back to article Minicab-hailing app Uber is lawful – UK High Court

Uber's minicab-hailing app has been found lawful in the British High Court, following concerns over its alleged use as a taximeter, which is currently outlawed for private hire vehicles. The decision came after a request for clarity by UK local government body Transport for London (TfL), essentially asking the court rule on …

  1. Your alien overlord - fear me

    Surely consumer laws need a taximeter to justify the trips cost. They need to be verified that they are accurate etc. If the smartphone isn't doing this, then the server (probably in America) is and should therefore be checked by British standards officers.

    Just as well we have a Safe Harbour agreement though, transmitting private users data across the pond, securely.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Not necessarily

      Difference between a minicab/hackney carriage driven for metered fare and hailed to stop and a taxi where a fee or charging model can be agreed at booking.

    2. Lee D Silver badge

      Or maybe we don't need to legislate this kind of antique common-sense stuff any more.

      If Uber, as a service chosen by the customer, is misleading or defruading customers as to trip lengths / costs, then we sue them into oblivion like any other company doing the same thing.

      Why does a taxi need a specific exemption here? This is about taximeters. Getting into a random cab that has a deliberately-dodgy taximeter, yes, that's a risk that could see customers have no way to prove otherwise and be subject to falsified or modified prices. The chances of the customer's own phone misrepresenting the distance they travelled? The chances of Uber mis-charging based on your one-mile journey as something other than a one-mile journey? No, it's not worth legislating. As such, the "taximeter" is in the user's hands and quite possibly Uber stand more chance of being defrauded than anyone else.

      And let's be honest, the whole thing comes down historically to dodgy cabs, and is now brought up to try to support certain classes of taxis that are surpassed by an online service with random drivers.

      This is a sour-grapes / outdated industry protection, nothing to do with customers being defrauded. This is about trying to find a legal loophole to stick Uber to the wall because it's making taxis obsolete. Two of my cousins are taxi drivers. They work hard and make money. But if you can't book a cab with a smartphone, can't find where to hail one, they won't go "sarf of the river", etc. then they are doing themselves no favours as an industry. That someone can rock up with an app that cuts into their income overnight means that they could have done the same. The laws to protect and licence the taxi profession are actually working AGAINST them here, because they are so inflexible. Rather than resolve that, they are trying to make everyone work by their rules, including these new usptarts that are taking money from them.

      To be honest, I've used about 3-4 black taxis in my entire life. I've had them drive past me despite advertising their availability. I find them difficult to locate when you need one. They often refuse, even if they are not supposed to. Minicabs and other licensors are just the same and you aren't even legally allowed to hail one on the street. So the workaround is to "book" one immediately near your location and use it. It's booked. It turns up. It takes you where you want. You're given a price beforehand with proof, and they don't refuse once they arrive.

      Black cabs are just having sour-grapes over their own monopoly protections working against them rather than for them, and Uber have a loophole that they can't defeat in court. To be honest, good. We need licensed cabs, certainly. Licencing is a necessary safety feature. Everything else about black-cabs, including special legal protection, stupidly overpriced vehicles that can only be maintained by their stupidly overpriced manufacturer, lack of combined apps, and in-car taximeters being the definitive pricing and having no idea what your journey will cost until you get there, all needs to be got rid of in the modern era.

      1. Warm Braw

        "Or maybe we don't need to legislate this kind of antique common-sense stuff any more."

        Well, maybe not specifically in the same way. The real problem with this type of business (and home delivery services suffer from a similar model) is if it seeks to substitute alleged self-employment for salaried staff in order to avoid minimum wage or other regulations. I don't know what Uber drivers typically make, only anecdotal data seems to be available, but I understand that a lot of "self-employed" delivery drivers would be lucky to break even if they followed all the rules.

        Now, I don't pine for London taxi drivers who are often genuinely self-employed and whose earnings are notoriously opaque, but I do think we need some sort of regulation to ensure that any more "cost efficient" service isn't simply gouging the driver rather than the passenger.

        1. DaveDaveDave

          "it seeks to substitute alleged self-employment for salaried staff in order to avoid minimum wage or other regulations."

          In what way are Uber drivers not very obviously self-employed? They provide their own tools, equipment, and training. They set their own hours. They pick and choose which jobs they want, and can refuse the work if they feel it's not worth enough. All the risk is on the driver. It's insane to suggest owner-drivers aren't self-employed.

          1. kain preacher

            Actual no they can't turn down fairs.There is a lawsuit in LA, Uber terminated a person for turning down to many fairs. The law suit is saying if I'm not free to turn down fairs then I'm not truly an independent contractor .

            1. Chris Parsons
              Headmaster

              Fares!!!!!!!

          2. Vic

            In what way are Uber drivers not very obviously self-employed?

            Their work all comes from the same source. Under IR35 regulations, that looks like employment, and HMRC will probably treat it as such (as they do with other self-employed people getting all their work from the same place).

            Vic.

            1. DaveDaveDave

              "Under IR35 regulations, that looks like employment"

              No, it's one of a number of factors. But in any case, not one applicable here, since cab drivers have many customers, not just one. Uber is no more the provider of employment than, say, Gumtree is a provider of painting jobs for Polish guys.

    3. Stuart 22

      Cloudy Ponds

      The relevancy of your personal journeys being beamed across the pond to an unsafe harbour is not a legal issue here. The more worrying concept is the point of law here that the more general case of the actual calculation was not done on a device in the mini-cab but 'somewhere outside/in the cloud'.

      Given that for thirty years or more IT has been increasingly distributing computing stuff like that has gone from client to serverside back to clientside and even a combination of the two. Humanside should see no difference, the result of the calculation is no different. But here we are stuck on a point of law designed when the taximeter was all cogs and wheels.

      Which is a problem when IT is moving at a rather faster pace than the law.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Take your point in a units and measures sense, but the value to me is what I'm willing to pay to get from A to B with the absolute minimum of bother.

      Given that others probably think the same, price will govern itself accordingly - what people are willing to shell out.

    5. jonathanb Silver badge

      With other private hire operators eg Addison Lee, they give you a quote for the journey, which may be based on distance and estimated time based on current traffic conditions, or any other criteria they see fit, and if you accept it, that is the price you pay regardless of what happens afterwards.

      There are apps that will give you quotes from a number of different operators, along with the estimated time of arrival, and you can pick the one you want. Again, if you accept it, that is the price you pay.

      1. IanDs

        Then use this system. Or use Uber. Or phone your favourite PHV. Or hail a black cab.

        It's your choice, nobody is forcing you to use Uber. Of course if lots of people use Uber and it's successful some of the other options might disappear, but that's how business works -- unsuccessful ones disappear. I'm sure the hand-loom weavers had the same view about power looms as black cab drivers and PHVs do about Uber, but that didn't stop them losing all their business to the upstarts.

  2. DaveDaveDave

    Watch the taximob shills come crawling out of the woodwork

    It never takes long for the black-cab gangsters to turn up and drop the same old lies whenever Uber is mentioned. Clearly, they're hurting: good.

    1. getHandle

      Re: Watch the taximob shills come crawling out of the woodwork

      If they spend the afternoon blocking the road outside my office again, sounding their horns continuously, then they're going to get their knowledge shoved where the sun don't shine!

      1. DropBear

        Re: Watch the taximob shills come crawling out of the woodwork

        "If they spend the afternoon blocking the road outside my office again..."

        Well, hurt them back where they feel it - perhaps a large printout of a bunch of A4's in the office window, spelling out "RIGHT NOW YOU MAKE ME LIKE UBER EVEN MORE" or somesuch is in order...

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: Watch the taximob shills come crawling out of the woodwork

          I think the taxi driver's objection is that it has a foreign (albeit German) name.

          Now if the app was called Enoch - they would be all for it.

    2. phil dude
      Thumb Up

      Re: Watch the taximob shills come crawling out of the woodwork

      I'll add to the anecdotes, though with some personal experience.

      I was at a conference in Baltimore a couple of weeks ago and was using Uber to get to/from the convention centre. After the 2nd or third , I noticed the drivers had their phones in their hands....

      Thinking to myself "this is not safe, and besides in this state (Maryland) it's not allowed...". Something like that.

      The response was "the taxi drivers see you with your phone on the dashboard and know you are an Uber driver, and so block you in and generally try to get in the way".

      This was a convention with 8000 people and a great deal of them used Uber/Lyft...

      As an aside, Uber allows immediate feedback after your trip. For this case the GPS was *wrong* a few times and I complained via the "comments" section.

      And in one case, I got $20 back...try that with any taxi you have taken.

      P.

    3. J.G.Harston Silver badge

      Re: Watch the taximob shills come crawling out of the woodwork

      I expect that the Hackney trade insist that Uber's fare calculation mechanism is a taximeter, then by their same areguments they must insist that Uber-type taxis are ply-for-hire (Hackney) taxis, and consequently must apply for a ply-for-hire (Hackney) license. To me, as a former taxi licenser, Uber-type taxis are clearly private hire vehicles.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    some would say the taxi meter is the device that tells you the cost of the journey

    But then I'm not some old soak judge bending over for the highest bidder.

    1. ratfox
      Boffin

      Re: some would say the taxi meter is the device that tells you the cost of the journey

      The taximeter is the device that measures the charge. From taxi- and -meter, meaning charge and measure. Originally, a "taxi" was an abbreviation of taximeter cab, as in "a cab with a device that measures the charge".

      1. Alister

        Re: some would say the taxi meter is the device that tells you the cost of the journey

        Originally, a "taxi" was an abbreviation of taximeter cab, as in "a cab with a device that measures the charge".

        I always thought it was originally a taxidermy cab - as in "a cab in which you get well and truly stuffed"

  4. BenBell

    What am I missing

    When I take a cab, a device calculates how much it has cost to get me from point A to point B.

    If I used this service, a device would be calculating how much it cost to get me from point A to point B.

    Whether the method is GPS/Distance based or ground distance & stoppage based - does it matter? I will still have travelled distance "x" and it will still cost £y..

    I am probably misreading something here though.. It's friday and I'm not feeling the brightest.

    1. Jason Hindle

      Re: What am I missing

      It's a very narrow distinction (both legally, and in terms of the end result), but I think the idea is that your journey literally isn't metered, in real-time, with Uber, whereas it is with a taxi meter. I'm at best ambivalent towards Uber, because they play fast and loose with the law, but Tim Worstall's article, on rent seeking, made me think again.

      1. DaveDaveDave

        Re: What am I missing

        " I'm at best ambivalent towards Uber, because they play fast and loose with the law"

        Do they? Can you name one way? One that's not just bullshit made up by the taxi gangsters, obviously.

        1. Jason Hindle

          Re: What am I missing

          "Do they? Can you name one way? One that's not just bullshit made up by the taxi gangsters, obviously."

          As always, Google is your friend (wanted or not):

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Uber%27s_service

          1. DaveDaveDave

            Re: What am I missing

            "As always, Google is your friend (wanted or not): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Uber%27s_service"

            And which part of that constitutes 'playing fast and loose with the law'? The fact that Uber does things differently in different countries is evidence of the exact opposite.

      2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: What am I missing

        It was a way to allow limousine service while maintaining the black cab monopoly.

        If you book a car for your wedding nobody argues that this is illegal and you should have just tried to flag down a black cab outside the church.

        Uber argue that they are a limo company, you book them to take you from A to B for a fixed price - a black cab you hail on the street to take you to B for a price that depends on how far they drive/how long they take.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: What am I missing

        Exactly. In a Hackney carriage you can, at any time tell the driver to stop and drop you off and you'll pay whatever the taximeter says. Uber is simply an improved minicab service, where the fare is set before the trip.

      4. Roland6 Silver badge

        Re: What am I missing @Jason Hindle

        "It's a very narrow distinction (both legally, and in terms of the end result)"

        From what I've read of the judgement, I would agree what we have is a very fine distinction, based on a legal technicality. The question is if we have a modern USPTO methods patent for either (or both) the traditional taximeter and Uber's, would they conflict?

      5. Mike 137 Silver badge

        Re: What am I missing

        Actually, the distinction seems to be whether this device (the smart phone and/or app) is actually calculating the charge. It has been decided that it is only reporting the charge, which is calculated elswhere - hence it's not a taximeter.

      6. IanDs

        Re: What am I missing

        Going by the judge's remarks, legally it wouldn't matter if Uber did meter the journey in real time, so long as it did it by the smartphone sending data back to the server to calculate the cost.

        The issue is not just the definition of a taximeter, but that the vehicle has to be *equipped* with it -- which means it's physically attached to the vehicle and legally associated with it, for example the vehicle owner is liable if it reads the wrong fare, not the driver (unless they're the same person).

        Uber may be not exactly playing the game in areas like taxation, liability, minimum wage and so on, but if people (and governments) don't like this they have to find a *legal* way of making them step into line -- if necessary, by changing the law.

        The judge's clearly explained judgement is that according to the current legal definitions of black cabs/PHVs/taximeters Uber are not breaking the law. The fact that they might destroy existing businesses is an unfortunate consequence of the fact that they've come up with a new business model and the old taxi forms haven't -- if the government wants to protect the old jobs (which let's face it, is unlikely since they'll be replaced by Uber ones) they'll have to pass a law to make it happen -- but as the judge said, it's not easy to define a law which stops Uber but doesn't also stop PHVs.

    2. DaveDaveDave

      Re: What am I missing

      "Whether the method is GPS/Distance based or ground distance & stoppage based - does it matter? I will still have travelled distance "x" and it will still cost £y.."

      How do minicabs do it? There's a difference between looking at how far you've been driven (or how long it's taken) and calculating a fare from it, and having the fare automatically calculated and displayed as you drive along, from a device built into the car and directly connected to the wheels. Uber does none of that.

    3. Matt Siddall

      Re: What am I missing

      I think the main difference is that a Black Cab measures the cost as you go, whereas the Uber/Lyft/whatever app measures the distance and works out a cost before the journey.

      In practise, it means that when you book a cab and the route is blocked due to a road closure (as happened to me a week ago), they'll take you around the issue and still get you home for the same fee (as it was agreed before the journey), whereas a Black Cab would charge more.

      1. DaveDaveDave

        Re: What am I missing

        "I think the main difference is that a Black Cab measures the cost as you go, whereas the Uber/Lyft/whatever app measures the distance and works out a cost before the journey."

        I don't think that's right. Uber monitors the route taken, and then calculates the price at the end. That's why you get a fare estimate, not a fare quote. The difference is that it doesn't measure distance/time in the same way, there isn't a readout ticking up as you drive along, it's not fitted to the car, and so-on - in other words, it just isn't a taximeter in any way that term is defined by the law.

        As the judge pointed out, if a minicab driver uses the odometer to work out the distance he's taken a fare, and a pocket calculator - old skool - to calculate the price, that would also be unlawful under the terms the cabbies' tried to use to exclude Uber.

        It's worth pointing out here that the law the cabbies tried to use is not intended to exclude anyone from driving a taxi. It's intended to make it illegal for cabbies to rig the meter. The judge was quite rightly absolutely scathing about the weakness of their case.

        1. Danny 14

          Re: What am I missing

          I have phoned up taxi firms for a cab from A to B for X people and enquired a cost. Cost set and away we go.

          I have also used uber and gotten a cost before I go.

          Not really any difference.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: What am I missing

        "In practise, it means that when you book a cab and the route is blocked due to a road closure (as happened to me a week ago), they'll take you around the issue and still get you home for the same fee (as it was agreed before the journey), whereas a Black Cab would charge more."

        it also allows Black Cab drivers to charge whatever they feel like for a journey by varying the route, knowing that the majority of customers won't know they are being taken for a ride (sorry) - and if you really really want to see a cabbie in a bad mood, get in the queue, then once in a black cab at Heathrow, ask for Stockley Park. [I've done that once and actually had the driver say "no" - only to be told by the airport guy he can't pick and choose fares. Nothing but abuse and foul language from the driver.]

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: What am I missing

          Yup - been there, had that treatment. The guy was obviously expecting some gullible tourist wanting London via Edinburgh, not a guy who wanted a quick trip to Longford to pick up his car from a mate's house.

        2. DaveDaveDave

          Re: What am I missing

          "get in the queue, then once in a black cab at Heathrow, ask for Stockley Park. [I've done that once and actually had the driver say "no" - only to be told by the airport guy he can't pick and choose fares. Nothing but abuse and foul language from the driver.]"

          Oh, I've done that. Only time I've ever had an argument with a cabbie. He tried to charge us forty quid to go from Deathrow to Hounslow. I offered him the choice between a poke in the eye or a smack in the chops. Well, no, I didn't, I just said 'do I sound like a farking tourist, mate?' and he took what the meter was saying after a bit more to-and-fro.

          1. Jason Hindle

            Re: What am I missing

            "Oh, I've done that. Only time I've ever had an argument with a cabbie. He tried to charge us forty quid to go from Deathrow to Hounslow. I offered him the choice between a poke in the eye or a smack in the chops. Well, no, I didn't, I just said 'do I sound like a farking tourist, mate?' and he took what the meter was saying after a bit more to-and-fro."

            Naive me was told the fixed £40 price, from Heathrow to Windsor" is a special price. It was indeed special, at (as I found out the following day) double the cost of a private hire cab from the hotel back to Heathrow! The Heathrow taxi ranks are a massive scam!

        3. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: What am I missing

          > [I've done that once and actually had the driver say "no" - only to be told by the airport guy he can't pick and choose fares. Nothing but abuse and foul language from the driver.]

          Too bad you didn't record it. Aforesaid driver would be looking at losing his license.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Hackney licence.

    Time to ditch it surely this makes it obsolete?

    Just crank up the private hire rate to recover any costs.

    1. J.G.Harston Silver badge

      Re: Hackney licence.

      I've argued for years that there should be a single taxi licence, that any license-holder should be allowed to both take bookings and ply for hire. This would mean that what is current private hire could ply for hire, but also what is currently private hires would be subject to the regulated fare ceiling.

    2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Hackney licence.

      The taxi is required to take you anywhere - the minicab isn't.

      The taxi drivers would argue that they need a monopoly to make up for the loses by having to take less profitable fares rather than picking and choosing only profitable trips to the airport.

      Obviously the solution today is simply market pricing - the rate/mile to go across south of the river after 10:00 could be more than a trip to Heathrow.

  6. DaveDaveDave

    "The taximeter is the device that measures the charge."

    No, that's adefinition, not the definition. The legal definition is what matters, and it was:

    "“a device that works together with the signal generator to make

    a measuring instrument; with the device measuring duration,

    calculating distance on the basis of a signal delivered by the

    distance signal generators; and calculating and displaying the

    fare to be paid for a trip on the basis of the calculated distance

    or the measured duration of the trip, or of both.” "

    You should read the full judgement, the judge clearly was not happy with the black cab mobsters:

    "These submissions are no more than an attempt, without clarity of wording or

    thinking, to devise something which will cause the Uber system to fall foul of s11, in

    the name of a purposive interpretation. It would also not avoid the problems to which

    I have already referred, problems of a very considerable scale, for any driver or

    operator using devices with which almost all cars are equipped, and sending the basic

    information to the operator which any PHV operator would need for calculating fares

    accurately and quickly. Would the use of a calculator fall foul of his interpretation,

    whereas mental arithmetic might not? Would any degree of automation in the process

    fall foul of their approach? "

    https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/tfl_-v_uber-final_approved-2.pdf

    His logic is concisely and clearly explained.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Boring..

    Like the difference between Napster and Spotify. Industries are having their models turned upside down and they are trying to legislate to appreciate. Well, the forces of production are too strong. If there's money to be made, it'll be made. Technology marches forward. I wonder how long before the "black cabs" adopt the same software? :D

    1. The Commenter formally known as Matt

      Re: Boring..

      hopefully they will adopt similar software made by someone else. Competition is a good thing

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

  8. Clockworkseer

    Couple of things that bother me

    I must admit, as a taxi user, Uber does worry me for a couple of reasons.

    1) Surge Pricing. Don't get me wrong, I'm well aware that cab companies will make you pay more at christmas/new year/etc. But all of those changes are well advertised, I know they're coming and when, and can plan accordingly. Uber, as far as I understand it, I won't know whether someone's chosen to up the price until the journey is calculated at the time. Kind of buggers up planning a tad.

    2) Insurance, safety etc. Proper insurance and safety stuff is part and parcel of getting the private hire plates/taxi plates. Is the safety training and insurance part of the whole Uber deal, or can any tom dick or asshole with a car and a phone sign up?

    Otherwise, booing a taxi through an app and knowing what it'll cost before it starts is a great improvement.

    1. DaveDaveDave

      Re: Couple of things that bother me

      1) Surge pricing's great in my book. It's pretty predictable normally, and if you're worried about it going to 1.2x or something, you can watch on the app, do fare estimates, and see when's cheap. Or if it's really expensive, you might decide to share an Uber. Which is kind of the point of surge pricing.

      2) It's as much part of Uber as the regulations say it has to be in any given country. So in London, for example, Uber drivers have exactly the same licensing and insurance requirements as any other minicab driver.

    2. J.G.Harston Silver badge

      Re: Couple of things that bother me

      "2) Insurance, safety etc."

      Which is why it it should be made completely and utterly clear that Uber-type taxis are Private Hire Vehicles, and subject to all the requirements of Private Hire Vehicles.

      "1) Surge Pricing"

      Which is why I have argued for years that Private Hire should be subject to the same fare ceiling as Hackney Carriages. In most areas Private Hire chose to charge the same or similar to the Hackney regulated fare ceiling, but a Private Hire fare is entirely a pre-contact negotiated price, and can be whatever the purchaser and whatever seller you can track down agree on.

      1. IanDs

        Re: Couple of things that bother me

        I don't know where you live, but in and around London PHVs are *way* cheaper than black cabs.

        The difference between Uber and a conventional PHV booked in advance is just the charging mechanism, which is just a contract, and there's no law that says *how* payment has to be decided on so long as it is agreed with the customer -- fixed fare in advance (normal PHV) is one way, fare depending on time/distance/surge (Uber) is another way, fares depending on astrology and the phases of the moon would be perfectly legal so long as it was agreed that this would be done. You're free to agree (and use Uber) or not (and use a black cab or PHV).

        If you buy air tickets the price varies hugely depending on demand and availability, Uber is bringing some of this to cab fares. But PHVs (and black cabs) do this anyway with higher fares at odd hours/holidays/Xmas, it's just another way of doing the same thing.

  9. JHC_97

    Here is what the original idea of Webservices was there would be a platform I could advertise my skills on it and if you required them for Gardening/Taxi/Web page design/Nuclear Bomb building the platform would link the two of us together. In the very fucked up world we live in this technology is now used in a monopoly to screw the drivers out of what 20% and give the passengers an uninsured ride. This is not a disruptive technology its just having enough money to pay enough lobbiests and lawyers to break the law.

    As for the judges ruling its nonsense could the fair be calculated without the phone. No. So is uber using it as a meter yes.

    I mean at least Halo uses licensed cabs and if you are in the position of making halo look good 10% off drivers for a digital transaction that probably can't be measured in currency then you are way off the scale.

    1. dinsdale54

      Utterly fact free post.

      As has already been pointed out, Uber drivers are licensed and insured the same as any minicab. The Uber app will tell you the cost before you accept, like a minicab company, only better. All the Uber drivers I have spoken were pretty happy with it.

    2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      So when Ryanair use a map to decide how far it is from London to Barcelona to decide the fare - they are using the map as a taximeter?

      1. jonathanb Silver badge

        If Ryanair take a different route from normal due to weather conditions or whatever, and charge you extra for it, then yes they are.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If anyone else is as nerdy as me, and wants to actually find out what the judge's thinking was, you can read the full decision here:

    http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/2918.html&query=uber&method=boolean

    The relevant bit is at paras. 18 and 19.

    Basically, states that "no private hire vehical shall be equipped with a taximeter".

    A taximeter is then defined by an EU directive as (inter alia) a device which calculates fares on the basis of time and sitance travelled.

    However, cunningly, in Uber's model, the actual calculation is carried out "in the cloud" (very trendy), presumably so they can implement their surge pricing. Since the smartphone doesn't do any calculations, and the thing that does (the server) is located outside the vehicle, the phone isn't a "taximeter", even though it performs all of function of one! Very clever of Uber. The judgement is probably legally correct IMHO, but it's an interesting loophole.

    1. Test Man

      It's not a loophole, it's a narrow legal definition way before the invention of devices that (can) perform functions that produce similar results came out.

      Obviously no one is going to fix their smart phone to a car and have it directly connect to the wheels (part of the legal definition), and even if it worked out the pricing on your mobile it STILL doesn't fit the legal definition, so Uber aren't avoiding the law here, so no loophole.

  11. IanDs

    The judge's explanation was very clear. The basic difference between PHVs and taxicabs (in London) is that legally taxicabs *must be equipped with* a taximeter to calculate fares based on time and distance, and PHVs *must not be equipped with* such a taximeter.

    Regardless of their disruptive business model or how they calculate the fares (e.g. surge pricing), Uber cabs are not *equipped with* taximeters, and are therefore legal PHVs with a novel method of booking/paying/charging -- which is not illegal according to the law, no matter how much black cab and conventional PHV drivers dislike the fact, and how many of them might be put out of work as a consequence.

    The judge can only rule on the law, and its clear that Uber are not breaking it. If this has terrible unforeseen social consequences (job losses, downgrading of well-paid full-time jobs to badly-paid part-time ones) then it's up to the government to change the law to stop this. But as the judge points out, this is almost impossible to do without any law designed to stop Uber also hitting existing PHVs who use some other way of booking and calculating fares. So long as Uber drivers and cars are controlled in the same way as other PHVs (licensing, vehicle checks) there's no way to legally separate them out and stop them taking business from black cabs and other PHVs.

    Basically the black cab drivers are annoyed because they are locked in to an old expensive non-GPS business model by the black cab regulations, and the existing PHV drivers are annoyed because Uber have a much more convenient/safe/reliable way of booking and paying for a PHV than they do. They've both been blindsided by new technology and there's nothing they can do about it, apart from trying to persuade the authorities that Uber is illegal -- which they have singularly failed to do.

    Even if people dislike Uber as a company or because of their business model or surge pricing or job losses or for whatever reason, that isn't a legal reason to stop them operating -- what's going on now is the equivalent of the hand-loom weavers smashing mechanical spinning/weaving machines a couple of hundred years ago, and just as likely to succeed...

    1. J.G.Harston Silver badge

      "PHV drivers are annoyed because Uber have a much more convenient/safe/reliable way of booking and paying for a PHV than they do"

      Since when? I've been able to book a PHV electronically in Sheffield since a decade before Uber was a thing. If some PHVs aren't allowing their potential customers to book them electronically, well, boo hoo, have you also thrown your phone away? That doesn't give you the right to go around to other PHV's homes and rip their phone out.

      1. IanDs

        How exactly are Uber ripping PHV operator's phones out? They're just offering another (very convenient and easy and reliable) way of booking and paying for a PHV, if you don't like it don't use them.

        If other PHVs offer similar electronic booking/tracking systems, good for them. Uber don't have a monopoly, anyone who wants to (including PHVs) can offer a similar service. The problem is that to do this takes modern IT knowledge and infrastructure, and most PHV firms consist of a few people who basically know how to use a phone and write your details down wrongly...

        I was in China recently and *everyone* uses a taxi booking/tracking service a bit like Uber -- you can pick a car on your phone, see how far away the car is and when it will get to you and track it, phone the driver if they're delayed and so on. But the fare is argued about with the driver when the cab arrives, which is fine if you're Chinese and know how to negotiate, not so fine if you're a tourist who accepts the drivers first (high) bid. Great if you like haggling, but Uber seems a better system than this since at least there's some estimation/regulation of fares.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Taxi Meters are "Outlawed for private hire vehicles"

    This is not really true, add "In London", and you'd be right...

    The whole media seem to think that Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 applies to the whole god damn country, it doesn't. In plenty of other places it is perfectly legal for private hire to use a meter, in some places (Edinburgh for example), the rates for private hires are set by the council and they need to use a meter.

    This only applies to London.

    1. J.G.Harston Silver badge

      Re: Taxi Meters are "Outlawed for private hire vehicles"

      Exactly. We've had PHVs outside London since the 1970s.

    2. IanDs

      Re: Taxi Meters are "Outlawed for private hire vehicles"

      Correct -- outside London a PHV can either be fitted with a taximeter (in which case the same rules apply as to black cabs in London, the meter must be used and shows the fare and that's what you pay) or not (in which case the same rules apply as to PHV in London).

      So outside London PHVs can either be like black cabs (in London) or PHVs (in London), both of who hate Uber for the reasons I said -- the position is exactly the same but with different labels.

  13. scrubber

    Deregulation

    We have CCTV cameras on every street corner, cars have M.O.T.s, drivers have licenses, drivers have insurance, Uber has drivers' photos and identity, customers have access to those photos, customers can rate drivers (and vice-versa) and have access to those ratings.

    I don't get what regular taxis are providing here that isn't already in play. Sure, you could make Uber act like a proper employer, make drivers get commercial insurance, but that's small beer compared to the regulations* that are being proposed.

    * You can see your car is right around the corner, it's p!ssing down with rain but you have to stand there for 5 minutes because...?

  14. Dave, Portsmouth

    5 minute wait

    Saw a comment that, following this judgement, there are still possible new rules being considered which would amongst other things include a ban on taxis (or Uber cars, if you care about the distinction) arriving in less than 5 minutes. And that this new rule was in the public interest. Easy question: on this very specific point, can someone please explain to me the logic as to why this is in the public interest? Yes I fully understand it protects black cab drivers from competition, but that doesn't seem like it's in my interest at all! In fact, it sounds like an srbitrary limit imposed purely to prevent competition, and hence likely to lead to me paying more for my taxi. Why is that good?

    1. J.G.Harston Silver badge

      Re: 5 minute wait

      Exactly. What's the difference between that and phoning the booking office saying "I'm outside the Odeon" and they say "we've got a car just around the corner" and it arrives 30 seconds later. Still completely and legally a pre-booked hire.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Tell me.....

    How this is any different from me getting in a cab, asking the driver what the damage will be to 'x' and him giving me a price, we agreeing on that price and him setting off then me promptly falling asleep because I'm wankered and its 0345hrs on a Saturday morning, thereafter being woken up at my destination and handing over pre-agreed price?

    Let's be honest, black hcks are thieving bastards. Boy dart charges, more than two pasenegers fee, after midnight fee, wind blowing from the east fee. I say fuck 'em. I

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Fair nuf

    So I'm free to roam London with a For Hire light on my car (let's assume I've got proper commercial insurance in place) with a smartphone app that displays a constantly increasing fare based on distance and time taken, so long as the app doesn't do the calculation itself, but pings off the details to my server at home, and displays the result?

    Seems like this is an instance of a court being deliberately obtuse in order to get the 'right' result, but if it opens up the market to everyone (and not just Uber) that's a good thing.

    1. DaveDaveDave

      Re: Fair nuf

      "Seems like this is an instance of a court being deliberately obtuse in order to get the 'right' result"

      Not in the least. It's a case of the cabbies' lawyers twisting a point of law so far that even the judge called their behaviour ridiculous. The bit of legislation in question here is one that's designed to prevent cabbies fiddling the meter. It does not, and was never intended to, say who carries one.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Fair nuf

        Courts usually apply the duck test. If it walks, quacks, etc, then regardless of the technical trickery involved, it's treated as a duck. Try to claim that you're not distributing copyright material cos you ROT13'd the stream before transmission, see how far that flies.

        In this instance, they've decided what is clearly a duck isn't, cos the (price=x*distance+y*time) magic happens on a remote server rather than a device local to the cab.

        That's unusual.

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: Fair nuf

          No it's because the deal is for an end-end trip with the driver knowing in advance and agreeing to the deal and fare before picking you up. A black cab has to pick you up, has to take you to where you want, and can have have you decide to just get out at the first red light and just pay for 1/4mi.

          It's like the difference between a fixed price contract to install off the shelf software and an hourly rate to write a custom system where you can quit at any point. I don't know about you but I would charge a very different rate for those.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Fair nuf

            Did you read the article? It's got nothing to do with whether you specify a fixed destination or agree a price up front or not, and everything to do with the definition of a taximeter, which the court decided does not include a smartphone app that forwards GPS data to a remote server to do the calculation.

        2. Graham Cobb Silver badge

          Re: Fair nuf

          I agree that courts usually apply the duck test. But the context is taken into account. In your ROT13 example, the context is whether you have distributed the content, so the ROT13 doesn't change that. If, on the other hand, the law was about not being allowed to use encryption then the ROT13 would be significant and the fact that the material was copyrighted would be irrelevant.

          Similarly, in this case, the judge has decided that the context is a law about not rigging a meter built-in to the vehicle. As the GPS app is not built in to the vehicle, it doesn't matter that it walks and talks like a meter.

          I see nothing unusual.

  17. MotionCompensation

    Awful?

    Am I the only one who keeps reading the headline as "Uber app is awful"?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like