Taxi Driver Online

Shouldn't that be "assistance dogs"?
Although we have a problem here whereby a person is claiming that her dog is an assistance dog but the dog does not seem to be trained if it is. We are trying to find out if it is true or not. Ven would have loved this one. The dog just jumps in on the back seat. At the moment drivers are terrified of being in trouble if they refuse.

_________________
Grandad,

As you say "Assistance Dogs".

_________________
if you cannot be yourself, then who can you be.

sticking notices on cars does not guarantee sticking to law after all most PH carry signs on the doors stating that they are pre booked only but up and down the country we all see this rule being flouted.

As Pete said it is Assistance dogs that must be carried including hearing dogs for the deaf and companion dogs for the disabled as well as guide dogs for the blind. These dogs usually have a jacket stating that they are assistance dogs on them so the simple answer is that if the dog is not wearing identification marking then it's validity is challengeable. If all these dogs are clearly marked and drivers are trained to know what constitutes a genuine or non genuine assistance dog.

One point that comes to mind has every council trained it's drivers in this matter ? Part of the problem may be a lack of education of drivers on disability awareness and discrimination rules

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

My suggestion is more to the point that drivers would not have (any) excuse to evade their legal duty.They would not be able to claim ignorance,religion, bad backside/whatever - this imo is a problem caused by drivers! For a driver who has say a medical problem - then he/she has an exemption certificate on display.

_________________
if you cannot be yourself, then who can you be.

And the latest is in leicester

A blind man was barred from using a taxi by a driver who took religious exception to his guide dog.
Charles Bloch, 22, was with his girlfriend and dog Carlo on Friday when he was told by a taxi driver he could not take the dog for religious reasons.
It is the second time this year Mr Bloch has been refused a taxi because of his dog but this time his girlfriend shared a video of it on social media.
ADT Taxis admitted its driver broke the law and he has since been sacked.

Commenting on the case, Leicester City Council said religion was "not a sensible excuse" and drivers are told about the law on their licence and during exams.
"It's extremely frustrating," said Mr Bloch, a student at De Montfort University in Leicester. "But, it's a very common thing and happens a lot."
Mr Bloch has deteriorating eyesight due to glaucoma and in April was refused a ride by an Uber driver who also cited religious reasons.
"I have no hatred towards the driver and his religion, and I would respect that if the law wasn't there, but the law is there to help people be more integrated into the community," he said.

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

That's the same one as above.

I thought the one above was about the female student the thing is there are just soooooo many it's hard to keep track never mind that's an updated version of the story

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

well im certainly not terrified , i would have refused & also i have had this argument, the dog sits in the front foot well in my car, no if`s or but`s, i have no way of securing a 2 stone + Labrador in the rear of my vehicle, if i am in a "head on" i certainly don't want that bouncing my head through the windscreen, sorry, front or fook off, i aint refused,just stipulated where the dog sits for my own safety.

"I have no hatred towards the driver and his religion, and I would respect that if the law wasn't there"

the driver refused on religious grounds, wasn't nasty or anything, why couldn't he have just got the other car that the firm were going to send ?, by the time they got this sorted he could have been home, but no, to easy , once again CRAWL UP MY HOOP i have a disability, " no , i want this car!" ffs man these people are awful tbh

Uber driver refused to take passenger with guide dog - saying he did not like the animal

The court heard how Mr Bloch had booked a taxi using Uber's mobile phone app on April 22

A taxi driver who refused to take a passenger with a guide dog has been prosecuted.

Ahmed Kayd refused to pick up Charles Bloch, who is registered blind, because it would mean having guide dog Carlo in the vehicle.

Following the incident in April this year, Mr Bloch complained to Kayd's employer, Uber, and reported the matter to Leicester City Council's licensing department.

Kayd (42), of Colsterdale Close, Beaumont Leys, was prosecuted and pleaded guilty to refusing to convey a guide dog, an offence under the Equality Act 2010.

At Leicester Magistrates' Court on Wednesday (9), he was fined £140 and ordered to pay £327 costs and a victim surcharge of £30.

The court heard how Mr Bloch had booked a taxi using Uber's mobile phone app on April 22 to pick up him and his partner from his home in order to take Carlo to Spinney Hill Park.

Mr Bloch contacted the driver beforehand via an option on the Uber app, telling him he would be bringing a guide dog.

Kayd, who had only held a taxi driver's licence since November 2015, seemed unclear what a guide or assistance dog was and asked Mr Bloch whether the dog would try to lick him, the court heard.

Kayd then said he could not take dogs as it was against his religion and he did not like them, despite Mr Bloch explaining that it was illegal to refuse.

Mr Bloch then left feedback on the Uber app explaining Kayd's actions.

Kayd rang him back and was apologetic, by which time Mr Bloch had made alternative travel arrangements.

Councillor Piara Singh Clair, assistant city mayor for culture, leisure and sport, told the Mercury: "Taxi drivers are legally required to accept bookings from passengers with assistance dogs, unless the driver has been granted an exemption certificate by the local authority.

"In this case, the driver didn't have any legitimate reason not to accept Mr Bloch and Carlo.

"We are pleased with the successful prosecution and hope that it sends a clear message that we will not tolerate any discrimination."

source: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/taxi- ... story.html

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Why did they not prosecute uber as well,they took the booking as operator and did not fulfil that booking.

Again is it the case of those ultimately responsible for a booking from start to finish being let off.

I'm glad you ain't my union Rep

_________________
There's no excuse for animal abuse. If you ain't vegan you are an animal abuser.

For what?

_________________
IDFIMH

Midlife martyr, that's a bit rich. Most of my drivers are Muslim and some of the best guys I've known. They go the extra mile, work hard, never owe back rent and help with assistance dogs and old biddies etc. However, they won't carry normal dogs and I totally respect that. They'll go anything for anyone ( within reason of course )

All I'm saying is there interpretation of their faith in some cases is not compatible with the conditions of the license they applied for any driver who is not willing to carry a assistance dog unless they have a medical exemption certificate have in my opinion been dishonest in obtaining their licence and don't belong in the trade, do you disagree with this in principle ?

I too have Muslim drivers working for me the issue with assistance dogs doesn't come up as there are none round here (we did have a customer who tried one briefly but the dog was not well enough trained and he had to send it back as it nearly got him killed !) we have a number of customers with dogs and as long as the dog is not too big and sits on owners lap or in the foot well the drivers WILL carry the dog as there is no risk of contact between driver and dog

The issue I think is partly one of training and partly to do with drivers coming into the trade having only recently arrived in the UK. Issues like this would disappear if we introduced tougher DBS rules along the line of not allowing people to apply for a badge without 3 years clean DBS in UK or a compulsory training course for prospective new drivers before they are allowed to start work

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector