

Uber app taxi row referred to London's High Court - darrhiggs
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27617079

======
turner
It's just outdated terminology "fixed meter". Many years ago when these rules
were printed nobody foresaw a portable device capable of the things that these
smart phones are. A smart phone is a phone, a camera, a calendar, a tv, a
music system and many more things including a taxi meter. If anyone's gonna
stand up to those American werewolf's it's gonna be the British. Good luck to
all you Black cabbies on the 11th, hope u cause gridlock. I might join u on my
bike (I'm one of the even more unfortunate half way through the Knowledge!)
And a word of warning to all you would be customers...All a driver needs to
become a Mini-cab, private hire (Ubers crew) is a relatively clear CRB, no
driving experience, no personal knowledge of anywhere in London. Many years
ago I worked in the mini-cab offices with the mob that'll be coming for you,
don't do it. Stick with the stress free Black cab, cruise down the bus lanes
in our safe KNOWLEDGABLE hands x

------
ZenPro
TL;DR

The technological description of a taximeter is out of date and technically
TFL cannot find fault with Uber regarding the letter of the law. They are
deferring to the High Court to gain a binding ruling based on the spirit of
the law.

The case hinges on whether the Uber app constitutes being a taximeter despite
not being fixed to the vehicle.

~~~
RossM
Which in fairness, it should. It calculates a fare depending on time and
distance travelled. At the moment you could get around the rules by having the
driver count out loud.

~~~
pjc50
No, it shouldn't; if the rules about taximeters include "fixed to the vehicle"
and it's not fixed to the vehicle, then it's not a taximeter. Maybe the rules
should be updated, maybe not, but that's not for the High Court to do!

~~~
peteretep

        > "They are deferring to the High Court to gain a binding
        > ruling based on the spirit of the law."
    
        > "Maybe the rules should be updated, maybe not, but that's
        > not for the High Court to do!"
    

Who, other than judges, would you rather was interpreting the law?

~~~
pjc50
They aren't entitled to "interpret" the law in ways that contravene the text;
a phone running the Uber app may well be a taximeter, but it's not _fitted to
the vehicle_.

[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1907/55/pdfs/ukpga_19070...](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1907/55/pdfs/ukpga_19070055_en.pdf)

(Also, the law says that the Secretary of State gets to define what
constitutes a taximeter).

~~~
peteretep

        > They aren't entitled to "interpret" the law in ways that
        > contravene the text
    

Of course they are. That's sort of the point of common law.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law)

------
jalanb
> I think driverless cars is still very much ... in the distant future, I
> cannot see it working in a city like London with the complex layout of its
> streets.

Best of luck with that, mate.

------
ZenPro
_" My view is that it's up to TfL to regulate the industry," said Uber's
general manager Jo Bertram speaking to journalists today._ 1

[1][http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-05/30/uber-tfl-
high...](http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-05/30/uber-tfl-high-court)

This made me smile. I doubt that Uber will reissue that statement if the
ruling goes against them.

