That's appalling that that sort of behaviour is still prevalent with taxis. I think rideshare services also share the same problem though? There have been many anecdotes onine by Australians quoting their awful experiences with rideshare drivers and even some mentioning they found taxis to be the better option nowadays.

Regradless, I firmly believe the taxi industry should be held up to a higher standard.

That's a good point, and really unfortunate. I found the rising popularity of rideshare to be beneficial, as it meant more availabilities for rides and better pricing. However to get to that point, the barriers to entry for drivers had to be lower; the main appeal of being a rideshare driver is that you get more freedom than driving a taxi.

My concern is that by enforcing rules on rideshare drivers that they find too unfair, they are simply going to decide it's not worth it, and leave the industry altogether. Then she will still find it difficult to get a ride, seeing as there are none.

It really is a tricky situation and my simple uneducated answer is "more taxis".

I have a disability but I do think rideshare drivers should be allowed to decide if they want dogs in their privately-owned cars or not.

I find it strange that the person in the article specifically mentions 23 refusals from Uber drivers, but what about taxis? Taxis should not discriminate, unless the driver has a particular condition like allergies to dogs. If I had an assistance dog, I would be seeking taxis, not rideshare, because I understand most people wouldn't want dogs in their own vehicle.

Do note I mentioned assistance dogs, which require certification.

Check out https://beehaw.org/c/poc.

I'm not sure if it's exactly the same thing, but you can click on Instances at the very bottom of the instance, or add "/instances" to the url e.g. https://lemmy.ml/instances to see the list of blocked instances.