A guide dog that spies on people who ignore its owner
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
But the subway employees that looked right at him and then chose not to help? Ugh. Especially when they were hired especially because it's a busy time and people need extra help? Unreal.
Of course, we don't know what percentage of the time this happens, either. It's practically inevitable that you'll meet assholes in big cities, no matter what your problems are or aren't. And I'm sure he's particularly sensitive to these problems right now.
Can you really fix these people? Does reminding them to do their jobs and be nice actually correct their behavior? I have serious doubts.
I was always taught not to offer help to someone disabled unless they ask, because it's demeaning otherwise to assume they can't be independent.
In the video when he calls for help they come right over.
I'll keep holding doors for all kinds of people.
You weren't sexist, you were being courteous according to a harmless tradition. She would give you an ear-full even if you held the door for every gender; she doesn't know you.
"Mass-holes" live in dark little worlds of cold, anger, and self-important. We Boston gentlemen learn to be grateful when Massholes ignore us, let alone say "thank you" or God forbid look us in the eyes and smile.
Meanwhile #chivalryisnotdead. Good luck and carry on, gentlemen.
Only kind of kidding. //end story :)
Everyone has a bad day occasionally. But those that are routinely bad at being nice should be encouraged to change, and failing that should be exchanged for people who will be nice and helpful. Helping customers is a skillset like any other: some are more qualified than others, and if you're bad at it there are plenty jobs for you that don't require that skillset.
There's apparently a view that dogs are unclean by some Muslim sects. So, those drivers may be passing by because of the dog. There is certainly some history: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/11/muslim-taxi-drivers-...
http://www.fox25boston.com/news/blind-woman-says-some-uber-d...
"I don't pick up dogs because I have leather seats"
http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/uber-refuses-to-take-blind-p...
"Uber has suspended that driver’s privileges as it investigates Kristin’s complaint against him. The company does acknowledge that refusing to transport a service dog is both a clear violation of the law and of Uber policy"*
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/uber-driver-refuses-ride-blind-m...
"An Uber driver in Florida was arrested after deputies say he refused to transport a group of blind people and their service dogs...Stigile says that when Nau, 60, showed up, he said, "I don't take dogs." Stigile explained the dogs were service animals and Nau allegedly replied "I don't care."
Why do you believe that?
Oh man, this is a terrifying idea to me. If I lost my sight, I have no idea what I would do with my daughter. I felt bad enough when she threw up in her crib, and I didn't see the vomit on camera - for the next few days, my brain just kept running all the worst-case-scenarios through my mind and it was hard to sleep.
Guy's got a sense of humor... :)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/fatal-dist...
Warning, if you're a parent this story is heartbreaking and may give you nightmares. It has haunted me ever since I read it.
At the time I thought: "How likely could that be? Unless Amit Patel is the equivalent of `John Smith`, they are probably the same person." Now it seems to me that the name is actually pretty common ...
(I'm not yet convinced one way or another, but his arguments are thought-provoking.)
ouch.
Doesn't surprise me at all to see that today's super individualistic people didn't think twice about minding their own business when they see what appears to be just a guy with his dog. For all they know it's just a therapy animal, because he doesn't -look- blind.
His dog has a distinctive handle that's only ever seen on guidedogs for the blind - that handle isn't used for other service dogs.
They give you a piece of paper that says "service dog", that doesn't make it a service dog in the legal sense.
And yet, they (probably) make no false claims so they are not breaking the law.
The Washington Post actually just wrote this up:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/tripping/wp/2016/12/27/w...
> To further complicate matters, it can be difficult for staff members to identify a true service dog. Although pet owners can easily buy unofficial documents or apparel, these papers and emblems have no bearing on ADA compliance: The law does not allow public accommodations to require certificates, licenses or other physical proof that a dog qualifies as a service animal. Yet the ADA does not permit questioning a person about the nature of his or her disability.
The general issue is that it's a much less big deal to let a scammer through than to accidently hassle someone with a legitimate service animal (big fine!).
(It was a little awkward, because I don't know any blind people, and wasn't sure how to help her - I started out offering my arm, then realized she couldn't see it, then sort of slid it under hers, and she jerked away. I felt like an asshole; clearly I should have asked her what she would prefer, or at least announced what I was going to do. So if anyone else is ever in the same situation, think about it a little more than I did.)
I've seen her now and then in the same subway station, so she may have been starting a new work commute.
This was an interesting article, I think, because it touches on the feelings and fears of not knowing where you are, not being able to discern your surroundings directly, and not receiving help. It also touches on the feelings and fears that a lot of people have, when confronted with a condition that they aren't familiar with. I think the people who ignored Dr. Patel were probably thinking, "What do I do?" rather than, "That guy can't see me, so if I'm really quiet, maybe he'll go away." People tend to fear that they're going to offend or insult, so they don't offer help. Either that, or they're not sure how to help, so they sit there panicking themselves into a paralysis. I've seen both things happen, and talking about it is a good way to overcome these types of situations.
There was one aspect of the article that I feel was a bad attitude to take on Dr. Patel's part. In the article, Patel says, "Eventually when the staff member actually came to me the first thing he said was 'sorry I didn't see you' and that really bugged me. He wouldn't say that to someone who wasn't visually impaired."
Actually, he would. That is a common phrase that people say to other people all the time. We also say, "I'm sorry, I didn't hear you," but only because we didn't. It isn't some micro-aggression against deaf people. When I worked at the Library of Congress, we dealt with this with new volunteers all the time. People wouldn't know how to respond, so they would be afraid to stick out their elbow, and let a blind person hold on for guidance. They didn't know what to do, and their uncertainty paralyzed them. These new volunteers didn't come to insult and mock the blind people they had come to help. They just found themselves in a new and uncertain situation, and acted awkwardly, like people tend to do. Once they were told what the best course of action was, they never had this problem again.
I think people are conditioned to take WAY more offense nowadays than is intended, and I think it would be in our own best interest to stop this sort of self-righteous indignation. Whether someone doesn't see you, ignores you, or blatantly gets in your face. It is ultimately your choice to be hurt and offended by it. Just choose not to be. I think that will do wonders for mutual understanding and opening dialogues.
I used to work with a blind man who would say to people, "I know you're there. I can hear you. I just need you to tell me which direction to go. I promise not to bite." Then he'd laugh, and set everyone around him at ease. He understood people's reactions, and helped them overcome their uncertainty by offering guidance. This always seemed to be a better solution for all involved, rather than getting angry and irritated. Especially when people's behaviors are being driven by uncertainty, rather than insult.
I apologize for letting my response get a bit long.
I'm not convinced that most people were too afraid they were going to insult him to help; I think they were probably hoping (and assuming) that someone else was going to take care of it, so they can go on with their commute. Maybe he just needs to know which set of stairs is for the northbound track, or maybe he'll explain that he actually needs to be taken somewhere that'll take you an hour out of your way, and then you'd have to either do that or explain that you won't, etc., etc.
Can you go into some more details? Does this mean that tourists technically can't wander around with a go-pro strapped to their chest without registering, or does this apply only to UK citizens - and does it mean that they can't do that when visiting London?
How far does that stretch? Does taking a video on a phone count?
"Data means information which –
(a) is being processed by means of equipment operating automatically in response to instructions given for that purpose,
(b) is recorded with the intention that it should be processed by means of such equipment,
(c) is recorded as part of a relevant filing system or with the intention that it should form part of a relevant filing system,
(d) does not fall within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) but forms part of an accessible record as defined by section 68, or
(e) is recorded information held by a public authority and does not fall within any of paragraphs (a) to (d). "
IANAL, but my non-professional understanding is that constantly recording like this, if you're only going to be manually looking through the way his partner does, isn't covered as "data" under this law.
(Section 68 is not relevant either in this case, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/section/68)
edit: in reply to your edited in link, there's a big difference between filming to distribute (e.g. movies) vs. filming for personal record (e.g. tourists taking photos).
Even when you see someone who clearly needs to sit walking towards a seat that you also want to sit in and are closer to?
I get your joke, but it's not really "being fair".
That's a real problem that many attempts to quantify discrimination overlook.
Nobody is under any obligation to interact with people around them, and nobody deserves to be shamed for wanting to live their own lives and let other people live theirs.
That's not great for the people that do need help, but it's how it is.
This illustrates a pretty big cultural difference to me, as an Australian. The US is very big on individualism in what mostly seems to be an "every man for himself" kind of way. It's strong enough that I've seen people reject things that would be in their own interest solely because it removes a little of their autonomy (I talked to someone who rejected universal healthcare solely because they would no longer have the choice to have no healthcare at all).
At home in Australia, we're not all perfect, we don't all love each other but we seem to be more happy to accept things that benefit us as a country (like healthcare, support for the disabled, unemployment support, consumer rights, employment regulation). We live our lives and we let others live theirs but I think we tend to help each other out a little more, knowing that we'll need help ourselves sometime.
Clearly, a heuristic is needed. I've been asked for help (and offered help to) people who are obviously out to scam me, or get something for nothing, and for people who genuinely need help or are lost.
You're right, under most circumstances nobody is under any obligation to do anything, but it's still a nice and decent thing to do.
As an anecdote, one day (when I was 5/6 YO) a extended family member tried to give me a ride home from my playground and I ignored him. Finally when he tried to walk towards me (he thought I didn't hear him), I ran away to a friend that I knew lived nearby.
The CIC brass can't stand these guys because they upload staggering quantities of useless information to the database, on the off chance that some of it will eventually be useful. It's like writing down the license number of every car you see on your way to work each morning, just in case one of them will be involved in a hit-and-run accident. Even the CIC database can only hold so much garbage. So, usually, these habitual gargoyles get kicked out of the CIC before too long. </blockquote>
-- Neal Stephenson, Snow Crash (1992)
Almost as quaint has "three megabytes of hot RAM".