London Banter - View Single Post

Robin9 · August 8th 16, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tim...

"Robin9" wrote in message
...

tim...;157390 Wrote:
"bob" wrote in message
...-
Robin9 wrote:-

Someone Somewhere;157370 Wrote:-
-

Were no black cab drivers picked up on any infringments (however
small)

or is Operation Neon solely targeted at the private hire trade?
-

I'm not sure how public safety is increased by giving private hire
drivers parking tickets, and I suspect most people using minicabs
don't care if the driver is not displaying his badge. It will be
interesting to see if the new mayor will have any really
constructive ideas in his "wider programme."
-

Indeed - and in particular with Uber you know who the driver is from
the

app and can recognise them from their photo. Uber also track their
drivers activity and it's very easy to complain about them if they do
the wrong thing - something that's nowhere near as easy with
conventional private hire companies and/or black cab drivers (if a
black

cab driver takes a circuitous route, what's your come back when the
only

person to complain to is the driver themselves and there's an absence
of

proof of the route followed)-

According to the "statement" only private hire drivers were
involved. The mayor is, of course, a professional politician.
For some reason I've never understood, it seems politicians
feel it's both respectable and legitimate to regard minicab
drivers with open suspicion and dislike. This is particularly true
of pseudo-liberal politicians who make a great song and dance
about opposing prejudice.-

I think the true motivation becomes clear if you read it as minicab =
Uber.

I've said it before, and I'm saying it again

if TPTB want to clamp down on Uber they should be doing so by enforcing
the
disabled regulation on them properly.

There are dozens of stories of their drivers not complying.

tim

Which disabled regulation are you referring to?[/i][/color]

The one that requires them to provide an "equal" service to disabled
passengers.

It is generic legislation, not specific to taxi drivers

Private hire drivers are not taxi drivers.

They still have to comply

Therefore the
various obligations imposed on taxi drivers do not apply
to private hire (minicab) drivers. Obviously private hire
drivers, like everyone else, must obey the law, including
the several laws against discrimination, but unlike taxi
drivers, they have no greater duties and obligations than
anyone else.

They have the duties and obligations of a "business", these are
significantly greater than the duties of a private individual (who can, of
course, freely decide not to let a guide dog in their car when offering a
blind person a lift)

tim

The term is private hire, and that is the crux of the matter.
If a disabled person with some unusual requirement hires
someone to fix their central heating boiler or mow their lawn,
the law of contract applies. If the person being hired does not
have the means to attend to the unusual requirement, laws
about equal treatment do not oblige that person to re-equip
themselves so that they can provide whatever is necessary.
They simply point out they have not offered to accommodate
the unusual demand and they decline the contract.

The legal position is exactly the same with private hire drivers.
Remember: they are not taxis and they do not ply for hire.
They have a vehicle and they are not making any false claims
about the vehicle's capability. Someone wants to hire the vehicle
and driver. It turns out the vehicle is not suited to the customer's
needs. The contract is declined.

That is why TfL does not insist that private hire drivers have cars
which can take non-foldable wheelchairs. It is significant that TfL
demands that private hire drivers accept guide dogs which, of
course, fit into any car although many Asian drivers dislike having
dogs in their cars. The point here being that declining passengers
who are accompanied by guide dogs would amount to discrimination.