Australia

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!”

Your disability is legitimate too, and should definitely be considered in any solution. I'm sorry to hear that your mobility is also affected by medical circumstances people don't understand, I know it sucks hard.

I believe that drivers who are unable to accept dogs due yo their own disabilities should be able to flag that with Uber to begin with, so they aren't selected for the jobs. I also believe Uber needs to be penalised for illegally refused service, not just individual drivers.

There's still the problem of taxis who are frequently harder to identify, but I am 100% for enforced financial penalties for this.

OP is in Australia. Never mind fines, this offence attracts a prison sentence and CEOs are sentenced to prison (rarely).

It's rare because most CEOs aren't stupid enough to risk breaking the law. The drivers are to blame. Trying to pin responsibility on someone else is a waste of time.

Ride share has been so devastating to the taxi industry that a lot of those businesses folded. Taxi businesses generally have been much more regulated than rideshare (much like hotels are more regulated than airbnb), so it was difficult to compete when Uber and Lyft popped up.

So she might not HAVE access to a taxi due to the way ride share has taken over. A lot of places are "ride share or nothing" now.

In my experience calling a taxi leaves you on the phone on hold for 45mins, or the driver cancels on the way if they find someone else first (requiring you to rebook), or they don't frequently show up in the area you need one, or they straight up drive past you to deny you to your face. Or they illegally require destination before allowing you in.

It might just be that it's easier to count denials in the account history of the Uber app.

It probably shouldn't include allergies...depending on how bad those are sneezing while at the wheel would be very dangerous...

Obviously it should be confirmed by a doctor...but still that sounds dangerous.

Doesn't matter if someone has allergies

That sounds like bullshit, how can that not be a factor? How would, for example, a fear of dogs not be a factor?

Illegal here too. Law is an empty threat when it's not enforced and the right people/companies aren't sufficiently penalised.

Just like Steve Bannon was sentenced to 4 months jail in Novermber, but has served 0 days in custody.

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.