Is this discrimination?

me283 · 07-10-2006, 19:13

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...re/4749013.stm

Heard about this on the radio, and it seems unfair. Shouldn't a taxi driver be allowed to turn down a fare? I think it's the same report that I heard, the cabbie was a Muslim and said he didn't want the dog in his car; seems fair enough to me.

I realise it would be harsh on the blind person, but I think a lot of cabs wouldn't object. So what's the problem? Find another cab that is happy to take a dog... And what about the next passenger? Personally, I am allergic to dogs, so using that as an example, is it fair that people should be faced with the prospect of sitting in a cab that could potentially make them ill?

It seems that the word "discrimination" is bandied around all too easily these days

**Rob** · 07-10-2006, 19:31

We can pander to everybody's slightest little whim, or we can get on with the job that we have agreed to do. Guide Dogs are an accepted part of British Life. If it's goood enough for them to be in hygenic places such as food premises, then it's certainly acceptable for them to be in a taxi.

me283 · 07-10-2006, 19:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob C

We can pander to everybody's slightest little whim, or we can get on with the job that we have agreed to do. Guide Dogs are an accepted part of British Life. If it's goood enough for them to be in hygenic places such as food premises, then it's certainly acceptable for them to be in a taxi.

But he didn't discriminate against her because she was blind... presumably he wouldn't have a problem if she just had a white stick? What would have happened if his reason hadn't been religious, but had been that he was allergic? Or maybe had a fear of dogs, as some people do?

**Rob** · 07-10-2006, 20:44

But realistically, he did discriminate against her blindness. The Guide Dog is a tool to reduce the disability, just as a white cane is. He has taken a job where he is signed up to conditions of providing a public service. He either accepts all those conditions, or he has to accept he can't fulfil the role required by that job.

me283 · 07-10-2006, 20:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob C

But realistically, he did discriminate against her blindness. The Guide Dog is a tool to reduce the disability, just as a white cane is. He has taken a job where he is signed up to conditions of providing a public service. He either accepts all those conditions, or he has to accept he can't fulfil the role required by that job.

But what if, as in my example, it were detrimental to his health? And surely he would have to carry other dogs too, or risk discriminating against their owners?

That's what I mean, the word "discrimination" is used all too easily. At the end of the day, iif the guy owns his taxi then he should have the right to say no to any fare.

TheNorm · 07-10-2006, 20:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by me283

But what if, as in my example, it were detrimental to his health? And surely he would have to carry other dogs too, or risk discriminating against their owners?

That's what I mean, the word "discrimination" is used all too easily. At the end of the day, iif the guy owns his taxi then he should have the right to say no to any fare.

I agree that he shouldn't be expected to compromise his health for a passenger, but this information should be given to the radio controller and a notice displayed in the cab.

However, a notice such as "no veiled women" would not be acceptable...

popper · 07-10-2006, 20:55

hmm , so you would have the Hackney Carriages driver brake the UK law?.

as this case expressly involves Hackney Carriages , the driver has to know the laws as part of the Hackney Carriages licence, and the fact that this exact case is stipulated as protected in law, so no missunderstanding can be claimed by the driver so its a clear case of trying to break UK law.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/95050--e.htm#37
"
37. - (1) This section imposes duties on the driver of a taxi which has been hired-

(a) by or for a disabled person who is accompanied by his guide dog or hearing dog, or

(b) by a person who wishes such a disabled person to accompany him in the taxi.

(2) The disabled person is referred to in this section as "the passenger".
(3) The duties are-

(a) to carry the passenger's dog and allow it to remain with the passenger; and

(b) not to make any additional charge for doing so.

(4) A driver of a taxi who fails to comply with any duty imposed on him by this section is guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

5) If the licensing authority is satisfied that it is appropriate on medical grounds to exempt a person from the duties imposed by this section, it shall issue him with a certificate of exemption.
(6) In determining whether to issue a certificate of exemption, the licensing authority shall, in particular, have regard to the physical characteristics of the taxi which the applicant drives or those of any kind of taxi in relation to which he requires the certificate.
(7) A certificate of exemption shall be issued-

(a) with respect to a specified taxi or a specified kind of taxi; and

(b) for such period as may be specified in the certificate.

(8) The driver of a taxi is exempt from the duties imposed by this section if-

(a) a certificate of exemption issued to him under this section is in force with respect to the taxi; and

(b) the prescribed notice of his exemption is exhibited on the taxi in the prescribed manner.

"

**Rob** · 07-10-2006, 21:01

And thereby Popper finishes off this debate - the taxi driver has the ability to get an exemption, if he can prove his allergy or other health issue, meanwhile he must carry the guide dog. Face saving on both sides.

Mr Angry · 07-10-2006, 21:05

I firmly believe that if there were more blind taxi drivers then this type of issue would be less common as they'd be more understanding.

TheNorm · 07-10-2006, 21:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I firmly believe that if there were more blind taxi drivers then this type of issue would be less common as they'd be more understanding.

Ha!

Perhaps part of the training should be driving around with a blindfold...

Erm, having said that...

Druchii · 07-10-2006, 21:08

But, his taxi had not been hired now had it? Had he said yes, then realised there was a guide dog he would have broken the law.

popper · 07-10-2006, 21:22

that would be covered by the 'plying for hire, or which has been hired' bit.

if the driver is displaying the for hire sign then its plying for hire.

**Matt D** · 07-10-2006, 21:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by me283

And surely he would have to carry other dogs too, or risk discriminating against their owners?

Why?

Shops, restaurants etc. may have signs saying e.g. "No dogs - except for Guide Dogs". That's not discrimination against non-blind people with normal non-Guide Dogs - it's preventing discrimination against blind people by allowing them to enter premises which sighted people can enter.

Same for taxis.

Not allowing a Guide Dog is discrimination against disability (see the Disability Discrimination Act).

(Edit: I see the DDA has already been mentioned)

popper · 07-10-2006, 22:12

heres more of the DDA acts if anyones interested
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/1995050.htm

foreverwar · 07-10-2006, 22:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I firmly believe that if there were more blind taxi drivers then this type of issue would be less common as they'd be more understanding.

Funny you should mention that - I've got the ideal candidate

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/w...ds/5313370.stm