Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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 ?
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.
Futurist Traditionalism
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.
Deal with reality - the world as it is - rather than ideality - the world as you would like it to be.
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
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
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.
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.
Good people go to bed earlier.
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.
Rules of Conduct:
#1 - The DM is always right.
#2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
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?
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
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
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.
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.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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.
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.
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.
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...