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!
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.
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.
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...
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.
.... and I, for one, would also not want something operating in my country if it was Not Safe for Work.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
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."
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.
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.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
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
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.
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!
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
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."
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.'"
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.'"
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.