he were just behind her seat in the hatch back? He was forced to lie down, unable to stand or sit up, breathing dangerous fumes, totally blind in darkness with no window, with horribly strong smells, dogs' senses of smell are hundreds to thousands of times stronger than ours, with no padding, every bump slamming his head into the roof of the trunk. Hell, once the lid slammed it might have literally been pressing his head into his paws if it was a very small trunk as most cabs trunks are. Just think about the dog for a while and stop bending over backwards worrying about the mild or imaginary allergies of someone who imigrated here and has no respect for our laws and wants to find excuses to descriminate against others and who would knowingly ask someone to abuse an animal.
hmmm. this showes how rigid some people are! also how much they respect or worship their laws. eh? On the other hand, how far adjustable with the publick. I'm dam sure if these defenders coming to India, they cannot survive for a day even. cause no guide dogs here. All are private cabs. so once if they say no, you cannot argue or lodge a complaint against them.
Raaj
Alicia in the UK the majority of cabs are privately owned, although some black cabs (which are different from standard cars and have seating in the back with a screen between the passengers and the driver) are sometimes leased from the cab companies. But either way the ddrivers are responsible for the upkeep and maintanence of their vehicles, some of the cab firms have their prices fixed by the local authorities but that doesn't make them public transport.
The law in the UK is that cabs have to carry guide dogs, although that has not been disputed anywhere on this thread. There is however no law that stipulates where in the cab the dog has to be carried, so while the preference is for the dog to travel in the front with the owner and most cab drivers are happy to accommodate that, a cab driver could certainly ask that the dog travel in a different part of his cab, and provided this is humane I see no issue with that. In instances where drivers are aggressive about it then of course that might get one's back up, but on the whole I find that respect is a mutual thing, and that if you are considerate of others and they are polite then what's the issue. I also rarely travel for more than about fifteen minutes in a cab, so a fifteen minute ride in the open back part isn't going to harm my dog – in fact he goes in the back of my parents' car and it's the same.
As I've said previously, obviously if the "trunk" is an enclosed space then that's a different issue entirely. However I think it's important to not lump all cab drivers into the same category and to appreciate that there are circumstances where travelling in the back is a perfectly acceptable thing to do.
To sensually, you wanna be careful you don't overbalance under the weight of that chip on your shoulder.
"Almost all allergies complained of are nonexistant...". What? I had to do the skin tests on my back where they leave you lying down on your stomach for 10-20 minutes and then check. A measurement that was quite a bit bigger than the maximum measurement of a lesion that allergist measures was present for dust mites. I was having breathing problems that prompted the referral to an allergist, and dust mites are microscopic organisms that are everywhere. A nurse who has been dealing with patients for years was floored when I revealed a friend of mine who got the same shots I did (cat allergy included) had several cats. "Huh? Your friend is allergic and being exposed anyway? That could be a matter of him not breathing." Afraid I must disagree on that point.
In any case I think the situation could have been handled differently by both parties. The cab driver could have told his doctor he couldn't transport dogs for health reasons, and I think someone transporting a dog,service or otherwise, should state that fact if they are calling for transportation service to avoid problems. Maybe this driver has an allergy on the level of exposure could mean him not breathing, who knows? And I would not feel comfortable putting any being in the trunk, dog, child, anything, this scenario could have been handled differently.
typo, sorry his dispatcher not doctor
Even if the dog was not there though, it would still upset his alergies. It is not the dog that triggers dog alergies, it is the fur of the dog. I can assure you, as a dog owner, that there is not a moment of the day that I do not have some dog hair on me. I brush my dog every day, but she's a lab, and labs shed like no bodies business. If I got into a cab without my dog, I'd still trigger someone's alergies, so that argument is completely mute. It doesn't matter if the dog was in the front seat, back seat, floorboard, trunk, rearview mirro or riding in the blue sedan that followed them, the ladies clothes would still have set it off.
Granted, the lady in question was an idiot who should have stuck up for herself more, which does make her wrong, but that does not give the cabie the right to dictate where you must put your dog. If you want to have a service animal, and put them in the rear of a car, go for it, its your dog. Its dangerous, as has been demonstrated before, but its your dog. I won't put my dog in that situation, and no one, not you, nor the cab service, can make me do it. My rights are protected, the cab driver's are not in this situation.
Now, that does not mean that if he pulls up and says, "Oh I have alergies to dogs, would you mind if I got you another cab", that I'd say no and tell him he had to live with it. If he's willing to make the call and get me another cab, go for it, but I won't put my dog in the back of the car for him.
Also, it doesn't matter if the car is owned by the driver, or the taxi cab service, or is borrowed, leased, stolen, whatever. In the united states, the law says that service animals are allowed anywhere the public is allowed to go. This means, no matter who owns the car, the dog is allowed inside, with the handleer. And yes, there are some service animals who are required to be next to their owner, deaf dogs for instnace.
Finally, sugar baby, is the best argument you could come up with to try and defeat the points presented against you, a sarcastic quip about a chip on her shoulder? Are you that unwilling to admit your arguments were wrong?
so I definitely agree that the woman was at fault for taking her dog and putting it in the trunk. Here in California I've ran into quite a few cabs that wouldn't take my boyfriend and I because of his dog. In fact, one drove up to us, saw he had a dog and then promptly said, no dog and drove away. When we called the dispatcher and told them the situation it took us almost 40 minutes to get another cab. so yes, notifying them you have a guidedog isn't always a good idea because you don't always get speedy service. Obviously by this point we had to notify them because the driver had already showed up and left seeing the guidedog but still it's times like these that really make me angry because if you notify the company that you have a guide dog you don't always get speedy service or service at all, yet if you don't notify them and you get a random cab that shows up and sees your dog they can just drive away and say they won't take you due to the fact you have a dog, then when you call the cab company to let them know you get back into the same situation as before with the notifying situation.
@Sensually I have also had these sorts of things happen, except the dog as I do not have one.
The difference is I was breathing air normally and not rasping / having difficulty getting air like my wife did that night. Nonexistent, my ass! I have no medical training and probably will need to get CPR and that with the Coast Guard now, but still I can tell the difference: someone who is normally just breathing air is now rattling-breathing a voice barely audible is not made-up. And sighted people around saying her eyes looked bad, even though she clained they didn't hurt, were not making it up.
You animal rights people discredit and damage your own claims by discrediting allergies like that.
Even dogs have allergies, and I bet you wouldn't discredit a dog's allergies.
Inconvenience? Yes, it was profoundly inconvenient when a bicyclist accidentally broke my cane and I broke off a nearby tree branch to get home with.
But I used said branch while breathing, no rattling - the only way I can describe that sound is a rattle. It was inconvenient but I was fully fit and strong, not partially falling over needing some to support me like what my wife did with that dog situation.
I still stand corrected as per earlier: I understand the claims. But I'd have won my betting money and then some if I'd put any out on an animal rights activist claiming allergies aren't real. You guys don't need a redneck trailer-dweller to be your opponent in that debate: you're your own opponent by comments like that.
No, alergies are not non-existent, but the number of people who have completely debilitating alergies are exceptionally rare. Yeah, your breathing may get a bit harder, and your nose runs and your eyes get red, that's what alergies do. But if you know you have them, its your responsibility to take the necessary steps to protect yourself from them. If I had an alergy to dogs, and I found out that my friend had a dog, I wouldn't tell them that they had to kill or sell their dog because I had an alergy, no, I'd pop an anti-hystamine before going over there, not a big deal.
Alergies are not disabilities, they are things you must deal with in life, sometimes fait is a dick. That doesn't mean your alergy ridden nose is legally protected, and that is what is in question here. Rights are given by laws, the idea of god given laws is for another board, but the laws we have as service animal handlers is a legally given right. There is no right for you to have your alergies control my life, there is a law for my service animal, to control yours. End of story.
well said, Cody.
to Sensually naturally Living for Today, if my situation were life threatening to myself or anyone I was responsible for, I would probably be calling 911, not a cab. However, I completely agree with your points otherwise and felt you presented your arguments very well.
I still cannot understand how people are still saying it's okay to put dogs in trunks. first of all, as Cody pointed out, it makes no difference. if you have alergies, you'll be affected either way. Secondly, also as cody pointed out, unlike a friend or family member's car, you have no idea what's in the trunk of a cab driver's car, no matter what kind of trunk it is, so either way, there's no way to guarantee it's going to be safe for the dog. as someone who does have a severe alergy, be it a food alergy, I know from experience that it's your responsibility as the person with the alergy to see that you avoid contact with the thing you are alergic to, but also without inconveniencing other people. If someone's eating peanut butter and you're alergic, do you tell them to dispose of their food? No. You move away. If you're in a confined space like a car where it can't be avoided, arrange another ride or cover your face to avoid airborne contact if there's absolutely nothing else you can do. This is why people with life threatening alergies carry eppi pens, for those rare occasions where contact simply cannot be avoided. In this instance, I still stand by what I said before. Send another cab or just put up with it if the alergy isn't severe enough to be considered life threatening.
Silver Lightning, have you taken antihistamines? If you work a day job, I wouldn't recommend it until you're ready to go to sleep at night. Benadryl in particular makes me feel as if I've been popped in the head with a hangover, then you wake up and you still may feel hung over. Allergies aren't just popping pills or wiping your nose with a Kleenex. Adult allergies especially are tied in with asthma, and that can't be controlled with antihistamine & a Kleenex, but requires, if nothing else, a rescue inhaler, and some of these meds have no generic equivalent, so I pay a pretty steep copay with insurance for the preventive and the rescue inhaler.
Still, I agree...when you have allergies it is your responsibility, like myself, like Ocean Dream do, to seek treatment. I do intramuscular shots and...bad Squidward...I have gotten to detest taking meds and these shots are required every two weeks, and I'm late for the latest round, so I have to go soon. Even with allergy desensitizing, I still would have sympathized if the driver had explained his plight and called the lady another cab, and she should have insisted on better service or another cab rather than putting her dog in the trunk, which again I wouldn't do with any living thing.
Non drowsy alergy medications do exist. However, they only relieve mild symptoms, not severe ones. Obviously this driver couldn't have been too alergic to the dog, though, because he survived the trip.
Not true, zertec, which is non-drousy is rated for very high alergic reactions. Granted, if your going into anifilactic shock, you might think about a hospital, not a pill, but I digress. Yes squid, I do have alergies, and asthma, and guess what, I live with it. I don't insist people cut down trees, I don't even insist they don't smoke around me or drive cars that release fumes, I take precautions to prevent it from effecting me. Five percent of the population can't dictate what ninety-five percent do with their lives.
I do agree however that it would have been perfectly fine for him to ask if he could call her another ride, I've had this happen to me and I was perfectly willing to wait, the man called another cab, and I was on my way in a matter of a few minutes. I am not saying the cabie should have suffered, I'm saying he should have prepared. That's his job, he should have been aware of his alergies and prepped himself for it. Considering the fact that he didn't go to the hospital from the dog fur on the lady's clothes, I'm guessing it was only a mild reaction.
but it's awfully easy to sit there and say that someone's alergies aren't all that bad when you're not the one with the alergy isn't it?
there is glaring hipocrisy on this thread. On the one hand we have people saying that this driver's alergies can't possibly have been that bad and that actually, alergies are not a medical condition, and people deciding on behalf of this driver how he should or should not have been allowed to react.
Yet on the other hand we have people claiming victim status on the basis that blindness is a massive inconvenience and that anyone not understanding that clearly hasn't been there and can't possibly realise how inconvenient it is, etc etc.
So it's ok to see the situation from your own point of view when you are the disadvantaged party, no-one else should have the right to an opinion on that because they're not the ones with the disability and so can't possibly know how it is. Yet people who have no or little experience of severe alergies think it's perfectly reasonable to decide on this driver's behalf that his alergies can't possibly have been that bad even though you have no idea of his circumstances.
Pet alergies are often about more than just hair. It's a common misconception that people alergic to dogs/cats are alergic to the fur alone - often it is not the fur they're alergic to at all but the saliva. So it would be ok to come into contact with the dog's hair say, in the back of the cab, once the dog has left, but if the dog were to sit in front and sniff or lick the person with the alergy that would exaserbate his alergies.
And asthma, which is usually caused by alergies, is a life-threatening condition. Eleven americans die from asthma every day.
Now we don't know that this driver had a life-threatening alergy. Equally we don't know that he didn't. But it is not for us to judge based purely on our own sense of entitlement.
Again it's about consideration.
As I have said countless times on this thread, no-one has said it was ok for this taxi driver to have just refused to take the dog, yet he didn't actually do that. I do however think that if the driver has medically proven alergies, he should be allowed to have an exemption from carrying dogs - even service dogs. There would be plenty of other taxis able to carry the dog - after all I don't suppose that denver is teaming with guide dogs just waiting for the next taxi to come along, by comparison to non-guide dog owning passengers I would imagine the number of guide dog passengers is very small.
But he isn't, the ADA says that service animals are allowed anywhere the public is allowed. That's the law. You can't disobey a law just because you think its clumsily worded.
the point is, the rights of the blind lady are protected, that is why the cab driver is in trouble. The rights of the alergic cab driver, no matter how bad the alergies, are not legally protected.
the cab driver wasn't the one who put the dog in such an enclosed space. that, in my opinion is entirely the fault of the handler, and now this guy is getting the flack for something stupid that she did. she has no sympathy from me whatsoever. she doesn't need it judged by the amount she's getting from other people.
she had the choice of getting another cab. that option was always open to her, she had the choice to call the company or ask the driver to do it for her.
she's the one who made the stupid choice, and she should have to live with it, and not go boo-hooing to the court of public opinion.
that, I do agree with. this lady doesn't deserve any more sympathy than the driver. she was entitled to refuse and demand another cab. she didn't do that, and then decided to play the victim. that's nobody's fault but her own. All we're saying is that if this driver demanded this lady's dog ride in the trunk, he'll likely do it again, instead of calling for an alternate cab, like a responsible person would do.
To Squidward. I didn't say that all allergies, everywhere to every thing were fake. I said that when it comes to those complaining about a guide dog and siting allergies as a reason, those allergies are almost always either made up, or only mild allergies with symptoms similar to seasonal allergies. To LeoGuardian. Again, I did not say that all allergies are fake. Of course your wife has real allergies, but most of the time, when someone says "Oh, you can't bring that dog in here, I have allergies." they are almost always either lying, they just don't like dogs or don't want them in their business, and are not allergic to dogs whatsoever. Or, they have mild allergies, like one might have to grass or polin, that will, at worst, cause minor inconvienence, that are easily treatable, and so they are lying by hyperbole. There are a few, a very few people who are genuinely allergic to dogs to the extent that it would impact their breathing or in any other way put their life at risk. For those people, obviously, there must be worked out a compermise, but they are rare, very very rare. If every guide dog user just said "Oh, I see, no problem, I'll leave now." when told "No dogs, I'm allergic." then everyone would use that line, no guide dogs would have access anywhere. Now, if someone is insistant, I clarify, and if they are deathly allergic, me and my dog go somewhere else, as my dog not being there wouldn't be enough, my presence with dog hair and dandrif covered clothing would pose just as much a risk. These people are so rare, and I've met a grand total of 2, and they ask people obviously with pets, hair on their clothing, to please keep their distance. Those are not the fakers trumping up fake allergies or blowing real ones out of preportion to try and get past the law. Also, I am no animal rights activest. I do want what is best for animals, but I am no extremest, I hate groups like PETA, and you really should try better to understand what someone rights. I could have been a bit more clear regarding that most allergies are not real, when regarding people's reasoning to bar guide dogs from this place or that, but I assumed, that given the nature of the thread, intelligent and observant readers would get that. But, now I've been exceedingly clear. Additionally, of course I know that dogs have allergies. It also should have been obvious to you that I am aware that some people have serious dog allergies, as I explained that for those suffering with such severe allergies, even a pet owning person orr a guide dog handler, sans guide dog, would pose a very serious health risk to them, simply by being in their cab with their clothes on, having come from a home with dogs in it. To HeartBreaker, that's a good point, once in YC we had our sighted friend hale a cab and when he was letting her in, we just all piled in not giving him time to object with our dogs. Once I put my dog at a sit stay out of site behind me and my cello case, then loaded her up really quick before the driver could pull away. He didn't see her until she was getting out of the cab at our destination, then he started yelling and saying he was calling the cops. I told him, "you go right ahead. He said he was charging me extra. I gave him the usual fair I always pay for this route, plus 2 bucks to account for any trafic delays, and no tip, and I got out. He wanted 10 for the dog. He grabbed my arm, so I threw him off, put the fair, plus 2 bucks on the seat and left. As to the cabs in India. Radge, while I love Indian food, have some friends from India, love the history and the culture, that's one reason, my friend, that I would never, everr choose to live there. I do not love everything about America. There are a hell of a lot of things wrong with America, but at least we do have laws to give those with disabilities some independence. If certain political things in America changed to the point that I no longer was even one bit proud to be an American in any way, I'd move, to Canada, or the UK or to somewhere else, but with it's current treatment of blind people, India, beautiful as it is would never be on my list of places to move to, along with most parts of Africa, China, North Korea, etc. To Sugar Baby, You really don't read carefully. Three different people who are both blind and sufferers of moderate to severe allergies have spoken up agreeing with the points I and others have made. And, I will. not. hear. any. comparison. between. blindness. and. severe. allergies. A disability deafness, blindness, etc effects you 24-7. A severe allergy sucks, and it can effect you frequently, but you can avoid it. You can not avoid your paraplegia, you can not take a break from your wheel chair and go for a walk in a "safe zone" you can not pop in some replacement functional eyes in some situations, you can not avoid a disability. Also, no one here has said that a severe allergy sufferer should risk death to provide service to a person with a service dog. We said that they should be prepared, act responsibly, etc. Finally, this woman is more to blame than the cabbi. Was he an asshole? Yes, with no real serious allergies? Yes, as evidenced by the fact that the dog in the same car, even in the trunk, and the fur on the woman's clothing did him no harm. But, there are ignorant idiots everywhere who will challenge your rights, and while they are a problem, are at fault, you, the service dog handler are always the one responsible for, the only one responsible for your dog, end. of. story. He is perhaps 30 percent at fault, she is 70 percent to blame. He did not hold a gun to her head. He did not put her dog in the trunk. She did not need to get in that cab to get to the hospital or risk dying. She did not need to get into that cab to get away from a building about to explode. No one injected her with a mind ultering substance that would keep her from being able to excersize her own judgement and control of the situation and call another cab, the dispatcher, the media, the police, etc. We are arguing about alllergies, and that isn't even the point. The point is that if there is a God, this woman will never, ever, be given another guide dog by GDB or any other school ever again.
Should I contact the school? I still haven't done it in case someone has already beat me to it.
Reyami, you can call the school if you wish, but I'm about 99.9% positive they've already been inundated with calls of outrage over it. Honestly, I wouldn't be a bit surprise if the woman herself turned to them for help with this.
@Post55 from where does said statistical data come from? on 'most people' ... making it up about allergies?
As much as I have heard on the subject, the only group making the claim you have is the animal liberation / animal rights crowd, and without a source as it is of course nonfalsifiable. Like the anti-vaccinations, flat-earth and six-day-creation-absolutist generalizations out there: entirely nonprovable / nonfalsifiable.
I'm not totally sure why alergies are still part of the debate. We've already said if the cab driver really did have alergies, which I'm not necessarily saying is false, the responsible thing to do would've been to call a different cab.
Reyami, if you still haven't contacted the school by this point, I would let someone with a little more determination handle the complaints, as I'm sure some people already have.
This is absolutely outrageous. Yeah the cabby was an asshole and needs to be punished for his actions, but that woman is as much to blame. She had it well within her rights to request a new cab, one with a more accomodating driver and alert the folks at her appointment to the situation so they'd know she was going to be late. But insead she chose, CHOSE! to put her dog in the small, enclosed trunk of that taxi. She's lucky she didn't take her case to Judge Judy LOL. Because Judge Judy, while she might have agreed that the cabby's actions were outrageous, would have put this whiny woman in her place. It was her! choice to agree to the cabby's demand. You're probably right though in that most people will probably buy her sob story. But the whole thing about one bad incident robbing her of her independence is utter bullshit. And if it is true then she obviously wasn't ready for a dog to begin with, even if she passed all the mobility and other practical tests.
The lady who put her dog in the trunk should have her dog taken away and the guy who made her put her dog in the trunk should loose his license, end of story. He has alergies well then he should get a job where he doesn't have to deal with people who have dogs. The lady if where ever she had to go was more important than her dog than she should not have a dog. I am sorry can't defend either of them.
fucked up he should be shut up in a trunk.
I agree that both need to be punished in some way. If I was in charge of that guide dog school I'd have taken that dog from her immediately upon hearing of this.
Begs the question do cab drivers learn this? I mean, you come onto a website like this one and you may imagine, fancfully so, that everybody knows everything about what is or isn't allowed by and for service animals. But, a majority of the population never runs into this stuff, so, while shutting a dog in a trunk is not to be done, I think in many ways, people just assume everyone would know the rules of the road.
I even got a reaction from another blind person once, because I didn't know you could call the school to report something amiss, or how to tell what school an animal came from: in that case who was making messes in a public setting we were in charge of.
I came out and asked, they said 'Everyone knows it's on the animal's collar." well, I'm just one, not everyone.
I just think people fancifully imagine every single person is up on every so-called issue. Granted, once I knew what was meant by trunk in this case - not hatchback - I too think it was a bad idea to put a live animal in there. But a lot has been written about people should know this or that ahead of time, or have thought of this or that ahead of time.
And yet, I bet many of you support the smokeless bars laws, which were done mainly to protect workers, and why? Because unlike some people on entitlements or independently wealthy, most cannot just switch jobs or change things, even if it poses medical risk. We live in a world far to rife with scarcity for that.
Again, not excusing the trunk thing, just some perspective.
Most pups are pretty quick on their little paws so not sure why both these idiots failed to think of tieing its leash to the bumper so it could run after the cab.
Let's just be happy the morons didn't think of this.
Lol that's just wrong.
Anyone who allows their dog to ride in a trunk is just crazy! The woman should of just taken another cab, rather then put her dog in the trunk. She said hereing the dog whine was horable for her, well maybe she shouldn't of put it in the trunk! I'd never put my guide dog in a trunk, he means more to me then that.
I agree. She definitely should have called the cab company and requested another cab. It would have been easy to let her doctor or whoever she was going to know she'd be a little late. Because I'd rather be a little late rather than put my dog's safety in jeopardy. Like I said, if I was in charge of thhat school I'd have taken the dog from her right away for something like that.
Does anyone know what came of this situation? I ask more out of curiosity than anything.
Well I certainly had thought of trunk as hatchback , and I now know what was really meant, and I can't imagine putting any sort of animal in there.
Wow, I've been asked to put my dog in a cage and other stuff like that but never to put him in the trunk.
Here's how I handle it.
Cabby, "No dog in my cab."
Me, "Sir, the law states that you as a transport driver are required to transport me and my service animal. Your company also has the same policy. It's a $1500 fine and loss of your lisence if you refuse. So, we have 3 choices. 1. You transport my guide dog and me and we go about our business. 2. I call your company and explain the situation, after which you will most likely lose your contract. or 3. I call the police right here and now, as well as your company, and you get the $1500 fine and lose your job. My service animal is well trained and well groomed thus posing no threat to you or your car. The choice is yours." By this time my phone is out and my finger is on the dial button. Oh yeah, did I mention that the door is open and I'm somehow blocking his ability to drive away. Mind you, I'm very polite throughout this whole thing but I'm also firm. I guess the propper term is polite yet assertive.
At that point, I'm usually allowed in the car with my dog. I even had one driver explain to me in very broken english that he didn't understand about service animals and thanked me for educating him. He then asked me if my dog needed some paper in the back of the van in case he had to pea.
Sadly, this issue will always be with us. I'm just blessed to live in a city and state where they don't play around with these guys. It's a 1st strike and you're out situation.
I'm also very lucky that I have one cab driver who has taken my family and several of our blind friends as his personal clients so it's actually been years since I've had to deal with others. When this guy retires, I'm definitely going to be one sad mamma.
Having said all that, my dog will ride in the trunk over my dead bleading corpse.
So would mine if I had one. He'd either be right there with me or that cabby would be having some legal problems. And i don't care if your religion says dogs are unclean, Islam anyone? You're providing a public service, whether as a cab drver or any other business owner. That means you still have to obey the law. And yes I know that some years back the Sharia council ruled that service dogs do not fall under the usual dictates, but even so I've still heard of instances where Muslim taxi drivers and other business owners refused to allow people with service dogs access to their businesses. They claim that the council's ruling is an attempt to place restraints on religious liberties.
Let's be clear on a few things right up front:
1. No one forced that dog into the trunk, so the cabbie made a request that he shouldn't but it's not as if he twisted arms. Technically he didn't even break the law, since being in the trunk, while inhumane, is still considered within his automobile. He should not go around making that request in future, lest some other fool think they were trapped and make a foolish mistake as this woman did.
2. A dog in a hatchback, or in a cage within a hatchback, is perfectly safe in everyday travel...I've seen it done loads and loads of times with absolutely no harm done to the animal. It doesn't slide around because *gasp!* fur and the carpeting found in cars tend not to be slippery! I suppose it's possible for serious maneuvering to make the dog slide around, but then it's also possible for a crash to send an engine block into the passenger footwell and crush your feet to pulp against your dog's ribcage too, so that's not a valid argument. An enclosed trunk is not okay; a hatchback, where the dog has been trained to lie still and in 99.9% of cases won't slide unduly, is fair enough.
3. While it may be the law that cab drivers are required to accept service animals, would it kill some people to get those chips off their shoulders and realize that everyone has feelings? As a cabbie, maybe I'm afraid of dogs but driving cab was the best I could do on hard times. Maybe my religious beliefs render dogs unclean. Maybe I do have a rather serious allergy, a real one instead of a conveniently fabricated one, and I still can't do much else besides drive a taxi. It pays the bills and keeps me from losing my apartment. By law I can't demand that you not bring your dog in my cab, but a really simple solution which would hopefully fix the issue: call ahead and warn the dispatcher that you're travelling with a guide dog. This ought to ensure that I, the person who drives cab but can't abide dogs, and you, a rarity in the world because you must bring your service animal, won't cross paths; someone else in the company I work for will be happy to take you where you need to go. And since both you and I are in the minority - many cabbies may not like dogs but the grand majority will not attempt to refuse outright either - the situation will happen very rarely when weighed against the number of fares accepted by the average taxi company on any given day. In other words: simple courtesy wins the day. How difficult or galling is that to understand? You waste more time by wrangling when your dog-despising driver gets there than you would by telling the dispatcher that you're travelling with a dog and hoping they send someone who'll give you no hassle. It pays for them to practise good business and send the appropriate service, just as it would if you said you had a party of seven and needed a van instead of just a car. Never mind all the bits about necessity and the law here; we're human beings and we don't know one another's situations.
4. Last but absolutely not least: as a guide dog owner you must have exemplary mobility skills with a cane (or so far as I know, at least, since that's what I've been told by numerous guide-dog owners). This means that,, while you may be entitled to getting in a cabbie's face about your animal, you are also very likely capable of bringing the cane and causing no hassle. You shouldn't have to, but if you expect the world to be considerate, you must extend that same consideration. Never ever attempt the argument that you have no other recourse except to bring your animal unless the presence of the animal is absolutely intrinsic to your travel (such as a vet appointment or a very long stay where leaving the animal alone is not possible). Long story short: if you're going to insist that someone who clearly doesn't like dogs take your animal simply because you're entitled to do so, you're stirring the pot and I think it's rather shameful. No one can or will force you to consider courtesy, but I hope that most of you guide dog owners do so.
Yes, people should try to be kerdeous, but the fact of the matter is that not all of them are. This woman had other options then putting the dog in the trunk. It's quite clear she made the wrong one. I personally try not to take cabs with my dog unless I have to, but when I do I make sure the dog isn't on the seat, keep him as close to me as I can, and am willing to accomadate the driver or get another cab if posable.
Hmm let's add another perspective yet again?
Well, lez see: Your guide wolves don't puke in the cab, drunks will though.
Your guide wolves won't steal the cabby's shit or run off without paying,, but your average crackhead will.
Unless someone has a medical issue (which are real), it seems to me your wolves are pretty complacent and easy to get along with passengers.
Now the cab companies should probably check for dog allergies on the application ahead of time, but then there will be competition between groups who have alergies and groups with dogs. It's a tough break. But in most cases most the cabs that don't want to take a dog are not allergic, just they have misconceptions about what it would be like I imagine.
Oh, I completely agree. The cab driver didn't force her, couldn't have upheld it even if she tried, but either she didn't know that (though you'd expect she should've done) or she just capitulated. Either way, the dog being in the trunk was her problem.
I can say this much. If at all possible, if I had a guide dog I would try to sit in the back of the cab with the dog at my feet. It's what my ex-fiancee used to do, and it worked for her...when the dog wasn't in the hatchback many British taxis tend to have, of course.
My large point in the last post was that if taxi users were courteous and informed the company that they were going to be travelling with a dog, the company could then turn and be sure to send someone who didn't have any problem with the dog being in the taxi in the first place. It'll happen rarely enough that companies can't and won't raise hell, and the supposed inconvenience to the customer is an extra four or five seconds' worth of dialogue which is simply human courtesy. The law in this case is a rather sweeping affair and will let us, as blind people in general, get away with being complete jerks. For the love of god, don't enforce that image. We get enough flak from the world without justifying it by being pricks when we really don't need to be.
Hmm...interesting point, Leo. I will say that drunks, in particular, are a bit easy to spot more often than not, owing to the hour or the place of pickup and such. There's never any guarantees I guess, but it's easier to spot a drunk without being specifically told than it is a guide-dog owner...or, yes, a crackhead who, although rare, is a menace to any cab driver.
I think the onus here, to an extent, is on the companies...make the drivers more aware of what they might expect, including service animals, make it clear to them that by law they cannot refuse. If companies did that, they would probably be quite capable of sending people with no dog issues to pick up service animals and their charges if they had advance warning. No one in their right mind is going to call up and say "I'm a crackhead", but it is by no means outside the realm of reasonable expectation that a person wanting to travel with a dog tell their dispatcher, "I'm travelling with my guide dog".
Oh I agree. Nobody forced her to do it. She had the choice. So the fact that the cabby insisted on it wasn't the only outrageous part of this story. The really outrageous part of the story wasn't so much that a cab driver would insist that the blind person put her dog in the trunk. The trunks of US cars weren't really designed with the safe transport of living things in mind. The outrageous part was that the woman ALLOWED it, but then embarked on this pity party and goes on about how her independence is ruined. She could have stood up for her rights. It's as much her fault as it is the cabby's.
I totally agree. There are just some people that shouldn't have guide dogs. For her to put her dog in the trunk show's she both shouldn't have one, and that clearly as others have said she's looking for pity. Maybe she should just stick to a cane. She could throw that in the back of the cab and this hole mess wouldn't have happened. Or she could grow up, but from the looks of things it's going to be a while before she does.
Yeah. Because maybe cars in Canada and the UK are designed differently with trunks that could safely accomodate a dog, but the way US cars aredesigned, not to mention te way it seems most Americans drive, there would be too much risk of harm to the dog, especially in hotter weather.
I agree that she was not forced, and she should have refused. I also agree that you should tell the dispatcher you are travelling with a guide dog. However, I do not agree that fears, or alergies, or religious laws should be taken into account in the slightest.
Should the dispatcher make sure to send a driver who is ok with dogs, sure. Should I have to worry about it when the cab gets there? No, not in the slightest.
If cab shows up at my house, and I am looking to get somewhere, I will be getting in that cab, with my dog, and going where I need to go. That is the nature of providing a service to the public. You have to deal with the public.
As for leaving my dog at home and taking a cane? I admit there are places that I do that, movie theaters and bowling alleys to name but two. However, both of those places I go with friends, and do not take my cane. I use my cane for nothing unless I absolutely have to. By absolutely have to, I mean that my dog can't travel. That, as yet, has never happened.
I take umbridge with one sentence that was said in post 73. You said, and I paraphrase, that we shouldn't have to, but we expect the world to be polite, so I should be polite in return. I don't expect the world to be polite. Its nice when it is, but I don't expect it.
If I go to a restaurant, and I have to ask the waiter/waitress to read me the menu, I tip well. If I expected the world to be polite, I'd just expect her/him to read the menu, and be done with it. I mean, I'm blind, its polite, you're supposed to do that kind of thing, right?
A basic tenet of life is that the world isn't polite, and the people who expect it to be are the ones who always whine about how it wasn't. Be polite for the simple reason that it is the easiest way to get what you want, but when it fails, don't be afraid to be an ass.
I honestly don't like most polite people, simply because they take it too far. They take politeness and make it disengenuous. I'd rather have someone be politely honest, than someone who is always polite.
The politely honest thing to do in this guide dog situation is to say "sir or madame, I'm sorry you have a fear of dogs, I assure you this dog will not hurt you. Now, I'm going to blah blah blah", or perhaps "Sir or madame, I understand that your religion says that my dog is unclean. However, you are being paid by me to take me to such and such, I am afraid you will simply have to live with that". Parenthetically, that law was lifted in the muslim courts, so its noll and void, but still.
Basically, its your life, and you have a guide dog. Its time you stop bending over for people and start saying that you are going to be equal, and that's all there is to it.
If you warn a cab company ahead of time that you have a dog and you still get a cabbie who gives you hell (I suppose it can happen) then yes, you have every right in the world to be firm. If you don't warn them because you feel you shouldn't have to, then you're basically inviting trouble; you still have every right to be firm, but at that point you cannot claim that you've done everything in your power to be accommodating. Give the company you're trying to work with a little slack because it's courtesy, but by all means, don't get walked on. I'm totally in agreement there. I'm just sick and tired of all the entitlement crap I see from users of service animals...most aren't too bad, but there are a vocal minority who get really uppity about this sort of thing.
I expect people to at the very least respect my beliefs where possible. I don't demand it forcefully, but being an agnostic I take it amiss when I have the Bible shoved down my throat (it's actually been done by a cab driver of all things). Let's say I had an acquaintance who drove taxis for a living and they were very devoutly vegan...did not in the least want to be around meat, didn't want to see it or smell it if at all possible. I call for a cab, this vegan acquaintance is dispatched, and I get in the car wolfing down a huge burger because I'm just finishing lunch and have to be at an appointment in ten minutes. I'm essentially forcing the vegan to deal with meat...and yes, I'm totally entitled to do it, but I'd still feel like a jjrk. Similarly, if I had a guide dog and a Muslim cab driver who objected to unclean animals in his vehicle arrived to pick me up, I wouldn't avoid taking the dog just on those grounds but I'd feel bad. Yes, they're being paid to perform a service, but that doesn't mean I want to make it any harder on them than I need to, because while I am paying their bills and they're stuck being subject to me during the course of this service, I am also relying on that service, without which I might have more difficulty. I think people forget it works both ways. The feeling I get from many posters in this discussion is "Oh well, their beliefs and allergies and all that don't matter a lick"; they shouldn't necessarily change the way you act, but I'd sure as hell hope that they do in fact matter to some of you people at least insofar as how you feel about impinging on what these people, who are often working a fairly low-paying job as an only resort and who are struggling to adapt in a society they're not used to after having left behind a far more dangerous one from back home, are comfortable with. In all honesty, if I was using a taxi to go somewhere fairly quick, had a guide dog but didn't absolutely require that the animal be present (let's say I was going down to pull money out of an ATM and then wanted to drop off a parcel and pick up a small load of groceries), I'd just bring the cane, save the hassle. No one I've ever met has been offended by a cane, and since I would feel it incumbent upon me to keep my cane skills sharp, dog or not, it's killing two birds with one stone.
But that begs the question of "when does it stop"? At what point do you stop changing things about you're life, and just start living it. If I get in a cab eating a burger, and the vegan tells me that its cruel, I'll simply say that I'll be done shortly. If a muslim tells me my dog is dirty, I'll simply say that he won't have to deal with it very long.
Lets say you call a plumber, and the plumber comes out, goes into your kitchen and says, "This tile is hideous, look at it, its green, who has green tile", you'd probably get a bit miffed. Now, if the plumber says that he won't work on green tile, you'd probably say, "then send out a new plumber". you would not, however, get down on your knees and rip out all the tile, just so he can work in peace. its your house, and you'll have what tile you want.
Why are cab drivers any different? You are performing a service, and there are rules, one of those rules is that you will have to deal with the public. Welcome to life.
Well I'm not sure about allergies. If a person has allergies severe enough that the dog's dander would impact their breathing and therefore affect their driving and regular allergy medicine wouldn't help, then perhaps it should be taken into account. But certainly if the allergies cause nothing more than stuffy nose or watering eyes, things that allergy medicine would take care of in other words, then I agree, you still hae to obey the ADA. And I definitely agree about religion. You can deny access to a gide dog in your home if it's tat important to you, but not to your business.
Whether or not one is allowed isn't the question, really...and we could go into a whole ethical debate about how certain employers will discriminate against other religions. The point is more that reasonable allowance can and should be made on all sides. Reasonable allowance means letting your cab company know that you have a guide dog, trusting that they will behave in a way which best suits their business and ensuring that you aren't sent someone that's going to give you grief about it. Reasonable allowance also means that the Muslim who detests dogs and sees them as unclean, whatever the religion might actually saw about it lawfully speaking, still has to obey the law if he shows up at your door and you're ready to go with your animal. He might ask that you, your dog or both sit in the back seat of his car, and I think that you'd be a jerk to deny that to be honest, but so long as he doesn't refuse or drive away or otherwise hinder your travel, no one has much room to complain.
In short: a little courtesy pays. Don't flaunt your freedom just because the law allows you to, as that's a really excellent way of giving the rest of us a bad public image. On the flip side, don't allow anyone to walk all over you because they think they can either.
As to serious allergies, the dangerous kind which might impair a person's ability to drive when thusly affected, then the question really must be asked as to whether or not driving cab is suitable for you. If I was working in a meat-packing plant and developed an allergy to the meat I was handling, I might have to change jobs. If I was a long-haul trucker suddenly afflicted with IBS to such an extent that seriously long drives without stops weren't really feasible anymore, I'd also have to change my job. Anyone who knowingly takes a job for which they have a higher-than-normal risk factor is begging for trouble, and anyone who develops a serious and potentially life-threatening problem in relation to a job they're doing owes it to anyone involved, themselves most especially, to strongly consider a career switch. It might not be easy or even immediately feasible, but the alternative is to risk your own safety and, in the case of a cab driver, the safety of those who are soliciting and paying for your services. In the extremely unlikely event that you were a guide-dog owner who came across a cabbie who was in the process of switching jobs but hadn't managed yet, but who had a serious dog allergy that had sprung up or whatnot, I think common decency would suggest you either not take the dog or just get another cab without insisting, as the law allows, that you and your animal may ride. And that's really all I think I need to say; I trust most of you have the common sense to see where I'm coming from.
That's a different story though. If a cab driver asked me and my dog to sit in the back seat I could accomodate that. That's not an unreasonable concession regardless of the reasons for it. The issue is if the driver tries to refuse to transport the dog outright or, as this cabby did, tries to make the dog ride in the trunk, since the trunks of US cars are much more confined spaces than I gather to be the case for cars in places like Canada or the UK. But again as has been said before the dog's handler is equally at fault for her perceived loss of independence as the cabby, however much of an idiot he might have been.
Anyway, has anyone ehard anything new about this case?
I know I haven't. It'd be interesting to find out if there've been any new developments.
think it was bad for you to even allow your gide dog to be put in the back of the trunk.
You should not let that happened.
you should have called the cab company and also called the place where you were going to have appointment at.
you should have been charged for anemal cruelity cause that is wrong for a dog to be put in the back of a trunk.
I am not trying to run your life but should have made a better disagon before putting the dog in back of a trunk.
sugarbaby. What you are saying is just wrong. Let me tell you a story. I once had a friend who got into a cab, and the previous passenger had left a knife on the floor. The knife stabbed through the dog's foot, leaving it unable to guide for months, and the woman stranded on a vacation. The dog's foot bled all over the cab, ruining the floor of the cab. In this situation everyone was hurt. The poor dog was injured, the woman was stranded in another state, and the cab driver was forced out of customers. If your dog is in a trunk, no matter how spacious it may be, how are you going to check for a knife? How are you going to make sure nothing is back their to harm your dog? Well, it could be argued that you can feel the hatchback first before putting your dog inside. Well, what if it's not a knife? Say a pill got lost bac there. This pill could be lethal to your dog, and you are not back in the trunk with him or her to ensure that he does not find and eat said pill. IF the dog is by your side then you can be feeling him at all times. You can detect whether he can find a pill or get harmed. You should probably stop thinking about what you need, and what the cab driver needs, and focus on what the dog needs. After all, the dog is the one in this equation that cannot make their own decision. It is your job to protect them. They lay their life on the line for you every day, so you have to do everything in your power to keep them safe.
On another note, American law states that the animal must be under the control of the handler at all times. If a dog is in a trunk, they are not under the handlers control, they could damage the fabric of the cab, or any number of things. So this request in itself is asking the handler to break the law and go against the ADA.
I think the woman and cab driver were both very wrong, but it also saddens me to find out how many handlers out there do not really think about their dogs. My dog is my whole world.
In this case both woman and driver were wrong. and i wonder what the fall out from this was. Also i hope the dog's alright.
I don't have a guide dog yet, but i did have a pet dog. and the day i lost him he died of a heart attack i was devistated. 2 months later i still am. your dog isn't just a dog your dog is your best friend.
I notice little foot has me on ignore, but whatever. Bringing this topic back to the top to see if anyone has seen or heard any new developments on this story in recent months. To the poster I just mentioned, the person in this story does not come on this site. Yes, I believe animal cruelty charges should be filed. as for the knife going through the dog's foot, that poor animal ... Just ... wow ...
reyami, did you ever contact the school, as you claimed back when this was started, you were hell bent on doing? just curious.
I hope they took the dog away from this lady and banned her from ever having another without further training and lots of it.