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."
The word "ludicrous" (Line 1, Para. 6) is closest in meaning to
选项 A、ridiculous.
B、rational.
C、significant.
D、negligible.
答案A
解析 第五段提到Addison Lee的首席执行官说判决是令人失望的(disappointing)，第六段列出史蒂夫.麦克纳马拉的说法，第七段段首用转折连词But引出商界的看法是支持(welcomed)这裁决的。由此可推知史蒂夫.麦克纳马拉的观点应该是与Addison Lee的首席执行官一致，与商界相反，故应该是反对这一裁决。A项“荒唐的”是贬义词，符合语义逻辑。B项“理性的”和C项“意义重大的”均为褒义词，故排除。D项“微不足道的”不符文意，若是微不足道，全文则不可能围绕法院的这一判决展开讨论。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/khmZ777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)