Uber taxi-hailing app does not break law, High Court rules | Hacker News Reader

Uber taxi-hailing app does not break law, High Court rules

bbc.co.uk

32 pointsmerah15 comments

> 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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

I've never seen any in Manchester without the sticker. Yellow rectangle with the name of the company (Uber, Street Cars, Kingsway. etc).

I'm surprised there wasn't any more pushback from the entrenched firms here, as they've spent the last 10 years treating both the customers and drivers like absolute dirt.

You've actually seen Uber stickers? that's impressive, all the stickers I've seen when I've used Uber were of other companies and I've assumed the guy was just moonlighting or picking up additional fares.

The title should maybe have specified (London, UK), rather than just (UK), my mistake.

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-...

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.

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.

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.

Doesn't this allow for any taximeter that farms the calculation to a server and gets the fare back?

In theory doesn't this open up a lot of competing taxi-meters which are effectively thin-client taximeters?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com