The capital’s first ever Transport Commissioner has died at his home in New
England aged 80.

American Bob Kiley was recruited by former Mayor Ken Livingstone and spent
six years as Britain’s highest paid civil servant, earning £2 million.

The former CIA agent headed Transport for London during the introduction of
the congestion charge and fought the part-privatisation of the Tube.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...kiley-obituary

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...-a3316626.html

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 09:44:36 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
The capital’s first ever Transport Commissioner has died at his home in New
England aged 80.

American Bob Kiley was recruited by former Mayor Ken Livingstone and spent
six years as Britain’s highest paid civil servant, earning £2 million.

The former CIA agent headed Transport for London during the introduction of
the congestion charge and fought the part-privatisation of the Tube.

Overpaid and didn't achieve very much. Apart from that, where the hell did
that 15 years go??

--
Spud

Strange that the Standard attributes the congestion charge to
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.

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.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Well, I agree but everything is contingent upon TfL taking
a firm stand and making the effort.

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