Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK High Court: Uber Is Lawful (bbc.com)

Posted by Soulskill on from the test dept.

An anonymous reader writes: The UK's High Court has been hearing a case brought against ridesharing service Uber by Transport for London, the government body in charge of public transport in London. Their claim was that Uber drivers' smartphones should be considered meters because they use GPS and data from external servers to calculate the cost of a ride. Meters are banned in private hire vehicles (and TfL's claims were backed by associations for local taxi drivers and private hire cars). The High Court has found that Uber does not run afoul of that ban. Justice Ouseley said the technology was fundamentally different from standard taxi meters. Transport for London welcomed the decision, but transportation lobbyists are likely to continue challenging Uber in court whenever they can.

106 comments

  1. However by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Justices were relying upon Uber's patent, which clearly said the technology was new because it included the words "...but on the Internet" at the end.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    1. Re:However by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      If your reaction to this story is, "Rats! We need a different way to stop them then!" then you have a problem.

      One should merely ask do they meet reasonable safety and insurance concerns? and move on with life. Regulatory capture by entrenched interests is in nobody's interest, and the fact these services are so popular just emphasizes how a nominal democracy can stray from the actual wishes of the people without a loud drumbeat to watch and interfere with the scurrilous, behind the scenes crap.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:However by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm making a joke about patents. I'm not commenting on whether Uber's in the right or not.

      Although...

      Regulatory capture, for the most part, is a myth. I've seen very few cases of regulation where somehow the regulated benefit competitively. Friedman's poster child for "Regulatory capture" was the railroads, and he was writing this nonsense back in the 1950s, long after it became clear over-regulation (and government subsidized competition) was utterly destroying the railroad industry, so it's hard to take seriously as a complaint.

      Taxis aren't regulated because of a conspiracy of taxi companies to prevent competition. They're regulated because virtually every city in the world that has them wants to make sure customers aren't abused, and taxi companies go along with it only because a common minimum standard of behavior means more trust from potential customers.

      And yeah, this is the point where someone mentions medallions, and I shoot right back with pictures of New York City streets utterly crowded with taxis and point out that New York is regulating the market to prevent it from becoming an anti-social streets-clogging menace. Medallions, and equivalents, aren't really used in cities that don't have problems with too many vehicles on the roads.

      Uber in London? No idea. They may even be in the right there, assuming their drivers are not stopping when hailed from the streets. Uber strikes me as fitting right in with the minicab model.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:However by Altus · · Score: 1

      Honestly I am shocked this didn't stop them. In this case it certainly seems that they are running afoul of the law. Personally I am in favor of these devices though I do think sane regulation is a good idea. But protecting the awful taxi lobby that exists in so many locations isn't a worthwhile endeavor.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    4. Re:However by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That is not democracy. It is not just the inadequate insurance and safety (in which I include accessibility), but reliability and long term planning.

      Just because lots of people use Uber, it doesn't mean the vast remainder of the population (who own the roads through the government - it all comes down to property law) are happy with Uber.

      They may concern themselves with the lack of testing of Uber drivers, who - unlike black cabbies - aren't regularly ridden by licensing officials who confirm that the best possible route is taken, with threat of immediate licence suspension if they hoodwink their passenger. A regular may know what's up, but a tourist will remain in the dark.

      They may concern themselves with congestion. London's roads are busy enough without more commercial transport.

      They may concern themselves with sustainability. A black cabbie can get by in London on the stable fare system regulated by TfL, which means a service that is available and predictable for many years to come, for customers and employees. If you're administrating a city as old as London, you want stability on basic services that have been part of the lifeblood of the capital.

      This is democracy. If you want a private city with private roads that anyone "safe" is allowed to drive on, buy up a lot of land and go wild!

    5. Re:However by Roblimo · · Score: 2

      Right. Minicabs with automated dispatch. That's what Uber is.

      We need to stop calling it a "ridesharing" service, though. It's an automated dispatch company. Uber and Lyft are starting to experiment with true ridesharing, but I have trouble believing it will work except as a separate brand, likely with vans.

    6. Re:However by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..But protecting the awful taxi lobby that exists in so many locations isn't a worthwhile endeavor.

      Hear hear..

      Probably as a result of this ruling, Uber have announced they're setting up shop in Glasgow.
      This should be fun to watch on so many levels, but the one I'll be getting the popcorn and beer in for is how the gangsters who run the taxi businesses in the area will react to this.

      Amongst other preparations, there'll be a lot of funny handshaking going on in the Greater Glasgow area tonight.

    7. Re: However by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Democracy is a crapshoot. It's about asking a bunch of know-nots what the State should do. Newsflash: the populace is already taxed hard enough when trying to grasp the fact that the Earth is round, let alone understanding what they need rather than what they want. That's why we have representative democracy. And why most things are better decided behind closed doors by people with actual competence. Enjoy your undeserved lifestyle - it's way better than what you would have if you peons were actually calling the shots - and shut the fuck up while the adults run the show.

    8. Re:However by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "And yeah, this is the point where someone mentions medallions, and I shoot right back with pictures of New York City streets utterly crowded with taxis"

      So, NYC reacted to one problem by making another one which has made those lucky enough to have medallions effectively the holders of licenses to print money.

      The funny thing about streets full of taxis is that in the end it's self-regulating as fares can only go down so far and there are only so many riders.

    9. Re:However by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      Speaking as someone who lives in london, the vast majority of people won't use black cabs. If they need transport they'll use public transport or hire a minicab.

      The only people who use black cabs are tourists, those so wealthy they don't care about the cost, those who have someone else paying the cost and those who have no other choice.

      Black Cabbies routinely break the laws by refusing fares and get away with it and a couple have been discovered to be the most prolific rapists in the city, which shows the lie of the "vetting proedures".

      London Black cabs are one of the last remnants of mideval guilds, with their restrictions on entry and competition. It's about time they faced the same competitive market as every other type of taxi operator.

    10. Re:However by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Uber strikes me as fitting right in with the minicab model.

      Yes, of course they do. That's because they are a minicab company.

      The problem many of us have with Uber isn't that they're providing an alternative to conventional minicab services, but that they try to pretend they're not providing a minicab service at all, and are therefore entitled to ignore any laws relating to minicabs.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    11. Re:However by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Black cabs are really not that expensive compared to minicabs, but the old "I don't go south of the river/sorry mate I'm actually on my way home to Essex but forgot to turn my for taxi light off" thing still applies unless you're lucky.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  2. Of course it's lawful! by ichthus · · Score: 1

    It's analogous to hiring your next door neighbor's son to mow your lawn with his mower. This is idiotic.

    --
    sig: sauer
    1. Re: Of course it's lawful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But what if he doesn't have the right permits? Also, how do you make sure he is properly bonded, pays taxes, and has insurance?

    2. Re: Of course it's lawful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republicans don't care about any of those things. They want to turn the entire world into Somalia.

    3. Re: Of course it's lawful! by trout007 · · Score: 1

      Which Somalia? The one the socialists completely destroyed or the parts that are slowly getting better under anarchy?

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    4. Re: Of course it's lawful! by ichthus · · Score: 1, Interesting

      how do you make sure he is properly bonded

      Is there an improper way to bond?

      ...pays taxes...

      Why should I give a rat's ass? That's the IRS's job.

      and has insurance

      That's the job of the police and the DOT.

      --
      sig: sauer
    5. Re: Of course it's lawful! by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you take the self-named terms as reality, then the best country on the planet is North Korea. It's a Democratic People's Republic, says so right in the name.

      The fascist dictatorship calling itself "socialist" wasn't.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    6. Re: Of course it's lawful! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Proper free trade relies heavily on a strong government that protects property rights from thirves and mafia and kickbacks, without turning into one giant dictatorship that amounts to the same thing.

      Somalia (failed states with warlords) and dictatorship and communism all fail for the exact same reason -- people are not free to pursue economic interests without interference by people with guns demanding a slice.

      That Republicans (or libertarians) "want Somalia!" shows how far down the leftist echo chamber rabbit hole his cognitive processor has tumblr'd.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    7. Re: Of course it's lawful! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Yup.

      Man, if we had all these entrenched interests, and over-burdensome govt regulations years back, we'd not have the nice things we have in society today.

      It is just so hard for an entrepreneur to be able to innovate and challenge the old school status quo these days.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    8. Re:Of course it's lawful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I cannot ever remember negotiating with or paying a third party international company to send someone over to mow my lawn, least of all my neighbour.

      On the other hand they do "ride sharing" so the army of lawyers, billions of venture capitalist investments and surge pricing should not distract us from the well advertised fact that they are just a small world spanning mom and pop shop fighting a hellish fight against all those gigantic city spanning taxi companies.

    9. Re: Of course it's lawful! by Luthair · · Score: 1

      I'd say its more of a symptom of arguing on the internet - everyone gets dumber.

    10. Re: Of course it's lawful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bonding part is important as I found out after my neighbor dropped a tree on my car. He cut the tree down himself rather than hiring someone that was bonded. Of course he's a Republican since he didn't want to hire someone and pay a fair wage.

    11. Re: Of course it's lawful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chainsaws should require proper training and a license. They're dangerous, but unfortunately our government doesn't do enough to protect us because of the conservatives.

    12. Re: Of course it's lawful! by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      and has insurance

      That's the job of the police and the DOT.

      That's not going to help you if you are the passenger in an Uber car that gets into an accident. Just wait until someone who was hit by an Uber car sues the Uber passenger.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    13. Re: Of course it's lawful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They weren't real socialists. They were scientific socialists:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_socialism

      which is a phrase coined by Engels to describe Marxism and then further adapted to adjust for Islamic principles. My father was in the Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party, and fortunately left Somalia before I was born before the Somali Salvation Democratic Front, a conservative group that wanted a military dictatorship, killed most of his friends.

    14. Re: Of course it's lawful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All that just for a teenager to cut grass? That is the nanny state at its worst.

    15. Re: Of course it's lawful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Uber passenger is in no way liable for the accident. The driver personally is liable, and as a representative of Uber, he makes Uber liable. But unless the passenger actually told the driver, "50 bucks if you hit that guy," it's not assumed that the passenger is paying for that service.

    16. Re: Of course it's lawful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Marxism

      That isn't "real socialists?" You're stretching the no true Scottsman thing a little too far.

    17. Re:Of course it's lawful! by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      It's analogous to hiring your next door neighbor's son to mow your lawn with his mower. This is idiotic.

      It's analogous to hiring a random person who works for a multinational corporation of professional lawn servicemen, who are like all of the other professional lawn service businesses in every way except that this particular professional lawn service does not see fit to hold appropriate licensing or insurance, requires their employees to buy their own equipment, work at an agreed upon wage at the whim of the business but refuses to call them employees and, oh yeah, the thing that really makes them unique is that they have an app (which many of the other lawn service businesses also have).

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    18. Re: Of course it's lawful! by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      and has insurance

      That's the job of the police and the DOT.

      Yup, and that is exactly why they are going after Uber in many places. It is the government's job to make sure that organizations providing livery or taxi service on public thoroughfares have the required insurance to cover them in the event of accidents or incidents which could harm their clients. And that is what they are doing, and that is why Uber is coming under fire in many jurisdictions.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    19. Re: Of course it's lawful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, it's not like that. This is like your neighbors kid holding himself out to the public at large as a lawn service company but without doing any of the things (or incurring any if the expenses) required of a legitimate business in that space.

      One is very small scale among people who know each other and the other is not.

      If you don't comprehend the difference I can't help you.

      It's always a legitimate and healthy debate as to whether certain rules are necessary. It is utterly wrong to expect some players to follow certain rules while others don't.

    20. Re:Of course it's lawful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course! Of course!

      Of course?

      From your spelling I guess that you are in the USA and thus most likely American so I should forgive you your ignorance of UK law, but your emphasis really got my goat so screw it.

      Your analogy is fucking pitiful. Providing carriage services for hire has been regulated in London since 1654. Mowing lawns has never to my knowledge been regulated beyond general employment law. One cannot simply equate one with the other legally.

      This case was simply testing whether the Uber App qualifies as a meter. Taxicab services using a meter to calculate fares are well regulated in London. The court found somehow that the usage of a GPS and internet in that calculation meant that it wasn't a meter. From a simple layman's perspective I don't agree with that finding, but there must have been something in the language of the law that describes meters that supports it, and that is the key. When it comes to the law, it doesn't matter what I think is wrong or right, nor whether something makes logical sense from a wider live-my-life perspective. The only thing that matters is how the law that was written is interpreted by the court.

      I doubt that this case is done though. If it is upheld, the law will be changed to ensure that the loophole is closed. London cabs are a cultural institution, and the quality of the drivers' knowledge is superb. They will run rings around part-timers with Waze all day long, and I'd expect to see that protected.

      More importantly it might not matter too much. Wait until a few people have their insurance claims denied because they were working for hire at the time (prohibited in most consumer UK car insurance policies). Wait until a few people are arrested for driving without valid insurance (for the same reason). When the current horde of Uber drivers in the UK realise that they cannot simply Uber for a few hours a week without hiking their insurance premiums then you'll see a massive exodus leaving only full-timers.

    21. Re: Of course it's lawful! by Xiaran · · Score: 1

      You're funny and stupid. Mostly stupid. Probably young. And stupid.

    22. Re: Of course it's lawful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The quality of a taxi driver's knowledge might be much better than taxi drivers in my home country, but when I was last in London, the GPS on my phone showed congestion on the route being used by the taxi driver and suggested an alternative route with a much better projected time. Yes, we then were held up by a demonstration. Technology can be better than local knowledge.

    23. Re: Of course it's lawful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And he probably masturbated in his feces.

    24. Re: Of course it's lawful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So darknet markets for drugs, are those free trade?

    25. Re: Of course it's lawful! by trout007 · · Score: 1

      What's the difference between the state and the mafia? The mafia actually wants your business to do well so they can get their cut.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    26. Re: Of course it's lawful! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      What's the difference between the state and the mafia? The mafia actually wants your business to do well so they can get their cut.

      No, in reality gangsters will willingly bankrupt businesses by squeezing too hard. They are criminals, and have the normal criminal habits of stupidity, greed and inability to defer gratification.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    27. Re: Of course it's lawful! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      and has insurance

      That's the job of the police and the DOT.

      Yup, and that is exactly why they are going after Uber in many places. It is the government's job to make sure that organizations providing livery or taxi service on public thoroughfares have the required insurance to cover them in the event of accidents or incidents which could harm their clients. And that is what they are doing, and that is why Uber is coming under fire in many jurisdictions.

      It's at this point that Uber supporters say "but that's unfair because Uber is just a ride sharing service, not a livey or taxi service".

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  3. Better Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A better headline would be:
    There is a law involving cabs that Uber isn't breaking.

    They did not declare Uber legal. They just declared that smartphones aren't taxi meters.

    1. Re:Better Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they're not taxi meters, that makes Uber a livery service. What laws governing livery services does Uber violate?

    2. Re:Better Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did not declare Uber legal. They just declared that smartphones aren't taxi meters.

      I got a hunch that the law states something like illegal to install meters in CARS. This mean it should be possible to install a meter in a smartphone as long as it isn't part of the car. If this is the case, then Uber's approach is illegal when looking at the intention of the law, but not if you look at the text becaus the text predates smartphones.

      Next parlament updates the law to broaden the definition of a meter, in which case Uber sues parlament for their loss of income from their currently legal business. Logics and common sense doesn't exist once you enter the legal area.

  4. Anticipated trip cost by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The Uber cellphone could certainly act sort of like a standard taxi meter, calculating total distance traveled during a trip, but instead it does the equivalent of calling up a central office and having somebody determine from a map an estimated driving time and distance to plug into a formula to determine the appropriate charge. The passenger knows the total cost of the trip when they book it. It's a lot like some transport companies - 'trip from hotel X to the airport? $30'.

    Remember, terminologies vary by country and even city. In NYC, Uber is mostly a 'black car' service, just more responsive. They do not qualify as taxis, and they deliberately take actions to avoid being called taxis, at least in NYC.

    Nobody here has done it yet, but I have seen posters ripping Uber for not doing x or y, like having meters, saying not having them makes them not taxis, then saying that they should be following the taxi rules...

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:Anticipated trip cost by Altus · · Score: 1

      My experience in n the states is that I can get an estimated fare but that I don't actually know the price until I arrive. Is it different in the UK? I'm surprised that they won this case though I am generally in favor of these services. It sure seems like a meter to me

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    2. Re:Anticipated trip cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Uber cellphone could certainly act sort of like a standard taxi meter, calculating total distance traveled during a trip, but instead it does the equivalent of calling up a central office and having somebody determine from a map an estimated driving time and distance to plug into a formula to determine the appropriate charge. The passenger knows the total cost of the trip when they book it. It's a lot like some transport companies - 'trip from hotel X to the airport? $30'.

      Have you ever used Uber? This is not how it works. I used the service several times when I was in Atlanta last month. I told the service where I was and where I wanted to go, and they gave an estimated cost only. Real world cost was different. There's a base fare, plus distance and time charges. The three drivers took different paths between the same two endpoints, based on their preference. We were stuck in traffic for two of the trips but not the third. One of them had a 1.5x surge price multiplier. One driver didn't stop the trip until he had turned the next corner, although we bailed out on the street and walked the last block due to traffic. The actual price isn't calculated until after the driver tells the system the trip is over, and only then are you notified of the cost; usually after you've already left the car.

      I would have to agree that because the cost can vary because of time, that there is a meter running. I disagree that this should make the service illegal however. I found it to be just as safe as a regular cab, and it was much more convenient to use

    3. Re:Anticipated trip cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My experience in n the states is that I can get an estimated fare but that I don't actually know the price until I arrive. Is it different in the UK? I'm surprised that they won this case though I am generally in favor of these services. It sure seems like a meter to me

      In the UK a "black cab" is one hailed in the street or picked up from a taxi rank. They use a meter to charge, with rates set by the local council issuing their cab license. They can give an estimate of a fare, but it's not binding.

      A "minicab" is one where you call and order a taxi. They have to give you a price in advance and stick to it. Prices are not regulated, but because they're publicly advertised tend to be pushed down by competition to be consistent in an area, especially for popular longer routes (airports etc).

      Licensing for the two is done differently, with black cab licensing being both more expensive and more strict in many areas (especially in London, where drivers must take "the knowledge" test).

      This particular lawsuit was claiming that Uber was operating as a black cab without appropriate licensing, and treating the smartphone as a meter. The accusation was thrown out because it clearly isn't a black cab: the price is set in advance by looking at a map, it's just done by computer instead of a paper map.

    4. Re:Anticipated trip cost by Xiaran · · Score: 1

      > The Uber cellphone could certainly act sort of like a standard taxi meter How would that work? Who would regulate that the cellphone app was accurate? The same people regulating VW?

  5. What about the labor laws / London Knowledge? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    What about the labor laws / London Knowledge test for cabs?

    1. Re:What about the labor laws / London Knowledge? by pla · · Score: 1

      99.9% of people hailing a cab just want to get from point A to point B without walking. GPS has made that requirement nothing more than a historically cute, but completely pointless, barrier to entry.

    2. Re:What about the labor laws / London Knowledge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as "The Knowledge" goes, I'm not sure it's as relevant in an era of ubiquitous GPS as it once was.

    3. Re:What about the labor laws / London Knowledge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the UK, there are two classes of what may be called "Taxis". Hackney Carriages are the "black cab" that you can hail on the street. They have pretty strict rules (including "the knowledge" in London), and must use a taximeter to calculate the fare in accordance with rules and fares set by the local council. Private Hire Cars have less strict rules - there's no test on "the knowledge" for example - but cannot be hailed on the street and cannot use (or even have fitted) a taximeter. Uber is operating in the second category. Really it's not that different from what happened before - plenty of companies have an app that lets you book a car and tells you where it is and how long it will be.

    4. Re:What about the labor laws / London Knowledge? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      "The knowledge" doesn't apply to minicabs. Minicabs are services that you call in advance, rather than hail from the street, so they're more like the services provided by Uber's drivers.

      There's a good case for suggesting Uber can make minor modifications to its business to work in the London and the rest of the UK, largely by creating dispatch companies, and by registering with the appropriate authorities. Whether they're willing to do so however is another matter.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re: What about the labor laws / London Knowledge? by shilly · · Score: 1

      Uber are very different from other minicab services. They don't tell you how much the fare will be in advance, and they don't allow you to book in advance. That is materially worse for the passenger.

    6. Re:What about the labor laws / London Knowledge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the labor laws...

      What about them? This is Britain under another Tory Regime...

      ..London Knowledge test for cabs?

      The Knowledge?, Ah yes, well, when I last worked in London I had the misfortune of taking a Black Cab from my Flat in South London to Victoria Rail Station, got scalped, went via Westminster Bridge and missed my train. Same journey several months later via minicab, got there in under half the time, at a third of the cost.
      (Don't get me wrong, London Black Cabs have their uses..In a previous life I've used them to deliver completed exam papers to the IEE (as was) and a large number of them parked up outside an eating establishment was usually a good sign that the food served there was good, plentiful and cheap.)

    7. Re:What about the labor laws / London Knowledge? by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      They are registered with Transport for London as a Minicab dispatcher. The difference is that with every other minicab operator, if you call them or use their app, and ask for a cab from for example The Royal Albert Hall to St Pancras Station, they will give you a price for the journey which you can accept or reject. If you accept it, that is the price you will pay for the journey. Über will use their not-a-taximeter thing to work out the actual distance and time taken, and bill you at the end of the journey based on that.

    8. Re:What about the labor laws / London Knowledge? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      It sounds like Uber only needs to make minor modifications to its business structure, none that actually affect its core model, to accommodate London's rules on the subject. If they are breaking them, it sounds like it's pointless breaking-rules-for-the-sake-of-it rather than because they're genuinely in its way, like a bakery that refuses to list the ingredients on the package (but puts them on its website) because screw "The Man".

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    9. Re:What about the labor laws / London Knowledge? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      They are registered with Transport for London as a Minicab dispatcher.

      Well someone at TfL fucked up then, because we all know Uber is a ride sharing service, and nothing to do with minicabs.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  6. This will get appealed for one simple reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anybody who is not an idiot can tell that moving the "meter" from a physical device that just meters to a software device on a cell phone doesn't mean that "meter" magically disappears. They are still doing the same thing as a meter, measuring distance and charging for that distance. To argue that they aren't using a meter implies you don't understand the definitions of simple english words.

    1. Re:This will get appealed for one simple reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But does the cellphone meter? or is it pulling up a map and calculating cost based purely on a map? A meter actually meters miles and distance driven, whereas the uber app doesnt meter, it just tells you the cost of a given route.

    2. Re:This will get appealed for one simple reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anybody who is not an idiot can tell that moving the "meter" from a physical device that just meters to a software device on a cell phone doesn't mean that "meter" magically disappears. They are still doing the same thing as a meter..

      Maybe so, on the surface, the major difference is

      Taxi meters have to be calibrated/certified.

      Mobile phone apps and their GPS receivers on the other hand..

       

  7. Re:Fuck you slashdot by r-diddly · · Score: 1

    LOL. At least it's not about The (fucking) Martian again.

  8. Dumbest technicality *ever*. by pla · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Personally, I 100% support Uber because I firmly believe that if I want to hitch a ride with a complete stranger (whether for pay or just hitchhiking), I should have every right to do so.

    That said, Uber won this for a completely ridiculous reason. Whether or not a GPS counts as a "meter"? Seriously??? Why the hell do politicians insist on making laws-by-proxy, instead of just addressing what they really mean?

    Hey, what do I know? Why just say "Taxis require a special license", when you could instead ban private ownership of some obscure bit of hardware largely peripheral to the core task at hand?

    1. Re:Dumbest technicality *ever*. by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Does it actually work like a meter though? Is it constantly running and incriminating the fare based on distance traveled or time? That's what a meter in a taxi does. If a phone is just calculating a route from the current location to the destination and deriving cost from that, it's not a meter. Just because they both determine the cost of a ride does not mean that they are equivalent.

    2. Re: Dumbest technicality *ever*. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a pretty substantial difference really. No meter but a map calculation instead means a defined up front cost as opposed to pay by a nonpredetermined driven distance and time based cost.

    3. Re: Dumbest technicality *ever*. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question was whether the technology was acting as a meter. A taxi meter charges as you go, racking up the bill on the way. It *meters* the trip. The Uber app consults a map and offer a pre-determined fare to the customer. There is no metering involved. It all happens before the customer even gets in the car. Unless the definition of meter had changed at some point, the Uber app is not metering anything. Indeed, the court did exactly what it was supposed to do -- not allow the government to impose regulation where it hadn't previously (applying a law about metering to something that doesn't meter).

    4. Re:Dumbest technicality *ever*. by harshath.jr · · Score: 1

      It works like a meter, but isn't one, and that's the point. It's the kind of idiotic pointless technicality-based arguments I used to have with my brother. "I said I'd save you a piece, but I didn't say I'd do it today!"

    5. Re:Dumbest technicality *ever*. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why just say "Taxis require a special license", when you could instead ban private ownership of some obscure bit of hardware largely peripheral to the core task at hand?

      Or just remove that requirement on license and let everyone have a run at it.

    6. Re:Dumbest technicality *ever*. by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Personally, I 100% support Uber because I firmly believe that if I want to hitch a ride with a complete stranger (whether for pay or just hitchhiking), I should have every right to do so.

      If that is the way you want things to be, then you need to petition your elected officials. In the mean time, it is not fair that all of the existing livery operators have to abide by the existing regulations and a new company does not. I mean, actually it DOES have to abide by those rules, it just chooses not to.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    7. Re:Dumbest technicality *ever*. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If Uber made sure its drivers had proper insurance and licensing, I'd feel a lot better about them.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    8. Re:Dumbest technicality *ever*. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Here, a taxi meter is defined in law as a calibrated device that mechanically measures traveled distance of the vehicle.

      I have no idea what the definition is in London, but a GPS app can never legally be used as a meter here, so it would make sense that it would be ruled to not be a meter.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    9. Re:Dumbest technicality *ever*. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't really work like a meter.

      A meter turns on and measures distance and time. Some cabs (not taxi-cabs, because they don't have a taximeter) use maps instead, and the driver calculates the cost ahead of time based on what the map says. Those are not metered cabs, and they're not covered under the taximeter law. The airport in london ontario used to be serviced by non-taxi cabs. They had a map of the city cut into sectiosn and charged a flat fee based on how many sections you were crossing.

      The GPS does the same thing. It's not a meter, it doesn't work like a meter.

    10. Re:Dumbest technicality *ever*. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They won because they calculate the trip's cost beforehand. It''s no different than if you ask any other livery service to drop you off at a specific address. Whether they have someone physically look up the total distance on a map, or use a computer to do it automatically, it's not a meter.

    11. Re:Dumbest technicality *ever*. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No current livery company has to abide by taxi rules in London. Uber is no exception.

    12. Re:Dumbest technicality *ever*. by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      No current livery company has to abide by taxi rules in London. Uber is no exception.

      What a wonderful non-sequitur. Thank you. By merely changing the entire focus of the sentence, you have made it become a falsehood. That must take a lot of work.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    13. Re:Dumbest technicality *ever*. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you even know what "non-sequitur" means? Because regardless of the validity of the parent's argument it certainly does not qualify as non-sequitur.

    14. Re:Dumbest technicality *ever*. by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      'Why just say "Taxis require a special license"'

      Because you need to define what a taxi is... such as having a meter.

    15. Re:Dumbest technicality *ever*. by jonbryce · · Score: 3, Informative

      The laws in London say that taxis must be equipped with a meter, and mini-cabs must not be equipped with a meter. Because Über's meter is in the clouds and not in the car, the car is not equipped with a meter, and therefore it complies with the rules.

    16. Re:Dumbest technicality *ever*. by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      No they don't calculate the trip cost beforehand, and that is the reason for the complaint. Every other mini-cab operator calculates the cost beforehand, some using computer maps. However, if your Über driver takes a longer route to avoid an obstruction for example, or takes longer than expected due to traffic delays, then you will pay more for the journey.

    17. Re:Dumbest technicality *ever*. by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Do you even know what "non-sequitur" means? Because regardless of the validity of the parent's argument it certainly does not qualify as non-sequitur.

      Non-sequitur : a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.
      Talking about livery operators and livery regulations and AC attempts to refute by saying that no taxi companies have to abide by livery regulations. While true, it does not follow from the previous argument that other livery companies besides Uber all obey the livery rules.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    18. Re:Dumbest technicality *ever*. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      incriminating the fare

      Incrementing.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  9. Judgement said no such thing by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The judgement did not say that Uber is lawful.

    It only said that Uber does not violate the law against minicabs using taxi meters to determine charges. There are other lawsuits pending.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:Judgement said no such thing by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 2

      Well, I figured it was just another Uber-written article so I know better to take it at face value.

      It's hilariously brazen at times. What gets me is why they consider Slashdot such fertile ground. Probably only because nowhere else can these guys get this kind of propaganda density, and because they're clearly targeting angry nerds. Traditionally, oil companies et al try to buy off graduate students and scientists, but this isn't a question of science, it's a question of social expectations and the way societies are structured.

      And clearly Slashdotters are thought leaders and capable of swaying lots of regular people with cheeto-encrusted rants :D way of the future!

    2. Re: Judgement said no such thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot is nothing more than "integrated" advertising... But without much real news...oh, tabloid

    3. Re:Judgement said no such thing by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The judgement means, to this point, there are rulings they aren't breaking the law, and no rulings they are. That'd be "declared legal" for all useful uses of language. At best, you could qualify it with a "so far" at the end.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    4. Re:Judgement said no such thing by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      I kill someone by hitting them with my car at speed. On the way to hitting them, I get a speeding ticket, which I contest and win. According to your logic, my actions have been declared lawful because there are no judgements against me.

      Just as there is a difference between a not-guilty verdict and actually not committing any crime, there is a difference between a ruling that they are not breaking a specific law and a ruling that they are "lawful".

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  10. Better Than a Meter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would rather get charged by how long the trip should take versus getting charged by a meter. A driver with a meter may be more inclined to take a longer route just to increase the cost of the ride.

  11. TaxiMeter, not 'meter' by harshath.jr · · Score: 1

    This whole lawsuit is a case of technicality, and commentary on it is often misguided because of confusing "meter" the verb and common noun with a "TaxiMeter", which is a specific thing. If Uber drivers had TaxiMeters in their cars, then the lawsuit is valid. Otherwise, not.

  12. back to the 2000's by lorinc · · Score: 1

    Maybe I'm getting old, but all these stories about uber remind me a lot of the fuss about napster back in the 2000's. And these where probably the same as everytime a new disruptive technology appears.

    Now, get over it. With the ability to instantaneously have a decentralized communication between someone needing a service and someone providing a service, all hopes of regulation are dead. Labor laws are dead, they've been rendered obsolete by the massively connected world. Uber is centralized, so you can punch the company. What will you do when a decentralized equivalent service comes up?

    --
    Video of some good progressive thrash music
    1. Re:back to the 2000's by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If a decentralized service comes up, drivers will have to collect the fares themselves, and will have to be busted individually if they don't have legally mandated licenses and/or insurance.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    2. Re:back to the 2000's by lorinc · · Score: 1

      Which is so complicated to do that it won't work. Like p2p illegal file sharing.

      --
      Video of some good progressive thrash music
    3. Re:back to the 2000's by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Labor laws are dead

      That's certainly what Uber and similar Silicon Valley fascists would like.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  13. Ridesharing? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

    How is it "ridesharing" if you specifically call someone to come pick you up, take you to a specific destination they were not going to, give them money to compensate them for their time AND give them a tip, as well as rate them on their service?

    Uber is a taxi service and no amount of Russian-handwaving* will make it otherwise.

    *Russia claims it's not invading Ukraine yet it's lost nearly 2,000 troops who were "on vacation" in Ukraine, has barred the mothers of dead soldiers from speaking out about their son's deaths and when its soldiers have been captured claim they weren't really Russian soldiers because they left the service the day before they were captured.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:Ridesharing? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      How is it "ridesharing" if you specifically call someone to come pick you up, take you to a specific destination they were not going to, give them money to compensate them for their time AND give them a tip, as well as rate them on their service?

      Up to paying more for the service than the service cost to provide, and rating them, the rest seems to be explicitly the definition of "ridesharing".

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    2. Re:Ridesharing? by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      The definition of "ridesharing" typically involves a driver going somewhere for his or her own purposes and carrying a passenger from where the driver starts to where the driver is going, or more or less around the path the driver takes.

      If a driver is summoned to a particular place and transports someone to somewhere the driver would not have gone, that isn't ridesharing.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    3. Re:Ridesharing? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So someone at The University of North Florida who isn't planning on going home this weekend (to Miami) sees a post for a ride share to Miami, offering $50 for fuel, and decides to accept the ride share. It's no longer a ride share because the person wouldn't have gone there at that time, except for the offer or a share and payment?

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    4. Re:Ridesharing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would call that a ride share, but if he drove back home after giving the ride without doing anything in Miami is acting more like a taxi.

      But you are justifying this bullshit with a fringe case. In 99/100 cases they behave exactly like a normal taxi.

    5. Re:Ridesharing? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I'm not justifying anything. I'm simply defining the terms used. That's where all this mess comes from, people who assume definitions of words. But anyone who tries to get clarity is assigned to one side or the other and vilified.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
  14. Cost effective??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why would one want to use the services of charlatans?? They are more expensive than a taxi cab, or in some cases the good old black cab!
    I am voicing my negative experiences after using them a couple of times in central London, UK.
    My 2c

  15. Is the price fixed? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    When Uber uses GPS to figure out the fare, is that your end fare for certain? If they decide to take a different route, is it possible for your fare to change? If so, then I would say that qualifies as metering. If they agree to take you from A to B for X and X cannot change, then I would definitely say that that is not metering. After all, the other livery companies have flat rate pricing which they manage to figure out. Probably using google (which uses GPS behind the scenes) or just using paper maps.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  16. Not sure about the UK by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    But in America your entire quality of life is dependent on your employer. Uber runs around all that by declaring their employees "contractors". There have already been a couple of those "like Uber for..." Companies that shut down as soon as they were told they had to treat their employees as such. Basically Uber only works and is profitable when they externalize their costs ( insurance, maintenance, risk, healthcare, taxes, etc). In the long run Uber is part of a global race to the bottom for the working class...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Not sure about the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the long run Uber is part of a global race to the bottom for the working class...

      The working class rides the bus.

  17. it's tested the same way other meters are (done it by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Taximeters are tested for certification. The official takes it on a measured course and checks that it gives the correct mileage. Typically, it's allowed to be around 4% under or 2% over, something like that so to be safe you try to make it 1% under, which gives you 3% margin of error either way.

    I was involved in designing and implementing an app called Cross Cabbie. We're more accurate than the traditional meters.

  18. Lawful good by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 2

    or lawful evil?