Anti-Uber activist Russell Howarth ordered to pay $400,000 in legal costs

An anti-Uber activist who was slapped with a court order banning him from intimidating and harassing drivers has been ordered to pay almost $400,000 in legal costs, in the final chapter of a protracted court battle.

Russell Howarth, a self-proclaimed anti-Uber advocate who performed citizen's arrests in a campaign against the ride-sharing service, was permanently restrained by the Supreme Court in April from threatening or harassing Uber drivers and users of the app.

Back in 2014, Russell Howarth was best known for carrying out his numerous citizen's arrests in his battle to bring the taxi industry's hi-tech rival, UberX, to heel.

Mr Howarth, an undischarged bankrupt, represented himself during the bulk of the proceedings while Uber was represented by three barristers including Sydney silk Bruce McClintock.

In a decision last week, Justice Michael Slattery ordered Mr Howarth to pay $391,152 in costs, representing about 60 per cent of Uber's total legal bill.

Russell Howarth has been hit with a $400,000 costs bill after a legal battle with Uber. Photo: Steven Siewert

Justice Slattery said the barristers' fees alone were $433,564 and it was a "single strong indicator" that the amount sought by Uber was "not excessive".

The solicitors' fees were an additional $195,651 and other costs were just over $30,000.

Mr Howarth rose to prominence through a series of stunts starting in 2014 in which he would book an Uber ride and, when the transaction was complete, perform a citizen's arrest of the driver for breaching the state's Passenger Transport Act.

The law was subsequently changed in NSW in late 2015 to legalise Uber and other ride-sharing services.

In his judgment in April, Justice Slattery noted that "not every contravention of the law that a citizen witnesses will authorise the conduct of a citizen's arrest".

He also said a contravention of passenger transport regulations was not a serious offence that would "readily attract the citizen's power of arrest".

Mr Howarth had not established that the arrests were necessary in the circumstances, Justice Slattery said, and he could have used his mobile phone to take videos of the drivers and their vehicle registration details to pass onto the police.

The court heard Mr Howarth performed nine citizens' arrests of Uber drivers, starting in late 2014, until the Supreme Court granted a temporary injunction in July 2015.

Justice Slattery said that while this "stopped the arrests" the "intimidation and harassment continued". This included an incident on the Anzac Bridge in August 2015 in which Mr Howarth followed an Uber driver at close range and "terrorised" him.

The court heard Mr Howarth asked the driver, "Don't you know who I am?"

"[The driver], who genuinely up until then had not heard of Mr Howarth's campaign against Uber, responded 'No,'" Justice Slattery said.

Justice Slattery granted a permanent injunction restraining Mr Howarth from intimidating or harassing Uber drivers and passengers, and restricting his ability to make citizen's arrests to cases involving a serious offence.

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2t2ZF26
via IFTTT

Anti-Uber activist Russell Howarth ordered to pay $400,000 in legal costs

Highways England trialling different variable speed limits

Anyone driving on the M3 last week may not have realised it but they were taking part in a secret test of variable speed limits. Highways England said that though it didn’t publicise the fact, it was testing an increase from 50mph to 55mph on the new smart motorway section in Surrey and Hampshire.

Highways England is trialling different variable speed limits for certain road conditions, such as roadworks, traffic congestion and accidents. If the tests are successful, we could be seeing more variety than the standard 50 mph usually imposed as a traffic speed management measure.

Secret tests

The test took place after the government asked Highways England to observe the impact of increasing the daytime speed limits on motorways, as drivers continue to complain that they are slow and causing delays that are often unnecessary.

The agency confirmed that the speed signs were changed from 50 to 55 mph for a short time as part of a new review of speed limits taking place around the country. Construction unions, however, are concerned by the move, saying that higher speeds could lead to more accidents involving road workers, especially at night.

Not so smart motorway

This was also the first sign that the new smart motorway was operating in its designed manner, after initially being opened as a smart motorway that wasn’t so smart – with the technology being switched on ‘shortly afterwards.’ The upgrade to a 13.4-mile section of the motorway from the M25 to Farnborough has added an extra lane and work was completed on time, with the extra lane operating for traffic as scheduled. However, the smart element of the motorway was running a little behind. This led to a 50mph speed limit being kept in place.

The smart motorway concept is said to give drivers better information about road conditions ahead of them and allow everyone to enjoy a smoother journey. It is also designed to add extra capacity, thereby improving journey times and making the motorways safer.

Cynics argue that smart motorways are “money-making roads” that contain speed cameras every few hundred yards to catch out drivers who break variable speed limits or the national speed limit. The government earned £1.1 million from smart motorway fines alone in 2015. That figure is growing by 20% annually as the smart motorway network expands and is estimated to reach £2 million a year  in earnings by 2018.

Benefits of variable speed limits

This isn’t the first time variable speed limits have been trialled on UK roads – a well publicised test on the M1 that limited the speed to 60mph is one example of a trial of the idea that has been paired with smart motorway technology.

One of the potential benefits of variable speed limits is the reduction in air pollution and therefore the easing of harmful emissions in the air from cars. The move is part of a series of steps that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has suggested to reduce the effects of air pollution on health across the UK.

There are around 25,000 deaths every year in England that cite air pollution as a contributing factor – around 5% of all deaths. The health watchdog has offered a series of measures it believes will help reduce this number.

Reducing pollution

Alongside variable speed limits on motorways, NICE also suggests promoting smoother driving, building homes further away from the road and adding hedgerows to help protect cyclists on cycle paths.

Speed bumps, a current favourite with local authorities, are less favourable, as there is a chance they increase emissions rather than reduce them. Another issue is the idea of ‘no-idling’ zones around schools to stop parents leaving their cars running while waiting to pick up children.

The idea of variable speed limits is that, in traffic, cars are accelerating and decelerating. This increases the amount of emissions. However, by limiting everything to 50-60mph, cars ideally proceed at a steady rate. Suggested times and locations for the measures include all the time on the M25, Sunday on the M4 and Friday evenings on the M1.

It seems that on the surface these changes are part of a wider plan to control traffic not only to ease congestion but to help the environment at the same time.

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2uWgjll
via IFTTT

No More Stalling From Mayor, As Department Of Transport Steps Up To The Oche.

It seems the recent row between Sadiq Khan and transport Secretary Chris Graylin has finally come to a head and been discussed in Parliament.

The Mayor has said that he doesn't have the power to cap the number of private hire vehicles being licensed to work in the London area. But Transport Secretary Chris Graylin says the mayor has never asked for the law to be amended giving Transport for London this power. Sadiq Khan argues he has asked.

But yesterday in Parliament, Theresa Villiers, Conservative MP for Chipping Barnet, asked the Secretary of State for Transport, what discussions he has had with the Mayor of London on the potential merits of reforming the law to give Transport for London the power to cap the number of private hire vehicle driver licences.

John Hayes, Minister of State (Department for Transport) said:

"There have been no discussions between the Secretary of State and the Mayor of London on reforming the law to give Transport for Londonthe power to cap the number of private hire vehicle driver licences. 

"The Mayor has recently written to the Secretary of State for Transport requesting this reform as part of a wider package of measures."

He went on to say that the department of transport will respond to the Mayor on this and the other matters raised in due course. 

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2tAPFPp
via IFTTT

GLA Unanimously Call On Khan Not To Renew Uber's Licence.

GMB -Brighton And Hove Taxi Section- Confirms, Uber Is Private Hire Operator.

Email sent to a considerably large list: 

Once again it appears we see that Uber are trying to escape the fact that they are blatantly a Private Hire Operator with insistence that they are a “Third party technology company”

However.. on May 2nd 2017 two Uber representatives attended the Brighton & Hove Taxi Trade Forum meeting:

These were:

•  Helen Fletcher - Senior Compliance & Litigation Counsel at Uber

•  Emilie Boman - Senior Public Policy Associate at Uber

The Brighton & Hove Taxi Trade representatives refused to acknowledge the presence of Uber at that meeting of May 2nd 2017 as being a legitimate trade representative .

This was based on a statement made by Mr Fed Jones  (Head of Cities for Uber) who was present  at a  previous Trade Meeting held in December 2016.

At that December meeting Mr Jones denied that Uber was a ‘Private Hire Operator’ insisting that it was a ‘Technology Company’.

At the meeting on May 2nd 2017 the trade read out a statement at the beginning of the meeting stating:

“Until ‘Uber Britannia Ltd’ concedes it is a ‘Private Hire Operator’ it will not be recognised by members of the BHTTFA.”

However the response from Helen Fletcher was.. as quoted in the councils own Minutes were:

“HF who was present as Uber’s lawyer / representative at the Forum meeting confirmed that Uber are a private hire operator in the Brighton and Hove area and are also licensed in 70 other jurisdictions in the UK”.

It is clear and evident that at the Brighton & Hove Taxi Trade Meeting on May 2nd 2017 Uber Britannia Ltd officially acknowledged that it was indeed a ‘Private Hire Operator’

If there is any necessity of proof that Uber Brittania Ltd is indeed a ‘Private Hire Operator’ then this evidence supplied directly from UBL itself should be used.

Andrew Peters

Secretary

GMB – Brighton & Hove Taxi Section

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2tUVslP
via IFTTT

Minimum Wage Threat To Minicab Firms Like Uber And Addison Lee