Slashdot Mirror
Uber Suspends Australian Transport Inspector Accounts To Block Stings
jaa101 writes In Australia Uber is reportedly suspending the accounts used by government transport inspectors conducting sting operations. The article suggests that a new handset, credit card and email account are all needed to get a new, unblocked account. If inspectors can only issue one or two fines before they're blocked then the sting operations will cost more than the fines. Presumably the Uber app can block based on IMEI, SIM and/or phone number.
Because that's how you get legislation.
"If inspectors can only issue one or two fines before they're blocked then the sting operations will cost more than the fines". ahhh NO. the fines are usually around $1700 a hit. The cost of a phone/sim and card are practically nothing, though it will be inconvenient for them.
Australia has pretty clear guidelines and regulations for operating for hire service including commercial insurance and commercial drivers license. All Uber really have to do is comply with the laws to operate, which many other services do instead here they rant about the laws being their to prevent competition which might be the case elsewhere but doesn't appear to be the case in Australia.
So Uber decided to trade a small fine for operating an unlawful taxi for criminal charges of conspiracy and obstruction of justice. Smart.
They undercut the taxi's by being uninsured and unlicensed. They are cheaper right up until the point you are in an accident.
Once you start to work out that you are part of the problem you can do something to fix it. It's not China, your own actions can have an impact on what sort of government you have.
Your opt-out suggestion is counterproductive and a denial of your responsibility as a citizen. You are part of society. Being sociopathic isn't going to improve society.
Because that's how you get legislation.
I have no idea why Uber would be so blatant/stupid - any legal advice or even common sense would have told them that this kind of behavior gets a lot of attention very fast - and not the good, loving kind of attention either.
Unless they are really trying to get governments to make it hard for smaller "ridesharing" companies to compete. Burning the bridge after you cross? Does that make any sense?
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
You expect the government to uphold a civil contract that charges the government $100,000 in order for the government to do its job enforcing the laws the government passed?
Wow.
Australia REQUIRES hire car and taxi drivers to be operating under commercial licenses and insurance (this is not optional), private insurance for drivers is considered invalid if you are operating as a for hire service here and hence you are uninsured. It isn't specifically uber that is unlicensed and uninsured it is the drivers. Your normal drivers license and insurance is not valid for operating such a service in Australia.
except in most cases they are insured and they are licensed. What's driving this shit is the large cab companies having a shit fit over the fact that this startup has 1/10 the number of cars in the area yet are doing 10x the business.
Problem for EVERYBODY is that the people who issue the licenses are the people who legislate and the people who prosecute. They all piss in the same pot, so if you get onside with the police, you're onside with the city council as well and they will lick your balls if you pay them enough in backhanders (AKA campaign contributions).
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
the term "sociopath" hasn't been in legitimate use since 1968 (DSM-II following the collapse of the Mary Bell defence). Please select another, more appropriate term.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
"I'm extremely angry that this monopoly-breaking company (the one that finally introduced innovation and competition into an industry stagnant for decades) isn't letting government officials use its own platform to bust it!"
I mean, countries/states/cities are free to enact bans and harsh penalties to prop up existing cartels. See also U.S. states banning Tesla direct sales to consumers, because, hey, entrenched dealership interests. And as a philosophical matter I encourage Uber to respect the rule of law (all over the world) and push for democratic change rather than just rolling down Main Street with a foam middle finger out the sunroof.
But I don't have to applaud legislative support for inefficient, customer-deaf monopolies, nor large-scale sting operations that look quite like a money making game. And Uber certainly doesn't have to welcome fake users into its app just so it can get fined. Cat, meet mouse.
P.S. - Maybe taxis in Australia are infinitely better than they are here in the U.S., in which case I'm infinitely sorry I painted them with the same brush. Good on ya, much-loved not-monopoly taxis!!
Nothing posted to
uber drivers are not unlicensed. They have the same drivers license every other driver has. Really, that's all that's needed.
if they have the same license as everyone else then they are unlicensed. Most states and territories in Australia require a commercial or public transport license for operating a hire car, taxi or any other public transport which requires a lot more checks than a standard drivers license such as additional medical requirements, police checks and experience. My sister applied for one a few years ago and got rejected because of the drugs she was on after her chemotherapy.
They undercut the taxi's by being uninsured and unlicensed. They are cheaper right up until the point you are in an accident.
In Australia, we have a functional public health system (much like Canada) so if you're in an accident you're covered for medical. However for loss of income, property damage and what not, you'll have to go after the drivers employer, Uber. The standard Uber defence of "he's a contractor" will last about 2 second before being torn to shreds by the dumbest of Australian judges (who will be quite intelligent in their own right mind you), Uber facilitated the transaction, Uber takes the money from the client and gives the money to the driver. If it looks like an employer, walks like an employer and quacks like an employer then in the eyes of the court, it's an employer.
Now this isn't Uber's major problem. Their major problem comes when an insurer gets involved. And you can guarantee in Australia someone they hit will have either motor, property or liability insurance. The insurer will pay out but then will go straight after Uber for the money. The government wont do a thing, unlike with license and insured drivers who receive the protection of government regulations limiting liability, the insurers will be able to go after Uber for everything they're worth. It doesn't matter how deep their pockets are, Uber will not be able to withstand this for long.
However Uber's biggest crime is against the German language by not including the umlaut. For this there is no fine high enough.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
except in most cases they are insured and they are licensed. What's driving this shit is the large cab companies having a shit fit over the fact that this startup has 1/10 the number of cars in the area yet are doing 10x the business.
Problem for EVERYBODY is that the people who issue the licenses are the people who legislate and the people who prosecute. They all piss in the same pot, so if you get onside with the police, you're onside with the city council as well and they will lick your balls if you pay them enough in backhanders (AKA campaign contributions).
if you are operating a hire vehicle without a public transport/taxi/hire vehicle license then you actually aren't licensed or insured. Here in Canberra that license is issued by the local motor registry, cab companies and even local government have no say in who is issued one. If you do the police checks, don't have a criminal history, do the medicals and have the required experience and pay for the license anyone can get one, but if you haven't done that then you are unlicensed and uninsured if you are driving any sort of public transport.
Solution is pretty simple. Just impound the vehicles. It won't be long before there will be no willing drivers, many of them probably rapists looking for another opportunity.
Under Australian law, those without a taxi license are effectively driving without a valid license. The penalty for this is the suspension or cancellation of the drivers licenses. Repeat offenders can face jail time.
Impounding cars are reserved for "hoon" offences (something I dont particularly agree with but its there anyway).
A few suspended licenses and Uber will find itself short of drivers very quickly.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
The cost structure for Uber drivers is very similar to taxi services and over time will approach them.
Except for the cost to the taxi operators for their medallion. Since there is a a limited number of medallions and you need one to operate they tend to get transferred at great cost. For example a quick Google query for cost of taxi medallion nyc tells us that the current cost is down to $840,000 from a peak of $1.05 million in June 2013.
So the major cost of operation becomes the cost of financing the medallion. In fact (again according to Google) in most instances the medallions are owned by investment companies and leased to actual drivers.
Uber exists to disrupt the requirement for the medallions. They provide a lower friction billing system that makes it easier for both users and drivers to participate.
The ONLY people who are against Uber in the long term are the current owners of medallions. If Uber succeeds their investments will be valueless.
Somehow I'd still like to call BS on those stories.
There shouldn't be anything easier than catching and putting into jail a rapist driver if you have the (electronic) paper trail of who got into whose car, where was the ride booked, where was the destination. Aren't they automatically checking the GPS logs that the driver ist taking you from A to B on the shortest route? And I'd bet that Uper is checking meticulously that you're not cutting into Ubers share by booking only the first half of your ride by Uber and pay the driver cash for the rest of the trip.
So if you live in a country where rape is not normal and the police actively is trying to catch rapists, Uber should be safer than being anywhere else without GPS tracking. Sounds like cab company FUD to me.
bickerdyke
You could have always have been raped, but now you can at least leave a bad review.
Yeah, thats going to get thrown out of court with prejudice, and potentially fines or jail time for contempt.
Its as ridiculous as those notices on piracy bulletin boards thats said "if you are a member of law enforcement you do not have permission to enter".
If your friend is driving from point A to point B and you drive in the same direction and you decide to share the costs: No problem. It does not even have to be your friend.
The moment YOU decide where you go and the driver had previously no intention of going there and you pay him for that ride, at that moment you are a business and you fall under business regulations.
And when you suddenly have hundreds of friends who you drive around all day for money it becomes even clearer.
The line is only not clear if you don't want it to be.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
"Uber Australia requires a K class (taxi/charter vehicle) license to be a driver, so they are covered for that situation."
False.
I had a look at Uber's signup system for Brisbane, QLD
UberX
---------
You Are...
At least 21 years old, with an Australian drivers license and comprehensive insurance.
(ie: illegally driving commercially)
Never asked me about whether I was licensed to carry commercial passengers.
UberBlack:
---------------
You Are...
A professional chauffeur with a commercial license and commercial auto insurance.
(legal)
While this may be the case in some parts of the world it is not true here in Australia.
Uber is operating a taxi service but not operating under the laws that govern taxis. In Australia taxis are considered a part of the wider public transport system and are factored into planning around things like trains and bus services. As a result taxi drivers have a number of restrictions on them. Possibly the most important of those is they cannot refuse a fare. It doesn't matter that your house is miles away from any other chance of a fare they have to take you.
The net impact of this is that taxis have to take on jobs which are nominally a net loss. This is then made up by other routes being more profitable. Uber comes in and says we don't need to participate in this, we will just cherry pick the profitable routes. As a result the taxis that are required to never say no start to lose money and a key part of your cities public transport infrastructure starts to collapse.
So Uber's cost structure attempts to avoid the cost of the taxi plate, and to avoid the greater good requirements placed on taxi firms. The net effect is not positive.
http://www.london24.com/news/u...
http://www.citylab.com/commute...
http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/...
Citation needed. Beyond which I'm sure Taxis are no different. You're likely trolling, but if you're not then just look at the number of places where some of the most common scams include false/unregulated taxis.
We don't have a medallion system here in the UK, so explain why there are people against here here...
Here, a 3 year license to operate a taxi will typically set you back £355 for the drivers license, £600 for the vehicle license (vehicle under 3 years old) and £460 for the operator license (covers up to 5 vehicles). Private hire vehicles are slightly cheaper.
£1,500 for a 3 year license to operate a taxi - that's not exactly a massive investment nor is it a huge barrier to entry. Pay that money, pass the tests and you have yourself the ability to start earning money by operating a taxi.
Taxi fares are also fixed in the UK by the local councils, so there is no gouging or "surge pricing". You can calculate how much your fare is going to be before you even get into the taxi.
It is in-fact obstruction of justice, because you are purposefully obstructing the ability of the inspector to do their job *because* they are an inspector. If you were banning them for any other reason it would be fine, but to specifically ban them for conducting inspections - yeah, thats a cut and dried case of obstruction of justice.
Restaurants have the ability to ban customers and refuse them entry to the premises (it is private property) but they don't get to simply ban health inspectors - that gets them shut down pretty damn quickly.
Building sites are private property, you can't trespass on them, but you can't also ban government safety inspectors from coming onto the land through claiming trespass.
Oh, and you do realise that your constitution isn't in force outside the borders and territories of the US, right? So the examples you give don't count.
The line is only not clear if you don't want it to be.
Well, that's the point. Many of us don't want it to be, because we don't feel that accepting money for an activity inherently changes its nature. If it's not safe for J. Random Driver to carry a passenger for hire, then it's not safe for them to carry anyone, including themselves, and we should just abolish cars.
If it's not safe for a person to carry hire passengers, then it's just not safe for them to be driving, because someone (them) might get hurt. Either that driver and that car are qualified to be on the road, or they aren't. Since taxi driving is no different from any other kind of driving — you are still required to follow precisely the same motor vehicle laws — there is no justification for any kind of special license before someone is permitted to do it. You could say the same about anything else that taxi licenses are supposed to protect you from, like assaults by taxi drivers which happen all the time. If people aren't capable of being on the street without attacking people, they don't belong on the street in or out of a taxi.
The line is not clear because it's not clear what the public gains from taxi licenses. It's clear what the government gains, though.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Do what google says, or they will make your govt and country invisible on the neti, get no tourists.
Aussie taxies suck too btw.
Useless and OVER PRICED.
Charging so called night rates up to 9am. Thats FRAUD, its NOT NIGHT time between 6am and 9am.
They just classify it as expensive night rates, to sting all business travelers in the mornings.
I call the taxi regulators fraudsters.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
How would launching civil litigation to uphold a contract be subject to "fines" or "contempt"? At worst, someone might get declared a vexatious litigant; but that takes a big effort involving repeated frivolous pleadings. And why would it be dismissed with prejudice? What is your reasoning?
I can't believe the post was modded "Informative".
Taxi fares are also fixed in the UK by the local councils, so there is no gouging or "surge pricing". You can calculate how much your fare is going to be before you even get into the taxi.
Yes, except at times when non-official taxis would be charging higher prices to encourage more people to offer rides, you can't get an official taxi at all, because people making trivial trips are still using them because they're cheap, while those making essential trips have to wait.
Rationing is clearly better than letting prices rise for a while. Or something.
Taxi driving is, in fact, different from personal driving. Taxi drivers drive much more than personal drivers, so the probability of an accident is higher. And since they are drivers for hire, they are responsible for the passengers. Hence the different license.
So, what exactly does the government gain? The processing fees for issuing the commercial driver license? They aren't that high, the fees usually just cover the costs of the pencil pushers.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
the greater good requirements
...usually result in the greater bad unintended consequences. Why should I have to pay (in higher fair prices) for your decision to live in the boon docks (especially if there are advantages to living there that I don't get to share with you)?
You are half right here. Driving a taxi is mostly the same as driving a normal car. I think that a surprisingly large percentage of regular drivers are terrible drivers; they should have their licences revoked. But any politician that changed the laws such that the bottom 20% of drivers lost their licence would at least be quickly voted out of office, and possibly assassinated for causing our economy to collapse [think of all the people that couldn't drive to work anymore]. We hold taxi drivers to a higher standard because we are not willing to hold everyone to that standard.
Pizza delivery people drive more than personal drivers. Do they need a commercial license?
We hold taxi drivers to a higher standard because we are not willing to hold everyone to that standard.
But we don't actually hold taxi drivers to a notably higher standard, we just extract some money from them and maybe require them to prove that they have some extra insurance at some point.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That's why drivers should have insurance so we don't have to sue them.
Except if you're running a business, which is what Uber is, on your personal insurance. Then your insurance company won't cover you, and may drop you, which means you end up getting sued anyway.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower