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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
TfL have announced that they have successfully prosecuted 21 private
hire drivers for not accepting assistance dogs between February 2015 and May 2017. One driver was ordered to pay £1,488 after trying to charge extra for carrying an assistance dog. https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/pr...assistance-dog |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 25/08/2017 10:45, Robin9 wrote:
TfL have announced that they have successfully prosecuted 21 private hire drivers for not accepting assistance dogs between February 2015 and May 2017. One driver was ordered to pay £1,488 after trying to charge extra for carrying an assistance dog. http://tinyurl.com/y7pr5sg3 Whilst my natural reaction to this is "good", it does raise the question of whether assistance dogs are special and whether private hire drivers are allowed to refuse passengers (irrespective of number of legs) for any reason and if so what? |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , at 14:08:34 on Fri, 25 Aug
2017, Someone Somewhere remarked: TfL have announced that they have successfully prosecuted 21 private hire drivers for not accepting assistance dogs between February 2015 and May 2017. One driver was ordered to pay £1,488 after trying to charge extra for carrying an assistance dog. http://tinyurl.com/y7pr5sg3 Whilst my natural reaction to this is "good", it does raise the question of whether assistance dogs are special They are undoubtedly very well trained to behave in public. and whether private hire drivers are allowed to refuse passengers (irrespective of number of legs) for any reason and if so what? "No Blacks, Irish or dogs". -- Roland Perry |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 14:08:34 +0100, Someone Somewhere
wrote: On 25/08/2017 10:45, Robin9 wrote: TfL have announced that they have successfully prosecuted 21 private hire drivers for not accepting assistance dogs between February 2015 and May 2017. One driver was ordered to pay £1,488 after trying to charge extra for carrying an assistance dog. http://tinyurl.com/y7pr5sg3 Whilst my natural reaction to this is "good", Agreed. it does raise the question of whether assistance dogs are special and whether private hire drivers are allowed to refuse passengers (irrespective of number of legs) for any reason and if so what? The days of private proprietors being able to "Refuse service for any reason" are over. It's different for public bodies of course. |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
I doubt any minicab driver would get into trouble for refusing
to accept a passenger who was drunk or aggressive. I think they would also be allowed to reject a passenger who refused to pay in advance. |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Someone Somewhere" wrote in message news ![]() On 25/08/2017 10:45, Robin9 wrote: TfL have announced that they have successfully prosecuted 21 private hire drivers for not accepting assistance dogs between February 2015 and May 2017. One driver was ordered to pay £1,488 after trying to charge extra for carrying an assistance dog. http://tinyurl.com/y7pr5sg3 Whilst my natural reaction to this is "good", it does raise the question of whether assistance dogs are special the dogs themselves aren't special but their owners are without their dogs these people are generally housebound, and society has decided that that would be unacceptable so they are given rights (to insist on being allowed to take their dogs to restricted places) that others don't have and whether private hire drivers are allowed to refuse passengers (irrespective of number of legs) for any reason and if so what? they can refuse to carry someone for any non-discriminative [1] reason Good luck with proving that you refused to carry a blind person (plus dog) on that lawful basis tim [1] not limited to the discussion here on disability |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 28/08/2017 13:31, tim... wrote:
"Someone Somewhere" wrote in message news ![]() On 25/08/2017 10:45, Robin9 wrote: TfL have announced that they have successfully prosecuted 21 private hire drivers for not accepting assistance dogs between February 2015 and May 2017. One driver was ordered to pay £1,488 after trying to charge extra for carrying an assistance dog. http://tinyurl.com/y7pr5sg3 Whilst my natural reaction to this is "good", it does raise the question of whether assistance dogs are special the dogs themselves aren't special but their owners are without their dogs these people are generally housebound, .... Good luck with proving that you refused to carry a blind person (plus dog) on that lawful basis You seem to be suggesting that I am somewhat against this - I suggest you re-read my post to ascertain that I was asking a legitimate question whilst stating (and starting) with the premise that I thought it was a good thing these drivers had been prosecuted. I know London Black taxi drivers have to take a fare if it is within XX miles of Charing Cross or whatever (although we've all heard of the "south of the river - not this time of night" responses), but outside of general discrimination law which was can assume is all encompassing can private hire vehicles turn people away - for example, too drunk, too fat, too full of rhinovirus or similar? |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Someone Somewhere" wrote in message news ![]() On 28/08/2017 13:31, tim... wrote: "Someone Somewhere" wrote in message news ![]() On 25/08/2017 10:45, Robin9 wrote: TfL have announced that they have successfully prosecuted 21 private hire drivers for not accepting assistance dogs between February 2015 and May 2017. One driver was ordered to pay £1,488 after trying to charge extra for carrying an assistance dog. http://tinyurl.com/y7pr5sg3 Whilst my natural reaction to this is "good", it does raise the question of whether assistance dogs are special the dogs themselves aren't special but their owners are without their dogs these people are generally housebound, ... Good luck with proving that you refused to carry a blind person (plus dog) on that lawful basis You seem to be suggesting that I am somewhat against this no the "you" was just a general person. it wasn't meant to imply "YOU" tim |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Uber drivers commit most minicab offences in London | London Transport | |||
TfL's new rapist minicab advert | London Transport | |||
Canary Wharf Group to design and build Isle of Dogs station | London Transport | |||
Pit-bull dogs without muzzles on the trains at seven sisters | London Transport | |||
Isle of Dogs Crossrail station | London Transport |