Slashdot Mirror
UberX Runs Into Trouble In Australia With NSW Suspending Vehicle Registration
Harlequin80 writes: RMS (Roads & Maritime Service), the New South Wales' governing body for transport, has begun suspending the vehicle registration of UberX drivers. After failing to deter drivers through prosecutions, with Uber covering fines and legal costs of its drivers, RMS has begun suspending the registration of the vehicles as it forces the vehicle off the road for three months. Under the NSW Passenger Transport Act, paid ride sharing is illegal, and this will see UberX drivers losing the use of their vehicle for both Uber and personal use.
It is an affront to the liberty of Uber if they aren't allowed to operate as they please, where they please, how they please!
No it's far better to allow corporations the right to dictate over a countries laws. Ignore regulation and create illegal markets instead.
What if one of these people hit me and they're not covered by insurance because they're using it for commercial use against their policy? As a NSW Taxpayer, I'd rather people obey this law thanks.
It is Uber that's encouraging drivers to ignore taxi regulation. You're allowed to be a taxi driver in NSW when you follow the regulations correctly.
Now think of this. Uber's concern for the families, citizens and society and then the local government's concern for the families, citizens and society.
I have almost no trust for the later and if this is the only choice I am gonna get I still go for it anyway as the alternative does not appeal to me. Unless of course Uber will bribe me enough.
You could use the same argument for a lot of drug dealers. Laws are meant to be enforced.
Man this place seems worse than Communism.
I can see the next iteration of UberX going stealth where people who want rides and people who are offering wind up on an app server, with payments done via BitCoin in some easy to use app that converts local currency to BTC for the rider, and an app that converts BTC back to the local for the driver. If UberX added some BitCoin tumbling technology where all transactions going to them would be paid off every 4-6 hours with several payments, there would be no real way to hunt down either party unless NSW decided to do extensive NSA-level surveillance, spend time combing through the blockchain with a fine-toothed comb, as well as use parallel construction to hide where their evidence came from.
We saw similar technologies banned, then metastasized with a vengeance. Napster is a good example. Even though Australia's gun ban worked and has reduced crime to a fraction of what the Aussies had before, it is easy to keep track of physical items. Much harder to keep code and algorithms out of a country.
The quote from the Premier about the status quo is ironic. Technology changes, and banning something just means that it it will just pop up in a way that is too expensive to enforce, or at best 1-2 people wind up being made out as example... and laws which cannot be enforced or are selectively enforced, weaken the respect citizens have for the entire government.
The government needs to stop trying to block UberX, and offer some alternative or compromise. Otherwise, people will just give them the middle finger and UberX will change into a peer to peer system using some form of anonymous cryptocurrency.
Sure, fire off the sarcasm. See if s/government/big corporation/ makes it any better.
If I have to choose between the benevolence of big corporations or the goverment, my choice would be easy as hell. One I can vote for/against, the other I have minimal influence over. But then again, I don't know where you live, I live in a democracy.
Sure, fire off the sarcasm. See if s/government/big corporation/ makes it any better.
If I have to choose between the benevolence of big corporations or the goverment, my choice would be easy as hell. One I can vote for/against, the other I have minimal influence over. But then again, I don't know where you live, I live in a democracy.
Nice straw man.
Exxon can't take away your right to drive your own damn car if you give someone a ride for a fiver.
Are corporations people in NSW? If so, like in the US, this violates their rights.
They need to bring out GNUberX...
Last I checked, it was a landlocked country, so why do they have a "Maritime" service????
:
:
Yes, it is intended to poke fun at people who confuse Austria with Australia.
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
Google Pinkertons. Historically, companies can have you killed if they like. Absolutely they can take away your right to drive your car if they can have you killed.
Families aren't surviving off Uber money. Families are surviving off taxi industry money. The taxi industry only survives because of the laws that protect it.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Punishing the drivers doesn't help.
Issue arrest warrants for the leadership of UberX if they continue to tempt people to break the law. Simple as that.
find the missing word(s) in the parent post...
So you remove their only way to make a living?
They should be making their living legally, not illegally - the same would happen in any other circumstance where you are earning money through illegal means...
I eagerly clicked on the story thinking that between "UberX" and "NSW" it would be a whole lot more fun.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Frankly, I'm with the government on this one. For one simple reason. Uber is trying to establish a monopoly and rather than being a good employer, their next move is to sack all the drivers and replace them with self driving cars. I would rather the government control the transition away from taxi licensing than a private company who's only goal is to gain an illegal monopoly and then run a service which doesn't employ any Australian's for the private profit of the few wealthy majority shareholders. Uber will have US based programmers, and US based engineers/designers. But it won't employ anyone within Australia. I would much rather see the government and existing taxi companies develop a booking app and begin an orderly phase out of taxi drivers where the licensees are properly compensated. The last thing we need is another monopoly leeching money out of the economy, and mass unemployment.
There's nothing stopping them from delivering their services under the safe, legally approved platform. The government is not denying them the ability to offer a ride - the individual is insisting on an illegal, inconsistent, and unsafe choice.
Those drivers would be able to operate within the bounds of a taxi or livery service, but that would break the Uber business model.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Why does Uber get away calling itself a ride sharing service? It's definitely not free to use, and you can't share rides in the sense I give person x a ride today for a ride from person y tomorrow.
It's a damn taxi service with an iPhone app, pure and simple. The thing is I am all for more competition to drive prices down, however they have an unfair advantage vs local companies here (in Canada at least) as they do not pay for their taxi plates, their drivers do not have taxi licenses, no annual inspection of the cars etc etc etc that the local companies HAVE to follow.
They cannot effectively compete against Uber because Uber simply ignores local laws. Now I would like it if the gov cut some of the red tape and allowed more taxis on the roads to help drive prices down to where they are actually usable, but we know that is not what will happen. If anything they will bring Uber to the fold and raise prices to boot.
I've been to NSW. Interesting country that you've got there. I was visiting Cann River a second time.
Anyhow, I'm a little torn. Isn't NSW the place that also made it pretty much illegal for two "bikey blokes" to ride together? Maybe it was three? Basically they wanted to outlaw bikie gangs. They were a bit out of sorts about it the last time I was there.
I guess, yeah, obeying the law is good and Uber's full of shit and 'can't be stuffed with following the law.' But, on the other hand, you've got an awful lot of laws.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
In Australia, because the federal government has cut more and more funding over the years, the state governments have slowly taken a "screw you society" approach to raising and protecting revenue.
A well known trait of the nominus A. cowardice is an inability to comprehend history, accept history, think logically, or understand reasonably abstraction or extrapolations. But, by all means, throw fecal matter at the wall to see what sticks.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Well, actually, that IS why the Drug War IS a problem, as it turns out to be the most effective economic route for a lot of people.
From production to distribution. It's a pernicious cycle, and even feeds itself from the rest of society due to the prison industry.
However, I don't know if that reality is quite in effect for taxi service, especially where it can be legal, if done properly, and I don't know that the demand is that much in excess of the supply.
I have more trust for the government than I have for a benefits-dodger like Uber. The company shows hate by using contractors as a dodge against benefits as well as implying a second-tier status.
The government responds and answers to me without regard to stock ownership, while Uber responds primarily to some faceless individuals.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Perhaps if you talked to the people that get shortchanged by driving it, you would see the problems that go beyond taxis.
The Focus Group Minority might like it, but nobody else.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Trying to figure out what NSfW acts had to be taking place in those taxis that would cause them to lose their license
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Australia's government would win this one. Combine due process for denying approved services with penalties for not adopting such frameworks, and the service gets dinged twice - once for the service, once for the blacklist.
That, and one can turn any untraceability against the service - where the enforcement effort yields no information about individual enforcers.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
They wouldn't even make to shore.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
No that was Queensland that passed those laws. Unlike NSW, Queensland has a single house of parliament at state level (no senate) so it's easy for a government to pass all sorts of weird laws.
They should be making their living legally, not illegally
I'm more concerned about whether people are making their living ethically. I'm still undecided as to which thing Uber represents. I'm fairly certain that the company itself is sleazy, but I still think the concept itself is sound and I hope they "win", where "win" == achieve substantial shift in the legal landscape that makes actual ride-sharing with cost-sharing feasible.
It's clear that taxi services do not adequately provide for the needs of the car-hiring public, and it's also clear that taxi services are entrenched interests in many markets. In some places, "taxis" are a little more loosely-defined than they are in e.g. NYC. But I also am against any law which effectively prevents people from using their property to make money in a capitalist system which requires that you have money to exist.
I am not against regulation, I am for fair and sensible regulation. Uber provides additional insurance for drivers while they are transporting a fare. If the additional miles that drivers put on their vehicles between (and during!) fares add up to anything, then they are already assessed additional insurance premiums to pay for that mileage. Drivers already pay taxes for vehicle registration which are at least in some cases tied to environmental impact and/or road wear. Though the degree to which that is accurately accounted for is somewhat lacking, the problems with it are not in the area of hire cars, but primarily in "over-the-road" (heavy) trucking. The vehicles which do the most damage should pay the lion's share of the ongoing maintenance costs, while major infrastructure which is assumed to have to be replaced on a schedule should come out of a fund for the purpose.
What are the other objections? People not getting paid a fair wage for their time, these people aren't working already and I don't see any solutions being offered. The taxi companies won't hire them anyway. Taxi driving is more dangerous for the driver than for passengers, so that one's out. What's the problem?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
...as opposed to merely "sharing" their car? Then they need to adhere to taxi regulations.
In a true ride sharing, the only cost should be half the gas. Any more, and now you're in the taxi business.
How are the users of a service ("Focus Group Minority") a "minority"? There are far more customers than providers. I think there needs to be balance, but let's not totally dismiss those being serviced.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Well if you think that and don't like it, get elected and change the laws.
There's no reason a lawsuit and tribunal should ever be able to override the laws of a land. The government decides what is law, and the people decide who is government. And corporations have to convince the people its in their interests to change the laws.
See how that work?
People > Government > Corporations
*Not*
Corporation > Government > People.
Anyhow, I'm a little torn. Isn't NSW the place that also made it pretty much illegal for two "bikey blokes" to ride together? Maybe it was three? Basically they wanted to outlaw bikie gangs. They were a bit out of sorts about it the last time I was there.
Can you blame them? Even Dale Earnhardt Jr. can't escape their predations! He had Bud ON THE CAR, not IN THE CAR.
Ah good. It was on the news while I was there last. I'd come in through Canberra and gone down that way. The first time I came in through Melbourne. It's kind of strange but interesting in Australia. Everything was pretty much deadly or straight up evil.
After I left the second time the chick I'd been there to visit was on her way to a coffee shop where she worked. While she was walking to work a magpie straight kicked her ass - damaged her face a bit though I guess the scars buffed out over time. I have since come to understand (but haven't returned to visit) that magpies regularly assault postal delivery workers as well. This is, I am told, regular enough to where some carry sticks on their route just to thwart the magpies.
I'm reasonably tough, I suppose. However, I'm not stupid. I don't think I'd want to live somewhere that the entirety of nature is constantly plotting new and interesting ways to kill me. Anyhow, the second trip was nice. I rented a "Ute." I drove from Victoria all the way to the tippy top of the country. I forget the name of the peninsula but you drive through a wildlife preserve to get there. There are some old, very old, roads where they still have telegraph poles and there was some history in a guide book about the poles and lines. I'm pretty sure they were no longer active but it was an awesome drive.
There had been a fire in the preserve not that much prior to my journey but it was still beautiful and there were still lots of critters to see including some nifty colored snakes and lizards. Being neither suicidal nor an expert, I generally observed all wildlife from a distance.
Somewhere, on this thing we call the internet, should be a pile of pictures that I'd uploaded so that some forum members could see them. I imagine Google knows where they are as I've long since forgotten. I've never really been a big fan of pictures, I prefer to store things in my head.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Isn't NSW the place that also made it pretty much illegal for two "bikey blokes" to ride together?
Is that when gay couples ride tandem bicycles?
An "illegal market" is the kind that arises naturally.
I'm more concerned about whether people are making their living ethically. I'm still undecided as to which thing Uber represents. I'm fairly certain that the company itself is sleazy, but I still think the concept itself is sound and I hope they "win", where "win" == achieve substantial shift in the legal landscape that makes actual ride-sharing with cost-sharing feasible.
Uber is run by Libertarian psychopaths (but I repeat myself), so "sleazy" would be a ringing endorsement. Their business model is build around facilitating and encouraging individuals to break the law while hiving themselves off from any risk or legal responsibility for the consequences thereof.
That being said, the taxi industry in Australia, as in most countries, is a hive of lazy rent-seekers who need a rocket up their arses. I should be clear, here. I'm talking about taxi plate ("medallion") holders - particular the ones that have had them for decades - than drivers, who are by and large just trying to make a crust in a shitty job with long hours and crap wages.
Hire car regulations serve a useful purpose: driver qualifications and background checks, minimum vehicle standards, mandatory audio and video recording equipment for passenger *and driver* safety and accountability, ensuring appropriate insurance coverage, etc.
However, it's hard to see why this needs to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a pop to monitor and enforce, and impossible to see any reason why anyone prepared to meet the standards should not be issued a hire car plate on application.
Fix the real problems - arbitrary supply constraints and outrageous costs of taxi plates.
(Disclosure: I drove taxis in Brisbane for four years about twenty years ago while I was studying.)
"You could use the same argument for a lot of drug dealers. "
And we do use exactly that argument.
So the service is so popular there that prosecutions & fines aren't enough to stop it? Sounds like the problem is the law not the service. Kind of reminds me of a mini form of prohibition, or basically what happens with moonshine here in the US. Only difference is this one isn't being pressed by religious fundamentalists but by idiots who bought into a government enforced monopoly.
"They should be making their living legally, not illegally"
Which is effectively impossible in many countries now days, not sure how bad it is in this region but here in the US I think you're average person is estimated to commit at least 3 crimes per day and several felonies per year living a completely normal, what most people would consider moral, life. The legal systems of most western countries are so complicated, selectively enforced & contradictory that no one can really honestly say what is "legal". I live in one of several states where it is illegal for "a man and woman not related by blood or marriage" to live under the same roof and I think last year I heard a story (again from my own state) where a police officer arrested an individual for a "crime"which was not on the books.
Buy back the taxi plates families have forked out 100K+ for. Deregulate the industry and sure let uber operate along taxi services. Alternatively let's see uber operate under the exact same conditions as taxis (plates, radio royalties, what ever other insurances) and see if its that cost effective. If they still dominate because their service is that much better, all power to them!
Illegal markets are typically run through shadow economies. This is a mainstream IPO based tech brand. No means No Betach!!
Let's face it Taxi driver is a shit job.
Uber is undermining those shit jobs and make like even shittier for these poor bastards.
You're talking about Cape York! See many crocs?
Laws are meant to be enforced.
Hitler relied on people like you.
There were loads of crocodockles. You're infested with them over there. It was a really beautiful trip. I see someone's modded me off-topic. I giggled a little. I don't usually post anything on topic. It just isn't the /. way.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Yes, that's why when you see a biker in NSW you should always give them the middle finger and call them derogatory names based on their sexual orientation. It's traditional and I insist you do so every time you go to Australia. You can try it in the country you live in - especially if you're in America. Just give them the finger and call them "fags" and you'll be accepted as part of the group immediately. They'll even buy you beer and set you up with hookers. Make sure that you smile broadly while doing so. They consider this a sign of welcome and it's part of their traditional greeting ceremony.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Hire car regulations serve a useful purpose: driver qualifications and background checks, minimum vehicle standards, mandatory audio and video recording equipment for passenger *and driver* safety and accountability, ensuring appropriate insurance coverage, etc.
I think that the cellphone could provide for the camera requirements, and the normal regulatory process ought to handle the rest without any special investigation. Vehicles ought to be safety inspected based on miles traveled, Uber provides insurance while carrying a fare, and drivers are already carrying insurance adequate for the time when they're not doing that.
However, it's hard to see why this needs to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a pop to monitor and enforce, and impossible to see any reason why anyone prepared to meet the standards should not be issued a hire car plate on application.
Well, there's a reason, but it's artificial scarcity which is a bit frustrating.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Hey maybe Uber will help out by leasing the drivers cars that way they wouldn't lose their personal
vehicles Oh wait that would make them more like taxis nevermind!
My cousin, who drives her husband to work, can have the reg for the family car pulled just because she is driving for uber to get a little extra dosh because they need help putting food on the table? The have two kids and he makes shite wages. They lose the car he loses his job. What amazing asshatery is this?
No one can take away your rights, only if you allow it. That's why we have Guns in America!
>Uber is run by Libertarian psychopaths (but I repeat myself)
I quit reading there. No need to read the rantings of someone who starts out with an extreme political bias. I'll stick with people who aren't bigoted, TYVM!
> I'm more concerned about whether people are making their living ethically.
Law establishes a floor for ethical behaviour.
You missed congestion, which was a major reason for the existing medallion systems. You can look at e.g. Panama City for Uber's end goal: everyone that wants to can drive a cab for a nominal fee. There are so many cars on the road you're often better off walking, but you can totally take a taxi if you want. It will have the bare minimum of maintenance to still be roadworthy, and the driver will be getting just enough to cover his gas, because with more competition comes lower margins, and there's only so many ways to cut costs. In a race to the bottom, the laborers always lose.
I think that the cellphone could provide for the camera requirements, and the normal regulatory process ought to handle the rest without any special investigation. Vehicles ought to be safety inspected based on miles traveled, Uber provides insurance while carrying a fare, and drivers are already carrying insurance adequate for the time when they're not doing that.
A mobile phone camera isn't adequate in terms of coverage. Small cameras are dirt cheap, so requiring a few inside a vehicle isn't even close to burdensome.
Many states in Australia (and the US, and presumably every country) have little to no ongoing vehicle safety inspections.
Uber has no legal obligation or requirement to provide insurance. That's not good enough.
It's not a political bias, it's a social one. Against psychopaths.
Libertarianism is an extreme ideology. Easily summed up as "me want, fuck you".
Sure could, but dealers in illegal drugs are providing a service that no legal business can. Uber is providing a service that competes with a legal and more or less regulated type of business, but tries to avoid all the regulations.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Provocare coronam auctoritate diadema ad periculum tuum pertinet .
So you remove their only way to make a living?
They should be making their living legally, not illegally - the same would happen in any other circumstance where you are earning money through illegal means...
This.
Driving a taxi is already a very low paying job in Oz., Uber is making it worse by transferring as many costs onto the driver as possible.
I'd like to see taxi laws and regulations changed to favour owner/drivers and allow minicabbing in Australia but Uber is doing everything they can to reinforce current regulations by demonstrating exactly why they should exist.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
They've taken action against those that have gone against the NSW laws.
Perfectly within their purview to penalize improperly licensed drivers.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
You missed congestion, which was a major reason for the existing medallion systems. You can look at e.g. Panama City for Uber's end goal: everyone that wants to can drive a cab for a nominal fee. There are so many cars on the road you're often better off walking, but you can totally take a taxi if you want.
As many taxis as there are in Panama City, and I've been there so I know what you're talking about, they're still in the minority of vehicles. And the congestion isn't caused by too many taxis on the road no matter how you look at it, it's caused by abysmally poor traffic flow control exacerbated by overuse. Panama is having trouble supplying water to operate the canal, however, and if they don't get that sorted they're going to dry up and blow away right after it does, and that will calm right down.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Many states in Australia (and the US, and presumably every country) have little to no ongoing vehicle safety inspections.
Sure, but that's a separate problem from Uber, and one for which they should not be held responsible. California is actually one of those states! We care a whole lot about emissions, but if your vehicle might shed parts, so what? And this is where the most cars are! Vehicles should get safety inspections at certain mileage checkpoints where they statistically start to have problems if poorly maintained, whether they are used for commercial purposes or not.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Benefits are from the federal government not the state government.
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
Sure, but that's a separate problem from Uber, and one for which they should not be held responsible.
It's not a separate problem if vehicles for hire are subject to different standards, and Uber - more accurately, people driving for Uber - are providing a vehicle-for-hire service.
The separate problem is whether or not all vehicles should be subject to regular mechanical checks, not whether Uber vehicles should be - the law is already clear on vehicle-for-hire standards.
It's not a separate problem if vehicles for hire are subject to different standards
They shouldn't be.
The separate problem is whether or not all vehicles should be subject to regular mechanical checks
Wrong. If vehicles are a danger to others because they are being operated more, then vehicles should be inspected when they are operated more whether they are used for commercial purposes or not. It's wrong to place that burden on someone simply because they're engaging in economic activity.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I ran a cab company in Orlando for ten years.I don't know why anyone would drive a cab for a living .we got half of the meter and driver had to pay for gas .the cars where police cars that had seen better day they cost us about 750 each .so not good gas mileage by the time driver got done they made about three dollars a hour .I love to see more companies like uber and airbnb both are band here because the government wants to protect it donations there afraid that if it catches on that they might actually pay there employees living wages. The drivers are 1099 employees so no benefits and they still to pay taxes on the money they made. So there not doing anything for the drivers with these new laws there just looking out for the owners.
They shouldn't be.
Why ? Equipment standards for selling services to others vs personal use differ in lots of places.
If vehicles are a danger to others because they are being operated more, then vehicles should be inspected when they are operated more whether they are used for commercial purposes or not. It's wrong to place that burden on someone simply because they're engaging in economic activity.
Someone providing a commercial service has a greater responsibility than someone engaging in personal use. That's why restaurants need to meet standards that your kitchen at home does not.
Someone providing a commercial service has a greater responsibility than someone engaging in personal use.
What? Why?
That's why restaurants need to meet standards that your kitchen at home does not.
Wrong. Restaurants need to meet standards that your home kitchen does not because so many people eat there. But whether you use your car for commercial purposes or not doesn't really change how many people you can kill with it. We make drivers of heavy vehicles or people who want to tow heavy loads get fancier driver's licenses because they can kill more people. A taxi is just a regular automobile, so it doesn't require a special driver's license. It requires a taxi license because protectionism.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
What? Why?
Uh, because they've now got an implied responsibility to their customers ?
Wrong. Restaurants need to meet standards that your home kitchen does not because so many people eat there.
So a small corner cafe has lower hygiene requirements than a Sizzler ?
But whether you use your car for commercial purposes or not doesn't really change how many people you can kill with it.
Yes, it does.
We make drivers of heavy vehicles or people who want to tow heavy loads get fancier driver's licenses because they can kill more people.
No, we do it because it needs a more advanced skill set.
A taxi is just a regular automobile, so it doesn't require a special driver's license. It requires a taxi license because protectionism.
It requires a taxi license (by which I'm assuming you mean driver certification) because a taxi driver has additional standards around things like background checks and (depending on jurisdiction) driving offences. Because they're providing a paid service to others who may be impacted by those things.
You see a similar condition around people who need to work with children vs people who don't. For the same kinds of reasons.
Government undermines those shit jobs by siphoning off a huge chunk of the fares paid to regulators and the crony capitalists who pay the regulators to protect their rents. The driver and passenger between them pay for the rent of the taxi license plate and for the rent of the taxi itself, as both the plate and the modifications to the vehicle required by regulators are out of the reach of someone working a "shit job". Uber is providing customers and drivers with the means to cheat crony capitalists out of millions of dollars of income the crony capitalists do literally nothing to earn. Keep the transaction between the driver, the customer and the service provider that puts the two in contact with each other and watch the market provide a better service than a regulated market could possibly imagine accomplishing.
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
It's also why Queensland had a festering corruption problem which was finally admitted in the mid 1980s but still not entirely cleaned up.
Wrong. Restaurants need to meet standards that your home kitchen does not because so many people eat there.
So a small corner cafe has lower hygiene requirements than a Sizzler ?
That's a stupid thing to say, and you're a stupid person for saying it. The bar is not whether you're feeding many people or many many people, the bar is whether you're feeding many people. Try opening a soup kitchen and giving away food and see if you get inspected for health reasons. But nobody is going to inspect your kitchen at home unless you plan to feed the masses from it.
But whether you use your car for commercial purposes or not doesn't really change how many people you can kill with it.
Yes, it does.
That's a stupid thing to say, and you're a stupid person for saying it. Making a vehicle commercial does not increase its passenger capacity.
A taxi is just a regular automobile, so it doesn't require a special driver's license. It requires a taxi license because protectionism.
It requires a taxi license (by which I'm assuming you mean driver certification) because a taxi driver has additional standards around things like background checks and (depending on jurisdiction) driving offences.
No, again, you're being an idiot. Driving a taxi is more dangerous for the driver than for the passengers, statistically; they are way more likely to have a crime committed against them by you (or another passenger) than you are by them. The person most at-risk in this situation is the driver. Do you propose that we pre-screen all taxi passengers for the safety of taxi drivers? And if a driver can't be trusted to drive safely by themselves, they can't be trusted to drive safely with others, or vice versa. Again, the same rules should apply to all drivers whether commercial or not. You should need a better license to drive a larger class of vehicle, because that makes you more dangerous to others around you. You should not need a better license to drive a taxi, because it's just a car. You should not be able to drive any car if your record is too bad. Driving a taxi is just driving a car with passengers in it, so if you can't handle doing that for money, you can't handle doing that for free, either. We shouldn't let soccer moms with too many tickets drive their kids around, either, and they're in a minivan which is more dangerous than the average taxi; yes, some taxis are minivans, but the average taxi is just a car.
You see a similar condition around people who need to work with children vs people who don't. For the same kinds of reasons.
But in this case, the taxi driver is at more risk of being killed or otherwise harmed by a passenger than the passenger is at risk of the opposite, so it's still a shitty argument here.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That's a stupid thing to say, and you're a stupid person for saying it. The bar is not whether you're feeding many people or many many people, the bar is whether you're feeding many people. Try opening a soup kitchen and giving away food and see if you get inspected for health reasons. But nobody is going to inspect your kitchen at home unless you plan to feed the masses from it.
You don't need a commercial kitchen certification to have a party.
You do need one if your business is providing food as a service to others, even if it only serves a handful of people a day.
They key point - the "bar" - here is a business providing a service for others, not the number of attendees. To take an extreme example, a restaurant that only served one meal a day would still need appropriate commercial kitchen certification, but you could have fifty friends over for a barbecue without needing one.
Making a vehicle commercial does not increase its passenger capacity.
That's a stupid thing to say, and you're a stupid person for saying it.
A commercial vehicle for hire carries a far higher number of passengers, over a far higher number of kilometres, and a far greater area. It is driving around 24/7. To argue it presents the same risk profile as a personal vehicle carrying a handful of different people a relatively short distance, driving maybe 5 hours a day at most, over a limited area, is ridiculous on its face.
Driving a taxi is more dangerous for the driver than for the passengers, statistically; they are way more likely to have a crime committed against them by you (or another passenger) than you are by them.
Indeed. I drove taxis for years, remember ?
Doesn’t change the fact that drivers can also be dangerous to passengers.
Do you propose that we pre-screen all taxi passengers for the safety of taxi drivers?
That's a stupid thing to say, and you're a stupid person for saying it.
Again, the same rules should apply to all drivers whether commercial or not.
Right. So is your position is that someone with a criminal history in, say, violent theft, shouldn’t be allowed to have a driver’s license at all, or that someone with a criminal history in violent theft shouldn’t have any problems getting a job as a taxi or limo driver ?
But in this case, the taxi driver is at more risk of being killed or otherwise harmed by a passenger than the passenger is at risk of the opposite, so it's still a shitty argument here.
That's a stupid thing to say, and you're a stupid person for saying it.
Your core argument is that there is no difference - legally, ethically, or otherwise - between someone doing something (driving, cooking, watching children, whatever) in a social context, and someone doing the same thing as a business, providing a service to all and sundry. This is stupid. They haven't been considered equivalent since we lived in tribes of a few hundred people. Trying to abuse the word "sharing" to change this, does not.