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

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.

"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

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.

"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

tim... wrote:

"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
...
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?

Not using Uber, I'd guess. Are you aware of how you order and recognize an
Uber car? How would a blind person do it?


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

How? They're not Uber employees.

From:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...-a3228431.html

An Uber spokesman apologised and said Mohamoud no longer works for the
firm. “Whilst the drivers on the Uber platform are self-employed we remind
them of their legal obligation to take service animals before they can
start driving,� he said.

“Any Uber partner-driver who doesn’t accept service animals not only risks
having their Uber partnership revoked, but also risks having their private
hire licence taken away.�

So, here we have a case in point. Will TfL take a tough line?
Will TfL take away this driver's licence?

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 19:22:05 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...bed-by-uber-dr
vers-because-of-her-guide-dog-a3228431.html

An Uber spokesman apologised and said Mohamoud no longer works for the
^^^^^^^^

Well there's a complete ****ing surprise.

--
Spud

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



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?

Not using Uber, I'd guess. Are you aware of how you order and recognize an
Uber car? How would a blind person do it?

Is it not possible to order an Uber car using the "reading" software that
blind people use to read computer pages?

And when Uber drivers arrive for a pick up at someone's house, surely they
announce themselves in the same was as any mini cab would?

Or do they just sit outside and "hope"?

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

How? They're not Uber employees.

I don't think that's a valid excuse.

There is a contact between Uber and the drivers, they don't just turn up and
drive on a whim.

Uber must therefore be responsible for making sure that their drivers comply
with regulations and have a disciplinary procedure (i.e. they terminate
their contract) if they don't.

I accept that this, "punishment after the event" system means that there
will always be one or two rogue workers, but systematic non compliance with
regulations suggests a controller who doesn't give a damn.

And anecdotal evidences suggest that Uber don't give a damn, unless pushed,
and pushed and pushed and threatened with having their execs imprisoned and
then actually having their execs imprisoned, before they decide to comply.
This isn't a company that takes its responsibilities seriously.

tim

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