London Banter - View Single Post

tim... · August 15th 16, 11:16 AM posted to uk.transport.london

wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Robin9) wrote:

tim...;157466 Wrote:
"David Cantrell" wrote in message
k...-
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 09:48:46AM +0100, tim... wrote:
-
They have the duties and obligations of a "business", these are
significantly greater than the duties of a private individual-

Businesses are required to make reasonable adjustments for disabled
customers and employees.

They are not required to make unreasonable adjustments.-

What adjustment do you have to make to carry a dog in your car FFS.

A rug on the back seat - job done

But (many of them) still refuse to do so

In London, minicab drivers are not allowed to refuse guide
dogs. They are allowed to refuse other dogs.

Rumour has it that some Asian drivers refuse even guide dogs.
If this is true, those drivers should lose their licence, although
that would involve the customer making a complaint, TfL
identifying the driver with the co-operation of the cab firm,
and TfL taking a tough line.

As the hire car operator has to maintain records, identifying the driver
shouldn't be hard. If the records aren't good enough the operator should
lose their licence.

Which is exactly my point that, if TfL want to specifically target Uber for
non-compliance of some rule or other, that they can use to "break" them,
this is the one that they should start with - a rule that already exists
that, anecdotal evidence suggests, significant number of their drivers
ignore (instead of coming up with pointless nonsense about where the company
is registered).

tim