
Uber taxi-hailing app does not break law, High Court rules - merah
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-34549700
======
alexbate
> Black cab drivers argue that the app poses a risk to public safety and
> customers being overcharged, with no opportunity to challenge fares before
> the money is automatically taken out of their bank accounts.

Personally, I'd rather be overcharged in an Uber where I have a GPS trace of
the route and an ability to challenge the fare, than a black cab where you
only have a driver telling you to pay a certain amount.

~~~
superuser2
>before the money is automatically taken out of their bank accounts

An excellent reason to use credit cards and not debit cards.

------
celticninja
The question of legality related solely to its use within London. There has
never been an issue outside of London and I imagine that before Uber other
taxi firms used apps, it was just the threat to black cabs that brought this
action.

~~~
asadhaider
Here in Manchester, Uber operates the same as every other private hire taxi
company and follows the same rules for their cars and drivers. The only
difference is that they have no local office to take phone bookings, it's all
done through the app. So there aren't any problems, they're just like every
other private hire taxi company around here.

I find it ridiculous reading about all the issues Uber have had in London and
the black cab drivers pushing back so hard.

~~~
dogma1138
Do Uber drivers in Manchester have that car service sticker? because in London
allot of them don't which means they didn't register and didn't went through
the criminal backround check.

~~~
asadhaider
All private hire drivers licensed by Manchester City Council, including Uber
drivers, have to pass a DBS disclosure check[1].

[1]
[http://www.manchester.gov.uk/directory_record/72535/new_hack...](http://www.manchester.gov.uk/directory_record/72535/new_hackney_carriage_driver_application)

As richthegeek said, all the private hire taxis here have a yellow rectangular
sticker with the company name on it. There's strict limits set by the council
for branding, car colour, car age, etc.

~~~
dogma1138
I know that they have too, they also have to do so in London (And anywhere in
the UK, or at least England & Wales I imagine), the question was does Uber
enforces it on their end like any other car hiring service must.

------
justincormack
Here is the judgment [1] it seems very sensible, and shows how laws should
react to tech.

[1] [https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/transport-for-
london-...](https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/transport-for-london-v-
uber-london-ltd-licensed-taxi-drivers-association-licensed-private-hire-car-
association/)

~~~
amelius
Could you perhaps elaborate a little on this?

Because from the article:

> Mr Justice Ouseley declared that taximeters do not operate in the same way
> as the app as they do not depend on GPS signals or include the app's other
> new-tech characteristics to calculate fares.

How is this a sensible remark? The app functions in exactly the same way as a
taximeter, only the implementation is different.

~~~
matthewmacleod
_How is this a sensible remark? The app functions in exactly the same way as a
taximeter, only the implementation is different._

You can read the judgement for more information, it's pretty detailed.

 _A device for recording time and distance is not a device for calculating a
fare based on time and distance, let alone one based on more than that,
including the fare structure itself, a necessary component to the calculation.
The language of the statute is quite clear. The essence of a taximeter for the
purpose of section 11 is that the device must be for the calculation of the
fare then to be charged, based on whatever inputs are appropriate. Such a
device is not simply recording and transmitting some or all of the inputs to a
calculation made elsewhere, or receiving the output, that is the calculated
fare. The Smartphone is not a “thing designed or adapted for a particular
functional purpose” namely calculating fares for the PHV; see the Shorter OED.
It is not a taximeter. The Smartphone with its Driver’s App may be essential
to enabling the calculation to take place but that does not make it a device
for calculating fares._

~~~
wzdd
Your quoted text actually justifies Amelius' assertion: the functional
category is the same, but the implementation differs, and the judgement (and
the law) hinges on implementation.

All this means is that the definition of taximeter (as a single-purpose
device) is now outdated. It's actually a pretty bad example of the law
adjusting to new technologies.

Just because we like the outcome doesn't mean we have to like the way it
happened.

