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.
No it's far better to allow corporations the right to dictate over a countries laws. Ignore regulation and create illegal markets instead.
Hilarious.... but sadly might be true shortly.
The whole point of the new Trans Pacific Trade (and its Euro equivalent) agreement is Corporate Sovereignty, the right of corporations to sue countries for violating their rights to ply their trades however they see fit.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131024/11560725004/what-does-isds-mean-corporate-sovereignty-pure-simple.shtml
If they win the lawsuit, the country will be required to change the law to make whatever they blocked legal, regardless of the democracy or elected government. These cases will be heard by a tribunal of ex- Corporate laws (I kid you not, corporate lawyers will sit in private session and decide if the country needs to change its laws to make it legal).
http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2013/10/investors-are-increasingly-challenging-states-constitutional-court-decisions-in-investor-state-tribu.html
So Uber might one day be able to sue countries for daring to have long standing rules about Taxis that interfere with Ubers advantage. Ubers advantage is not be bound by the laws of taxis!
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.
It violates what rights? Even in the US you don't have the right to earn money through illegal means. And you also don't have the right to always operate a vehicle on the public highways. So what rights are being violated?
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.
The whole reason why Taxi regulation and limits were introduced in many cases is because there used to be large amount of bad actors before and regulation was demanded by the clients (Poland, and many EU countries), or there was _to many_ actors (eg. NY during Great Depression) which led to race to zero where noone was making money.
The pendulum swung to far, and Uber came to life to restore balance, but we (and goverment) needs to make sure that the pendulum doesn't swing to much into another direction and we don't get repeat of what we had before.