Melbourne Uber Drivers Slapped With $1700 Fines; Service Shuts Down

beaverdownunder (1822050) writes "Victoria Australia's Taxi Directorate has begun a crackdown on Melbourne Uber drivers, fining them $1700 each for operating a taxi service illegally, with total fines apparently equalling over $50000. In response, Uber has shut down its Melbourne service, and has refused to comment on whether its drivers will be compensated, since Uber told them they were providing a legal service. (Fined Uber drivers could take the company to the state's consumer tribunal: stay tuned!) Uber is set to meet with the Directorate next week but it is likely the demands the Directorate will place on Uber drivers, such as mandatory criminal record checks, vehicle inspections and insurance, will make the service in Melbourne unviable. Meanwhile, the New South Wales government is awaiting a report to determine if Uber drivers operating in that state are doing so illegally, warning that drivers could face substantial fines if they are found to have been operating in breach of the law. In South Australia, it doesn't even appear Uber will get off the ground — the state has made it clear that those who operate as an Uber driver will be driving without being covered by the state's mandatory insurance coverage, essentially de-registering their vehicle and making them liable for fines and license suspension."

Comments

Death sentence

[jrumney]

but it is likely the demands the Directorate will place on Uber drivers, such as mandatory criminal record checks, vehicle inspections and insurance, will make the service in Melbourne unviable.

Those aren't unreasonable demands of someone wanting to carry passengers for hire. They are checks that pretty much the entire Western world has come up with after numerous problems with unsafe, uninsured and unsavoury taxi drivers. If this is enough to make Uber unviable, then I wouldn't want to be one of their investors.

Re:Death sentence

[Threni]

Exactly. I'm surprised this is legal anywhere (well, any developed country). And was it not obviously in breach?

Users of `look-after-my-child-for-a-few-hours.com` better watch their backs!

Re: Death sentence

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you name the markets where Ãoeber complies with even those most basic requirements?

Re:Death sentence

[wonkey_monkey]

Users of `look-after-my-child-for-a-few-hours.com` better watch their backs!

I feed baby meat. Is good meat.

Also, baby's name is Piotr now. After my mother.

Re:Death sentence

[putaro]

Uber has different levels of service. This appears to be a crackdown on "UberX" which lets anyone drive for extra cash. There's also "Black Car" which uses limousine services (i.e. "Town Cars") which are licensed and insured. That probably remains legal unless there is some problem with them picking up fares anywhere.

We used Uber Black Car and regular taxis in San Francisco recently. San Francisco taxis have really gone to the dogs - we had one driver who did nothing except talk on the phone and swerved in and out of traffic. The limo drivers were much nicer, the cars were nicer and the price was about the same.

Re:Death sentence

[Charliemopps]

but it is likely the demands the Directorate will place on Uber drivers, such as mandatory criminal record checks, vehicle inspections and insurance, will make the service in Melbourne unviable.

Those aren't unreasonable demands of someone wanting to carry passengers for hire. They are checks that pretty much the entire Western world has come up with after numerous problems with unsafe, uninsured and unsavoury taxi drivers. If this is enough to make Uber unviable, then I wouldn't want to be one of their investors.

I'd agree with you on that. It would be different if this app was being used for car pooling or just to find someone else going to the museum today. But instead Uber and other companies like them have just turned it into a quasi-legal taxi service with full-time drivers. I'm not sure if I agree with the out-right ban on them. I'd prefer to see them forced to disclose information when you apply for the ride about their insurance, criminal history, etc... in the application.

Re: Death sentence

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought Unicode support was a basic requirement of a website in 2014...

Re:Death sentence

[CastrTroy]

What's really the difference between this and an online dating service though? You meet people online, some of them might turn out to be jerks or even dangerous. Use your own judgment. There already exist online systems where you can arrange carpools or split a ride with someone. Why does making the cars "for hire, at a profit" change the dynamic so much. In university we has a bulletin board (physical one) where you could post where you were going for the weekend or holidays, and people could check if anyone was going to the same place, and they could split the gas, or the owner of the car gets free gas and lunch, or whatever else the two parties decided was fair. This is basically an online version of something that has existed since car ownership became common place.

Re:Death sentence

[Nidi62]

What's really the difference between this and an online dating service though? You meet people online, some of them might turn out to be jerks or even dangerous. Use your own judgment. There already exist online systems where you can arrange carpools or split a ride with someone. Why does making the cars "for hire, at a profit" change the dynamic so much.

If you go to an "online dating service" where you meet a person and then pay them for a service rendered, that's pretty much changing the dynamic as much as you can (and would also be highly illegal in most places). Similarly, with Uber you aren't just meeting up and sharing a ride (where the most you would pay is for some gas), you are getting a service from the driver and paying them accordingly. Big difference between the 2.

Re:Death sentence

[ChunderDownunder]

Taxis in Victoria are regulated where each vehicle is licensed by paying tens of thousands of dollars to the state government.

In such an industry, freelancers won't be tolerated.

Re: Death sentence

[91degrees]

Yes, but in Slashdot land, it's still 1997.

Re:Death sentence

[Anonymous Coward]

So the answer is to swing the pendulum to the far opposite side and put people's lives and well-being in jeopardy?

Re:Death sentence

[spire3661]

Criminal record check is completely unnecessary. How are convicted felons ever going to find work if we put background checks on everything?

Re:Death sentence

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

It's not about safety checks and insurance. It's about established factions limiting competition.

Otherwise it's as easy as "Sure, I meet safety and insurance requirements! Gimme my license!"

Re:Death sentence

[CastrTroy]

So what if it's Craigslist and they sell me a TV/Stereo/Bike, and tell me to come to their house to pick up the item? I'm paying for a product in this case. If the goods end up stolen I may end up without anything. If there product isn't any good, I end up with little recourse. Sure, tha't's not a service, it's a physical item. What about dog grooming? That's a service. Your dog may end up with a bad haircut, or even injured/dead. What makes driving someone around such as special case or any other service? Sometimes the person you end up meeting up with is dangerous. Prepare yourself accordingly and take precautions.

Re:Death sentence

[bluefoxlucid]

In one of our most crime-riddled cities, we engage in the practice of slugging. This amounts to carpooling without speaking: a slug gets into your car and rides along the way, no conversation, no compensation, because you're going the way they want to go.

Mostly, this has lower risks than taking a taxi. I don't understand why; more rapes, assaults, and robberies happen in bona-fide taxi service. This offends the rational senses.

Re:Death sentence

[bluefoxlucid]

No, you let people decide if they care to. Uber hasn't been killed off by a string of murders and rapes; it's been killed off by politicians.

Re:Death sentence

[StripedCow]

It seems like more and more companies can't resist the temptation of going into illegal territory.
First Google, with their effort of scanning and publishing copyrighted books, publishing copyrighted videos.
Now also Airbnb and Uber.

Re:Death sentence

[bluefoxlucid]

In nearly half a million years of human evolution, some 10,000 year period was largely devoted to refining the human fist into an adequate substitute for a rock.

I was made prepared.

Re:Death sentence

[ChunderDownunder]

Catch a tram if you're too cheap to pay for a taxi. Use a designated driver rather than queuing for a taxi at 3am on a Sunday morning.

Re:Death sentence

[clarkkent09]

Exactly. In NYC a taxi licence costs one million dollars. Hardly about background check and vehicle inspection.

Re:Death sentence

[StripedCow]

Another problem is that taxi drivers are among the most violent professionals out there, using lots of aggression to protect their livelihood if they have to. Now, it wouldn't take too long before taxi drivers start "ordering" rides with Uber, just to harass or attack those Uber-users.

re: Death sentence

[Anonymous Coward]

> and would also be highly illegal in most places

Not really. Prostitution is generally legal.

Re:Death sentence

[Anonymous Coward]

Criminal record check is completely unnecessary. How are convicted felons ever going to find work if we put background checks on everything?

Uh, that's the idea. Then, when you disagree with the government in the future, they can give you a criminal record that prevents you from ever working again.

Re:Death sentence

[interkin3tic]

"Unviable" here means "They won't make the same profit margin they expected, which were based on skirting the laws." So yeah, you wouldn't want to be an investor.

The idea isn't totally dead if you start regulating it a bit. Smartphone apps to arrange rides opens up a middle ground between full-time professional taxi drivers and your friend taking you someplace that previously wouldn't work. You couldn't easily find someone who happened to be driving to the airport next week that had some extra space, you had to either beg someone to go out of their way or pay for a taxi at inflated rates (due to the city and airport taking a cut). The cat is already kind of out of the bag, I'm skeptical that the fight over ridesharing is one that cities and taxis are going to win in the long term.

Re:Death sentence

[CRCulver]

Free ridesharing is surely here to stay. However, considering that a lot of countries are slowly transitioning to a cashless economy, having more and more transactions proceed through electronic payments that can be easily tracked, I suspect it will be increasingly difficult for drivers to make any significant amount of money without at least declaring it in taxes. And if the tax office finds out about your work, so can other government regulatory agencies.

Re:Death sentence

[bill_mcgonigle]

What makes driving someone around such as special case or any other service?

Governments have people brainwashed into thinking that people can only drive with the bureaucrats' blessing and that they have deserve control over every aspect of motor vehicle operations.

It's very lucrative for those governments to have the people believe such things.

Re:Death sentence

[CanHasDIY]

What's really the difference between this and an online dating service though?

The fact that you don't pay your dates to go out with you.

Pretty sure Craigslist has been in some shit recently for that very reason.

Re:Death sentence

[Electricity Likes Me]

Yes heaven forbid we take preventative action before someone gets hurt.

Re:Death sentence

[CanHasDIY]

Criminal record check is completely unnecessary.

So.. you would have no problem with not knowing that the person who is "giving you a ride" was twice convicted of rape, and spent some time in the hokey for kidnapping?

How are convicted felons ever going to find work if we put background checks on everything?

While I concur that felony convictions are often used to continue to punish minor and non-violent offenders far beyond what would be considered reasonably, that doesn't mean that the concept of criminal background checks is "completely unnecessary," as evidenced by the question I posed above. Throwin' the baby out with the bathwater, that's what you're doing here.

Re:Death sentence

[Electricity Likes Me]

This is a concept a lot of people struggle with, but scale matters.

And perhaps moreover, every thing you described there is a function of it - in all those cases you're left with little recourse because the scale is too low to make most forms of it worthwhile. Hence eBay and PayPal really.

Re:Death sentence

[Anonymous Coward]

Users of `look-after-my-child-for-a-few-hours.com` better watch their backs!

Holy false equivalence, Batman!

Re: Death sentence

[russotto]

And the western world has gotten itself into a regulatory trap where now hiring a car for a short trip is relatively difficult and expensive, thank to all those 'reasonable' regulations. Meanwhile, look-after-my-kid-for-a-few-hours remains relatively cheap and effectively unregulated (usually a cash transaction involving underage workers, but nothing a politician would be worried about being caught doing).

Re:Death sentence

[Anonymous Coward]

Criminal record check is completely unnecessary.

So.. you would have no problem with not knowing that the person who is "giving you a ride" was twice convicted of rape, and spent some time in the hokey for kidnapping?

Has he been deemed fit to re-enter society, and is there a record of our transaction? If you think this man is still a danger then your problem is really with the criminal justice system.

Re:Death sentence

[Anonymous Coward]

Prepare yourself accordingly and take precautions.

As Colt Manufacturing used to advertise: "God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal"

Re:Death sentence

[Anonymous Coward]

Those aren't unreasonable demands of someone wanting to carry passengers for hire. They are checks that pretty much the entire Western world has come up with after numerous problems with unsafe, uninsured and unsavoury taxi drivers.

If these demands are so reasonable, then why do the taxi drivers need to legislate them? Wouldn't people choose them freely? You'd think so many people would die from unsafe Uber drivers that they should have gone out of business by now. Unless of course these checks don't protect us at all and simple deliver rent to a cartel.

And your point about the Western world is just an appeal to popularity based on laws passed decades ago. Every single law intended to solve an information asymmetry market failure needs to be re-evaluated now the internet is in everyone's pocket.

Re:Death sentence

[Minwee]

So.. you would have no problem with not knowing that the person who is "giving you a ride" was twice convicted of rape, and spent some time in the hokey for kidnapping?

And... are you okay with these people protecting you from rapists, murderers and convicted drunk drivers?

Re:Death sentence

[locust]

Most drivers in NYC don't own their medallions. They rent them from the actual owners.

That introduces a whole new dynamic into the taxi market, as now the artificial restriction of supply maintains a commensurately high value for the medallions. In that circumstance, the taxi commission ends up having the 'job' of maintaining the value of medallions.

This is not intentional of course, rather the natural consequence of monied individuals leaning on elected and appointed officials to protect their interest. In this circumstance, one can expect the public safety arguments to be used as a bludgeon.

However that doesn't make those arguments invalid. There are many people desperate enough drive uninsured, unsafe vehicles, or to put of maintenance because of cash flow issues.

Re:Death sentence

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, it's about the rate of return.

People figure that it's about 50 grand a year on a taxi medallion.

That's a big gain for folks.

Re:Death sentence

[CanHasDIY]

So.. you would have no problem with not knowing that the person who is "giving you a ride" was twice convicted of rape, and spent some time in the hokey for kidnapping?

And... are you okay with these people protecting you from rapists, murderers and convicted drunk drivers?

What do corrupt politicians have to do with criminal background checks of commercial drivers?

Aside an attempt at false equivalence, that is.

Re:Death sentence

[Charliemopps]

Uber could have easily made changes to their software that would have made local authorities all across the world a lot less likely to care but they didn't. Given an entrenched industry you're competing with an easy way to put you out of business and they will.

Re:Death sentence

[magarity]

Those aren't unreasonable demands of someone wanting to carry passengers for hire. They are checks that pretty much the entire Western world has come up with after numerous problems with unsafe, uninsured and unsavoury taxi drivers.

The problem is not that these are unreasonable demands, but that the entrenched taxi companies protect their monopolies with extremely onerous or even impossible licensing processes with the help of the government. It should be quick, easy, and inexpensive for anyone with a vehicle who wants to make some extra money via this type of service to show that they have insurance, a valid driver's license and a safety inspection any service station can do in 30 minutes. The overal state of the economy and people needing to make some income by being creative with things they already have (like a car) should be more important to society than protecting the local established taxi monopoly.

Re: Death sentence

[SvnLyrBrto]

Iâ(TM)ve lived in San Francisco since around a decade before Uber was even founded. And taxis were just as much crap then as they are now. The only difference is that Uber and Lyft are offering competitive options that provide a service that doesnâ(TM)t suck.

Thatâ(TM)s the particularly appalling thing about the taxisâ(TM) crusade against Uber and the like. They made their own bed by: pretty much never coming when and where you summon them; screaming bloody murder (and sometimes refusing entirely) if you ever want to goto, or be picked up in, the avenues; running various BS âoethe credit card reader is brokenâ scams; and often having their vehicles, or themselves, stink of smoke, vomit, or pee (There was even a bedbug infestation not long ago!). Now they need to just STFU and lie in that bed. If theyâ(TM)d offered a good service in the first place, Uber would never have had a niche to enter into the market.

Re:Death sentence

[Altus]

Actually the seem like they would be quite similar. While it might be fine for you to offer your services to your neighbor to take care of kids a web site that sets all that up and send someone to your house to take care of your kids would be subject to similar regulation that other daycare services are. Similarly Uber, it could be argued, should be subject to some of the same regulation that any other car for hire service is subject to.

Re:Death sentence

[bws111]

No, it should not be quck and easy to do that. Cities have too much congestion already. Limiting the number of cabs is a good thing, as it both limits the number of cars, and increases the cost of cars so that public transport is cheap in comparison. More people riding public transport lowers pollution, etc.

The second point is that most people do NOT have insurance that covers driving for hire. That insurance is considerably more expensive, and thus will raise the cost of a ride, probably to the point where it is no longer profitable (which is why Uber is saying having to do that would make the service 'not viable'.)

Re:Death sentence

[jklovanc]

How many Uber drivers tell their customers that they would be riding in an uninsured vehicle? How many Uber drivers even know their non-commercial insurance is void? Most people don't understand the legalities of commercial insurance.

Sometimes things need to be killed of by politicians before bad things happen.

Re:Death sentence

[Richy_T]

Sadly, I'm sure many jurisdictions require a license to be a dog groomer.

Re:Death sentence

[Richy_T]

Perhaps it could proceed through a process of "tipping". You pick someone up, take them where they want to go and at the end, they tip or not whatever they feel like.

The catch? The drivers can review past tipping actions of people and decide whether or not they are inclined to pick them up. I'm sure it can be gamed but I suspect it would possibly still work out well overall. It's possible to skip out on a cab fare too, after all.

Re:Death sentence

[jklovanc]

The major difference is insurance. Most Uber vehicles effectively have no insurance. The insurance on the vehicle is void because the vehicle is being used for commercial purposes. Say you get into an accident. Without insurance your only recourse is to sue the driver who has no assets and lots of debt. How is that going to help you pay the tens if not hundreds of thousandths in medical bills, lost wages, disability, etc? There is a huge difference between an injured/deceased pet and a seriously injured person.

Sometimes the person you end up meeting up with is dangerous. Prepare yourself accordingly and take precautions.

Many people see Uber drivers like taxi drivers but they are not if they have not gone through the proper checks. Uber wants you to think they are the same and that is how they present it. Also when you go to someone's house you know a very important piece of information; where they live. If something goes wrong they are easy to find. It is much harder with a vehicle arriving to pick you up. Sure you could write down the license plate but that may have been stolen.

Re:Death sentence

[bluefoxlucid]

You could walk outside and get hit by a bad driver under the same circumstances. Your own uninsured motorist insurance covers this, as well as the lack of insurance in situations you've described.

You're perceiving a risk much higher than actually exists. The only real risks are injury and crime. Injury falls onto personal medical insurance, personal uninsured motorist insurance, and so on, and besides has farther reaching implications than monetary cost; crime such as rape and murder occurs in regular commissioned taxis, and nobody has claimed it more prevalent on Uber-commissioned service.

The market pressure Uber causes provides positive benefit to society. Killing off Uber would cause bad things; which things are less bad?

Re:Death sentence

[jklovanc]

So you want to knowingly put vulnirable people in vehicles with a proven history of violence, sexual assault, robbery, etc.

How are convicted felons ever going to find work if we put background checks on everything?

There are two parts to this;
1. There are not background checks on every job. Just background checks on jobs that come into contact with vulnerable people. A taxi driver is a perfect example of where background checks are necessary. Women, children, elderly, and/or disabled people use taxis every day. They can be vulnerable to what ever the driver wants to do. A construction worker is an example where a background check is not necessary as they do not come into business contact with vulnerable people.
2. Maybe the felon should have though about the possible restrictions in job opportunities before he did the crime.

Re:Death sentence

[Anonymous Coward]

In reality the point is that a criminal sentence is served, and upon completion it should be forgotten.

If the issue is that we get commonly get repeat offenders then the punishment does not fit the crime and should be revised. That's the entire point of the criminal justice system. Criminals serve their punishment outside of normal society, when they are sent back to society it should be at a full equal rights level. Anything less is cruel and unusual.

Re:Death sentence

[bws111]

First, it is illegal to drive without insurance. Do people do it? Of course. Is it generally condoned by society? No. So why should it be OK for someone who wants to be a cab driver to drive without sufficient insurance?

Second, you do realize that everyone, through increased insurance rates, pays for the cost of those uninsured drivers, right? So why should all of society be forced to pay for to supposed 'right' of someone to drive an uninsured cab? I see no positive benefit to that at all.

Re:Death sentence

[jklovanc]

You could walk outside and get hit by a bad driver under the same circumstances. Your own uninsured motorist insurance covers this,

Uninsured mororist insurance is usually attached to a vehicle and not a person.

Injury falls onto personal medical insurance,

Personal insurance rates are set assuming almost all vehicles are insured and paying their insurance. When you get into a vehicle you personal insurance usually does not cover injuries sustained there as it is normally covered by the requires vehicle insurance.

nobody has claimed it more prevalent on Uber-commissioned service.

Yet. Uber has not been around very long. Predators will eventually see it as a fertile hunting ground since there are no background checks.

The market pressure Uber causes provides positive benefit to society.

The service itself also causes bad things. It is a risk/reward analysis. Without the regulation (insurance, background checks, inspections, licensing, etc) the risks are much higher in an Uber vehicle. What little reward is far outweighed by the risk.

Re:Death sentence

[bluefoxlucid]

First, it is illegal to drive without insurance. Do people do it? Of course. Is it generally condoned by society? No. So why should it be OK for someone who wants to be a cab driver to drive without sufficient insurance?

You argued the passenger may not know the driver does not have insurance.

So why should all of society be forced to pay for to supposed 'right' of someone to drive an uninsured cab?

,

Why should we force all of society to forgo the right to pay any person to drive them, without first having a third party validate the driver's insurance, driving record, criminal background, and mental state?

You assume the cab driver is uninsured. I assume the risk exists, and a person is deciding on that risk. When I call Yellow Cab Service for a traditional charter, I assume the risk that the cab driver might buttrape me--it happens--but we don't ban commercial taxi service.

Re:Death sentence

[radarskiy]

Clearly you should be performing your own background checks on your taxi drivers and should not expect the nanny sate to do that for you.

Re:Death sentence

[Noah Haders]

but uber already does background checks and requires insurance and provides additional insurance.

Re:Death sentence

[jopsen]

So.. you would have no problem with not knowing that the person who is "giving you a ride" was twice convicted of rape, and spent some time in the hokey for kidnapping?

If you do that in the US... They'll never let you out of prison.

Re: Death sentence

[Noah Haders]

yes, exactly correct. the thing I like best abut uber and lyft is that the drivers are pleasant people.

Re:Death sentence

[bluefoxlucid]

This insurance may protect you even if you aren’t in your car. For example, if you were hit by an uninsured motorist while driving another person’s vehicle, walking across the street or riding your bike, the bodily injury portion of your insurance may help with your expenses in a covered incident.

Just one example. Insurance is strange. If a thief steals your bicycle from your car while you're in another state, your auto insurer will direct you to your homeowner's policy. Your homeowner's insurance will cover your bicycle. Uninsured motorist insurance often covers you in all situations.

When you get into a vehicle you personal insurance usually does not cover injuries sustained there as it is normally covered by the requires vehicle insurance.

It's often covered by Guest PIP.

When you get into a vehicle you personal insurance usually does not cover injuries sustained there as it is normally covered by the requires vehicle insurance.

Begging the question: how do you know this? Slug Lines and slugging in general have gone on for a long time with minimal incident. What sets Uber apart, in terms of risk, from traditional slugging?

Re: Death sentence

[Mathinker]

GP> If you go to an "online dating service" where you meet a person and
GP> then pay them for a service rendered, that's pretty much changing the
GP> dynamic as much as you can (and would also be highly illegal in most places).

GP didn't specify what service was rendered, so I think we can safely say that the vast majority of services which could be rendered (which in and of themselves are not illegal) would be legal to render in this situation. Prostitution could be an exception. Helping someone copy their legally owned content which is protected by technological countermeasures is such an exception, in jurisdictions with DMCA-like laws.

Copyright maximalists might jump on this to compare pirates with whores, but personally, the only connection I think about between the DMCA and prostitution has something to do with, er, politicians...

Re:Death sentence

[jklovanc]

Uninsured motorist insurance often covers you in all situations.

This is from the link you posted;

if you were hit by an uninsured motorist while driving another person’s vehicle, walking across the street or riding your bike, the bodily injury portion of your insurance may help with your expenses in a covered incident.

All of the examples involve being hit by an uninsured motorist and not riding in an uninsured vehicle. Many insurance companies regard riding in an uninsured vehicle to be a choice and therefor do not cover injury while doing so. If the driver of the uninsured vehicle you are riding in is at fault the insurance will probably not cover it.

It's often covered by Guest PIP.

Guest PIP is only in no fault states and only as part of a valid insurance. If the insurance is voided by using a vehicle for commercial purposes when it is only insured for non-comercial purposes then PIP does not apply.

What sets Uber apart, in terms of risk, from traditional slugging?

1. Slugs don't pay so it is not a commercial venture which would nullify the non-commercial insurance.
2. Slugging is not a pickup and delivery service.

In effect a slug line is a free bus rather than a for pay taxi.

Re:Death sentence

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that more and more companies are responding to societies obvious wish to circumvent the middleman in rigged/govt protected industries.

Re:Death sentence

[bluefoxlucid]

I am not in a a no-fault state, yet I have $5000 Guest PIP.

Slugging is a free bus, yes. But Slugging involves a single driver--who may or may not have valid insurance or a valid license--carrying a single passenger. The driver is covered by no background check and no external registration service.

Your concern over insurance centers around collisions at fault of the driver. A collision at the fault of another driver covers an uninsured motorist and passengers through liability insurance. A collision at the fault of the driver which does not cause injury to the passenger would require no insurance coverage to protect the passenger. This particular risk is exceptionally low.

With both slugging and Uber, you risk riding with a driver who is any or all of uninsured, unlicensed, or criminal. With a taxi service, slugging, or Uber, you risk being injured in a collision or riding with a driver who is criminal. With a taxi service, your risk of no financial compensation in the event of injury is lower; all other risks are identical.

You have failed to differentiate the risk of slugging from the risk of Uber.

Re:Death sentence

[CanHasDIY]

So.. you would have no problem with not knowing that the person who is "giving you a ride" was twice convicted of rape, and spent some time in the hokey for kidnapping?

If you do that in the US... They'll never let you out of prison.

Do what? Have three violent felony convictions?

Oh, if only that were true... there would be no such thing as "repeat offenders."

Re:Death sentence

[Roblimo]

I don't know about you, but my car insurance policy (from The Hartford, through AARP) specifically states that it does *not* cover for-hire car use. Read your policy, and I expect it says something similar. When I had my limo service (note my Slashdot nickname) I had commercial insurance, and a minimum of $1 million instead of the $20,000 a cab was required to have. That $1 million policy cost me a lot less than a cab policy, because owner-operated limos are about the safest form of ground transport there is.

And when there are fines to be paid, Uber shows its true colors as it acts like the lowest form of taxi company and puts it all on the driver. I remember that bullshit from when I drove a cab in Baltimore.

The funny thing is, I think Uber is going to be very good for the livery car industry. When I started Robin's Limousine, Boston Coach was working hard to build their Baltimore operation. Customers asked me if I wasn't scared of them and their marketing muscle. "No," I said. "They're doing my marketing for me by selling the idea of a non-cab luxury transport service. All I have to do is be a little bit better and little cheaper, and I'll have the coolest customers. Like you. I notice you're riding with me and not Boston Coach."

I had a few friends, each with their own livery car or limo, and we covered for each other. The rule of the limo biz is that if you only have 2 customers, it won't be long before both of them need you at the same time, so you'd better team up with other reliable drivers.

One thing we did, by consensus, was *always* pop a small strip of red carpet for passengers getting in or leaving. That was quite the deal for proms and weddings, but we did it for transport jobs, too. George Clinton (the P-Funk dude) one told me that even though we charged less than most of our competition, he'd pay us extra (and believe me, he was a heavy tipper) because we were better at helping him make an entrance than any other limo company, ever.

If I hadn't moved off into writing (the limo company was taken over by my friend Charles, who still runs it), I might or might not join Uber today. But probably not. Once cell phones started giving you the first minute on incoming calls for free, I was cool on my own -- really in partnership with Charles. See, you called anyone else and you got an operator.flunky. Call us, and you got a boss. People like that. :)

 

Re:Death sentence

[Roblimo]

Exactly. And the Maryland Public Service Commission didn't blackball potential cab & limo drivers because they had criminal records. Violent crimes were the no-no for good reasons that most non- libbienuts understand.

Other crimes, you get an appeal hearing. Bring some friends who say you're a good person, wear decent clothes, have a drivers license with 2 points or fewer, don't call the hearing officer a motherfucker -- basic stuff like that, and they'd give you a license to carry passengers.

And the cab company garages? A den of criminals. I swear, the body shop/paint guys all smoked crack on their breaks. How do I know? They were nice people, offered to share with me. Plus they happily used company facilities and material for private "side" work. Which is how I got my wife's car painted for $20.... ...which was actually okay with the company. I ran the dispatch, and it was like a fringe bennie.

Re:Death sentence

[jklovanc]

I am not in a a no-fault state, yet I have $5000 Guest PIP

That $5000 is not going to help a lot if you are seriously injured and the medical bills are $100,000. What state by the way so I can check to see if what you say is true.

This particular risk is exceptionally low.

So being injured in an accident where the driver of the vehicle you are in is an exceptionally low risk. Even if it is a very low risk the fact that it could leave you penniless and disabled makes even a low risk something to be concerned with. The high consequences negate the low risk.

With a taxi service, your risk of no financial compensation in the event of injury is lower; all other risks are identical.

The risk of no financial compensation should be enough. The other risks are also lower with taxis die to background checks and licensing. Background checks mean fewer felons driving. A taxi drivers and/or company can have their licenses pulled for too many complaints. Not so for Uber drivers and Uber itself as they have no license to pull.

You have failed to differentiate the risk of slugging from the risk of Uber.

One major issue is that Uber looks very much like a taxi service while slugging looks completely different. People who use Uber can be easily duped into thinking it has the same protections as a taxi when it does not.

Re:Death sentence

[Roblimo]

Yep. Those overpriced medallions are why NYC has a strong gypsy cab business, some licensed and some not. Don't believe me? Call a cab by phone, and you will NOT get a yellow car. You'll get a black one. Or maybe white. Depends on the company. And if a hotel doorman or concierge makes the call, you can bet he hit the driver up for 10% or 15%, just like he's a mini-Uber.

Re:Death sentence

[Roblimo]

In Baltimore, you had (and maybe still have) "hack clubs" that were groups of (generally older) black men who would pick you up at the store with your bags or run other short errands cab drivers didn't want. The fare was always "whatever you feel like paying," a dodge that kept them from legally being cabs. Sort of. And if you shorted a driver, you'd go on the hack club list of bad fares, and they'd never pick you up again.

Re:Death sentence

[Carnildo]

Criminal record check is completely unnecessary. How are convicted felons ever going to find work if we put background checks on everything?

You make the background check appropriate for the job. For example, I don't want a taxi driver who's been convicted of mugging or drunk driving, but I don't care if he's got a past as an embezzler. Conversely, I don't care if my accountant spent his teenage years knocking over convenience stores for drug money, but a history of embezzlement is unacceptable.

Re:Death sentence

[gnoshi]

You may have missed that Victoria is currently changing taxi regulation to increase the number of available licenses (so that you don't get price inflation due to rarity) and making it easier for people to provide pre-booked hire cars.
Look at:
Changes to hire cars
Victorian Taxis are changing for the better
These were off the back of the report by (Prof.) Allan Fels, previous head of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

Re:Death sentence

[gnoshi]

People with a criminal record are statistically more likely to engage in criminal activity than people without a criminal record.
Putting background checks on everything would be a terrible idea, and treating all crimes as equivalent when performing background checks would be a pretty poor idea too. However, we can't pretend that having a criminal record doesn't have any predictive power either.

Re:Death sentence

[mjwx]

but it is likely the demands the Directorate will place on Uber drivers, such as mandatory criminal record checks, vehicle inspections and insurance, will make the service in Melbourne unviable.

Those aren't unreasonable demands of someone wanting to carry passengers for hire. They are checks that pretty much the entire Western world has come up with after numerous problems with unsafe, uninsured and unsavoury taxi drivers. If this is enough to make Uber unviable, then I wouldn't want to be one of their investors.

I think the bigger problem is that with Uber, you could be getting into a car with anyone, even a potential rapist and above that they have no idea where they are actually going.

Wait... that sounds just like a normal Melbourne taxi.

In all seriousness, a taxi drivers license (for the person, not the car) and a certificate of insurance (private car insurance does not cover your vehicle as a commercial passenger vehicle) should be minimum, beyond that let the service operate how it likes (within the bounds of the law and good faith).

Re:Death sentence

[mjwx]

Criminal record check is completely unnecessary. How are convicted felons ever going to find work if we put background checks on everything?

OK, things in Oz work a bit different.

Getting caught with a bit of pot is a misdemeanor, not a felony over here. The enforcement registry will issue you with a small fine and you can opt just to pay it if you dont want to go to court and have a judge brow beat you.

Hell, getting caught with a lot of pot is still just a minor crime, "intent to sell or supply" which will require a court appearance, but not a felony conviction. You've got to be caught with a lot of MDMA to get properly busted with a lasting record.

A lot of crimes aren't put on your permanent record or are wiped off after a certain number of years.

So having a conviction for a white collar crime like fraud or intent to sell and supply wont hurt you. Having a conviction for armed robbery or a DVO (Domestic Violence) will.

Background checks only weed out the worst of the worst here in Oz... This is especially obvious given the "quality" of Australian taxi drivers. I always know I'm back in Australia when the driver speaks proper Arabic.

Re:Death sentence

[Anonymous Coward]

I had commercial insurance, and a minimum of $1 million instead of the $20,000 a cab was required to have. That $1 million policy cost me a lot less than a cab policy, because owner-operated limos are about the safest form of ground transport there is.''

I found that funny, because how many limos do you see speeding around, cutting off other drivers, smashing into curbs, posts, mail collection boxes, other parked cars? On the other side of that, drivers some reason react differently to a limo around them as opposed to a taxi. I'm not sure if their afraid to get dinged by a limo or if their afraid to ding up the limo.

I know I would rather take my chances getting stuck behind a fast moving Taxi, then some a-hole [not intended to be offensive] limo driving as if he is delivering fresh eggs to the market.

Re:Death sentence

[ras]

but it is likely the demands the Directorate will place on Uber drivers, such as mandatory criminal record checks, vehicle inspections and insurance, will make the service in Melbourne unviable.

Those aren't unreasonable demands of someone wanting to carry passengers for hire. They are checks that pretty much the entire Western world has come up with after numerous problems with unsafe, uninsured and unsavoury taxi drivers. If this is enough to make Uber unviable, then I wouldn't want to be one of their investors.

You sound oh so reasonable. Pity you didn't mention that currently the only recognised way of having those checks is to buy a taxi licence. That licence costs around $30,000 per year.

It is the $30K per year that would make UberX unviable. It has no relationship to the cost of doing those checks. I have no doubt Uber will go to the and say "Look, sure, we can ask the drivers to send us the relevant certificates before we allocate them jobs. A roadworthy (which is what we in Australia call a vehicle inspection) is around $100, and they can sends us the paid insurance bill." The answer will be a resounding no, at which point is will be become obvious it has nothing do to with "safety checks".

One possible explanation of the $30K is it is protection money, charged by the government to protect the incumbents. Who, by the way, meet the definition of a monopoly. Quoting http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/apps-put-nsw-taxi-monopoly-in-doubt-20121102-28nv6.html:

University of Sydney economist Peter Abelson said Premier and Cabcharge were so interlinked that "it's not really a duopoly, it's almost a monopoly and between them they control about 80 per cent of the cabs on Sydney streets".

A government fining emerging competition to an incumbent monopoly, presumable because of regulatory capture doesn't sound so reasonable, does it? In fact it pisses me off so much, I deliberately travel using these upstarts even if it is less convenient, which it often is.

Re: Death sentence

[Anonymous Coward]

In the Australian state referred to in the article, that's because the same government will pick up the tab for the entire cost of medical care in the case of an accident. For anyone. Unregistered, unlicensed, uninsured. That's the trade off socialised health care makes, and it works for me.

Re:Death sentence

[bluefoxlucid]

Maryland. Not a no-fault state. PA is.

So being injured in an accident where the driver of the vehicle you are in is an exceptionally low risk. Even if it is a very low risk the fact that it could leave you penniless and disabled makes even a low risk something to be concerned with. The high consequences negate the low risk.

When you eat at any restaurant, you potentially consume food which was handled unsafely. The prep chef may have cut himself on a knife, and you could contract HIV from the food. Even if it is a very low risk, the fact that it could leave you penniless and disabled makes even a low risk something to be concerned about. Never eat food that you haven't cooked thoroughly and, if possible, exposed to gamma radiation.

The risk of no financial compensation should be enough. The other risks are also lower with taxis die to background checks and licensing. Background checks mean fewer felons driving.

Real-world data disagrees. Most crimes committed in this way are by people who have no previous arrest history relevant to the crime. For example: rapes often go unreported; many rapists have criminal histories including misdemeanors (graffiti, etc.) but not rape.

One major issue is that Uber looks very much like a taxi service while slugging looks completely different. People who use Uber can be easily duped into thinking it has the same protections as a taxi when it does not.

Most people accept taxi services because everyone else accepts taxi services. Your own argument supports this: most people are unaware that commercial driving involves special insurance, and are thus unaware of the loss of that insurance in certain cases. Slugging looks like a cheap ride; so does Uber.

Re:Death sentence

[jklovanc]

The prep chef may have cut himself on a knife

1. HIV can not be transmitted by food. 2. The incidence of anHIV food prep person cutting themselves and bleeding on food are a few orders of magnitude less likely than getting into an accident as a passenger. 3. Your scenario would be an accident and may even be covered by insurance. Not holding insurance is a choice and therefore very different.

Real-world data disagrees.

References please. Then why do we have background checks for anyone? The reason is that, though it may not eliminate the threat, it will decrease the threat because it eliminates people who have proven themselves a risk. I am not saying the risk is 0 but it is lower.

most people are unaware that commercial driving involves special insurance, and are thus unaware of the loss of that insurance in certain cases.

That is not what I said. I said most people know taxis have commercial insurance but don't know that many uber drivers don't. They don't even think about slug drivers needing insurance because since no money changes hand it is not commercial. They equate Uber with taxi when it is not.

Slugging looks like a cheap ride; so does Uber.

Slugging is a free ride. Uber is a cheap ride that looks like a taxi. By the way slugging is not widely known and only happens in a few cities. I don't understand how you don't see the difference between slugging and Uber. Slugging has no dispatch service, does not have requested end points and does not charge. It is very different than taxis and Uber who do all that.

Re:Death sentence

[bluefoxlucid]

1. HIV can not be transmitted by food.

I mentioned cutting himself with a knife. HIV virons present in saliva are below the threshold of infection; HIV virons present in blood are not, and infection may occur.

3. Your scenario would be an accident and may even be covered by insurance.

You would still have HIV.

That is not what I said. I said most people know taxis have commercial insurance but don't know that many uber drivers don't.

This has never been a thing anyone I know has ever thought about. It's commonly accepted that you will sue the cab company in the event of incident. If the person is an individual, you can sue them; they may not have money to pay the lawsuit. Americans, at least, understand that businesses have unlimited money and can be forced to give you some of it.

It would make more sense, by the way, for cab companies with large fleets to *not* have insurance. Because the company has liability, the risk is spread across its entire fleet, and backed by the profit of all its operations. The cost of liability should be lower than the cost of insurance; if it is not, then the insurance agency will soon file bankruptcy. This is corrected by increasing premiums; sans-insurance, a cab fleet would require rates high enough to maintain funds on hand to cover that risk, which is an actual regulation in Europe (businesses are required to show their risks, their risk management plans, and funds to cover their managed risks when things go wrong).

By the way slugging is not widely known and only happens in a few cities. I don't understand how you don't see the difference between slugging and Uber. Slugging has no dispatch service, does not have requested end points and does not charge. It is very different than taxis and Uber who do all that.

Taxis can come to a place. This is not a risk.

Taxis involve paying money. This is a monetary risk of obvious magnitude (five bucks, twenty bucks, etc.).

Taxis involve getting into an unknown vehicle with an unknown individual. This is an identical risk to Uber and to Slugging. Taxis control this risk with background checks and traceability; Uber controls this risk with traceability; Slugging may or may not be traceable.

All services carry the risk of bodily injury in collision. All systems control this risk by using licensed drivers (which leaves the risk of fraud: fake license, stolen tags) and by vehicular safety systems (airbags, seat belts). Consumers control this risk via lawsuit, with the assumption that a large business has money, and by personal medical insurance, with the assumption that they're covered for injury. In many cases, consumers also control this risk via uninsured driver insurance, if they have auto insurance. These risk controls only address monetary risk; they do not address the risk of death or decreased quality of life.

Re:Death sentence

[jklovanc]

HIV virons present in blood are not, and infection may occur.

HIV survives for very short times outside the human body even in blood. Here is a quote from the CDC;

Except for rare cases in which children consumed food that was pre-chewed by an HIV-infected caregiver, HIV has not been spread through food. The virus does not live long outside the body. You cannot get it from consuming food handled by an HIV-infected person; even if the food contained small amounts of HIV-infected blood or semen, exposure to the air, heat from cooking, and stomach acid would destroy the virus.

This is an identical risk to Uber and to Slugging. Taxis control this risk with background checks and traceability;

You just contradicted yourself. Risks with less controls are higher risk. As for tractability, all Uber has is a cell phone number which could be a burner phone.

Consumers control this risk via lawsuit

which is useless agains a driver with no money and no insurance.

uninsured driver insurance, if they have auto insurance.

Which may not cover being a passenger in an uninsured vehicle and may not pay much at all.

You miss the whole point
Most people can not tell the difference between a taxi and Uber and think they are taking the same risk when they are not.

Re:Death sentence

[bluefoxlucid]

You just contradicted yourself. Risks with less controls are higher risk.

No. Risks of the same type are identical. Management techniques change the risk.

Risk management terminology is annoying. A thing which may become a risk event is a risk. Risk is a measure of the probability and severity of a risk event. These are different things.

For example: A hard disk crash is a risk. The probability of a hard disk failing in a 5 year period is 50%. The severity of this risk is loss of data. In 5 years, you have a 50% risk of loss of data. Hard disk failure is your risk; a 50% risk of loss of data can be quantified as 0.5 * DATA_VALUE, which tells you how much risk this risk represents. This measure is not "how much hard disk failure", yet this measure and "hard disk failure" are both called risk.

You can reduce the probability of failure by adding RAID-5 with hot spare. The theoretical risk of a RAID-5 array failing completely in a short window is higher, but the risk crowds around the EOL of the drives (risk scales with age for hard drives, as they wear). Likewise, back-ups reduce the severity of loss to the severity of limited downtime.

The risks between Uber and Taxis are the same. The way those risks are managed--adjustments to their probability and severity--differ, and thus the amount of risk differs. Swimming in a 15 foot deep pool carries the same risk as swimming in a 30 foot deep pool: you may drown. In a 30 foot deep pool, people will have difficulty swimming down to you: the risk is greater, but it's the same risk.

Which may not cover being a passenger in an uninsured vehicle and may not pay much at all.

Some google research invalidates this whole discussion anyway: You're covered by more insurance under Uber than you are in a traditional taxi. $1 million coverage if your Uber driver rams into a wall because he's retarded and drunk.

Re:Death sentence

[NulDevice]

Where I'm living, we're having some controversy with Uber and Lyft and the taxis. We do *not* have the super-high license costs of NY or even Victoria, and most cabbies own all their licenses. Most of our cab companies are employee owned, as well.

The regulations we do have, though: criminal background checks, commercial insurance, requirement of training to support the disabled (and subsequent participation in subsidized transport programs for the disabled), 24/7 operation (for the company, not individual cabbies), and required service to the entire city.

Both Uber and Lyft started operating here without any of those requirements being met, so the city said "um, no." Lyft sent a rep (who was not from their legal team, just a sales rep or...something) to a town hall meeting about it whose primary argument was "we're not a cab company, so it doesn't apply to us." The city's argument was "not directly, but you're operating like a cab company, so you're subject to our regulations." And back and forth it goes.

I'm not entirely sure who's right (although the whole "hey look you can't just skip picking up disabled people" part seems kind of important) but what does strike me as distasteful and a little sketchy is that nobody from either company either researched any of this before they started operating, or if they did, they didn't bother to have a discussion with the city beforehand. Seems like due diligence, and they probably could've gotten an exception if they'd made their case beforehand (there are enough tech-friendly alderpeople to lobby on their behalf) but unfortunately the shoot first, ask questions later methodology set up a lot of ill-will.

It's just weird that they're working that way.

Re: Death sentence

[Laxori666]

How does an apostrophe turn into "â(TM)"?

Re:Death sentence

[spiralx]

Maybe partly because as soon as money is bought into the equation, people become less moral.

Re:Death sentence

[bluefoxlucid]

Well you won't live long if you can't make a water decision.

Re:Death sentence

[spiralx]

I have no idea what you mean by that...

Re:Death sentence

[bluefoxlucid]

You must make a water decision, friend.

Re:Death sentence

[spiralx]

Still not quite sure how that applies to the topic, but it has reinforced that my decision to stop reading Dune about 20 pages in was the right one :)

Re:Death sentence

[lonecrow]

Only $1 million policy? Was that a long time ago? Maybe it is because I am in Canada but around here a normal household car will carry $2 million and if your driving other peoples kids as part of a volunteer thing like School field trips then $5 million is required.

$1 million for a limo company sounds pitifully low especially for litigious USA.

Re:Death sentence

[bluefoxlucid]

It wasn't a great book. It was okay; The Gap Cycle still holds top contender by a wide margin over anything else I've ever read. (Yes, The Real Story is terrible; yes, you need to read it--one of the characters is not believable until you've read TRS.)

Re:Death sentence

[spiralx]

I enjoyed the Gap Cycle, but I'm not sure I'd re-read it.

Re:Death sentence

[bluefoxlucid]

I've re-read it. I really didn't care to re-read the first but I did; the second was way better on re-read.

Have you read Age of Misrule? I opened up debate with the author about order of reading, and he immediately said some of the later books can be read out-of-order for more/different/better meaning. For example: you can skip to trilogy 3 book 1 right after the end of trilogy 1, and it continues trilogy 1 directly; trilogy 2 encounters some things that follow trilogy 3 book 1, but precede trilogy 3 book 2.

He also flushed a tad when I found a character bleeding out of his mechanical hand. Forgot his hand was metal.

Re:Death sentence

[spiralx]

I've read the first two trilogies, got lost along the way after that... will have to pick them up again at some point if the third actually continues the first trilogy. It's been quite a few years though.

Re:Death sentence

[bluefoxlucid]

It continues both. The story is a long and complex epic, like The Gap Cycle; it's more philosophical to a point, and focuses on individual struggles more than the forceful progression of the grand story. The greater story grows and shapes the characters by degrees.

Re:Death sentence

[spiralx]

Cheers for reminding me, I shall put it on my list of books :)

Re:Death sentence

[bluefoxlucid]

Don't forget Gateway by Fredrick Pohl. The audiobook reading by Oliver Wyman is excellent; his performance adds to the telling, rather than simply the convenience.

Re:Death sentence

[metrix007]

It kind of is, since if someone is released they are meant to be considered rehabilitated.

Why release them back to society if they are not going to be given a fair chance?

Re:Death sentence

[CanHasDIY]

It kind of is, since if someone is released they are meant to be considered rehabilitated.

Why release them back to society if they are not going to be given a fair chance?

Exactly - not to mention, part of the whole point of a punitive justice system is that you commit a crime, you serve your punishment, then you get to go back to being a full-fledged member of society. Giving non-violent, non-repeat offenders a lifetime black mark just means that they never really stop serving their time, and that is absolute bullshit to those of us who have a sense of what the word "justice" actually means.

Interfering regulations ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Criminal checks, insurance, vehicle checks .. what is the world coming to when you can't just get in some random fscked up car with an uninsured criminal ?

Re:Interfering regulations ..

[91degrees]

Actually you can. They're just not allowed to charge you for it.

Re:Interfering regulations ..

[ChunderDownunder]

Not even.

Hitch-hiking is illegal here in Victoria.

Re:Interfering regulations ..

[CRCulver]

While the status of hitchhiking in Victoria is disputed (the wording of the law is no different from many countries where hitchhiking is considered legal, and the police don't enforce it anyway as hordes of foreign travellers in Oz can tell you), the OP may have been referring to rideshare websites or bulletin boards where people exchange free lifts, not actually standing along the road.

Re:Interfering regulations ..

[clarkkent09]

You can, nobody is stopping you. But if he charges you for it he will be encroaching on the taxi drivers' turf and cutting the city out of its share of the loot and for that he will be fined and/or imprisoned.

Occupational licencing in almost every case is nothing but a racket to artificially limit the number of practitioners and keep the prices high and to collect a tax by a different name. At least you can make a bogus safety argument when it comes to driving, but what about hairdressers, photographers, interior designers etc etc all of whom require a licence in many jurisdictions and who have to pay the city or the state an annual hefty fee in addition to taking useless courses and passing tests (more fees) in order to be able to work, despite the fact that many other jurisdictions don't have those requirements with provably zero ill effects. 1 in 3 Americans today are not allowed to work in their profession without a government license.

Re:Interfering regulations ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah ... shine on you crazy diamond!

time to accept bitcoin!

[Anonymous Coward]

this would be a good distributed autonomous corporation

The historical cycle

[hessian]

Step 1:

Get rid of all regulation.

Free market, yo.

Step 2:

A young girl is murdered and rape in a cab in a horrific fashion.

The democracy demands solutions!

Step 3:

Regulate. When that doesn't work, regulate some more.

Step 4:

Prices are high and a de facto exclusive license exists. People notice this is bad and want deregulation.

Re: The historical cycle

[Anonymous Coward]

If it moves, regulate it. If it's still moving tax it. If it stops moving, subsidize it...

Re: The historical cycle

[Anonymous Coward]

This sounds crazy.. as in "there is no point". There is a reason it works this way though.

Before this three step process the best and brightest win the majority of business. After this three step process the government picks the winners.

Re: The historical cycle

[Brulath]

The best and the brightest, or the most sociopathic? Like many political ideas - most noteworthy being communism - they sound good when you think about them on a local scale, where everyone knows everyone else personally, but once you start adding in layers of detachment the rules break down very quickly; the "best and the brightest" aren't likely to win very often when fighting sociopaths.

Re: The historical cycle

[fredprado]

Sorry, but the most sociopathic are busy being the government.

Re: The historical cycle

[Racemaniac]

and ceos and religious leaders and [fill in random position with a lot of power]

Re: The historical cycle

[Anonymous Coward]

and ceos and religious leaders and [fill in random position with a lot of power]

Except democracy actively selects for charismatic sociopaths. CEOs, at least those who've built companies from scratch, generally have to actually be able to do something useful too.

Re: The historical cycle

[fredprado]

True, some CEOs are sociopaths (Steve Jobs is the textbook example), but they do not have the power to arrest and kill you (at least not yet). This may change if people pushing for an even bigger government get their way, though...

Re:The historical cycle

[Khashishi]

I always thought that taxi regulation had nothing to do with safety or training and everything to do with limiting the supply of taxis.

Re: The historical cycle

[Anonymous Coward]

Or if people pushing for an even smaller government get their way.

Well, actually, they already have the power, easily. It's that somebody else will stand in their way for it.

Re: The historical cycle

[fredprado]

Nope, the smaller the government the less power corporations have. It has always been this way and it will always be like so.

Re:The historical cycle

[grumpyman]

Right on the money. +++++

Re: The historical cycle

[Roblimo]

"they do not have the power to arrest and kill you..." they used to, before unions. Now the loons are getting rid of the working people's only real voice, wages are dropping, and I suspect that it's only a matter of time until they can kill you again!

Oh, wait.... didn't BP kill 11 workers because they skated safety regs? And mine owners got a bunch of miners killed not long ago? And a Texas company blew up half a town?

Did any of the execs involved in these killing go to prison? No? so they have the power to kill you. Arrest, no. Unless they can get local LEO to help. But yeah, they can kill you, and all that might happen is a company fine that doesn't come out of the criminal executives' pockets.

Ain't America grand? :)

Re: The historical cycle

[fredprado]

No, they never did. Not obeying safety regulations is not killing. You have the choice to not do anything that is harmful to you, even if the cost is your job. Nobody can force you to work for them. A job is a consensual agreement.

The government has the power to imprison and kill you, though. And the more power you give to the government to do this, regardless of the justifications, the more the corporations can buy this power.

Back on the topic of regulations, more people are dead or living lives in poverty because of safety regulations or any other kind of regulation than all people that have died because of the lack of such regulations.

Re:The historical cycle

[david_thornley]

Typically the young girl has to be light-skinned, blonde, and with blue eyes to get maximum legislative response. The girl doesn't have to be all that good-looking, but the Nordic look seems important.

Re: The historical cycle

[hessian]

Like many political ideas - most noteworthy being communism - they sound good when you think about them on a local scale, where everyone knows everyone else personally, but once you start adding in layers of detachment the rules break down very quickly; the "best and the brightest" aren't likely to win very often when fighting sociopaths.

Maybe we need to localize then. Divide up into units of 150 people and make those part of a pyramid all the way up to someone at top.

If only there was some system of government in history that had done this...

Re:The historical cycle

[ignavus]

Step 4:

Prices are high and a de facto exclusive license exists. People notice this is bad and want deregulation.

Your Step 4 is the status quo in Australia (well, Sydney, at least).

Taxis have been a highly regulated monopoly for decades. No "historical cycle". No steps 1, 2 or 3.

Enough warning?

[axlash]

I wonder if the directorate gave the drivers enough of a heads up before the crackdown; if not, that would seem a rather harsh move.

Re: Enough warning?

[Anonymous Coward]

How much warning to stop breaking the law is "enough"? It is, by definition, something you should never have started. Why should they give any warning at all?

Re: Enough warning?

[fredprado]

Considering the size and number of laws and regulations that exist in all countries these days, chances are you break a few of them quite often too.

Re: Enough warning?

[ChunderDownunder]

It's up to the individual to do due diligence before commencing any such venture.

Operating an underground taxi should set off warning bells such as 'do I need government accreditation?'

Re: Enough warning?

[fredprado]

Well, it shouldn't as in many many laws that are completely counter intuitive. It makes no sense at all to regulate this kind of business and this kind of artificial restriction of offer harms the population far more than it protects them.

Re: Enough warning?

[Anonymous Coward]

Regulations such as not allowing uninsured drivers to operate a taxi service harms the population exactly how?

Re: Enough warning?

[fredprado]

In the exact same way people can drive anybody except when they are charging for it.

Re:Enough warning?

[gnoshi]

April 25th, from an article in a major newspaper..

The Victorian transport minister has warned off people from driving others around for a fee in their own car using a new "ride-sharing" feature in the smartphone app Uber.

"The TSC is currently investigating this practice and will take appropriate action if such activity is detected in Victoria," Mr Mulder's spokeswoman said. "All taxi and hire car drivers go through a rigorous accreditation process before they are allowed to drive a taxi or hire car – this is for both the safety of drivers and passengers.

On the face of it, Mr Samuel believed that Uber was not complying with the Victorian public transport legislation.
"If they are not complying with the law we'll prosecute," he said.
To comply, Mr Samuel said Uber would need to obtain a $40,000 private hire car licence for unlimited vehicles and have accredited drivers.

I'd say that was sufficient warning.

Re:Enough warning?

[mjwx]

I wonder if the directorate gave the drivers enough of a heads up before the crackdown; if not, that would seem a rather harsh move.

There were several weeks.

This (so far) has only happened in the state of Victoria but I knew about it here in Perth, Western Australia, when the Vic government first announced it. So not exactly a secret.

Not that I agree with it, but the Vic gov did it properly.

Re: Enough warning?

[Anonymous Coward]

Counterintuitive is not the same as your "you break lots of laws without realising it". Everybody knows what a taxi looks like. They're the cars that charge for rides with lights and licenses and obvious paint jobs. It's not a huge intellectual leap to "no license, no charge for ride...".

But since you ask, I may indeed break many laws without realising it. In fact, that happens so often that there's an axiom about it: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"

Re: Enough warning?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ignorantia juris non excusat" - Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Somebody should try to read every law in a country some day. Check the time, start reading. Measure how long it takes to read them all.

That is the burden of "Ignorantia juris non excusat", every citizen should read every law.

With apologies to Pink Floyd

[Sarten-X]

We don't need no regulation
We don't need no quality control
No background checks in the taxis
Melbourne leave those cars alone
Hey, Melbourne, leave those cars alone!
All in all it's just another car on the road
All in all you're just another car on the road

Re:With apologies to Pink Floyd

[Anonymous Coward]

You changed too many words.

"
All in all it's just another car in the wall
"

Works just fine.

Re:With apologies to Pink Floyd

[Sarten-X]

I'm not even sure what I'm trying to say. Reading TFS, "We don't need no regulation" came into my head, and the rest just followed.

Refine as you like to suit your taste.

Uber drivers are wanted for treason.

[Anonymous Coward]

They will be hanged at sundown. Get your tickets while they last.

Why does the AU gov hate fun?

[Anonymous Coward]

Their video game ratings system is constantly banning awesome games. Now they're missing out on a great car service. I love Uber.

A Solution

[neoshroom]

>such as mandatory criminal record checks, vehicle inspections and insurance

Allow drivers to send those in via taking pictures of them with their phones. Have the drivers maybe pay a small fee to get some kind of background check on their driving records which the DMV should have anyway (instead of a criminal background check, which does't seem relevant). Problem solved.

Re:A Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

A criminal background check could be relevant .. no one wants a rapey driver.

Re:A Solution

[GameMaster]

What in the world makes you think a criminal background check isn't relevant? You want convicted sexual predators driving taxis around? How about people that have been convicted of fraud? You want them being responsible for operating the meter in an honest manner? There are enough issues with slimy/fraudulent practices in taxis services as it is, now you want to do away with the criminal background checks entirely? You're nuts.

Also, you seem to have completely ignored the third issue at stake here: insurance. Personal auto insurance != commercial auto insurance. The moment your insurance company finds out you were driving people around for profit at the time of your accident they will, completely legitimately, refuse to pay out any claims. While it's completely fine that you don't get paid after committing insurance fraud (which IS what you're doing when you violate your CLEARLY WRITTEN insurance contract to drive for profit) the important thing here is that anyone you've hurt (such as your fares and/or whatever/whoever you hit) are now left with no way to be compensated unless they can squeeze the money out of you. Since it's unlikely that people like Warren Buffet or Donald Trump are going to be Ubering in their Bentley, this means that those people are almost certainly screwed.

Re:A Solution

[jrumney]

(instead of a criminal background check, which does't seem relevant).

They could just have an option in the app: I want my driver to be: 1: a rapist; 2: a murderer; 3: prone to violent outbursts but hasn't killed anyone yet that we know of

Re:A Solution

[SternisheFan]

Individual towns of Long Island, NY, require cabbies to get a hack license, in order for the driver to pick up passengers from train & bus stations, and street hails. To get a hack license the driver needs to be fingerprinted, with the prints checked by the towns police dept. for any felonies. Also needed is a fitness note from a doctor. Only when all requirements are met and approved by the town is the hack license issued. p This process began to be adopted by all towns in L. I. approximately 20 years ago after a female taxi passenger was raped by a gypsy cab driver.

Re:A Solution

[Trepidity]

I think the problem is that almost no Uber drivers actually have valid commercial insurance at all, not that they lack documentation of it. And Uber contends that making them pay for it would make the service unviable.

Uber drivers presumably do have personal vehicle insurance, but a photo of that wouldn't be sufficient. Personal insurance policies typically explicitly exclude incidents that arose when operating the vehicle for pay, so they wouldn't cover a crash that happened during a trip booked via Uber. For that, you need commercial insurance.

Re:A Solution

[CanHasDIY]

>such as mandatory criminal record checks, vehicle inspections and insurance

Allow drivers to send those in via taking pictures of them with their phones.

Um... how do you inspect a vehicle through pictures?

"well, the picture of brake pads he sent in look good..."

Re:A Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

gosh, you're so richtig ! ! !
i mean, what IS the point of even letting these scumbags live, it *should* be the death penalty for all of them...
(and some more i'm CERTAIN you will think of who merit that )
geez, why not just continue their criminal enterprises, since -you know- upright citizens like yourself won't let them pay their 'debt' to society and make a go of it...

fucker, i hate pukes like you more than 'real' criminals: YOU do more to harm society with those attitudes, than any dozen 'offenders'...

Re:A Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the point to realize is that all those problems already exist with background checks. The vast majority of people are not convicted sexual predators, nor have they been convicted of fraud.

That we allow the actions of so few to dictate the actions of many is truly puzzling. I understand people tend to remember that 1 bad time versus the other 99 unremarkable times... but really it gets ridiculous.

Re:A Solution

[smartr]

The ride-shares are additionally insured through Uber. Using Uber also causes the rides to be tracked, and removes the handling of cash out of the scenario. Your arguments are some of the exact reasons why you should use Uber over a Taxi company...
https://blog.uber.com/rideshar...

Protectionism

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again, big business and government combine to profit at the expense of individuals.

Nobody asked me if I wanted to pay for all the red tape surrounding taxi services. If I want to take an informed risk, I should be allowed to have that opportunity.

Re:Protectionism

[ChunderDownunder]

'big business' ? Oh, the irony.

Uber are a $US3Billion American company, trying to increase their profitability by launching a stealth, rogue, taxi service in a foreign country.

Re:Protectionism

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again, big business and government combine to profit at the expense of individuals.

Nobody asked me if I wanted to pay for all the red tape surrounding taxi services. If I want to take an informed risk, I should be allowed to have that opportunity.

Partially agree. But at the very least, the government/taxi scam of "medallions" that artificially limits supply should go.

Re:Protectionism

[Anonymous Coward]

If existing prices and regulations were even close to being "fair", Uber could not exist as a company.

Uber will never operate in Bangkok, for example, because the prices and regulation there are reasonable.

Compare to taxi service

[gnasher719]

The idea is quite simple that they produce something similar to a taxi service at lower cost. The lower cost must come from somewhere. It mostly comes from taxi drivers having to pay extra money for driving people around in taxis, and these guys don't want to pay that extra money. For example, my (British) car insurance says that I'm not insured if I drive people around for money. If I do without getting different (more expensive) insurance, then I'm driving without insurance, which could bankrupt me and the passengers in case of an accident, and would get me into all kinds of trouble if caught.

Re:Compare to taxi service

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea is quite simple that they produce something similar to a taxi service at lower cost. The lower cost must come from somewhere. It mostly comes from taxi drivers having to pay extra money for driving people around in taxis, and these guys don't want to pay that extra money..

The real scam though isn't the somewhat legit costs of making sure taxi drivers are licensed, not TOO criminal, and don't gouge customers in a way that gives the city a bad name with tourists. The scam is medallion programs that artificially limit the number of taxi drivers to limit competition. That medallions go for almost $1 million in NYC shows the value of that... And of course, the riders must pay for the price of that medallion.

so much unsaid for uber.

[nimbius]

Uber seems like a libertarian scam at best. You have an unlicensed, unregulated cab service with unverified and wildly variant service levels. Compounding the issue further, youre faced with an entity that assumes the 'fare' it pays you is commensurate enough to ensure your maintenance, upkeep, and fuel costs. While it might be true for a 13 year old crown victoria, Im willing to guess the fare earned for a jaunt across town in some strangers Benz doesnt begin to cover ceramic brakes and ferromagnetic suspension work.

There is literally nothing in the contract agreements for Uber or even at the government regulatory level that would prevent what essentially amounts to 4chan on wheels from picking you up, driving you to the middle of nowhere, and kicking you out covered in mustard without saying a word. If you lost your phone or wallet in the car, no ones beholden to return it. The automobile provided might even be some dukes of hazard two seater with a supercharger, no seatbelts, and a dead hooker in the trunk and this is all perfectly acceptable based on the terms you agreed to with Uber. And the worst part is that protective measures like a commercial drives license simply dont exist. Your driver could be a meth-addled convict with a bottle of jagermeister between his legs, but since he never had to go through a background check or a drug test or even a physical, the hook he uses to steer the car between epileptic bouts of withdrawal is in Ubers understanding a sterling example of a world class taxi service without the hassle of icky cabs. When he wraps the front end of his 1971 plymouth duster with the missing front brake around a utility pole, nothing in his insurance (should he care to buy some) is required to cover any part of you the paramedics collect from the street as they hustle you to the ER.

Re:so much unsaid for uber.

[Anonymous Coward]

Libertarian scam?

Why do you think taxis are so expensive? It's because of the existing scam involving local government and taxi companies. At least Uber is a cheap "scam".

Re:so much unsaid for uber.

[bluefoxlucid]

I have ceramic brakes. I've always used them. Replace my brakes every several years. They cost $50 a pair, and stop a hell of a lot better than old style brakes--especially ceramic with 18% copper impregnation.

Re:so much unsaid for uber.

[interkin3tic]

He didn't say the alternative was not also a scam, that's a strawman. In a two way fight, both parties can be scumbags.

Re:so much unsaid for uber.

[Anonymous Coward]

4chan

I would totally take a ride somewhere from my homeboy mootles.

Re:so much unsaid for uber.

[GlennC]

Good for you.

Can you verify that ALL Uber drivers have similar brakes (or even WORKING brakes) on their cars?

Re:so much unsaid for uber.

[bill_mcgonigle]

There is literally nothing in the contract agreements for Uber or even at the government regulatory level that would prevent what essentially amounts to 4chan on wheels from picking you up, driving you to the middle of nowhere, and kicking you out covered in mustard without saying a word.

I thought Uber has a reputation system? Does it not have a reputation system? Customer regulation is always more effective than contractual or governmental regulation if the systems are in place to make it work. Did Uber die out in Oz because everybody was getting sprayed with condiments or did it get shut down by a crony government because it was too successful?

Re:so much unsaid for uber.

[barjam]

I have used urber many, many times and each and every time the car was nicer, the person was less scary and the experience was MUCH more convenient.

For me it has zero to do with price (I am not paying, my company does).

Re:so much unsaid for uber.

[barjam]

Every uber car I have been in was far, far, far nicer than cabs.

Re:so much unsaid for uber.

[ShaunC]

This misses the point. Grandparent poster was insinuating that ceramic brakes are some uber-expensive (heh) item to replace, parent poster was refuting that.

Re:so much unsaid for uber.

[Anonymous Coward]

babysitting seems like a libertarian scam at best. You have an unlicensed, unregulated babysitting service with unverified and wildly variant service levels.

There is literally nothing in the contract agreements for babysitting or even at the government regulatory level that would prevent what essentially amounts to 4chan on wheels from picking your baby up, driving you to the middle of nowhere, and kicking the baby out covered in mustard without saying a word. And the worst part is that protective measures like a commercial babysitting license simply dont exist. Your babysitter could be a meth-addled convict with a bottle of jagermeister between his legs, but since he never had to go through a background check or a drug test or even a physical, the hook he uses to steer the baby between epileptic bouts of withdrawal is in babysitters understanding a sterling example of a world class babysitting service without the hassle of icky daycare centers.

gee, wonder if i could posit another dozen scary scenarios JUST LIKE THAT...
gosh, isn't life SCARY ! ! ! we better all kill ourselves to be on the safe side...
please, Big Daddy, save me from myself ! ! !

Re:so much unsaid for uber.

[GlennC]

But the original point was that the portion of the Uber fare paid to the driver may not be sufficient to cover fuel and maintenance on the car, much less the required commercial insurance and/or licensing.

Thus, drivers are probably cutting corners by neglecting maintenance, not buying insurance, etc. A large portion of the commercial licensing requirements involves proving that the taxi owner is performing maintenance, has the required insurance, and that the drivers have the correct license. Apparently, Uber doesn't do any of that. Therefore, I have to agree with the Victoria government and the legal taxi and limo drivers. I wouldn't use the Uber service.

Re:so much unsaid for uber.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to me you could always refuse the ride upon inspection of the driver and/or vehicle. What ever happened to people being rational adults with the ability to care for themselves. Why is it always someone elses responsibility to look out for you?

Oh sorry, i sometimes forget that the US of A is the land of sue first worry about common sense later.

Re:so much unsaid for uber.

[spacepimp]

// Your driver could be a meth-addled convict with a bottle of jagermeister between his legs, but since he never had to go through a background check or a drug test or even a physical, the hook he uses to steer the car between epileptic bouts of withdrawal is in Ubers understanding a sterling example of a world class taxi service without the hassle of icky cabs.

The bulk of cab drivers I've seen are meth-addled convicts. It hasn't always been Jagermeister tucked in their legs.

Re: so much unsaid for uber.

[imuffin]

Damn, dude. That's quite a diatribe. You're right, of course. Uber COULD be any of those terrible things.

But have you ever used the service? Every time I have, they have been efficient, friendly, and professional.

Re:so much unsaid for uber.

[Anonymous Coward]

>Uber seems like a libertarian scam at best.

Yes, we're all out to scam you out of your debt. Horrible people.

>While it might be true for a 13 year old crown victoria, Im willing to guess the fare earned for a jaunt across town in some strangers Benz doesnt begin to cover ceramic brakes and ferromagnetic suspension work.

Most (not all) cities allow the cab driver to pick their ride, with a few restraints (newer, not beat to hell, etc). There's nothing stopping a real cab driver from driving a Benz other than the lack of profit. You know, the same thing stopping an Uber driver.

>There is literally nothing in the contract agreements for Uber or even at the government regulatory level that would prevent what essentially amounts to 4chan on wheels from picking you up, driving you to the middle of nowhere, and kicking you out covered in mustard without saying a word. If you lost your phone or wallet in the car, no ones beholden to return it.

I did not know that when you applied to be a cab driver they checked if you used 4chan or not. Could you link me to that? If you were just rather alluding they perform a psych test and Uber doesn't, link to that? I don't expect much. Anything reasonable will do.

>but since he never had to go through a background check or a drug test or even a physical

My city licenses hacks but those aren't part of the rules. Could you direct me to a city that does regular drug tests and physicals?

Uber?

[rebelwarlock]

Horrible summary doesn't even bother to tell us what Uber is. Massive summary + complete lack of useful info = no clicky. Find better clickbait.

Re:Uber?

[ChunderDownunder]

Any publicity is good publicity.

But Montreal?

[Tester]

I don't get Uber. In Montreal, they offer their service, but they actually work with licensed taxis, at the official regulated price, just like any other taxi company. I don't understand why they can do it here, but make a big thing about it in other cities.

Re:But Montreal?

[Rockoon]

I don't understand why they can do it here, but make a big thing about it in other cities.

In other cities they arent allowed to do that because of regulator capture. Livery licenses are restricted to a fixed number which is already filled by the existing companies, which then lobby to prevent increases in the number of livery licenses.

The only way to get in and own and operate a cab in New York City, for instance, requires buying a license from an existing license owner. These licenses (called medallions) go for over a million dollars today. This is the state of livery services in most cities, and even entire States in the case of the U.S.

Look at all the astroturfing about rapists and murderers in this article. Appeals to consequences, rooted in appeals to emotion, all to continue protecting the existing livery services from further competition. Its not a free market now and the argument is that if it ever becomes a free market that you will 100% certain be raped and then murdered by a crazy person that drives a cab.

Libertarian view...

[bradley13]

The libertarian view of this: Uber customers know that they are calling a car driven by some random person. If they want to do that, really, it's their own business. If they want the assurance of a background-checked driver, they are also free to call a taxi company. What's wrong with keeping the government out of it and letting people choose?

Re:Libertarian view...

[bws111]

Libertarian chooses unregulated cab. Said unregulated cab hits pedestrian. Insurance company of unregulated cab says 'your policy is for personal use only, we are not paying'. Who pays for pedestrian's injuries, the libertarian?

Re:Libertarian view...

[Bacon Bits]

Nothing is wrong with that. If you change the law and level the playing field first. You can't say one company is unregulated and everybody else has to be regulated. What kind of free enterprise is that? If you want to allow unregulated taxi services, change the law to allow that. I'm sure the other taxi services would love that idea, too. Going out and just doing it in direct violation of the law is plain stupid.

Re:Libertarian view...

[luis_a_espinal]

Libertarian chooses unregulated cab. Said unregulated cab hits pedestrian. Insurance company of unregulated cab says 'your policy is for personal use only, we are not paying'. Who pays for pedestrian's injuries, the libertarian?

The Libertarian chooses not to give a flying frak about the pedestrian. That is the "beauty" of such an ideology and the power of making choices </sarcasm>

Re:Libertarian view...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who pays for pedestrian's injuries, the libertarian?

I assume the libertarian would say that the cab driver is personally liable as his insurance is invalid.
Some might also say the pedestrian gets to inflict similar injuries on the cab driver, or that his relatives can kill the cab driver if the pedestrian dies (I've always thought this was a problem though - if someone kills me, *I* can't be compensated in any way by anything that happens to them after my death).

I'm not sure what libertarians would say re the monetary compensation in the case where the cab driver has no worthwhile assets and is unlikely to ever have any. Slavery perhaps?

Re:Libertarian view...

[CrimsonAvenger]

Libertarian chooses unregulated cab. Said unregulated cab hits pedestrian. Insurance company of unregulated cab says 'your policy is for personal use only, we are not paying'. Who pays for pedestrian's injuries, the libertarian?

Why should he? Not like he was driving, nor is the car his property. In the case you describe, the driver is at fault, not the passenger.

Or are you of the opinion that if you get a ride with a (soon-to-be ex-)friend, and he hits someone, and turns out to have no insurance, that YOU are liable for the injuries?

Re:Libertarian view...

[Anonymous Coward]

The libertarian pays IF he did not complete his due diligence when contracting the car. He should have conducted driving and drug tests of the driver in advance.

Re:Libertarian view...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or are you of the opinion that if you get a ride with a (soon-to-be ex-)friend, and he hits someone, and turns out to have no insurance, that YOU are liable for the injuries?

He's of the opinion that we should be suing the families of that Malaysian plane that disappeared. After all, those fucking libertarians just had to fly with some crazy, deranged pilot. It's totally their responsibility.

(Too soon? Of course. But this is what you idiots sound like when you're talking out your ass about what "Libertarians" believe.)

Re:Libertarian view...

[dumky2]

As a libertarian, I have to point out why the question of regulating businesses on roads is not as easy as you suggest (just de-regulate). The State owns the roads.

If you want to offer some service on private property, the analysis you described works. Consumers should be cautious, which in the presence of competition (ie. competition is not forbidden) leads to better quality over time. Voluntary solutions (insurance, auditing, etc) can appear to address the brunt of the problems faced.

But the vast majority of roads are not private property, they are government-owned, government-managed and tax-funded.
Thus the dynamics of choice and improvement are mostly lacking (there remains competition between government jurisdictions). It is very difficult to explore and discover trade-offs that are closer to optimal.

Re:Libertarian view...

[jittles]

Libertarian chooses unregulated cab. Said unregulated cab hits pedestrian. Insurance company of unregulated cab says 'your policy is for personal use only, we are not paying'. Who pays for pedestrian's injuries, the libertarian?

Why should he? Not like he was driving, nor is the car his property. In the case you describe, the driver is at fault, not the passenger.

Or are you of the opinion that if you get a ride with a (soon-to-be ex-)friend, and he hits someone, and turns out to have no insurance, that YOU are liable for the injuries?

That depends. I know someone who sued a passenger in a car for negligence. In this case, the passenger was stone cold sober and let his friend drive him around after having a few too many drinks (blood alcohol more than 3x the legal limit). The driver ran a red light and almost killed my acquaintance. The driver was uninsured and had no assets. The passenger, on the other hand, was insured and had plenty of real world assets. The passenger was at the bar with the driver when they got drunk. The passenger knew the driver was drunk and still let them drive them both around. I can understand someone wanting to hold the passenger accountable for his inaction. In fact, the passenger was held liable. So perhaps the Uber passenger could be liable for the actions of an uninsured driver.

Re:Libertarian view...

[CRCulver]

Don't most American libertarians want the government to privatize all roads, or at least all highways?

Re:Libertarian view...

[bws111]

Answer the question: who pays to cover the pedestrian? One option is the driver. Of course, if the driver has little assets (and chances are he would not be driving a cab if he was rich), he can't pay. The only other person involved in this wonderful libertarian world would be the passenger. But, of course, HE couldn't be expected to pay. So that leaves only two choices: either the pedestrian himself is responsible for all his bills (including loss of income, etc), or all of society pays (either through the goverment, or through higher insurance rates for everyone). And if random people and/or all of society are going to have to cover the cost of damage inflicted by a cab driver, then all of society damn well has a right to insist, through (gasp) regulations, that the driver of a cab must demonstrate the financial wherewithall to pay for damage he potentially causes (usually by purchasing insurance).

Your 'friend' example is stupid, because drivers ARE required to carry insurance. If they don't have insurance, society covers the cost, but the driver has violated a law.

Re:Libertarian view...

[gnasher719]

Libertarian chooses unregulated cab. Said unregulated cab hits pedestrian. Insurance company of unregulated cab says 'your policy is for personal use only, we are not paying'. Who pays for pedestrian's injuries, the libertarian?

German insurances would pay to the third party victim. And then they would go after the driver for the rest of his life to recover the cost.

Re:Libertarian view...

[CanHasDIY]

Only the ones who've never read Snow Crash.

The great thing about Libertarianism is that you aren't required to agree 100% with the other members, unlike some other, more prominent political parties (or rather, party) who shall remain nameless.

Re:Libertarian view...

[Khashishi]

The libertarian would say, shit happens, welcome to the jungle.

Re:Libertarian view...

[GlennC]

If the driver was only in the area where the pedestrian was hit because the passenger was paying the driver, then it could be argued that the passenger shares liability with the driver.

If the driver was an Uber driver, then both Uber and the passenger could be liable.

The driver could also face criminal charges, depending on jurisdiction.

Re:Libertarian view...

[bws111]

I didn't say 'be liable', I said 'pay'. There is a huge difference. I can 'be liable' for $1M, but if I only have $500 in assets there is no way someone is getting $1M from me.

This thread is about people who think it is unreasonable to have laws such as requiring cab drivers to have insurance. In the absense of such laws, how is the driver going to face criminal charges?

Re:Libertarian view...

[dumky2]

Many do (and so do I), but I don't see how that is relevant to my point.
Until roads or highways are privatized, the rules defined for the roads cannot be simply repealed as a whole. In many cases, that would degrade the service rather than enhance it.

Re:Libertarian view...

[volmtech]

In my state the CAR is insured, no matter who is driving. You can't renew your tag without (minimum) insurance.

Re:Libertarian view...

[Anonymous Coward]

The pedestrian would need to sue the cab driver for damages. If the cab driver is broke, then his wages would be garnished. If the pedestrian needs money for physical therapy right now, he'd sell his rights to the garnished wages to a middleman.

Internet solutions and human nature don't mix

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that every new Internet based solution concocted for the last decade or so always seems so great on the face of it, but fails horribly when that solution is cut loose on the general public? Just about every e-commerce project I can think of has massive problems of being exploited by society's dark underbelly... Was it a "good thing" to unleash the Internet on the general public?

Re:Internet solutions and human nature don't mix

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, I have been asking myself the same question ever since AOL contaminated the internet.

Pitfalls of sharing economy

[wired_parrot]

This is why I am critical of the sharing economy. It is is the pinnacle of outsourcing where the management (uber, airbnb) reaps the cream of the profits at little risk, while their "subcontractors", so to speak, take the burden of all the risks (legally and financially), while also having to shoulder maintenance and operating expenses. The responsible and ethical move for these companies would be to properly inform these subcontractors the insurance requirements, legal risks, local workplace standards required for operation, and try to assist them if possible to meet these requirements.

Instead, they prefer to claim ignorance and shoulder all responsibility on their user base. When legal problems inevitably arise, they cast their users/subcontractors adrift, letting them fend for themselves. It's utterly disgraceful.

Re:Pitfalls of sharing economy

[CRCulver]

While the mainstream, monetary payment-driven sharing economy is indeed riddled with problems, for every exploitive service like this there are community-driven, freely usable services that work more according to a gift economy. You cite Airbnb, but well before that site arose people were offering each other hospitality through Couchsurfing* with no money exchanged, just a desire to help fellow travellers and pay the hospitality one received earlier forward. Analogous to Uber are free ride-sharing services, or if you like to hitchhike you can share your tips with your fellow hitchhikers on Hitchwiki. Even food-sharing has been facilitated through internet projects coordinating "Food Not Bombs"-style community dinners or sites like Trashwiki which allow dumpster-divers to pool their knowledge. And is Wikipedia not the best example of succesful and non-exploitive sharing? Its profit-driven competitors have all fallen by the wayside.

(* The Couchsurfing management did sell out its user base after a few years, and I mention it here only because it is the most well-known such service, but there are other, more idealistic hospex communities with the same basis.)

Re:Pitfalls of sharing economy

[CrimsonAvenger]

while their "subcontractors", so to speak, take the burden of all the risks (legally and financially), while also having to shoulder maintenance and operating expenses.

You make it sound like the "subcontractors" are forced to do this. They're not. They're big boys, and should be able to assess their own costs for this, and whether it's worth their while or not.

Re:Pitfalls of sharing economy

[CaptBubba]

When money changes hands everything changes. Expectations both from the customer and in terms of legal liability are so much higher that you cannot compare gift or free exchanges to a fundamentally commercial one such as Uber or AirBnB. There is all sorts of really interesting research into this from the psychology side showing that things shift the instant people see something as a monetary transaction instead of a social one.

The services like to act as though they are some hybrid between the two (Lyft is particularly over-the-top about this) but they are not. Just as you can't be "a little pregnant" you can't be a little commercial in nature.

Re:Pitfalls of sharing economy

[swillden]

It is is the pinnacle of outsourcing where the management (uber, airbnb) reaps the cream of the profits at little risk, while their "subcontractors", so to speak, take the burden of all the risks (legally and financially), while also having to shoulder maintenance and operating expenses.

Meh.

If the "subcontractors" find this arrangement onerous they're free to opt out and find or create another that fits their needs better.

let Uber be Uber

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like many people like Uber and are happy to take their chances, as with the conceptually similar airbnb.

Slugging in DC works pretty well with same "risks".

I just like to see cartels challenged...

They don't hate fun

[Anonymous Coward]

Australia has limited fun resources, hitting peak fun in the late 1980s. At its height, they even made the incredible mistake of exporting fun via Crocodile Dundee. Additionally, since Australia is so far away from the rest of the world, importing fun is extremely expensive. As a result, Australia must conserve and ration what little fun they do have if they plan to have any fun in the foreseeable future.

Or sue the government

[dumky2]

I find it somewhat ironic that the only recourse mentioned in the summary is for the drivers to sue Uber. What about suing the government instead?
It seems ridiculous to have legislation which is so obscure that you can't know for sure if something is legal or illegal until some regulatory agency made a ruling.

Re:Or sue the government

[Anonymous Coward]

Driving for money is a commercial service. When you recieve your yearly vehicle registration you are offered to pay either a personal rate (cheaper) or a commercial rate.
both include mandatory third party insurance as part of the cost. If you have paid the personal rate you may not use the vehicle for commercial use. The insurance will not be valid. This is not obscure in any way. Only morons cannot understand this.

Re: Or sue the government

[Anonymous Coward]

Not obscure. Ask yourself this single question, Do I have a commercial license to drive passengers for money ?

It's the opposite of obscure, it's obvious.

Re:Or sue the government

[CanHasDIY]

I find it somewhat ironic that the only recourse mentioned in the summary is for the drivers to sue Uber. What about suing the government instead?

For what? Not allowing them to skirt a law that everyone else has to follow?

It seems ridiculous to have legislation which is so obscure that you can't know for sure if something is legal or illegal until some regulatory agency made a ruling.

If you think being required to obtain a commercial driver's license is "obscure" legislation, I'd say you have no business so much as discussing this topic. It's not a new concept.

Re:Or sue the government

[dumky2]

1) If the law is as clear as you suggest, then drivers should not be able to sue Uber. The drivers themselves are responsible.

2) The problem is the definition of "commercial". If you carpool with a friend, is it commercial? If you barter a car lift for some other good, is it commercial? If you occasionally give people lifts for money, is it commercial? Those are all gray, contrary to what you are suggesting.

Another example of how regulations are ambiguous is those that require a good to be "manufactured" in a certain place. For instance, the Chinese government contemplated having such restriction when it lifted its game console ban. The question is how much manufacture counts. Does putting the label on count as "manufacturing"? The point is that such categories are not as easy to define as you suggest.
Yes, the definition of "commercial" is superficially clear, but in reality it is not.

See Merriam-Webster's full definition of "commerce":
1: social intercourse : interchange of ideas, opinions, or sentiments
2: the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place
3: sexual intercourse

Giving a friend a lift in exchange for a dinner can be seen as "relating to buying or selling goods or services". Dating and marriage can be seen as a form of trade and commerce.

Re:Or sue the government

[CanHasDIY]

1) If the law is as clear as you suggest, then drivers should not be able to sue Uber. The drivers themselves are responsible.

I never suggested the law was clear, I merely pointed out that it exists, and everyone is expected to follow it. "Clear" is not the antonym of "obscure" - that would be "well-known."

2) The problem is the definition of "commercial".

No problem at all - are you doing it for a taxable profit? If the answer is "yes," then it's commercial use. At least, it is where I live.

If you carpool with a friend, is it commercial?

Only if you charge for the service - the law doesn't care what kind of personal relationship you have with your customers.

If you barter a car lift for some other good, is it commercial?

By American law, yes. No idea how the Aussies treat barter, at least in a legal sense.

If you occasionally give people lifts for money, is it commercial?

Obviously.

Those are all gray, contrary to what you are suggesting.

Actually, they aren't, as I've succintly pointed out. You may disagree with this, but as with personal relationships with customers, the law could care less what you think - you provide a service in exchange for taxable income, you're operating commercially. Period.

Another example of how regulations are ambiguous is those that require a good to be "manufactured" in a certain place. For instance, the Chinese government contemplated having such restriction when it lifted its game console ban. The question is how much manufacture counts. Does putting the label on count as "manufacturing"? The point is that such categories are not as easy to define as you suggest.

Non-sequitur - we're talking about services, not manufacturing goods. Don't move goalposts.

Yes, the definition of "commercial" is superficially clear, but in reality it is not.

The only definition that matters in this case is the legal one.

Re:Or sue the government

[CanHasDIY]

Forgot one point:

If the law is as clear as you suggest, then drivers should not be able to sue Uber.

I would assume that is predicated on whether or not Uber knew that the service their drivers provide is considered commercial business, and whether or not they disclosed said legality to said drivers. I.e., if Uber knew they were breaking the law, and did not disclose that fact to their drivers, then I can see how they could be considered at least partially liable.

Re:Or sue the government

[dumky2]

Again, let me point you to Merriam-Webster. Here's "obscure":
: not well-known : not known to most people
: difficult to understand : likely to be understood by only a few people
: difficult or impossible to know completely and with certainty

The second and third usages are perfectly acceptable. I did not mean "not well-known", but uncertain or difficult to know.

Instead of acknowledging that laws require definitions and definitions are often unclear and ambiguous (case in point above), you simply said the only thing that matters is the law. That's only pushing the problem elsewhere (what is considered "commerce" or "taxable"), not resolving the uncertainty.
The point is legislation is not so clear as you think, and is subject to multiple interpretations (and not just your own), as is the proof that a regulatory agency had to make a ruling. There are many instances that demonstrate this interpretation problem, from a seemingly simple document like Constitutions to the piles of legislations and regulations. My example of "manufacturing" is not moving the goalpost but providing another illustration of the same problem.

Re:Or sue the government

[CanHasDIY]

Again, let me point you to Merriam-Webster. Here's "obscure":

: not well-known : not known to most people

Which, if you're operating a commercial service, is an unacceptable excuse.

: difficult to understand : likely to be understood by only a few people

Which, if you're operating a commercial service, is an unacceptable excuse.

: difficult or impossible to know completely and with certainty

Which, if you're operating a commercial service, is an unacceptable excuse.

The second and third usages are perfectly acceptable. I did not mean "not well-known", but uncertain or difficult to know.

None of which matters, as ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. Especially when said law is directly relevant to the commercial business you're operating, and especially especially when said law has existed almost as long as the automobile has.

Think of it this way: If, say, Monsanto dumped a bunch of chemicals into your local aquifer, would you accept "well, we didn't know it was illegal, the law is so obscure" as a legitimate defense?

Re:Or sue the government

[dumky2]

By your own argument you should see the irony I was pointing out. If law is messed up by being unreasonably large (hard to know) and ambiguous, there is no redress against government and the ruled are always at fault. But I think there should (thus suing government back).

Since law is supposed to be known, please cite 3 laws that you read before you took your first job (selling your labor for money would be "commercial" for you wouldn't it, and you surely educated yourself as to the laws relevant to your engaging in a commercial activity, didn't you?).

If you are interested in this topic (complexity of law), you should read "Three Felonies a Day". If that doesn't bother you because "the law is known and clear" and "ignorance of the law is no excuse", then nothing I tell you will convince you. http://kottke.org/13/06/you-co...
Finally, your point about people having to know the law and the law being clear have nothing to do with commercial or non-commercial activities. However the ambiguity of what counts as commercial is resolved (you still assume that what counts as "commerce" is clear, but didn't say why even when I pointed you to the definition of "commerce"), that is irrelevant to whether people should know the law or it is ambiguous or whether there should be redress against government for making bad law.

Re:Or sue the government

[CanHasDIY]

By your own argument you should see the irony I was pointing out. If law is messed up by being unreasonably large (hard to know) and ambiguous, there is no redress against government and the ruled are always at fault. But I think there should (thus suing government back).

Well sure - environmental law is a great example of this.

However, "if you're going to operate a vehicle commercially, you have to have a commercial license" is really fairly simple. Now, it can get rather complex once you start considering the different types of commercial licenses (chauffer's, CDL-B, CDL-A, et. al.), but the basic concept is simple, not obscure, and well established. You might as well be trying to argue that child labor laws are too 'obscure' to be followed.

Since law is supposed to be known, please cite 3 laws that you read before you took your first job (selling your labor for money would be "commercial" for you wouldn't it, and you surely educated yourself as to the laws relevant to your engaging in a commercial activity, didn't you?).

I read the FLSA and FMLA before starting my first job. Didn't you? How else would you know what the minimum wage / working age was, or what rights you have to medical leave?

If you are interested in this topic (complexity of law), you should read "Three Felonies a Day". If that doesn't bother you because "the law is known and clear" and "ignorance of the law is no excuse", then nothing I tell you will convince you. http://kottke.org/13/06/you-co...

Look , I understand the concept of overcriminalization, probably better than you do, considering that I've been advocating against it for over a decade now. But that's not to say that I disagree with all law, nor does it indicate that commercial licensing is obscure or unnecessary.

Finally, your point about people having to know the law and the law being clear have nothing to do with commercial or non-commercial activities. However the ambiguity of what counts as commercial is resolved (you still assume that what counts as "commerce" is clear, but didn't say why even when I pointed you to the definition of "commerce"), that is irrelevant to whether people should know the law or it is ambiguous or whether there should be redress against government for making bad law.

Well, part of your problem is that you're insisting on using your preferred definition of the term, rather than the only definition that matters in this case - the legal one.

"Commerce" is defined in American law as,

1 The exchange of goods, products, or any type of Personal Property.
2 Trade and traffic carried on between different peoples or states and its inhabitants, including not only the purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities but also the instrumentalities, agencies, and means by which business is accomplished.
3 The transportation of persons and goods, by air, land, and sea.
4 The exchange of merchandise on a large scale between different places or communities.

So, unless your next argument involves you insisting that Congress is a place people go to have sex, you should probably drop that line of reasoning.

Re:Or sue the government

[dumky2]

I don't know what more will convince you.
You think "commerce" is clearly defined (thanks for the quote, but source would be good), but if you read it you should see it's not (again, barter, dating, marriage fit the first interpretation, walking or riding a bike fit the third).
You think the law is generally clear, I think it's not that clear, as the present and other recent articles show (Uber participants unclear, AirBnB participants unclear, etc) and case history reveal (see numerous Supreme Court rulings as an illustration). That's not to say all law is absolutely unclear or completely unknowable, but that it's a real problem.
You think the law is well-known and reasonable (ie. most non-criminal people do read it and could follow it), and I've referenced a thorough analysis which shows it's not.

Finally, I've pointed out that if the article suggests suing Uber, then it should also suggest suing the government, which is a logically consistent position. You seemed to partly agree on that, so at least that's something ;-)

Your main response is that commercial law is clear, that it's not that complicated overall, that people are supposed to know it anyways (regardless of whether that is realistic or reasonable) and that it is clear what is commerce or not (in your interpretation).
If you don't see that such assertions do not rebut my arguments, I see no point in spending time discussing.

Re:Or sue the government

[dumky2]

Sorry, I forgot to address your last point (regarding Congress). Economic analysis of the political process (so-called public choice theory) shows that government officials have little incentive to constrain the number of laws (or regulations) or their ambiguity and complexity.
Consider the facts of the complexity of the tax code, the growth in the Federal Register, or the size of some recent laws and regulations (ACA, Dodd-Frank, etc).
Because the State is the ultimate arbiter of conflicts including those involving itself, there is a conflict of interest (bias against the ruled). Having the ability to for citizens to sue government for bad/oversize/unclear law would probably not fix that, but might help mitigate and expose the problem.

The geek tries his luck.

[westlake]

If I want to take an informed risk, I should be allowed to have that opportunity.

You don't know if the driver has a license to drive, insurance, a criminal record, or that his vehicle is being properly maintained.

That isn't a calculated risk --- it's a roll of the dice that may be loaded against you.

Re:The geek tries his luck.

[Anonymous Coward]

If I want to take an informed risk, I should be allowed to have that opportunity.

You don't know if the driver has a license to drive, insurance, a criminal record, or that his vehicle is being properly maintained.

That isn't a calculated risk --- it's a roll of the dice that may be loaded against you.

His calculation is in the online ratings system, which arguably works better than the over-complicated insurance and criminal justice systems. Just because he isn't using all information doesn't make the decision uninformed.

But the beta is all Web 2.1.4 up the arse!

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to say it is no worse than any other web site, but it is. The old /. was shit, but it was OUR shit.

Same Tactic

[Anonymous Coward]

The Hillsborough Public Transportation Commission in Tampa Florida is trying the same tactic against Uber and Lyft here. http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/news/2014/05/07/ptc-will-continue-to-ticket-uber-and-lyft-drivers.html . $800 tickets for a corrupt organization that caters to established cab and limousine companies. Good read.

Thats right.

[Anonymous Coward]

And considering the economic viability of these business ideas, they won't be around very long so any investment on the part of the individual should be considered lost.

This "sharing" economy or whatever the buzz word for it is, is nothing but another incarnation of questionable internet businesses with the sole goal of a lucrative exit strategy that would enrich the principals only.

Re:Good

[robbyb20]

May I ask why you have this view of Uber?

I live in Chicago and have been using Uber for over 2 years now. I cant get taxis in my area(industrial, no cars drive thru, calling a taxi takes about an hour with planning) and Uber(uberx, taxi or black car) have ALWAYS come thru for me. Usually within 5-10 minutes. Rates are resonable and you get to track your ride, share a fair with a friend, get a buddy home whos too drunk to do it on their own and get confirmation they were dropped off at the rigth place.

Im having a hard time understanding why it doesnt work for you.

So a death of a child is ok with you? And the othe

[Anonymous Coward]

So it ok for for a driver working for app to kill a child and hurt others with the victims left holding the bag for there medical cost due to all kinds of fine print that lets the drivers insurance and the app one using loop holes to get out of it. When with others drives doing a limo and taxi are fully covered with no loopholes allow ed to be I'm place

A little Uber education for those who know use it

[robbyb20]

Uber has been a part of my way of transportation for 2 years now in Chicago. I dont have cabs that come by and walking to an area that does is about 4 city blocks away. Not completely undoable but not always the best choice.

Since Uber(personal car, taxi and black car) has come around in Chicago, i have been able to get a car instantly where ever i am and for a reasonable cost. Doing that thru a taxi service usually takes about 30-60min on a good night. Also, you get a reciept AND a map of route taken in email once the ride is done. This done automatically thru the service. The drive can not accept another fair until they end the current one. I also find its safer(rape, murder, etc) since all of this is tracked, you can see a picture of the driver before hand AND their rating by other passangers.

I was just visiting California and needed a ride back to the hotel after a long day of walking around Monterey Bay. Taxis? none in site. Uber? 3 uberx in the area. Guess which ill choose?

Also, not all areas have the same that Chicago does(uberx, taxi and black cars) so I understand you dont have all the same choices. Its a great service for those that want to use it. Dont knock it! hah

Re:So a death of a child is ok with you? And the o

[sexconker]

So it ok for for a driver working for app to kill a child and hurt others with the victims left holding the bag for there medical cost due to all kinds of fine print that lets the drivers insurance and the app one using loop holes to get out of it. When with others drives doing a limo and taxi are fully covered with no loopholes allow ed to be I'm place

What fucking loopholes? An Uber driver is on the hook the same as any other driver. If you drive into a ditch and kill your passengers, expect to be sued, Uber or not.

Re:A little Uber education for those who know use

[Anonymous Coward]

Warning! Uber shill detected!

Re:So a death of a child is ok with you? And the o

[ibpooks]

Except that the driver has almost certainly voided their "residential grade" insurance policy by driving passengers commercially; meaning that they are essentially operating a vehicle uninsured. The state should step in to put a stop to this practice.

Re:So a death of a child is ok with you? And the o

[AvitarX]

Is their insurance going to pay-out though? I would be shocked if my policy allows me to drive around people all day for money, and if I injure someone, good luck getting any money from me. OK, well, you can garnish my wages for 15% (max allowed in the state), have fun with your extra few hundred a month I guess.

That's what government is all about.

[jcr]

Uber is a great service that fills a need, and here comes government to fuck over their customers for the benefit of the taxi cartels. Fuck the rent-seekers, and fuck the politicians who do their bidding.

-jcr

Re:A little Uber education for those who know use

[jcr]

"Shill"? He sounds like a typical Uber customer to me. The shills are the assholes spreading FUD for the taxi companies.

-jcr

Fiction and Reality

[Akratist]

I'm reminded of the "Tzigane" in Alongside Night. It's really nothing but a black market, in this case for transportation. Most people will feel about black markets however they feel about the level of control with other political and social issues, so I won't dive into that...just interesting to see the parallels between real life and fiction.

Reagan-ator

[Anonymous Coward]

If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. -RR

Re:So a death of a child is ok with you? And the o

[sexconker]

Except that the driver has almost certainly voided their "residential grade" insurance policy by driving passengers commercially; meaning that they are essentially operating a vehicle uninsured. The state should step in to put a stop to this practice.

What are you "excepting" that from?
The driver is liable. The driver can get sued and lose everything. The state can prosecute and throw the driver in jail.
Uber has nothing to do with this and creates no loopholes.

Re:So a death of a child is ok with you? And the o

[sexconker]

Is their insurance going to pay-out though? I would be shocked if my policy allows me to drive around people all day for money, and if I injure someone, good luck getting any money from me. OK, well, you can garnish my wages for 15% (max allowed in the state), have fun with your extra few hundred a month I guess.

You'd be dealing with garnished wages, seized property, a revoked license, prison time if convicted of something like vehicular manslaughter, etc.
The one who gets to "have fun" is you.
There is no loophole here.

Re:Short attention span world

[Noah Haders]

it takes a couple weeks to be approved as an uber driver, which includes interviews and background checks.

Re:So a death of a child is ok with you? And the o

[Noah Haders]

it's true that you can have problems with progressive or whoever if they hear you're doing uber. but uber provides a million in liability coverage for your passengers regardless. I'm not sure what the deal is for the people that you crash in to.

Re:So a death of a child is ok with you? And the o

[Noah Haders]

no tengo property. I wouldn't be drunk or high so i doubt it would be reckless like vehiclular manslaughter DMV might get mad because I got in a crash without insurance. a lien sucks, but it's the worst case scenario, even if you win a bazillion dollar settlement from me.

Re:A little Uber education for those who know use

[Anonymous Coward]

My experience in DC has been pretty much the same. I use public transportation most of the time, but sometimes that just doesn't work out. I use UberX and regular Uber a couple times per week. It's great to have a pleasant to use, somewhat affordable option.

Re:So a death of a child is ok with you? And the o

[david_thornley]

Except that you don't want drivers without insurance in any case. Suppose a driver does $50K worth of an injury to somebody, doesn't have insurance, and has about $5K in assets. Bankrupting the driver isn't going to pay the medical costs.

No - you have ceramic break pads

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a big difference between ceramic break pads and ceramic breaks.

Re:So a death of a child is ok with you? And the o

[Gadget_Guy]

Bankrupting the driver isn't going to pay the medical costs.

No, but in this case the Transport Accident Commission would pay the medical costs.

Re:So a death of a child is ok with you? And the o

[Harlequin80]

Maybe this is a difference between America and Australia but your medical costs will still be covered by the mandatory insurance scheme even if the at fault driver is uninsured. In Australia we call it "Rego" but it is actually a combination of the mandatory state vehicle registration tax and a compulsory third part insurance. You then get a sticker that MUST be displayed in the window of your car. It is about 10cm x 6cm, colour coded for the year and has a big number representing the month it expires. Not having a current one is an offence.

So if you get hit by an un-registered, un-insured driver your medical bills will be covered by the scheme and underwritten by the state. So the state has a vested interest in making sure that everyone has current insurance.

Note this insure is purely Third Part Person, ie medical costs of the other people. It doesn't cover property damage in any way.

Re:So a death of a child is ok with you? And the o

[mjwx]

Except that the driver has almost certainly voided their "residential grade" insurance policy by driving passengers commercially; meaning that they are essentially operating a vehicle uninsured. The state should step in to put a stop to this practice.

This. But in Australia there are two main grades, "private" and "commercial". It's easy to get "commercial" insurance for your car if you use it for commercial purposes.

There are really two issues at play here.

1. These drivers are unlicensed as taxi drivers, this means no police checks have been done, no driving to knowledge tests have been done and they dont have proper insurance meaning the passengers may not be covered. These are legitimate complaints.

2. In the state of Victoria (Vic), taxi's are heavily regulated with taxi plates going for 100,000 of Aussie dollars. AFAIK Victoria does not permit private cars unlike my state (Western Australia). So in this regard it's just revenue protection from a cash strapped state government.

Number 1 needs to be addressed by Uber drivers. Number 2 needs to bugger off.

Re:So a death of a child is ok with you? And the o

[Luke Mewburn]

Minor correction: registration stickers haven't been necessary in Victoria since the start of 2014.

Re:So a death of a child is ok with you? And the o

[david_thornley]

Yup, it's a difference between the US and Australia. If we had a first-world health care system here, collecting medical expenses from auto insurance would be an implementation detail.

However, there's lots of possible costs that aren't medical bills. We can award money for pain and suffering in the US. Injuries can impair people's ability to work, and cause loss of income. People can be killed (lots of families would suffer economically if the breadwinner were killed). There can be property damage, as you note. That can easily rack up $50K or more of expenses that won't be covered by $5K of driver assets, so it really doesn't change my argument.

Registering a car in Minnesota requires third-party auto insurance (there may be self-insurance provisions for large companies, I don't know), must be done every year, and is shown by a colored sticker on each license plate, so that seems pretty similar.

Re:So a death of a child is ok with you? And the o

[AvitarX]

I bet those garnished wages (the few hundred a month I mentioned) are really helpful if I'm in prison.

I don't really own enough assets that they'd be seized, if I did, then I wouldn't need car insurance to begin with.

Belanglo State Forest

[Anonymous Coward]

Q: What's the quickest way to get to Belanglo State Forest?

A: Hitch hike.

Re:So a death of a child is ok with you? And the o

[Harlequin80]

The Australian CTP (compulsory Third Party) program also covers award money for pain, suffering, loss of income etc.

I am personally going through that process as we were hit but a semi-trailer on a highway. Whole family was in the car and we were very lucky to get out without immediate injuries but my wife suffered compression fractures to her lower back as well as whiplash and disk bulges in her neck. Immediately we have been covered for medical expenses and are now in the process of compensation. That process though is about 2 years.....

Even in the event where the at fault driver wasn't insured the state still covers the insurance. Basically if you want to offer CTP insurance, the insurance company has to wear the risk of covering those costs if the at fault driver wasn't insured. The legal ramifications of being uninsured and at fault are huge so very few people risk it.

Re:So a death of a child is ok with you? And the o

[Harlequin80]

Ah you are ahead of QLD. 2015 they are scrapped.