5 ms·

TL;DR The technological description of a taximeter is out of date and technically TFL cannot find fault with Uber regarding the letter of the law. They are de

by ZenPro 12y ago

TL;DR The technological description of a taximeter is out of date and technically TFL cannot find fault with Uber regarding the letter of the law. They are deferring to the High Court to gain a binding ruling based on the spirit of the law. The case hinges on whether the Uber app constitutes being a taximeter despite not being fixed to the vehicle.

RossM 12y ago
Which in fairness, it should. It calculates a fare depending on time and distance travelled. At the moment you could get around the rules by having the driver count out loud.
- pjc50 12y ago
  No, it shouldn't; if the rules about taximeters include "fixed to the vehicle" and it's not fixed to the vehicle, then it's not a taximeter. Maybe the rules should be updated, maybe not, but that's not for the High Court to do!
  - rtpg 12y ago
    so basically outdated rules shouldn't be considered only when they are inconvenient to us? We complain so much about all these laws that "didn't keep up with the times", but the instant it's in favor of the technologists we should just be like "that's cool"?
  - peteretep 12y ago
    > "They are deferring to the High Court to gain a binding > ruling based on the spirit of the law." > "Maybe the rules should be updated, maybe not, but that's > not for the High Court to do!" Who, other than judges, would you rather was interpreting the law?
    - eyko 12y ago
      People with a dose of common sense and technological literacy.
    - pjc50 12y ago
      They aren't entitled to "interpret" the law in ways that contravene the text; a phone running the Uber app may well be a taximeter, but it's not fitted to the vehicle. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1907/55/pdfs/ukpga_19070055_en.pdf http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1907/55/pdfs/ukpga_19070... (Also, the law says that the Secretary of State gets to define what constitutes a taximeter).
      - peteretep 12y ago
        > They aren't entitled to "interpret" the law in ways that > contravene the text Of course they are. That's sort of the point of common law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
      - ZenPro 12y ago
        Are you simply ignoring every binding legal precedent ever? Of course the law is open to interpretation and Judges not only disagree with each other they also overrule each other depending on the court and case in question.
  - RossM 12y ago
    Sorry, I meant that that the rules should be updated to apply. Of course, while they remain out of date, Uber should be allowed to operate as they do.
- IanCal 12y ago
  Does it actually calculate the fare? I've used uber only a couple of times and it's just given me an estimate. Is this a different app, one for the taxi drivers?
  - cones688 12y ago
    "The controversy centres on an app provided to Uber's drivers - which is separate from the one used by the public - that calculates the journey distance and time taken, and then relays this information to remote computer servers to determine the fee."
    - IanCal 12y ago
      Thanks, massive scan reading failure on my part there.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]

by ZenPro 12y ago

RossM 12y ago

Which in fairness, it should. It calculates a fare depending on time and distance travelled. At the moment you could get around the rules by having the driver count out loud.

pjc50 12y ago
No, it shouldn't; if the rules about taximeters include "fixed to the vehicle" and it's not fixed to the vehicle, then it's not a taximeter. Maybe the rules should be updated, maybe not, but that's not for the High Court to do!
- rtpg 12y ago
  so basically outdated rules shouldn't be considered only when they are inconvenient to us? We complain so much about all these laws that "didn't keep up with the times", but the instant it's in favor of the technologists we should just be like "that's cool"?
- peteretep 12y ago
  > "They are deferring to the High Court to gain a binding > ruling based on the spirit of the law." > "Maybe the rules should be updated, maybe not, but that's > not for the High Court to do!" Who, other than judges, would you rather was interpreting the law?
  - eyko 12y ago
    People with a dose of common sense and technological literacy.
  - pjc50 12y ago
    They aren't entitled to "interpret" the law in ways that contravene the text; a phone running the Uber app may well be a taximeter, but it's not fitted to the vehicle. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1907/55/pdfs/ukpga_19070055_en.pdf http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1907/55/pdfs/ukpga_19070... (Also, the law says that the Secretary of State gets to define what constitutes a taximeter).
    - peteretep 12y ago
      > They aren't entitled to "interpret" the law in ways that > contravene the text Of course they are. That's sort of the point of common law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
    - ZenPro 12y ago
      Are you simply ignoring every binding legal precedent ever? Of course the law is open to interpretation and Judges not only disagree with each other they also overrule each other depending on the court and case in question.
- RossM 12y ago
  Sorry, I meant that that the rules should be updated to apply. Of course, while they remain out of date, Uber should be allowed to operate as they do.
IanCal 12y ago
Does it actually calculate the fare? I've used uber only a couple of times and it's just given me an estimate. Is this a different app, one for the taxi drivers?
- cones688 12y ago
  "The controversy centres on an app provided to Uber's drivers - which is separate from the one used by the public - that calculates the journey distance and time taken, and then relays this information to remote computer servers to determine the fee."
  - IanCal 12y ago
    Thanks, massive scan reading failure on my part there.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]