London Banter - View Single Post

Robin9 · August 29th 16, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tim...

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
nal-septe
mber.org, at 06:57:05 on Mon, 29 Aug 2016, Recliner
remarked:
Unless there is some documentated verification by someone who is
blind
that
this is the case I'll take it with a pinch.

The evidence is the way the accessibility software exists (if it
didn't
work it would have been discontinued by now) and how Uber has a
document
explaining how to use it.

That's because it has been told to comply with ADA, not because a
single
person uses it.

http://www.recode.net/2015/9/18/1161...d-a-surprising

http://www.newmobility.com/2015/01/f...er-comply-ada/

https://www.ada.gov/briefs/uber_soi.pdf

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ply-to-us.html

Which of those say it's not used (I don't have time to read them all).

They don't day it isn't used (no-one seems to know). They do say Uber
claimed it didn't need to comply with ADA, but was forced to do so.

which kind of proves my earlier point, that you denied to the extent of
insulting me for believing it, that Uber's MO is to ignore compliance
with
local laws until forced to do so.

No, I was asking you for evidence that they were any worse than other
minicab firms. You alleged that they were, but with no evidence.

The evidence is that they argue that the rules don't apply to them because
they aren't a cab company, but a tech company (and as a new start-up deserve
special favours)

they aren't and they don't

tim

Can you cite an example of Uber in this country
arguing that they are not a cab company and that the
rules about cabbing don't apply to them?

My impression has been that Uber have always insisted
that they are complying with all the rules and requirements.
TfL have confirmed that Uber are in compliance.