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.

Comments

language of the heart is foolproof

[Anonymous Coward]

only one version of the truth usually a short story,, to find out what our real history & heritage of hysterical (greed fear ego based) acquisitional wmd on credit religious franchise murder & mayhem campaigns one must start with the teepeeleaks etchings.... for the bright creational spirits of our future we only need look to our moms & kids... creation's planet population rescue participants... hand in hand we stand...

So you remove their only way to make a living?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow what a way to help families survive.

I imagine this will backfire when people start claiming more benefits (as you've effectively forced them out of work).

I imagine that the Gov't simply are trying to ignore Uber rather than nut this out properly?

Your tax at work!!

Re: So you remove their only way to make a living?

[Anonymous Coward]

No it's far better to allow corporations the right to dictate over a countries laws. Ignore regulation and create illegal markets instead.

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[umghhh]

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.

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[Anonymous Coward]

You could use the same argument for a lot of drug dealers. Laws are meant to be enforced.

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[fluffernutter]

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.

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[Richard_at_work]

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...

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[KGIII]

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.

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[_merlin]

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.

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.

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[Anonymous Coward]

Go fuck yourself, you bootlicking wanker piece of subhuman waste.

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[drinkypoo]

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?

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[KGIII]

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.

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[kelemvor4]

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?

Re: So you remove their only way to make a living?

[Applehu Akbar]

An "illegal market" is the kind that arises naturally.

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[drsmithy]

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.)

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[Applehu Akbar]

"You could use the same argument for a lot of drug dealers. "

And we do use exactly that argument.

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re: So you remove their only way to make a living?

[Anonymous Coward]

Illegal markets are typically run through shadow economies. This is a mainstream IPO based tech brand. No means No Betach!!

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're talking about Cape York! See many crocs?

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[Anonymous Coward]

Laws are meant to be enforced.

Hitler relied on people like you.

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[KGIII]

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.

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[KGIII]

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.

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[Anonymous Coward]

>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!

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[Anonymous Coward]

> I'm more concerned about whether people are making their living ethically.

Law establishes a floor for ethical behaviour.

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[drsmithy]

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.

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[drsmithy]

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".

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[david_thornley]

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.

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[mjwx]

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.

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[catprog]

Benefits are from the federal government not the state government.

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[drsmithy]

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.

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[drsmithy]

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.

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[drsmithy]

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.

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[Dr Damage I]

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.

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[stoatwblr]

It's also why Queensland had a festering corruption problem which was finally admitted in the mid 1980s but still not entirely cleaned up.

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:So you remove their only way to make a living?

[drsmithy]

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.

How dare they!

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:How dare they!

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:How dare they!

[Chris Johnson]

+1000 insightful. That's literally what that trade agreement is about.

Re:How dare they!

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

So Uber might one day be able to sue countries for daring to have long standing rules about Taxis that interfere with Ubers advantageis!

You say this like it is a bad thing. Most taxi regulation is about keeping out competition.

That the service is so popular shows The People like it.

Re:How dare they!

[Chris Johnson]

Competition can lead to pyrrhic victory. Perfectly streamlined competition with the widest possible net of competitors ALWAYS leads to pyrrhic victory.

If there's a special case where somebody is willing to throw their life away to be the victor and stomp all their enemies, competition will find that person and put them in a position to trash everything around them, give too much, and 'win' unsustainably and uselessly.

Darn right regulation is about restricting competition, because civilization and 'law of the jungle' don't get along. It's almost always possible to cosh some poor bugger and gain competitive advantage, but it doesn't benefit society when everybody's going around with massive head injuries.

I mean, look at the USA. Do you want to be like them?!? :)

Re:How dare they!

[Swistak]

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.

Re:How dare they!

[drsmithy]

You say this like it is a bad thing.

That's because companies being able to sue Governments (ie: the People) for preventing them from doing whatever they want in the name of making money is indeed A Very Bad Thing.

Most taxi regulation is about keeping out competition.

No, very little taxi regulation is about keeping out competition - basically the artificial limits on how many plates are issued and requirement to use a specific dispatch service. Most of it is about protecting passengers, drivers and the public.

That the service is so popular shows The People like it.

It's nowhere near as popular as taxis.

Re:How dare they!

[petermgreen]

mmm, in much of the UK we have a middle ground which seems to work fairly well. What people loosely reffer to as "taxi's" are split into "hackney carridges" and "private hire cars". The fomer are heavilly regulated and limited in number (so the streets aren't flooded with taxi's looking for jobs). The latter are regulated more lightly and AIUI they are not limited in number but they are only allowed to take journeys pre-booked through an operator.

Re:How dare they!

[IamTheRealMike]

ISDS doesn't do what you're claiming it does.

The point of ISDS is to handle the case where a company invests in a country and the country then changes its laws such that the investment is invalidated. This has a habit of occurring in some less well run parts of the world as part of e.g. attempting to advantage home grown companies, or appropriating their assets.

ISDS cannot force a country to change its laws. It's a voluntary mechanism by which countries agree to pay compensation to the investors that they just screwed. Whether the screwing is justified or unjustified doesn't matter, the point is to make the investors whole and therefore to reduce the risk of making foreign investments thus increasing their number.

Re:How dare they!

[parkinglot777]

You say this like it is a bad thing. Most taxi regulation is about keeping out competition.

That the service is so popular shows The People like it.

You said this like a short-sighted person. How about you apply the same concept to other situations besides Uber? How about a company you are working for found ways to exploit employees (including you), and the laws used to prohibit those work around but were revoked because of the court ruling? Then which side would you be?

Re:How dare they!

[dunkelfalke]

Poland is - unfortunately - also an EU country, so writing "and many EU countries" is, at the very least, strange.

Re:How dare they!

[rock_climbing_guy]

Thank you. This needs to be screamed from the rooftops. I am pleased to tell you folks that both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have announced their opposition to this monstrosity. Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush are both in the tank for the TPP, as is President Obama. I just wish that this issue could get the attention it needs.

Re:How dare they!

[david_thornley]

In many places, people who drive commercially are required to have a commercial driver's license and insurance to a higher standard than the general public. These requirements are usually fairly easy to meet, and hence aren't anti-competitive. There are reasons for limiting the number of taxis on the road, but the restriction is pretty much anti-competitive.

Uber doesn't like any form of regulation, anti-competitive or not. By flouting all regulations, they're trying to drive out all competition.

Re:How dare they!

[mattventura]

Yes, god forbid drivers voluntarily sign up to be Uber drivers (and set their own hours) so that people can voluntarily ride in Uber vehicles. It's funny how when there's an article about the DMCA, /. is almost entirely against it, but then when there's idiotic and/or outdated taxi laws that hurt competition and worsen the quality and price of the product provided to the consumer, people are suddenly against the company that has the balls to stand up to it.

Re:How dare they!

[Anonymous Coward]

Prices too low when there was a massive surplus of labor? What a load of bullshit. Price fixing in any flavor is in violation of freedom of association to determine price and quantity, by definition picking winners and losers.

Re:How dare they!

[Swistak]

I live in Poland, so I probably should have written "many other EU countries" because there are some EU countries where as far as I know Taxis are not regulated, regulated very little, or noone cares about the law :)

Government knows best!

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep to your place!

The government knows what's best for you!

Re:Government knows best!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Government knows best!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Government knows best!

[Chris Johnson]

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.

Re: Government knows best!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Government knows best!

[KGIII]

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.

Re:Government knows best!

[Anonymous Coward]

No one can take away your rights, only if you allow it. That's why we have Guns in America!

Austraila

[Anonymous Coward]

Man this place seems worse than Communism.

Re: Austraila

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because having your car registration yanked for a few months for engaging in an activity you clearly know is illegal is far far worse than being sent to work yourself to death in a Siberia gulag for having a vanishing ly small difference in political philosophy with the ruling secretariat, or worse, coming from a family that had money before the revolution came.

Oh wait, it's obviously not, and you are an idiot.

Re: Austraila

[Anonymous Coward]

If you said this to me in person I'd spit in your face.

Your false dichotomy proves nothing, you pathetic little punkass
piece of shit.

Australia is a budding police state in the same mold as the UK. And this is
why we in the US won't let the authorities take away guns from the people.
As soon as they take away the guns, the people have no choice but to submit
to bullshit like the authorities in Australia have rammed down the throats of the
sheep who live there.

Re: Austraila

[Movi]

Which is why we saw an armed uprising against the government when it was revealed by a whistleblower that it's actively spying on its populace on basically all fronts with no oversight...

Wait, no, that didn't happen. Nobody gave a shit, and some of the populace was even defending this shit. Right. You keep your guns. It's a token showing how useless it is against a weak and complacent mind.

Re:Austraila

[Anonymous Coward]

Governments are just organised communism.

Cat and mouse game...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Cat and mouse game...

[Anonymous Coward]

"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."

Step 1) Government employee makes uber account
Step 2) Government employee orders uber ride
Step 3) Government employee gets the registration of the car that arrives
Step 4) Car owner identified

Re:Cat and mouse game...

[Chris Johnson]

Thanks, bro. They're reading this and you're proposing extortion, which they are totally fine with. You've just given them more weapons.

I'm rooting for the Aussies, because this is stupid. Every other industry I've seen 'disrupted' in this way has ended in a race to the bottom and ceasing to even be an industry anymore.

The only way I'll buy this 'Uber disruptiveness uber alles' foolishness is if you go full Star Trek and abolish money. Everyone, ride free everywhere you want to go, on Uber's well, there are no dimes anymore. With Uber's blessing!

Failing that, you're just a bunch of Somali pirates. The end game is either Trek utopia, or a mind-mangling dystopia of total surveillance and techno-feudalism, with nearly everybody on the planet as the serfs.

Assuming humans even count as people! Imagine if AI begins running corporations this way. Very quickly humans will be outclassed and the only people with money will be literally thinking corporations. And they don't need to drive anywhere, so goodbye Uber.

Re:Cat and mouse game...

[hummassa]

Step 5) Government employee is blacklisted by Uber/Lyft, can't repeat Steps 1-4 Step 6) wins whoever has more resources: Uber/Lyft or the Government That is actually awesome, I'm not even mad.

Re:Cat and mouse game...

[KGIII]

Heh. They completely forgot about the analog hole that we often speak about. Imagine the kind of person that thinks BTC is a secure method of exchanging currency in secret when there's a real world transaction. Or maybe they just think detectives are that stupid. Hint: They're not. Using crytocurrencies is not a solution (by any means) for this.

Re: Cat and mouse game...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing wrong with obsolete "industries" racing to the bottom and ceasing to exist. Why should society pay to artificially keep an obsolete business entity going?

Re:Cat and mouse game...

[Anonymous Coward]

I see someone with a low /. UID has forgot the lesson of the buggy whip makers and the icehouses.

Yes, Uber is disruptive. But so was the 300 BPS modem that was so disruptive, it eventually had to go to the US Supreme Court to be decided. The Internet is disruptive too... so using that as opposed to a mainframe in a glass room makes people "Somali pirates".

No, Uber isn't perfect, but in IT, we get told all the time that we have to compete against H-1Bs working for bargain basement wages, might as well have that competition work both ways.

Re: Cat and mouse game...

[Anonymous Coward]

Then the next government employee opens account repeat.
Or same guy takes Uber rides for two weeks then acts.

Re:Cat and mouse game...

[Chris Johnson]

To a working musician, you are a Somali pirate. The internet disrupted commercial music composition and performance so much that it's now useless to get involved in unless you're a hobbyist. Pre-internet, if you knew what you were doing you could earn a living nearly as good as a skilled accountant, but those days are gone.

The same is happening to computer games thanks to disruptive technologies such as game development kits (think Unity and Unreal Engine) that democratize those forms of creation.

Again: cry buggy whip makers all you want, provided you can either come up with that Star Trek future where everybody's fed and housed with replicators, or alternately abandon competitive economic models such as market capitalism and go with something like Basic Income so money turns into purely a means for a human to express its wishes, whatever they might be.

If you both disrupt everything not nailed down, AND run a market capitalist economy that punishes losers to make them fight harder, you're evil. You're setting up a Hunger Games thing where you're trying to kill off the unfit, but the definition of 'unfit' is insanely broad and will catch nearly everybody in time.

Because it's a lot easier to disrupt than to build. Disrupting is not the hard thing. Vandalism is disruptive, but nobody (usually) gets all giddy about that.

Re:Cat and mouse game...

[Anonymous Coward]

"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit."

I trust you know the above quote's source.

Re:Cat and mouse game...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, so since you are mediocre and can't distinguish yourself from the "Hobbyist" musician, the world owes you a living wage? NO. You were irresponsible. You should have had a backup plan and had another marketable skill in case your dreams of becoming the next James Horner fell through. The reality has always been that there are many musicians who are very talented but never break through to the big time, and so most wise musicians also had a skill or trade outside of music. If/when their careers took off, they quit to focus on their music, but they always could fall back on their other marketable skills.

Also note that for the music industry, historically most artists made their money off of the concerts and relatively little off of the radio/album sales. That is where the recording industry made it's money. Now that you can build a studio quality setup for a few thousand dollars, compared to $50k 20 years ago, and you can disseminate your music through iTunes, Pandora and even MP3 downloads direct from your website, the need for the recording industry is largely gone and they are dying a slow death, while the successful artists continue largely unaffected.

Regarding the indy gaming industry, I own ~700 games on steam, over half of which are probably indys, and probably at least 500 apps on my iPhone. I still buy AAA titles that appeal to me, but I also buy a lot of indy titles in the $1-5 range. If I find one I really like, that was a great deal, and if I don't like it, it is no great loss. Most of the indy developers get ~70% of the sales, compared to 15 years ago, a developer house would be lucky to get 25% ($40 Disk game -$20 retail markup -$10 publisher cut). On top of that, they can reach a much larger audience, selling 10-50x more volume than in the past. With Steam, the gaming market has grown from $5.6B in 2002 to currently over $46.5B in 2014.

The reality is that the economy as a whole and each industry are not fixed pies. If you find a way to deliver value for a lower cost, you typically grow the pie. Without going into too much detail, the governement sponsored monopoly of taxi service was started with a reasonable goal, to balance supply and demand, and verify that the drivers were honest. With a healthy economy, balancing supply and demand happens on it's own, so that is a non-issue; people leave the industry if they cant make what they want (this has also happened to the construction and real estate industries and it happens across the board in healthy economies). As far as verifying the drivers, that is taken care of buy Uber and Uber also offers a superior experience by allowing people better freedom of choice, ease of use etc. So Uber and their drivers are delivering a better product at a lower price, and the government sponsored monopolies are getting their asses handed to them because they haven't innovated in 50 years because THEY HAD A MONOPOLY which they are losing. The case in Australia just shows that the government cares more about it's power and protecting it's tax revenue (taxi medallions or whatever they call them) than doing the best for it's citizens.

I wanted to become an author, and have a number of well received short stories, but I also got a degree in engineering because I was realistic and wanted to be able to eat. Now that I have a family, I don't have time for writing, but once the kids are grown, I will probably pick it up again. I may someday be the next George RR Martin, or I may end up writing for AAA game titles, but maybe not. Either way, it won't ruin my financial well being. Face it, you made foolish life choices and now you want someone else to pay for it, rather than owning up and getting a marketable skill and a productive 9-5 job like the rest of the world.

Re:Cat and mouse game...

[mjwx]

To a working musician, you are a Somali pirate.

Spoken like someone who's never even spoken to a real musician.

To musicians and their fans, the record labels are robber barons. Taking pounds from the fans and giving pennies to the musicians.

Again: cry buggy whip makers all you want

Again your analogy is fail.

Uber is not a new and superior technology. Its just an illegal taxi service and that never turns out well. This is akin to people selling moonshine along side legitimate liquors, the difference is the legitimate liquors pay tax and comply with safety laws where as the moonshine is cut with mentholated spirits.

In the end, Uber will service as a reminder as to why we have such onerous taxi regulations.

Re:Cat and mouse game...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm rooting for the Aussies

While we're rooting Uber.

Are they people?

[ITRambo]

Are corporations people in NSW? If so, like in the US, this violates their rights.

Re:Are they people?

[Richard_at_work]

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?

Re:Are they people?

[Anonymous Coward]

Illegal because someone in power isn't getting a little extra jingle in their pockets because of it.

Re:Are they people?

[Chris Johnson]

I suppose that depends on whether you consider there is ANY utility to the concept of the common good.

If you totally abandon that idea and make everything about self-interest, then naturally you will see all decisions as an expression of some self-interested person's taking advantage, or alternately see them as insane, unpredictable and rather scary.

If you consider that there can be ANY sort of a common or collective good, then the concept of illegality isn't too difficult. It's like murder: in some sense, somebody is unreasonably imposed upon by somebody else's whim or convenience. We call that 'crime' or 'illegal' because collectively we think it's bad to leave that up to people's individual whims, because people can be crazy or severely impaired or form weird, unreasonable ideas.

like 'illegal because someone in power isn't getting a little extra jingle in their pockets because of it'.

Re:Are they people?

[mjwx]

Are corporations people in NSW? If so, like in the US, this violates their rights.

To answer your question, no, in Australia corporations do not have the same rights as people.

A corporation doesn't break laws in Australia, individuals do and they are charged as individuals (if a company tries to hide behind a corporate identity, the board and CEO can be charged). This is why the Uber X drivers had their licenses suspended. A corporation can pay a fine, but they can't give them back their licenses.

Of course RMS is against Uber!

[Bearhouse]

They need to bring out GNUberX...

Re:Of course RMS is against Uber!

[KGIII]

I can see all the hip guys walking around, giving each other 'skin,' and saying, "What up, my GNUber?"

Re:Of course RMS is against Uber!

[sethstorm]

Then you'll have Apple offering OSberX, where your car has to have a minimum MSRP of $60k and similar requirements of its customers.

Re:Of course RMS is against Uber!

[msobkow]

Pronounced "N00ber", of course. :P

Re:Of course RMS is against Uber!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't Apple call it the iBerX?

Re:Of course RMS is against Uber!

[sethstorm]

That's the motorcycle version, with much lower minimums.

Maritime ???

[codeButcher]

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.

Re:Maritime ???

[codeButcher]

.... and I, for one, would also not want something operating in my country if it was Not Safe for Work.

Re:Maritime ???

[KGIII]

When I read your post, the first one, I did not see the bottom part. I stared at it. I stared at it some more. I spent probably a minute of IRL time (maybe a little less) staring at it and wondering if someone was that confused. I think I saw the rest of your post as your signature so I didn't read it. So, yes. Someone was that confused. That someone was me. >:(

Yes, yes I do have a strange affinity for emoticons today.

Either way, I'm still pissed about what they did to Helen Keller. I read her book in school! I know these things!

Re:Maritime ???

[Chris Mattern]

Last I checked, it was a landlocked country, so why do they have a "Maritime" service????

I would suggest you check again. Not only is Australia not landlocked, it in fact doesn't have any land borders. The coast is the border. Perhaps you are thinking of Austria.

Re:Maritime ???

[Anonymous Coward]

I would suggest you read the second line.

Re:Maritime ???

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the term is WOOOSH!

Uber drivers need to claim they're from Mexico

[Anonymous Coward]

Then they'd be allowed to drive with no license, send their kids to public schools at taxpayer expense, and even encouraged to vote!

Pull it out with the root

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Pull it out with the root

[sd4f]

I don't think they're in Australia...

Re:Pull it out with the root

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't stop the US, so why should it stop us Aussies.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/04/bin.laden.legal/

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/9739447/Dotcom-raid-legal-FBI-taking-evidence-not

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/02/world/americas/bolivia-presidential-plane/

FUCK YOU TO HELL AMERICA!!!!

Uber headquarters are in San Francisco so I suggest extradition to Australia for the CEO. Failing that, entice the homeless of San Fran to burn the cunts to the ground!!!!

Re:Pull it out with the root

[Anonymous Coward]

So invite them for negotiations and have them arrested at the meeting.

Re:Pull it out with the root

[Anonymous Coward]

The US of A will not allow them to be extradited.
However, issuing an international arrest order will prevent them from vacationing most places outside the united states and that will most likely send a very real message.

Re:Pull it out with the root

[Anonymous Coward]

Here here!!!

Re:Pull it out with the root

[BatGnat]

I agree, they (UBER) should be charged with racketeering charges (organized crime). They are deliberately conspiring to commit a crime (in Australia).

hobbyist whiner/obscure linguist ocd challenge

[Anonymous Coward]

find the missing word(s) in the parent post...

Re:hobbyist whiner/obscure linguist ocd challenge

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

find the missing word(s) in the parent post...

Lol, would they be "I'm", "a", and "spammer"?

That's some serious word salad he's got goin' on there.

Oh, that kind of NSW

[MightyYar]

I eagerly clicked on the story thinking that between "UberX" and "NSW" it would be a whole lot more fun.

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Good

[Chris Johnson]

Strangely it also takes money out of the US economy, even though they're based in the US. Globalization, you know. The money might live in Ireland or somewhere, like with Apple.

Drivers, not gov't are choosing to deny rides.

[sethstorm]

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.

Re:Drivers, not gov't are choosing to deny rides.

[hummassa]

Can you just enter their DMV, take some tests, survey their car, prove that they have some insurance (and no criminal record) and start driving their cab? Because if they can, you're right. If they can't (because of cab quotas), then you are totally wrong.

Re:Drivers, not gov't are choosing to deny rides.

[Anonymous Coward]

Drivers want to operate under Uber to avoid the extortionate fees governments charge for taxi licences, and consumers want to use Uber because it's cheaper and more convenient, so contrary to what you're saying it is the government who is standing in the way of progress.

The government's monopoly on taxi licensing needs to end and we need competition, because at the moment taxis offer a terrible service at a high price.

Re:Drivers, not gov't are choosing to deny rides.

[Anonymous Coward]

and consumers want to use Uber because it's cheaper and more convenient

Depending on the city, Uber has had trouble making inroads in cities that already have good taxi service. The last time I needed a car the taxi was not only cheaper but also immediately available rather than summoning an Uber and waiting for it to come get us.

Re:Drivers, not gov't are choosing to deny rides.

[sethstorm]

That's still too much for Uber/UberX. Their business model is derived solely from insufficiently insured cars and misclassified workers.

To services like Uber, a minimal inspection package is still too much. They prefer a special deal that makes them the taxi company.

Re:Drivers, not gov't are choosing to deny rides.

[BradMajors]

Nope. Neither Uber nor any Uber driver has been convicted of violating any law in NSW. The government is suspending licenses without any legal process because when they tried to take legal action the government's cases collapsed. What is legal has nothing to do with what the government is doing.

Re:Drivers, not gov't are choosing to deny rides.

[MightyYar]

You are partially right - they certainly do keep the price down by dodging regulations to their best ability. However, the real draw of Uber is the nicer cars and prompt service. Local monopoly providers got too complacent and couldn't be bothered to upgrade their dispatching system, and individual car owners take better care of their vehicles than fleet drivers / renters.

Re:Drivers, not gov't are choosing to deny rides.

[hummassa]

Well, down here (Brasil) you are actually half-wrong.

Their business model is derived solely from insufficiently insured cars

The insurance Uber cars have here is approximately the double of those the cabs have.

and misclassified workers

Yeah, the jury is still out on the whole "sharing economy" thing. I agree there is the potential to a whole lot of abuse; but I think work over-regulation is not without its maladies, too.

To services like Uber, a minimal inspection package is still too much. They prefer a special deal that makes them the taxi company.

I couldn't parse this, care to elaborate, please?

Re:Drivers, not gov't are choosing to deny rides.

[sethstorm]

To services like Uber, a minimal inspection package is still too much. They prefer a special deal that makes them the taxi company.
I couldn't parse this, care to elaborate, please?

Uber wants to be no different than the taxi services. A vendor-neutral process would create too much competition.

The insurance Uber cars have here is approximately the double of those the cabs have.

On the other hand, the UberX service has drivers with closer-to-standard insurance packages.

Yeah, the jury is still out on the whole "sharing economy" thing. I agree there is the potential to a whole lot of abuse; but I think work over-regulation is not without its maladies, too.

The "sharing economy" is just the Aspen Institute's sugar coating of the worst in work arrangements.

Re:Drivers, not gov't are choosing to deny rides.

[david_thornley]

Is there some way they can require legally adequate licensing and insurance and still provide nicer cars and prompt service? If that's what they're attracting customers with, raising the fares a bit to stay legal might work well.

Re:Drivers, not gov't are choosing to deny rides.

[david_thornley]

It certainly sounds like being an Uber driver is illegal. If the authorities are dealing with that by yanking registration and not pursuing the matter in court, what's the problem? I assume that, if running an unlicensed cab weren't illegal, the drivers could use the court system to get their cars back along with compensation.

Re:Drivers, not gov't are choosing to deny rides.

[MightyYar]

To be fair, they are technically in compliance with the law in most/many places. They push the law to the limit, though, and then adjust or lobby when ruled against. They are disruptive, but I don't think that automatically makes them "bad". Change bothers a lot of people - especially anyone content with the current system. Re-balancing the new system is going to have it's ups and downs, but I don't think the shrinking of the middle man is necessarily a bad thing if the law can catch up.

Re:Drivers, not gov't are choosing to deny rides.

[Anonymous Coward]

In Canada, Uber is normally insuring the driver and community at large for more than taxis do. Example, they just moved into London Ontario (University Town). They carry $5 million liability insurance on the passengers and community. The taxi industry has to maintain $2 million. So, an UberX driver could have an accident and Uber covers the people and the driver's own insurance covers the car and him/her. Uber is also working with a local insurer to create a rider package that drivers can obtain just to appease those who still cry foul over insurance.

They also require that the drivers have their cars inspected within a month of starting operations. They also subject their drivers to tougher Police screening checks than the taxi industry.

So. UberX cars are cleaner newer (on average), better maintained, and the drivers are rated in a fashion that directly impacts their ability to continue to operate; have MORE insurance; are cheaper for the users......ummmmm what is the problem other than the cities don't get their piece of the action (aka license fees)?

Ubber crap....

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: Ubber crap....

[Anonymous Coward]

über black is not the problem, so please don't confuse it with uberX.
Ãoeber black are HC plated cars, which like a taxi have to pay registration and insurance at a business rate.
UberX is a private car service, where the insurance and registration is at a private usage rate.
UberX has not only killed the taxi industry, rest assured it has killed über black as well.
Also, uberX drivers insurance will not cover the passenger, nor will there CTP, cover the passenger in an accident. I understand that they have stopped 40 drivers, the quicker that the rest of the country wakes up and ends uberX the better.
If you have never driven a taxi or driven for uber black, then you would not understand the damage this illegal system has done to the industry and the drivers wages.

Not w/ substandard service/working conditions

[sethstorm]

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.

Re:Not w/ substandard service/working conditions

[ShanghaiBill]

I have more trust for the government than I have for a benefits-dodger like Uber.

Not me. I trust corporations more than governments. The corporations have an incentive to be trustworthy because otherwise they will lose my business. Governments have no such motivation. During the last century, governments killed over 100 million of their own citizens. Corporations kill their customers far less frequently. If you look around the world today, people live better lives in countries with powerful corporations and weak governments, and worse where corporations are weak (or nonexistent) and governments are strong.

Re:Not w/ substandard service/working conditions

[jwdb]

The corporations have an incentive to be trustworthy because otherwise they will lose my business.

Only true if you have other options to go to, or if you have enough information to catch them in a lie, or if your need isn't so pressing you have time to evaluate the options, or one of many other reasons that people do business with a lousy company despite that not being the rational thing to do.

Governments have no such motivation.

I could take the same attitude you have towards corporations, but instead towards governments: governments have a motivation to be trustworthy, because otherwise their people will eventually rise up and overthrow them. Neither this statement nor yours is of any value, as it describes a world view so oversimplified as to be useless.

Corporations kill their customers far less frequently.

I'd love to see the statistics on that. Wonder how many people the car industry has killed with their willful disregard of emissions regulations. Or, how about the tobacco industry, or the alcohol industry? Hell, what about the arms industry? They may not be the ones shooting people, but they're complicit.

If you look around the world today, people live better lives in countries with powerful corporations and weak governments, and worse where corporations are weak (or nonexistent) and governments are strong.

False. By many standards Europe is a better place to live than the US, and there the government is noticeably stronger than the corporations.

I distrust government and corporations equally. The only person consistently looking out for your interests is you yourself.

Re:Not w/ substandard service/working conditions

[Chris Johnson]

I think the word you're having trouble with is 'customer'. Consider, if you can, the idea that for nearly any concievable corporation, the rest of the people in the world are not in any sense 'customers'. They're what's technically called 'bystanders'.

Carry on like that and you'll be calling yourself Google's, or Facebook's 'customer' when in fact you are their 'product'.

However, nice try!

Re:Not w/ substandard service/working conditions

[SomePoorSchmuck]

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.

"The company shows hate"? Really? Hate? Is that seriously what you mean? Why in the 21st century can we no longer have a discussion about the relative advantages/disadvantages of various sets of policies without any disagreement having to be cast in some binary in/out group "hating" the other?

Re:Not w/ substandard service/working conditions

[Anonymous Coward]

The corporations have an incentive to be trustworthy because otherwise they will lose my business...

Like corporations give a fuck if they lose your business. Your are not the customer, you are the product. Better, you are the obedient lemming buying all the crap you don't need because it's their 'divine' right to make money.

Re:Not w/ substandard service/working conditions

[Anonymous Coward]

I have more trust for the government than I have for a benefits-dodger like Uber.

Not me. I trust corporations more than governments. The corporations have an incentive to be trustworthy because otherwise they will lose my business.

.Only if you catch them. How long did it take us to wise up to VW's little scam? Oh, and even if a company does them wrong, many customers are too stupid to notice and will still buy from the company anyway.

Re:Not w/ substandard service/working conditions

[mjwx]

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.

This, Uber aren't just dodging giving their workers their fair due, they're also dodging tax as they're not even registered for GST (sales tax in Oz, for the uninitiated).

Re:Not w/ substandard service/working conditions

[mjwx]

The corporations have an incentive to be trustworthy because otherwise they will lose my business.

Here's where your point falls apart.

History has demonstrated that this is completely false. Union Carbide, Exxxon, BP, even the recent VW scandal in case you haven't been paying attention. Corporations know that you'll never stop buying from them after a scandal. You'll wait 2 weeks and forget, that's if you dont actively defend their wrongdoings to begin with.

If you look around the world today, people live better lives in countries with powerful corporations and weak governments

Thats why Thailand has the highest quality of life and Norway has the lowest. Oh wait... they dont.

Awaken from your dreamy state Libertarian. The truth is the complete opposite, strong governments protect their citizenry. Weak governments allow corruption to take hold.

No, they don't. That's the PR talking.

[sethstorm]

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.

he

[sociocapitalist]

Trying to figure out what NSfW acts had to be taking place in those taxis that would cause them to lose their license

Step 6) Uber/Lyft loses, Government wins.

[sethstorm]

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.

Re:Step 6) Uber/Lyft loses, Government wins.

[hummassa]

What untraceability? You have to put a credit card number there. That, and those aren't australian companies. Good luck enforcing fines and other levvies.

Re:Step 6) Uber/Lyft loses, Government wins.

[sethstorm]

Credit card processors and banks are very vulnerable in that respect. They would be quite able to create, fund and blend account numbers for obfuscating the actual source. At this point, usability has left town with business viability not far behind.

Australia has an answer: NO WAY.

[sethstorm]

They wouldn't even make to shore.

Ah so you're admitting they are in it for profit..

[Anonymous Coward]

...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.

Re:No, they don't. That's the PR talking.

[MightyYar]

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.

Get elected, change the law

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Get elected, change the law

[jbengt]

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.

You're missing the point.
In the USA, at least, if the government signs and ratifies a treaty, possibly like the *Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement mentioned in the GGP, that treaty would trump any laws of a government in the USA. According to the Constitution, it would even trump the Constitution.

*IANAL, so I am not sure if the TPPA would rise fully to the level of a treaty in that sense - that might become a matter for the courts to decide.

Re:Get elected, change the law

[JesseMcDonald]

... that treaty would trump any laws of a government in the USA. According to the Constitution, it would even trump the Constitution.

A common misconception. Treaties don't "trump" the U.S. Constitution, they form the highest law of the land alongside the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Treaties do take precedence over state constitutions and laws. The only thing that would trump the U.S. Constitution, however, would be an amendment or constitutional convention. The federal government cannot bypass its own constitutional limits by entering into treaties any more than it can grant itself unconstitutional powers by passing laws. Only the states can do that, by amending or replacing the Constitution.

"Law"

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Buy back

[johnsnails]

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!

Re:Buy back

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should the government fork out money for a medallion that they had no direct part in setting the price of? If the government was selling them I'd agree but from what I understand they instituted a medallion type program in many areas and gave out a limited number of them for a small licensing fee, then those individuals who initially won them began trading them like they were a commodity. I don't see how it is any different from a person who purchases a crop future who's price collapses because of some agriculture report. They should phase the medallion system out to lessen the impact, but it was rank stupidity for anyone to believe that the medalion system was some long term investment strategy. From what I understand few medallions are owned by "families" most are owned by investment groups or taxi companies.

Re:Buy back

[fluffernutter]

Because the government created that value by introducing laws that made it a limited supply. The government can't just turn around and say 'sorry that you trusted us to keep everyone playing by this rule' and move on in another direction.

Uber Work Around

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

So, let me get this straight

[Wolfsbruder]

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?

Re:So, let me get this straight

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

I know, right? Regulations are bullshit. I can amputate a person's arm with my hedge trimmer just fine. Why should expensive "medical licenses" be required before deciding an amputation is even needed if I can convince a patient that they need me to cut their arm off. And don't even get me started on the USDA who says I can't use those arms to bulk out my ground meat patty side business! Facists!

Re:So, let me get this straight

[david_thornley]

She's jeopardizing the car they need for his job? Maybe she should turn to drug dealing or prostitution or some other equally legal method of getting some extra money.

Re:So, let me get this straight

[thegarbz]

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?

Why not repeat the sentence and substitue a few words:

My cousin, who drives her husband to work, can have the reg for the family car pulled just because she is competing in illegal street races 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?

My cousin, who drives her husband to work, can have the reg for the family car pulled just because she is driving a getaway car in a robbery 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?

My cousin, who drives her husband to work, can have the reg for the family car pulled just because she is driving an unroadworthy vehicle to save 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?

One thing these all have in common is that it's making money from something illegal in the state. Punishing people who break laws is asshatery? That takes the liberal right to a whole new level.

What did they expect?

[dsmatthews9379]

Provocare coronam auctoritate diadema ad periculum tuum pertinet .

Except that you're wrong.

[sethstorm]

They've taken action against those that have gone against the NSW laws.

Perfectly within their purview to penalize improperly licensed drivers.

Re:Except that you're wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is nothing to do with the drivers. Anybody can get a taxi license. And taxi drivers are the worst paid job in the country.

It is all about the taxi car licenses, which (used) to cost $500K. And the Taxi cartel that wants to keep their little racket going.

But Uber has shown voters the alternative. Sure, the taxi lobyists have a lot of money, but Uber has a lot of potential votes. People are fed up with the totally indefensible taxi license rought.

Yes, the government has the right to make horrible laws. But the people have the right to vote them out. Which is why they tred softly on this.

I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

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.