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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Nortel used to be worth 400 billions. Two years later only 5 billions. It still was the same company, just not as overvalued anymore. Market capitalisation doesn't show how much an enterprise is actually worth or whether it does something right or not. It only shows what the speculators currently think.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
"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)
The year before it imploded in dramatic fashion, Enron was worth, according to its Market Capitalisation, $60Billion - when infact it was worth nothing like that.
Uber's "worth" of $40Billion comes from investor interest, nothing more. There's no huge bank of assets in there that underpins that valuation, its how much money it could potentially earn in the markets it exists in.
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/...
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.
You can't trump government inspections with Terms and Conditions.
I really do wonder what fucking world a bunch of people here live in - "hey, why not just make up our own terms and conditions and circumvent all requirements to follow any laws?! Hah local government, take that!" Really? Are you high all the time or something?
Company terms and conditions do not negate local laws and requirements for inspection officers or legal bodies to carry out inspections under those laws, or affect the ability for those inspection officers or legal bodies to carry out said inspections. No matter how much you want to argue it.
"Government officers are not allowed access to this system" is a fantasy land bullshit thing which was laughed out of court in the 1980s when BBSes attempted to use it to stop police from gathering information on illegal activities. Your assertion is no different.
Oh, and Chelsea Manning was tried under espionage and treason laws - were you trying to equate government inspections with the activities of Aaron Swartz perhaps? Because the two are not equatable, regardless of how overboard you think the prosecutor went in the Swartz case.
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.