Should AI used in taxi and private hire vehilce industry be regulated before it goes too far?
- Perry Richardson
- 1 hour ago
- 3 min read

AI is starting to creep into nearly every part of the taxi and private hire trade. From dispatch to compliance, from customer complaints to pricing and matching, there’s growing interest in what artificial intelligence can do. But with that comes a serious question for taxi licensing councils and the Government: should there be clearer rules before algorithms start making decisions that affect drivers’ livelihoods?
There’s no doubt AI is useful. Apps can now predict demand, suggest busy spots, and optimise airport pickups better than ever. But when AI shifts from being a tool that helps to one that judges, the industry has every right to ask where the line should be drawn.
Take compliance algorithms. Some platforms now monitor everything from cancellations and rerouting to how many jobs a driver accepts. These numbers can be used to decide whether a driver stays on the platform, gets penalised, or flagged to licensing. But how reliable are these systems? A driver might cancel a ride for safety or because the passenger has broken the rules. If the algorithm doesn’t take that into account, the driver could be unfairly punished. Metrics are easy to game, and they don’t always tell the full story.
Then there’s complaints handling. Some companies have started using AI to deal with passenger reports. That might sound efficient, but it’s risky. Every job is different. A three-minute city hop isn’t the same as a 2am airport run. Context matters. AI can handle basic queries or spot trends, but it shouldn’t be left to decide if a driver should be suspended or reported. When a complaint could affect someone’s licence, there should always be a person making the call, not just a system ticking boxes.
Customer service is another area to watch. Chatbots are being rolled out to handle queries and disputes. That can help cut wait times, but it can also make it harder for drivers and passengers to speak to someone who can actually fix the issue. If the only way to get help is to go through an automated system that can’t understand your problem, then it’s not fit for purpose.
Transparency is key. Drivers should be told if decisions are being made or influenced by AI. They should be able to challenge it and get a proper response. Operators need to show how these systems work, what data they use, and what checks are in place. Councils could require this as part of licensing conditions or operating agreements.
There’s also the issue of bias. Systems trained on data from one part of the country might not work properly in another. What looks like non-compliant behaviour in London might be normal in a small rural town. That means testing models locally, checking for fairness, and making sure drivers aren’t penalised because the data doesn’t reflect real conditions on the ground.
Data privacy needs attention too. AI relies on data, and that can include location tracking, trip histories, even facial images. That information needs to be handled with care. Only what’s necessary should be collected, and it must be stored and used responsibly.
Councils have tools they can use. They could build AI checks into contracts for airport or station work, set minimum standards for systems that influence licensing decisions, and demand appeals processes that drivers can trust. National government could help by creating a framework that makes sure every area is working to the same baseline.
Ultimately, AI should support people, not replace them. It can make dispatch smarter, speed up routine checks, and spot problems faster. But when it comes to decisions that affect licences, livelihoods and reputations, the final say must still rest with trained humans who understand the job.
Before AI is let loose on more parts of the trade, now is the time to have that conversation. It’s better to get the rules right early than try to fix problems after drivers have been wrongly penalised or shut out without warning.