Uber app taxi row referred to London's High Court | Hacker News Reader

Uber app taxi row referred to London's High Court

bbc.co.uk

13 pointsdarrhiggs16 comments

It's just outdated terminology "fixed meter".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

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The technological description of a taximeter is out of date and technically TFL cannot find fault with Uber regarding the letter of the law.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.

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.

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!

so basically outdated rules shouldn't be considered only when they are inconvenient to us?

We complain so much about all these laws that "didn't keep up with the times", but the instant it's in favor of the technologists we should just be like "that's cool"?

    > "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?

People with a dose of common sense and technological literacy.

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...

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

    > 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

Are you simply ignoring every binding legal precedent ever?

Of course the law is open to interpretation and Judges not only disagree with each other they also overrule each other depending on the court and case in question.

Sorry, I meant that that the rules should be updated to apply. Of course, while they remain out of date, Uber should be allowed to operate as they do.

Does it actually calculate the fare? I've used uber only a couple of times and it's just given me an estimate. Is this a different app, one for the taxi drivers?

"The controversy centres on an app provided to Uber's drivers - which is separate from the one used by the public - that calculates the journey distance and time taken, and then relays this information to remote computer servers to determine the fee."

Thanks, massive scan reading failure on my part there.

> 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.

"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...

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com