Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Bob Kiley. It was Livingstone's idea and he made it a major part of the first Mayoralty election, long before Bob Kiley was appointed. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
a firm stand and making the effort. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 12:16:19 +0100, "tim..."
wrote: wrote in message m... 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). If there is one rule that Uber certainly complies with, it's having detailed, exact records of every journey, including the customer, the driver, the details of the car, the fare paid, the customer's credit card details, the timings, the route, and the levels of satisfaction on both sides. No other mini cab firm is likely to have such detailed, accurate records, and nor will any black cab operator. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
"Recliner" wrote in message ... On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 12:16:19 +0100, "tim..." wrote: wrote in message om... 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). If there is one rule that Uber certainly complies with, it's having detailed, exact records of every journey, including the customer, the driver, the details of the car, the fare paid, the customer's credit card details, the timings, the route, and the levels of satisfaction on both sides. No other mini cab firm is likely to have such detailed, accurate records, and nor will any black cab operator. so they'll be able to fess up all of the drivers who refused a fare because they wouldn't carry a guide dog then, wont they? And then, when they do, you can say "and you, as their "operator" are guilty of not making sure that your drivers comply with the rules" so we are taking away *your* license to operate as well as those of all the guilty drivers. tim |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 12:48:59 +0100, "tim..."
wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 12:16:19 +0100, "tim..." wrote: wrote in message news:f6Cdna62i4IkczHKnZ2dnUU78dfNnZ2d@giganews. com... 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). If there is one rule that Uber certainly complies with, it's having detailed, exact records of every journey, including the customer, the driver, the details of the car, the fare paid, the customer's credit card details, the timings, the route, and the levels of satisfaction on both sides. No other mini cab firm is likely to have such detailed, accurate records, and nor will any black cab operator. so they'll be able to fess up all of the drivers who refused a fare because they wouldn't carry a guide dog then, wont they? Without doubt, but the number is probably close to zero. How would a blind person even order or recognise an Uber cab? And then, when they do, you can say "and you, as their "operator" are guilty of not making sure that your drivers comply with the rules" so we are taking away *your* license to operate as well as those of all the guilty drivers. I suspect it's not so simple. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
"Recliner" wrote in message ... On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 12:48:59 +0100, "tim..." wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message . .. On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 12:16:19 +0100, "tim..." wrote: wrote in message news:f6Cdna62i4IkczHKnZ2dnUU78dfNnZ2d@giganews .com... 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). If there is one rule that Uber certainly complies with, it's having detailed, exact records of every journey, including the customer, the driver, the details of the car, the fare paid, the customer's credit card details, the timings, the route, and the levels of satisfaction on both sides. No other mini cab firm is likely to have such detailed, accurate records, and nor will any black cab operator. so they'll be able to fess up all of the drivers who refused a fare because they wouldn't carry a guide dog then, wont they? Without doubt, but the number is probably close to zero. How would a blind person even order or recognise an Uber cab? Um How do blind people go to the shops? Visit their friends? Get to the doctor/hospital? And then, when they do, you can say "and you, as their "operator" are guilty of not making sure that your drivers comply with the rules" so we are taking away *your* license to operate as well as those of all the guilty drivers. I suspect it's not so simple. It can be made that simple tim |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 01:57:56PM +0100, Recliner wrote:
How would a blind person even order Same way that they'd use any other smartphone app. or recognise an Uber cab? Same way that they'd recognise a minicab where they'd ordered it by phone. You forget that it's not just completely blind people who can have guide dogs; that modern phones have accessibility Stuff; that blind people have sighted friends and family; and so on. -- David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive One person can change the world, but most of the time they shouldn't -- Marge Simpson |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Bob Crow is a Complete and Utter B*ST*RD! | London Transport | |||
Bob Crow Gets His Claim in 7 Years Early | London Transport | |||
Kiley going | London Transport | |||
Bob Crow | London Transport | |||
Kiley wants road user charging in London | London Transport |