Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
16 Oct 15
10:50
Joined:
Date Joined:
05 Apr 06
The minicab-hailing app used in London by taxi service Uber does not break the law, the High Court has found.
The court had been asked to decide whether the company's smartphones were considered meters, which are outlawed for private hire vehicles.
The phones use GPS and external servers to calculate the cost of a journey.
Transport for London said taking the case to court had been "in the public interest".
The app-based company allows users to order cars via their smartphones, which often arrive within minutes and can cost a fraction of the price of a black cab.
The court had been asked to decide whether the company's smartphones were considered meters, which are outlawed for private hire vehicles.
The phones use GPS and external servers to calculate the cost of a journey.
Transport for London said taking the case to court had been "in the public interest".
The app-based company allows users to order cars via their smartphones, which often arrive within minutes and can cost a fraction of the price of a black cab.
Show More
Mr Justice Ouseley declared that taximeters do not operate in the same way as the app as they do not depend on GPS signals or include the app's other new-tech characteristics to calculate fares.
'Emphatic' call
TfL and Uber had both argued at a one-day hearing earlier in October that the app was not a meter, and both organisations greeted the decision as a victory.
An Uber spokesman said: "This was not a marginal call; it is quite emphatic. In fact, it is contemptuous of the case brought before it.
"Uber will continue going about our business and making sure customers have choice."
Transport for London also welcomed the ruling, saying there had been "significant public interest in establishing legal certainty in the matter".
The Licensed Taxi Drivers' Association (LTDA), which represents many of the 25,000 licensed taxi drivers in London, asked the judge to rule it was a meter and ban its use.
The Licensed Private Hire Car Association (LPHCA) backed the LTDA and said the app was "an attempt to circumvent the statutory prohibition" on minicabs using meters.
Black cab drivers argue that the app poses a risk to public safety and customers being overcharged, with no opportunity to challenge fares before the money is automatically taken out of their bank accounts.
'Emphatic' call
TfL and Uber had both argued at a one-day hearing earlier in October that the app was not a meter, and both organisations greeted the decision as a victory.
An Uber spokesman said: "This was not a marginal call; it is quite emphatic. In fact, it is contemptuous of the case brought before it.
"Uber will continue going about our business and making sure customers have choice."
Transport for London also welcomed the ruling, saying there had been "significant public interest in establishing legal certainty in the matter".
The Licensed Taxi Drivers' Association (LTDA), which represents many of the 25,000 licensed taxi drivers in London, asked the judge to rule it was a meter and ban its use.
The Licensed Private Hire Car Association (LPHCA) backed the LTDA and said the app was "an attempt to circumvent the statutory prohibition" on minicabs using meters.
Black cab drivers argue that the app poses a risk to public safety and customers being overcharged, with no opportunity to challenge fares before the money is automatically taken out of their bank accounts.
uber is basically a mini cab firm with an app. they also ignore all the rules and regulations that apply to everyone else. i read an article on them that basically compared this business model to the mafia. in america their management were caught booking and then cancelling journies with rival firms. they also go after journalists who write unfavourable pieces about them. they dont care about the drivers or the customers, they are only interested in themselves.
they are crony capitalists. their top pr person in the uk is a close personal friend of david cameron. they claim they are worth tens of billions of dollars, what assets do they have to justify this? there is a massive bubble in the technology sector in america i see them as very much part of this. i wouldnt buy their shares in an ipo.
their aim is to drive everyone else out of business then they can increase fares and also increase the cut they take from drivers as they will have nowhere else to go.
they have a drivers forum, have a look at it. their london drivers dont seem too happy.
they are crony capitalists. their top pr person in the uk is a close personal friend of david cameron. they claim they are worth tens of billions of dollars, what assets do they have to justify this? there is a massive bubble in the technology sector in america i see them as very much part of this. i wouldnt buy their shares in an ipo.
their aim is to drive everyone else out of business then they can increase fares and also increase the cut they take from drivers as they will have nowhere else to go.
they have a drivers forum, have a look at it. their london drivers dont seem too happy.
Interesting post jsm but the aspect of this issue that baffles me is how the phones are not meters.
The phones use GPS for tracking but external servers are used to calculate the cost of a journey so there is no meter in the car.
the law
11 Prohibition of taximeters.
(1)No vehicle to which a London PHV licence relates shall be equipped with a taximeter.
(2)If such a vehicle is equipped with a taximeter, the owner of that vehicle is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(3)In this section “taximeter” means a device for calculating the fare to be charged in respect of any journey by reference to the distance travelled or time elapsed since the start of the journey (or a combination of both).
the judgement
A taximeter, for the purposes of Section 11 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, does not include a device that receives GPS signals in the course of a journey, and forwards GPS data to a server located outside of the vehicle, which server calculates a fare that is partially or wholly determined by reference to distance travelled and time taken, and sends the fare information back to the device.
I think its clearly a 'taximeter'.
Seems alot of money spent on lawyers pays off. Probably spent days working out what a 'device' is and if an app communicating with a server is a device or not
11 Prohibition of taximeters.
(1)No vehicle to which a London PHV licence relates shall be equipped with a taximeter.
(2)If such a vehicle is equipped with a taximeter, the owner of that vehicle is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(3)In this section “taximeter” means a device for calculating the fare to be charged in respect of any journey by reference to the distance travelled or time elapsed since the start of the journey (or a combination of both).
the judgement
A taximeter, for the purposes of Section 11 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, does not include a device that receives GPS signals in the course of a journey, and forwards GPS data to a server located outside of the vehicle, which server calculates a fare that is partially or wholly determined by reference to distance travelled and time taken, and sends the fare information back to the device.
I think its clearly a 'taximeter'.
Seems alot of money spent on lawyers pays off. Probably spent days working out what a 'device' is and if an app communicating with a server is a device or not
or wether vehicle was 'equipped with' such a device
Rationale sounds very much like that which permitted FOBTs in betting shops - ie the result is generated by a server elsewhere than the betting shop thus "allowing" casino type games to be played our side a , er, casino!
Both decisions are perverse and show that the law has not caught up with technological advances.
Both decisions are perverse and show that the law has not caught up with technological advances.
when the legislation on private hire was written it went along the lines of (not sure of exact wording) private hire vehicles cannot attach a device to the wheels for the purpose of calculating the fare based on time and distance travelled. clearly what uber have is a meter but as it doesnt go against the law as it was written they can get away with it. there were no smart phones when the law was written. personally i have no faith in the legal system anyway, but thats another topic!
i just looked at the uber london drivers forum and the first thread i saw was about how quiet it is. i actually feel very sorry for their drivers, if uber recruit 500 more each week then they have to generate a lot more work or each drivers income will go down. uber rely on an unlimited supply of drivers as they have massive churn, drivers join after being told they will earn loads and leave when the reality is different. uber took down an advert saying 'earn £1400 a week' after someone complained to the advertising standards authority and they couldnt prove this number.
replacing highly skilled well paid workers (black cab drivers) with lowly skilled low paid workers (many of whom are in receipt of in work benefits) is seen as progress by some. uber like to refer to black cabs as having a monopoly, this is nonsense as there has been competition from minicabs for decades. i appreciate that not everyone can afford black cabs so use minicabs. its called choice.
uber isnt about competition its about unfair competition from a global corporation that pays no taxes in the uk and engages in unfair practices. as well as some of those i outlined above, in america they were caught lying about vehicle availability - the app shows you nearby available vehicles. they made it look like vehicles were nearby so punters would book, thinking a cab would come quickly,in reality the waits were longer than expected.
i must declare an interest as i am a london taxi driver (i declare everything i earn). i had a customer who told me how amazing they were. when i expalined that they are a mincab firm with an app and lots of minicab firms have apps he changed his mind. the only amazing thing about them is that they have convinced so many people they are new or different. they hope to undercut everyone else and drive them out of business so they can do what they want.
they are currently burning through cash at an amazing rate, even some of their backers are getting concerned. one of their backers is golman sachs, imo the most evil firm in the world. it is an attempt to financialise another industry, when this happens the pay and conditions of people who work in that industry are driven down as the parasites cream off money for themselves.
they say they want less regulation. i say ok, lets do away with the distinction between hackney carriage drivers and private hire drivers. let existing ph drivers cruise up and down the streets just as i do. uber would not want this as then the drivers wouldnt need them at all. there would be no need for a third party to find work for drivers if they could find it themselves. uber would go under. so they do want some rules, just ones that suit them.
all i want is enforcement of the current legislation and regulations. i also want all cabbies to take cards, not refuse small jobs and provide good customer service.
i just looked at the uber london drivers forum and the first thread i saw was about how quiet it is. i actually feel very sorry for their drivers, if uber recruit 500 more each week then they have to generate a lot more work or each drivers income will go down. uber rely on an unlimited supply of drivers as they have massive churn, drivers join after being told they will earn loads and leave when the reality is different. uber took down an advert saying 'earn £1400 a week' after someone complained to the advertising standards authority and they couldnt prove this number.
replacing highly skilled well paid workers (black cab drivers) with lowly skilled low paid workers (many of whom are in receipt of in work benefits) is seen as progress by some. uber like to refer to black cabs as having a monopoly, this is nonsense as there has been competition from minicabs for decades. i appreciate that not everyone can afford black cabs so use minicabs. its called choice.
uber isnt about competition its about unfair competition from a global corporation that pays no taxes in the uk and engages in unfair practices. as well as some of those i outlined above, in america they were caught lying about vehicle availability - the app shows you nearby available vehicles. they made it look like vehicles were nearby so punters would book, thinking a cab would come quickly,in reality the waits were longer than expected.
i must declare an interest as i am a london taxi driver (i declare everything i earn). i had a customer who told me how amazing they were. when i expalined that they are a mincab firm with an app and lots of minicab firms have apps he changed his mind. the only amazing thing about them is that they have convinced so many people they are new or different. they hope to undercut everyone else and drive them out of business so they can do what they want.
they are currently burning through cash at an amazing rate, even some of their backers are getting concerned. one of their backers is golman sachs, imo the most evil firm in the world. it is an attempt to financialise another industry, when this happens the pay and conditions of people who work in that industry are driven down as the parasites cream off money for themselves.
they say they want less regulation. i say ok, lets do away with the distinction between hackney carriage drivers and private hire drivers. let existing ph drivers cruise up and down the streets just as i do. uber would not want this as then the drivers wouldnt need them at all. there would be no need for a third party to find work for drivers if they could find it themselves. uber would go under. so they do want some rules, just ones that suit them.
all i want is enforcement of the current legislation and regulations. i also want all cabbies to take cards, not refuse small jobs and provide good customer service.
thanks brendanuk for the actual wording of the law. as i said when the law was written there were no smart phones. whats the saying? if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck the chances are its a duck. its a meter.
i would also say that i am not an idealogically driven, i dont think everything the private sector does is great and everything the public sector does is rubbish (or vice versa). i would say that transport for london(tfl) is the most incompetent organisation i have ever had to deal with. as an example some cab drivers were recently sent licence renewal forms that were printed in 2013. they filled in these forms and sent them back to tfl. tfl then wrote back and said you have made an error, 2013 forms are not acceptable, you have to fill in 2015 forms. by the way if your licence has since expired you can not continue to work. so tfl caused the problem and as a result people lose their livelihoods. they make mistake after mistake.
i would also say that i am not an idealogically driven, i dont think everything the private sector does is great and everything the public sector does is rubbish (or vice versa). i would say that transport for london(tfl) is the most incompetent organisation i have ever had to deal with. as an example some cab drivers were recently sent licence renewal forms that were printed in 2013. they filled in these forms and sent them back to tfl. tfl then wrote back and said you have made an error, 2013 forms are not acceptable, you have to fill in 2015 forms. by the way if your licence has since expired you can not continue to work. so tfl caused the problem and as a result people lose their livelihoods. they make mistake after mistake.
jolly, i know a london cabbie that has had a few syndicated horses & is friends with someone i know over here in the cotswolds, not you is it?
affraid not elise, ive only been in the job a year.
Heard a guy on LBC who said his brother is an accountant who does the accounts for 400 black cab drivers.
He said black cab drivers are making £70,000 per year before tax.
He said black cab drivers are making £70,000 per year before tax.
if you work hard you could gross this figure, it would take a lot of doing though. i would say that is gross ie, before expenses. a new cab costs nearly £43000 (or you can rent one for about £200 a week), then there's fuel, insurance etc. so that £70,000 would be down to about £45,000. and thats before tax. still good but not exactly over the top.
if he is claiming its £70,000 after costs then i would beg to differ. it would be possible but would take so much effort you couldnt do it over the longterm. before the recession they would have been on more.
if he is claiming its £70,000 after costs then i would beg to differ. it would be possible but would take so much effort you couldnt do it over the longterm. before the recession they would have been on more.
Brendanuk 16 Oct 15 12:21
"the law
11 Prohibition of taximeters.
(1)No vehicle to which a London PHV licence relates shall be equipped with a taximeter.
(2)If such a vehicle is equipped with a taximeter, the owner of that vehicle is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(3)In this section “taximeter” means a device for calculating the fare to be charged in respect of any journey by reference to the distance travelled or time elapsed since the start of the journey (or a combination of both).
the judgement
A taximeter, for the purposes of Section 11 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, does not include a device that receives GPS signals in the course of a journey, and forwards GPS data to a server located outside of the vehicle, which server calculates a fare that is partially or wholly determined by reference to distance travelled and time taken, and sends the fare information back to the device.
I think its clearly a 'taximeter'."
Agreed. The law and the Judge seem to be on different wavelengths here. The law, as expressed in 11(3) defines a 'taximeter' in terms of its function or purpose; ie what it does. The Judge, however, confines his reasoning to what it physically consists of and the location of all of the required bits and pieces; ie what (and where) it is. In more general terms, it would seem the outcome or effect of a device is not the main thing; its physical form is more important.
Cobblers. Cert to be overturned on appeal imo.
"the law
11 Prohibition of taximeters.
(1)No vehicle to which a London PHV licence relates shall be equipped with a taximeter.
(2)If such a vehicle is equipped with a taximeter, the owner of that vehicle is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(3)In this section “taximeter” means a device for calculating the fare to be charged in respect of any journey by reference to the distance travelled or time elapsed since the start of the journey (or a combination of both).
the judgement
A taximeter, for the purposes of Section 11 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, does not include a device that receives GPS signals in the course of a journey, and forwards GPS data to a server located outside of the vehicle, which server calculates a fare that is partially or wholly determined by reference to distance travelled and time taken, and sends the fare information back to the device.
I think its clearly a 'taximeter'."
Agreed. The law and the Judge seem to be on different wavelengths here. The law, as expressed in 11(3) defines a 'taximeter' in terms of its function or purpose; ie what it does. The Judge, however, confines his reasoning to what it physically consists of and the location of all of the required bits and pieces; ie what (and where) it is. In more general terms, it would seem the outcome or effect of a device is not the main thing; its physical form is more important.
Cobblers. Cert to be overturned on appeal imo.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539