The court case was instigated by TfL who, very wisely,
wanted legal backing for their opinion that the app used by
Uber drivers and customers was not a taxi meter, as so
idiotically claimed by various Hackney Cab drivers. It had
therefore a London only relevance, although the ramifications
may spread much more widely.

I caught part of a discussion on Venessa Feltz's radio show
on this subject. (Venessa is so vastly better than James O'Brien
at hosting a phone-in programme) There were a few callers
propagating FUD - Uber drivers are not insured, not CRB checked
etc - but most callers were pretty sensible. One Hackney Cab driver
said he would be looking for a new job after Christmas; another
pointed out that the huge increase in Private Hire drivers had
implications for London's air quality; a third, a mere 45 years as
a taxi driver, said the underlying problem was that TfL were
primarily civil servants who did not understand London's taxi and
private hire markets. A fourth suggested that minicab firms too
will soon go under (my own belief) and that Uber will then raise
their charges enormously.

One woman said that she had been pleased with Uber at first
but that the quality of the drivers had recently deteriorated
and many now had no idea how to drive around London. She
had been caught by "surge pricing" and was not happy: £30.00
from Chelsea to St. James. (I wouldn't be happy either!)

One thought which has not been aired anywhere to my knowledge
should not be totally ignored: Google is a major invester in Uber.
Google has invented software which can make a vehicle move
without a driver. Who would buy such a vehicle? Not I. I enjoy
driving and have zero interest in owning a driverless car. So, to
whom do Google expect to sell this driverless vehicle? How about
Uber? No need to pay the drivers anything! All revenue retained by
Uber! How very attractive! Google aren't fools. They had a good
reason for investing in Uber.