‘He could have killed my dog’: ride-share drivers accused of refusing passengers with guide dogs
Natalie has lost count of how many times she’s called a ride-share or taxi and been left standing on the curb with her guide dog.
Two years ago, she was going to a music lesson in Sydney’s Sutherland Shire when she says a driver sped off, dragging her dog, Sharnee, behind the car.
“He said no, ‘You need to book Uber pet, basically refusing me. I was half in his car, trying to show him the guide dog card,” Natalie, who did not want her surname used, said.
“He goes, ‘Oh that’s not necessary,’ and drove off at 30 or 40km/h,” she said. “I was yelling out stop, stop, you’re going to injure my dog.”
Natalie says Sharnee’s paw pad was scrapped off in the incident and afterwards, she hated getting into any car. Natalie was forced to put Sharnee into early retirement from working as a guide dog, and Natalie now has a different guide dog.
In the months after the incident, the driver left the country, so there was no avenue to pursue a complaint, she said.
“He could have killed my dog,” Natalie said. “It took months for [the police] to come back to me with the result, which ended up being nothing.”
A month later, another driver refused to take her. After she complained to the service, the driver claimed Natalie hadn’t been wearing a mask. After Natalie produced the CCTV to prove that she had been, the man was fined but allowed to continue working as a ride-share driver.
“They have to have something to deter them from doing this,” Natalie said. “Something so they know it’s not right and the laws won’t put up with it. Right now, they’re making out like it’s a joke.”
Almost half (46%) of Australians living with low vision and blindness have experienced a refusal with a taxi or ride-share company in the past 24 months, new data collected by Ernst & Young and commissioned by Guide Dogs Australia has revealed.
More than one-third (34%) said their taxi or ride-share was cancelled, while others were ridiculed or discriminated against (15%). The report said 622 people living with low vision and blindness were surveyed across the country, with a mixture of Guide Dog clients and other individuals.
The report found guide dog handlers were more likely to face access refusals or barriers in public, most commonly when booking ride-share or taxis, highlighting the discrimination against guide dogs.
Under federal anti-discrimination laws, assistance dogs are guaranteed access to public places – including taxes and ride shares – and drivers who refuse service can be fined up to $2,500.
But advocates say the laws are often ignored. Graeme Innes is the former disability discrimination commissioner, a Sydney-based human rights lawyer and Guide Dogs client. He said last December when he arrived at Melbourne airport he was refused three times before he got a ride.
“I was able to get photos and licence numbers, and they’ve been submitted to Safe Transport Victoria and those drivers have all been fined,” Innes said.
“But I shouldn’t have to be the policing authority here … This should be policed by the authorities at the taxi ranks where there are staff there.”
Innes estimated he was refused at least once a month and said he knew people who had guide dogs who had stopped travelling. The government needs to issue fines and work with platforms to ban drivers who refuse, Innes said.
“I think the key thing is government enforcing the law,” he said. “Ride-share companies all have training programmes that their drivers go through and so drivers can’t say that they’re not aware of these laws.”
Uber did not respond to questions from Guardian Australia about the incident with Natalie. But a spokesperson said the company was rolling out a “bespoke video learning course” to educate drivers on their obligations. If the driver receives a complaint, they will be forced to do complete a “knowledge course”.
Blair Davies, the chief executive of the Australian Taxi Industry Association Limited, said they were satisfied taxi drivers knew they had to provide service for everyone, but some drivers did not want to comply.
“That’s where we do encourage customers who have that experience to report it so that the industry can take action,” Davies said.
“The drivers are out there, they’re effectively working for themselves. If they choose to discriminate, there’s no immediate supervisor to call them into line, we need to wait for the complaint to come in. It’s a worry.”
Davies said the ATIA position was that some “stronger form of compliance” would be helpful as discrimination complaints currently put the onus on the alleged victim.
Tamara Searant, Guide Dogs NSW/ACT general manager of social change, said there needed to be an easier way for users to report complaints and more compliance from companies.
“One thing that’s missing at the moment is reporting,” Searant said. “Better reporting of what’s happening will help with people who want to make complaints, knowing that it’s gone somewhere and that there is an outcome.”
