2. 考研
  3. The taxi-booking service Uber has received a boost after the high court ruled that its app was legal in London. Had it lost the

The taxi-booking service Uber has received a boost after the high court ruled that its app was legal in London. Had it lost the

admin2022-07-06  48
问题     The taxi-booking service Uber has received a boost after the high court ruled that its app was legal in London. Had it lost the case, the company would have been forced to change its service to comply with rules that protect black-cab drivers.
    The transport regulator Transport for London (TfL) had brought the case after pressure from the city’s black-cab and minicab drivers, who claimed that the Uber app was being used as a taximeter. The taximeter is a privilege afforded only to black-cab drivers in return for the extensive training they undergo to learn London’s streets.
    But Lord Justice Ouseley ruled that Uber’s mobile service did not constitute a taximeter. Ouseley said that while the smartphone using the driver’s app may be essential to enable the calculation of fares, that did not make it a device "for" calculating fares, which would breach the taximeter prohibition.
    Uber described the ruling as a victory for common sense and took aim at plans by TfL to impose new regulations on the company. "Now the high court has ruled in favour of new technology, we hope Transport for London will think again on their bureaucratic proposals for apps like Uber," said Jo Bertram, Uber’s regional general manager for UK, Ireland and the Nordics.
    The chief executive of Addison Lee, the biggest minicab firm in London, said the ruling was disappointing. "This is a sad day for London," Andy Boland said. "This judgment opens the door to a return to the bad old days of cabs charging what they like and the passenger not knowing what the fare is until it is too late."
    Steve McNamara, general secretary of the LTD A, said it was a "ludicrous decision", adding: "Does the Uber smartphone calculate the fare by a combination of time and distance? There can be only one answer, and any judgment that declares otherwise is flawed and wrong."
    But businesses welcomed the ruling. The Institute of Directors said it was "a victory for consumers and innovation". Simon Walker, the IoD’s director general, said: "Britain should be at the centre of disruptive technology and this decision will give businesses around the world confidence that we welcome new ideas."
    The founder of a rival taxi app, Kabbee, suggested the ruling would lead to all minicab firms adopting similar technology. Justin Peters said: "Now all licensed minicab fleets have the right to use in-car meters, which will mean more competition and better consumer choice. It’s a positive step." Butj he added: "Today’s verdict does not address remaining inconsistencies such as Uber not requesting a destination address from the passenger and the historic questions over payment of VAT."
Andy Boland considered the ruling disappointing in that
选项 A、it was in favour of disruptive technology.
B、it reinforced the government’s bureaucracy.
C、it helped return to the day of illegal cabs.
D、it went against passengers’ interests.
答案D
解析 根据题干的Andy Boland定位到第五段。该段提到判决令人失望在于“让人们回到了那个糟糕的时代：出租车随意收费，而乘客却迟迟不知道车费是多少。”D项“该判决违背了乘客的利益”是对原文的概括。A项“该判决赞成颠覆性的技术”是该判决积极的一面。B项利用上一段的bureaucratic proposals作干扰，该判决是否加强了“官僚作风”无法从原文得知。C项“回到了非法出租车的旧日子”过度推断，出租车随意收费只是管理不规范的表现，并非出租车不合法。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/jhmZ777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)