Victorian woman Kathryn Beaton says repeated, illegal denials of service from drivers refusing to allow her guide dog into their vehicles have left her effectively housebound.

Edited to add: “anxious and in tears” is some shit tier headline writing when the real problem is the loss of independence and freedom, and the hours she has had to spend waiting just to be actively discriminated against.

  • Millie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    So as a taxi driver with asthma and horrific allergies, I’ve found dog owners are not typically terribly understanding when I tell them we’re going to have another cab come pick them up. I’ve had several people insist that their animal is a service dog as if this somehow changes my own health condition.

    I’ve often found that my own access to public spaces is limited by the use of service animals and straight up pets in public places. I don’t even try to go to breweries anymore. I wouldn’t bother trying to get on a plane. Even hotels are basically a no go for me unless i want to get sick more often than not.

    I don’t pretend to have a solution to this, but access to public spaces for animals and for some allergy sufferers is mutually exclusive. It makes it a lot more complicated than ‘service animals should be everywhere’ or ‘allergy sufferers should have access to public spaces’. The two are kind of in conflict. It sucks.

    Nobody pays any mind to air quality and it’s made my life a whole lot more difficult than it needs to be.

    Anyway, i feel for her, but i think the service animal stuff is way over simplified and people forget that other people with disabilities also pay a cost.

    • Poggervania@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The fact that this blind lady needs to have both her guide dog and a taxi/rideshare to get around anywhere sucks for both her and the driver - the former for obvious reasons, and the latter for the reasons you listed out. It’s a sort-of perfect microcosm of the major issue a lot of modern cities seem to have: poor public transit and heavy car-centric infrastructure.

      The unfortunate reality that she absolutely needs a car to seemingly get anywhere is the problem here. People - and not just people with disabilities, but in general - should have (and deserve) different viable options to get around. The whole idea of a person becoming stuck at their house because of not being able to get the transport they need to get around the place is fuckin atrocious and should be what’s actually talked about here, not “jUsT lEt ThE aNiMaL oN!” or “MaKe An UbEr ApP fOr PeOpLe LiKe ThIs!”

  • curls@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    In the USA this would be illegal. You can’t deny a person with a disability that is accommodated by a service dog unless the dog is not obeying the handler or pees/poops inside. Doesn’t matter if someone has allergies, a phobia, or is religious. There are fines but it takes a very long time to get anywhere.

    • too_high_for_this@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not true. Service animals can be denied if they pose an immediate threat to human health or safety. An allergy could certainly be a threat to health, and a driver having an allergic reaction is definitely a threat to safety.

      Also, the federal law only applies to public accommodations, I don’t think “ride-shares” would count as that. An Uber driver doesn’t stop and pick up the first person they see, they have a private agreement with a specific person.