[NAGDU] Uber and Self-Identification

Tue Nov 5 04:18:38 UTC 2024

Hi all,
What about the horrible verbal abuse by the driver towards the rider with
the guide dog? I have heard many very scary stories about the abuse
suffered by our community. I refuse to use Uber or Lyft because I refuse to
pay the exorbitant prices to people who show such utter distain and
disrespect. I can't afford those prices. I use the bus or paratransit to
get around.

Lyn G.

On Mon, Nov 4, 2024, 2:38 PM Al Elia via NAGDU <nagdu at nfbnet.org> wrote:

> Dear Curtis – Thank you for your thoughtful email. Please see my comments
> below after your own.
>
> > The issue of advance self-identification of guide dog users (which, in
> the context of Uber, I hope will always remain optional) is one which gives
> me more than a little concern. As long as I have been a member in the
> National Federation of the Blind (since 1969, I am proud to say), I have
> always supported the concepts embodied in the White Cane laws which we now
> have in all fifty states. Deeply imbedded in every one of these White Cane
> laws is the right of guide dog users to free and equal access to places and
> services to which all members of the public are entitled. Not until the
> current decade have we in the National Federation of the Blind contemplated
> the notion that guide dog users might need to place themselves on a list in
> order to avail themselves of services that everyone else is able to obtain
> without question--such as transportation in a taxicab or an airplane.
>
> As a guide dog user for nearly thirty years, I could not agree with you
> more. I find it incredibly frustrating that we must deal with people
> fraudulently misrepresenting their pets and ESAs as service animals. I also
> find it frustrating to deal with rideshare denials while also recognizing
> that rideshare provides greater access to point-to-point transportation
> than we had during the reign of taxi companies. That said, I also
> encountered denials by taxis in the pre and post rideshare times, and
> generally those were more difficult to impose consequences on drivers, at
> least in New York City.
>
> Having now worked with John Pare and the advocacy team as the NAGDU board
> mnember tasked with representing guide dog users in discussions with
> rideshare companies, whether on panels or in direct discussions, I have
> unfortunately come to the conclusion that there is no better way to improve
> the service we receive than SelfID. I understand that stance requires some
> justificationn so here it goes:
>
> The companies already educate drivers on their legal and policy
> responsibility to transport riders with service animals. Could they do
> better by, for example, offering that education in more languages?
> Certainly. However, given my and others’ experience with drivers who
> clearly comprehend English and nonetheless either think they don’t have to
> transport us or just don’t care what the policy is, I do not see education
> as the answer.
>
> As an attorney, I also understand that rideshare companies are in a tough
> spot when a rider complains that a driver refused to transport them with
> their service animal, and the driver either claims they were not told it
> was a service animal or did not understand that the rider’s dog was a
> service animal. That kind of classic they said/they said situation makes it
> difficult for an adjudicator to determine what really happened or who to
> believe. The New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission has an entire
> administrative body, including attorneys, who handle adjudication of those
> situations, and it literally takes months to process and adjudicate a
> single complaint. In the meantime, drivers are permitted to continue
> driving under the “innocent until proven guilty” practice of our judicial
> system.
>
> In order to adduce evidence in case I am denied and have to file a
> complaint with a rideshare company,  I have taken to composing a message to
> drivers that I am blind and will not see them, so  please let me know when
> they arrive, and that I am wearing whatever I’m wearing and have a black
> guide dog service animal. It’s a pain in the neck, but I do it every time
> to ensure that I can point to that message when I complain about a denial.
> I have been told by rideshare company representatives that such evidence is
> crucial in determining that a driver should be deactivated.
>
> When denied, I also have to either call the hotline, wait for a
> representative, then explain to to them all of the details of the denial,
> or fill out their  clunky form with those details. I thought to myself,
> “Wouldn’t it be simpler if the system could establish that eviddence for
> me, and submit a complaint for me with those details when a denial occurs
> since the information is already available in the app?” Of course it would
> be simpler and easier for me and others in the same situation. I also
> thought it would be easier for rideshare companies to remove drivers, as
> they would be able to point out to drivers that the app told them about the
> use of a service animal, and warned them that they might be deactivated if
> they canceled after being reminded byy the app that they must transport
> service animals. Of course, that would require the rideshare companies to
> somehow know  that I or other riders use a service animal so they know to
> use that machinery on our behalf.
>
> All of that said, I also understood that many people would balk at
> identifying themselves as a gguide dog user. I personally do not understand
> that objection, as I generally have to identify myself by answering the two
> legally permissible questions regarding whether I require a service dog due
> to disability and what task he is trained to perform. Sometimes that may be
> because, according to many, I “don’t look blind,” whatever that means, or
> because people are trained to ask those questions about every dog that
> walks through the door. In any case,  we stressed to the rideshare
> companies at all times that SelfID must be optional and affirmatively
> chosen, and that   they must continue to investigate reports from riders
> who do not choose to use SelfID to let drivers know in advance that they
> use a service animal.
>
> > As for the self-identification question and Uber, I think, first of all,
> that we should all understand that self-identification, in and of itself,
> is neither a good nor a bad thing. What makes self-identification it a good
> thing is when Uber drivers never know that a person requesting a ride is
> using a guide dog until the driver and the passenger have been connected
> through the Uber app. When this connection is made and the driver then
> finds out that the person requesting a ride is using a guide dog, any ride
> cancellation or denial initiated by the driver becomes suspect and should,
> at a minimum, generate an investigation. If it is determined that the use
> of a guide dog was the reason for the cancellation, then the driver should
> be permanently removed from the Uber platform.
>
> Again, couldn’t agree more. SAid that to the rideshare companies. They
> agreed. Uber came back with a proposal to ID riders with service animals
> prior to pairing at the end of 2023, and I nearly bit the representatives’
> heads off. John can confirm that, as he often plays good cop to my bad cop.
>
>
> > If, on the other hand, self-identification enables the Uber driver to
> learn in advance that a passenger requesting transportation uses a guide
> dog or that the passenger is blind and if the driver then chooses not to
> accept the ride, the driver is shielded from the consequences of his/her
> discrimination against the passenger. This, in my view, is the worst form
> of implementation for the self-identification option.
>
> Agreed. See prior comment. Told them nearly that exact thing as why we
> would never agree to use a SelfID that idenbtified us pre-pairing.
>
> > In his November 1, 2024 letter to Uber, President Riccobono said, in
> relevant part:
> >
> > "we learned last week that Uber intends to offer a default choice in the
> self-identification option to inform drivers of a rider’s service animal on
> the offer card prior to pairing. Providing this option, whether it is the
> rider’s choice or not, is unlawful. We will not support or condone such an
> option, and will publicly denounce Uber’s use of it and tolerance of the
> discrimination it fosters. Simply put, offering an option to disclose use
> of a service animal prior to pairing is unlawful."
>
> I know – I was involved in the meeting where we learned about it,
> denounced it at the time, voiced my opposition to it when it remained part
> of the pilot, and brought it to President Riccobono’s attention.
>
> > In your email, you said, "I am currently participating in the selfID
> pilot. I have chosen the option to only identify me as a service animal
> user after pairing with a driver."
> > I am gratified that there is an option for you, the passenger, to
> identify yourself as a service animal user only after you are paired with
> the driver. That this option exists is a point in Uber's favor. However,
> the fact that this is not the default and only choice once the passenger
> has chosen to self-identify represents for me yet another reason for us in
> the National Federation of the Blind to continue regarding Uber with more
> than a little skepticism and certainly with a lot of suspicion. Uber is
> definitely not on our side when it comes to equal rights for guide dog
> users.
>
> I am certainly skeptical of rideshare companies, and particularly Uber. I
> think there are people who are on our side (the access team and the rider
> team) and people who are not (the driver team). I am frequently providing
> the people on our side with arguments why Uber should not listen to the
> people who are not on our side. It is frustrating to seay the least, and
> sometimes feels thankless when they do things like give riders an option to
> disclose pre-paring.
>
> I was told that many riders indicated they wanted to inform drivers as
> soon as possible about their service animal to ensure that they did not get
> a driver who would deny them. I’m unsure how Uber asked the question, as I
> would answer that I want the driver to be informed as soon as I am paired
> so that if they deny I can be re-paired quickly and they can be teporarily
> deactivated pending investigation and permanent deactivation. That is not
> what Uber chose to do. I understand that some folks might want to choose to
> put their use of a service animal on the offer card, as they may be very
> anti-confrontational and may want to just avoid even having to complain. I
> would tell those people that I’m sorry but the law does not permit people
> to choose to be subjected to unaddressable discrimination, just as it does
> not allow them to choose to work for subminimum wages.
>
> The only reason I and other NFB members agreeed to participate in the
> pilot was other options that did not disclose pre-pairing. We will continue
> to push Uber to not include a pre-paring SelfID option. I continue to press
> Uber on this at every opportunity in the pilot. We will push Lyft to only
> disclose after pairing if Lyft chooses to offer a SelfID option. I am also
> involved in other advocacy with NFB to pressure the rideshare companies on
> this point from another angle.
>
> I hope this clarifies my position and thoughts on SelfID, and reassures
> you that there is no daylight between my, NAGDU’s, and NFB’s position on
> SelfID for rideshare.
>
> Yours,
>
> /Æ
>
> _______________________________________________
> NAGDU mailing list
> NAGDU at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> NAGDU:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/gwizdaklyn%40gmail.com
>