tim... wrote:

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

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-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

They certainly try to argue that they are an agent for the self-employed
cab drivers, not a cab company. But do you have any examples of where
they've asked for special favours as a start-up?