According to various reports on the High Court ruling this morning
including:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-34549700

In message , at 11:05:13 on Fri, 16 Oct
2015, Someone Somewhere remarked:

According to various reports on the High Court ruling this morning
including:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-34549700

"The court had been asked to decide whether the company's smartphones
were considered meters, which are outlawed for private hire vehicles."

Do they mean "in London"?

Private hire vehicles in Cambridge have meters, as do the ones in Notts.
--
Roland Perry

On 16/10/2015 11:11, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:05:13 on Fri, 16 Oct
2015, Someone Somewhere remarked:

According to various reports on the High Court ruling this morning
including:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-34549700

"The court had been asked to decide whether the company's smartphones
were considered meters, which are outlawed for private hire vehicles."

Do they mean "in London"?

Private hire vehicles in Cambridge have meters, as do the ones in Notts.

Are you in some way incentivised to ensure that Cambridge and/or Notts
are mentioned as soon as possible in any thread?

In message , at 11:36:39 on Fri, 16 Oct
2015, Someone Somewhere remarked:
According to various reports on the High Court ruling this morning
including:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-34549700

"The court had been asked to decide whether the company's smartphones
were considered meters, which are outlawed for private hire vehicles."

Do they mean "in London"?

Private hire vehicles in Cambridge have meters, as do the ones in Notts.

Are you in some way incentivised to ensure that Cambridge and/or Notts
are mentioned as soon as possible in any thread?

No, but I make it a general rule to only post about things which I have
direct personal experience of, and therefore for some subjects a
built-in bias towards places I live, or have recently lived, tends to
arise.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:41:37 on
Fri, 16 Oct 2015, Paul Corfield remarked:

Haven't you been introduced to Mr R Perry, Honourable Member for all
things Nottingham, Ely and Cambridgeshire? :-))))

I can do urban transport in some detail in Geneva and Amsterdam too (as
well as London of course).

Never taken a private hire in Ely, so I have no idea if they have meters
or not. The cars in the rank at the station are [East Cambs] Hackneys.
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 11:41:37
on Fri, 16 Oct 2015, Paul Corfield remarked:

Haven't you been introduced to Mr R Perry, Honourable Member for all
things Nottingham, Ely and Cambridgeshire? :-))))

I can do urban transport in some detail in Geneva and Amsterdam too
(as well as London of course).

Never taken a private hire in Ely, so I have no idea if they have
meters or not. The cars in the rank at the station are [East Cambs]
Hackneys.

I should bloody well hope that any car on a rank is a licensed hackney
carriage as only they may ply for hire legally.

The answer to your earlier question is that some other major cities,
Birmingham to my personal knowledge and as also mentioned in a news report
today, Manchester and Sheffield, share with London the inexplicable (to me)
Luddite rule that bans meters in hire cars. What possible justification can
there be for this?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 16/10/2015 23:05, wrote:
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 11:41:37
on Fri, 16 Oct 2015, Paul Corfield remarked:

Haven't you been introduced to Mr R Perry, Honourable Member for all
things Nottingham, Ely and Cambridgeshire? :-))))

I can do urban transport in some detail in Geneva and Amsterdam too
(as well as London of course).

Never taken a private hire in Ely, so I have no idea if they have
meters or not. The cars in the rank at the station are [East Cambs]
Hackneys.

I should bloody well hope that any car on a rank is a licensed hackney
carriage as only they may ply for hire legally.

The answer to your earlier question is that some other major cities,
Birmingham to my personal knowledge and as also mentioned in a news report
today, Manchester and Sheffield, share with London the inexplicable (to me)
Luddite rule that bans meters in hire cars. What possible justification can
there be for this?

Eliminating any excuse for mistaking a pirate car for a taxi, of course.

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.

Robin9 wrote:


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.

I think using Google cars as self-driving minicabs was always a stated aim.

That's not my understanding. When Uber first mooted trading
in London, they made overtures to the Hackney Cab trade and
made disparaging comments about minicabs. With characteristic
arrogance and lack of foresight, the black cabs spurned Uber who
then swallowed their words and took on minicab drivers.

I'm not aware that Uber have ever hinted, let alone stated publicly,
that the long term objective is to use driverless vehicles. If that
possibility were out in the public domain, I'm sure it would be a
major element in public discussion of Uber.