Uber Suspends Australian Transport Inspector Accounts To Block Stings 299
jaa101 writes In Australia Uber is reportedly suspending the accounts used by government transport inspectors conducting sting operations. The article suggests that a new handset, credit card and email account are all needed to get a new, unblocked account. If inspectors can only issue one or two fines before they're blocked then the sting operations will cost more than the fines. Presumably the Uber app can block based on IMEI, SIM and/or phone number.
Are you trying to get legislation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is Uber a big government straw man? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because that's how you get legislation.
I have no idea why Uber would be so blatant/stupid - any legal advice or even common sense would have told them that this kind of behavior gets a lot of attention very fast - and not the good, loving kind of attention either.
Unless they are really trying to get governments to make it hard for smaller "ridesharing" companies to compete. Burning the bridge after you cross? Does that make any sense?
Re:Is Uber a big government straw man? (Score:4, Interesting)
Because that's how you get legislation.
I have no idea why Uber would be so blatant/stupid - any legal advice or even common sense would have told them that this kind of behavior gets a lot of attention very fast - and not the good, loving kind of attention either.
Unless they are really trying to get governments to make it hard for smaller "ridesharing" companies to compete. Burning the bridge after you cross? Does that make any sense?
Well they are worth $40 billion so they're evidently doing something right.
I think they're willing to ride out the fines, even if the fines are big enough so they're losing money they've got the bank to do it for a while. And in the meantime people are reading about them in the papers, drivers are coming to work for them, and people are installing their app.
If and when Australia updates its laws all those competitors who obeyed the law will step in to find that Uber has a huge first mover advantage. Unless Australia and other districts find a way to actually shut them down this is going to be one of those cases where crime does pay.
Re:Is Uber a big government straw man? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nortel used to be worth 400 billions. Two years later only 5 billions. It still was the same company, just not as overvalued anymore. Market capitalisation doesn't show how much an enterprise is actually worth or whether it does something right or not. It only shows what the speculators currently think.
Re:Is Uber a big government straw man? (Score:5, Insightful)
The year before it imploded in dramatic fashion, Enron was worth, according to its Market Capitalisation, $60Billion - when infact it was worth nothing like that.
Uber's "worth" of $40Billion comes from investor interest, nothing more. There's no huge bank of assets in there that underpins that valuation, its how much money it could potentially earn in the markets it exists in.
Re: (Score:2)
not even that. it's the idea that if the last person buying any shares of a company for does it for $X/share, then ALL shares of the company can be sold for that much.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is Uber a big government straw man? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't trump government inspections with Terms and Conditions.
I really do wonder what fucking world a bunch of people here live in - "hey, why not just make up our own terms and conditions and circumvent all requirements to follow any laws?! Hah local government, take that!" Really? Are you high all the time or something?
Company terms and conditions do not negate local laws and requirements for inspection officers or legal bodies to carry out inspections under those laws, or affect the ability for those inspection officers or legal bodies to carry out said inspections. No matter how much you want to argue it.
"Government officers are not allowed access to this system" is a fantasy land bullshit thing which was laughed out of court in the 1980s when BBSes attempted to use it to stop police from gathering information on illegal activities. Your assertion is no different.
Oh, and Chelsea Manning was tried under espionage and treason laws - were you trying to equate government inspections with the activities of Aaron Swartz perhaps? Because the two are not equatable, regardless of how overboard you think the prosecutor went in the Swartz case.
Re: (Score:3)
But, if the business is subject to regulation and you fail to let the regulators in....well, be prepared for heavy fines and possible jail sentences.
As a company, their valuation is based entirely on speculation as they have little capital assets. Hindering those that hold legislative and regulatory powers over you is liable to result in your valuation disappearing overnight.
Re: (Score:2)
Once upon a time in the stock market on America there was a bit of a tech bubble, everybody wanted tech stocks like Yahoo and other powerhouses of future technological change.
At this time a new company emerged amongst all these internet giants, it was called NetJ.com and whilst it had the magic of "Net" "J" and ".com" in its name, it had little else. In fact, its filing to the stock market said:
"The company is not currently engaged in any substantial business activity and has no plans to engage in any such activity in the foreseeable future."
The sharemarket rewarded NetJ.com with a $100 million valuation.
I guess inflation and QE means $100m is now equal
Re: (Score:2)
They do: they deliver what the people want, just like tobacco firms or the breweries. That governments don't like it is increasingly less important in this time period.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also(again, unless 'transport inspector' is a much, much, weaker category of enforcement, and doesn't even have any friends in agencies with actual power) a little friendly technical assistance from at least one bank and phone c
google can tell govt, do what we say (Score:4, Funny)
Do what google says, or they will make your govt and country invisible on the neti, get no tourists.
Aussie taxies suck too btw.
Useless and OVER PRICED.
Charging so called night rates up to 9am. Thats FRAUD, its NOT NIGHT time between 6am and 9am.
They just classify it as expensive night rates, to sting all business travelers in the mornings.
I call the taxi regulators fraudsters.
Re: (Score:2)
...you think they're performing sting operations because there isn't legislation?
there is legislation already, so they can do sting operations, it's already forbidden so what the fuck do they lose?
Re:Are you trying to get legislation? (Score:5, Insightful)
yes, I believe thats the point, to get legislation outlawing the ridiculous prices of over $500,000 to get a license to own a taxi.
http://www.blackandwhitecabs.c... [blackandwhitecabs.com.au]
Re:Are you trying to get legislation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Frequently, Uber drivers do not have commercial driver's licenses, appropriately inspected vehicles, and are driving uninsured. The laws and regulations involved with those are based on real problems, and are legitimate laws.
Re:Are you trying to get legislation? (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets run with that idea for a sec. Governments are dissolved and everyone is an individual with the freedom to do, say, think and be whomever they want.
Unfortunately not everyone in the world believes in the 'better future for all', and will cramp other's individualistic freedom to better their own.
So suddenly, a group of individuals band together in order to safeguard their shared beliefs and ideals from those that would take them.
Of course, working in a group is hard, so there has to be some ground rules in place to keep most people happy. Tim, don't use Joe's mug. Larry, quit hogging all the apples to yourself, Tim would like at least one a day.
"But Larry likes apples, who are you to say who can and can't eat 7 apples a day huh?!?" ...and suddenly we're back to square one.
Well, SOMEONE'S gotta set boundaries right? and Tim agrees with me, right? Joe, you happy as well? So it's settled! Most people are happy!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We don't have to look very far to see where this is going, just look at what happens in Syria and Iraq right now. This is what happens when there is no government. I don't believe we western countries are any different.
Re: (Score:2)
Next you're going to say anyone who's read a few medical books and taken a few online medical courses can set up a website to start treating patients, like a doctor would. The govts should answer this question: Does the medallion system exist to restrict the number of taxi drivers so as to keep the fares high (and the profits high for taxi companies)?
A bi
Re: (Score:2)
It's a small, but I tend to think it important, difference but you really should look at the premise as "whether we should restrict people some from being allowed to offer the service in order to protect medallion owners and taxi drivers?". You don't need to do anything to allow something, so the question should by default be whether we should be do
Re: (Score:3)
And the idea that autonomous vehicles will replace taxis and cars within a decade is frankly laughable. Even if self-driving cars were a technically solved problem, the economics do not stack up, unless someone magically finds a way of making them cheap enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When you break your leg in an auto accident while riding in an Uber cab, good lucking getting Uber to pay a dime. They will point to the blanket liability waiver you agreed to part of the EULA when using the Uber app absolving Uber of all responsibility in event of personal injury, even in event of gross negligence. Then you will find that the Uber driver's personal insurance policy won't cover your injury because they were illegally operating as livery vehicle and such thus not actually insured.
Oh. Yo
Re: (Score:3)
Extradition? (Score:2, Interesting)
We know Uber is an illegal taxi service in many (most?) jurisdictions in which they operate. I hope that these actions are of a scale and deliberateness to go ahead and start hitting them with the bigger crime laws since most governments have been hesi
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe get a judge/magistrate to order Apple/Google to pull the apps from the store's.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I'd rather put them on a pedestal for attempting to circumvent those stupid regulations which cost me $50 for a 10min cab fare. While Uber is undercutting the taxis by more than 50% I won't be doing any complaining.
Why not instead extradite the politicians who caused this shit to begin with?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They undercut the taxi's by being uninsured and unlicensed. They are cheaper right up until the point you are in an accident.
Re: (Score:2)
Has Uber been involved in a traffic accident resulting in injury of death?
What is the legal precedent here - can Australians sue a billion dollar US corporation for damages? Their whole business model goes down the toilet if the driver is inadequately insured and unable to pay.
Fuck any EULA on the app, if I were to become paralysed I'd want a 7 figure payout.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why drivers should have insurance so we don't have to sue them. Cars are involved in accidents quite a lot, they are more dangerous than smoking with all factors included, so of course an Uber car has been in an accident.
Re: (Score:3)
Except if you're running a business, which is what Uber is, on your personal insurance. Then your insurance company won't cover you, and may drop you, which means you end up getting sued anyway.
Re:Extradition? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.london24.com/news/u... [london24.com]
http://www.citylab.com/commute... [citylab.com]
http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/... [techcrunch.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
except in most cases they are insured and they are licensed. What's driving this shit is the large cab companies having a shit fit over the fact that this startup has 1/10 the number of cars in the area yet are doing 10x the business.
Problem for EVERYBODY is that the people who issue the licenses are the people who legislate and the people who prosecute. They all piss in the same pot, so if you get onside with the police, you're onside with the city council as well and they will lick your balls if you pay t
Re:Extradition? (Score:4, Informative)
except in most cases they are insured and they are licensed. What's driving this shit is the large cab companies having a shit fit over the fact that this startup has 1/10 the number of cars in the area yet are doing 10x the business.
Problem for EVERYBODY is that the people who issue the licenses are the people who legislate and the people who prosecute. They all piss in the same pot, so if you get onside with the police, you're onside with the city council as well and they will lick your balls if you pay them enough in backhanders (AKA campaign contributions).
if you are operating a hire vehicle without a public transport/taxi/hire vehicle license then you actually aren't licensed or insured. Here in Canberra that license is issued by the local motor registry, cab companies and even local government have no say in who is issued one. If you do the police checks, don't have a criminal history, do the medicals and have the required experience and pay for the license anyone can get one, but if you haven't done that then you are unlicensed and uninsured if you are driving any sort of public transport.
Re: (Score:3)
They undercut the taxi's by being uninsured and unlicensed. They are cheaper right up until the point you are in an accident.
In Australia, we have a functional public health system (much like Canada) so if you're in an accident you're covered for medical. However for loss of income, property damage and what not, you'll have to go after the drivers employer, Uber. The standard Uber defence of "he's a contractor" will last about 2 second before being torn to shreds by the dumbest of Australian judges (who will be quite intelligent in their own right mind you), Uber facilitated the transaction, Uber takes the money from the client a
Re: (Score:2)
In just about any jurisdiction, I think that the fact that Uber takes the money puts Uber on the hook for damages. If the passenger pays Uber, then the contract is between the passenger and Uber.
Uber is
Re: (Score:2)
They undercut the taxi's by being uninsured and unlicensed. They are cheaper right up until the point you are in an accident.
No, Uber drivers are not uninsured. Uber gives them commercial coverage (for when they are logged into the application). Please do your research before spouting misinformation.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Uber drivers are not uninsured. Uber gives them commercial coverage (for when they are logged into the application). Please do your research before spouting misinformation.
Research yourself. Uber may pay if they are driving a passenger. However, at any other time the Uber driver will find himself uninsured. That includes for example hitting a pedestrian while on the way to picking up a passenger.
Re:Extradition? (Score:4, Informative)
The cost structure for Uber drivers is very similar to taxi services and over time will approach them.
Except for the cost to the taxi operators for their medallion. Since there is a a limited number of medallions and you need one to operate they tend to get transferred at great cost. For example a quick Google query for cost of taxi medallion nyc tells us that the current cost is down to $840,000 from a peak of $1.05 million in June 2013.
So the major cost of operation becomes the cost of financing the medallion. In fact (again according to Google) in most instances the medallions are owned by investment companies and leased to actual drivers.
Uber exists to disrupt the requirement for the medallions. They provide a lower friction billing system that makes it easier for both users and drivers to participate.
The ONLY people who are against Uber in the long term are the current owners of medallions. If Uber succeeds their investments will be valueless.
Re:Extradition? (Score:5, Interesting)
While this may be the case in some parts of the world it is not true here in Australia.
Uber is operating a taxi service but not operating under the laws that govern taxis. In Australia taxis are considered a part of the wider public transport system and are factored into planning around things like trains and bus services. As a result taxi drivers have a number of restrictions on them. Possibly the most important of those is they cannot refuse a fare. It doesn't matter that your house is miles away from any other chance of a fare they have to take you.
The net impact of this is that taxis have to take on jobs which are nominally a net loss. This is then made up by other routes being more profitable. Uber comes in and says we don't need to participate in this, we will just cherry pick the profitable routes. As a result the taxis that are required to never say no start to lose money and a key part of your cities public transport infrastructure starts to collapse.
So Uber's cost structure attempts to avoid the cost of the taxi plate, and to avoid the greater good requirements placed on taxi firms. The net effect is not positive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Extradition? (Score:5, Informative)
We don't have a medallion system here in the UK, so explain why there are people against here here...
Here, a 3 year license to operate a taxi will typically set you back £355 for the drivers license, £600 for the vehicle license (vehicle under 3 years old) and £460 for the operator license (covers up to 5 vehicles). Private hire vehicles are slightly cheaper.
£1,500 for a 3 year license to operate a taxi - that's not exactly a massive investment nor is it a huge barrier to entry. Pay that money, pass the tests and you have yourself the ability to start earning money by operating a taxi.
Taxi fares are also fixed in the UK by the local councils, so there is no gouging or "surge pricing". You can calculate how much your fare is going to be before you even get into the taxi.
Re:Extradition? (Score:5, Insightful)
Taxi fares are also fixed in the UK by the local councils, so there is no gouging or "surge pricing". You can calculate how much your fare is going to be before you even get into the taxi.
Yes, except at times when non-official taxis would be charging higher prices to encourage more people to offer rides, you can't get an official taxi at all, because people making trivial trips are still using them because they're cheap, while those making essential trips have to wait.
Rationing is clearly better than letting prices rise for a while. Or something.
Re: (Score:2)
They undercut the taxi's by being uninsured and unlicensed. They are cheaper right up until the point you are in an accident.
Except that this is Australia. The two requirements for any driver in Australia regardless if they are a moped or a monstertruck is that they are licensed and the vehicle is registered. In all states registration is combined with compulsory 3rd party insurance a service that is heavily regulated with the only thing varying between vendors is the price and even then not by much.
There is no difference in the insurance coverage between a registered taxi and any driver regardless if they are registered with Ube
Re:Extradition? (Score:5, Insightful)
uber drivers are not unlicensed. They have the same drivers license every other driver has. Really, that's all that's needed.
if they have the same license as everyone else then they are unlicensed. Most states and territories in Australia require a commercial or public transport license for operating a hire car, taxi or any other public transport which requires a lot more checks than a standard drivers license such as additional medical requirements, police checks and experience. My sister applied for one a few years ago and got rejected because of the drugs she was on after her chemotherapy.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The line is only not clear if you don't want it to be.
Well, that's the point. Many of us don't want it to be, because we don't feel that accepting money for an activity inherently changes its nature. If it's not safe for J. Random Driver to carry a passenger for hire, then it's not safe for them to carry anyone, including themselves, and we should just abolish cars.
If it's not safe for a person to carry hire passengers, then it's just not safe for them to be driving, because someone (them) might get hurt. Either that driver and that car are qualified to be on
Re: (Score:3)
Taxi driving is, in fact, different from personal driving. Taxi drivers drive much more than personal drivers, so the probability of an accident is higher. And since they are drivers for hire, they are responsible for the passengers. Hence the different license.
So, what exactly does the government gain? The processing fees for issuing the commercial driver license? They aren't that high, the fees usually just cover the costs of the pencil pushers.
Re: (Score:3)
Pizza delivery people drive more than personal drivers. Do they need a commercial license?
Re: (Score:3)
We hold taxi drivers to a higher standard because we are not willing to hold everyone to that standard.
But we don't actually hold taxi drivers to a notably higher standard, we just extract some money from them and maybe require them to prove that they have some extra insurance at some point.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that Uber is doing it for the money.
Is your friend paying you more than the cost to you of providing the ride? Are you participating in a scheme that arranges rides for money (whether the money goes to you or someone else)? Would your vehicle's insurer consider it to be commercial use of the vehicle? If the answer to any of these questions is "yes", what you are doing could well be illegal without registering as a commercial operation.
You want anything more technical or accurate than that,
Re: (Score:2)
Why not instead extradite the politicians who caused this shit to begin with?
I personally can't. I don't live in the same city where I work.
I've voted with my feet. It's too bad my workplace hasn't followed suit.
poor summary (Score:5, Insightful)
"If inspectors can only issue one or two fines before they're blocked then the sting operations will cost more than the fines". ahhh NO. the fines are usually around $1700 a hit. The cost of a phone/sim and card are practically nothing, though it will be inconvenient for them.
Australia has pretty clear guidelines and regulations for operating for hire service including commercial insurance and commercial drivers license. All Uber really have to do is comply with the laws to operate, which many other services do instead here they rant about the laws being their to prevent competition which might be the case elsewhere but doesn't appear to be the case in Australia.
Re: (Score:2)
Australia has pretty clear guidelines and regulations for operating for hire service including commercial insurance and commercial drivers license. All Uber really have to do is comply with the laws to operate, which many other services do instead here they rant about the laws being their to prevent competition which might be the case elsewhere but doesn't appear to be the case in Australia.
However if Uber comply with the laws and regulations here in Australia, they wont be cheaper than an established taxi service... In fact they'll probably be a lot more expensive. In my city, Perth, Western Australia, an Uber taxi is only marginally cheaper than the established taxi companies, Swan Taxi's and Black and White Cabs. When surge pricing comes into effect, it's cheaper to get an insured and licensed taxi (because it's illegal to use surge pricing as a licensed taxi in WA). Right now the only thin
Re: (Score:2)
Australia has pretty clear guidelines and regulations for operating for hire service including commercial insurance and commercial drivers license. All Uber really have to do is comply with the laws to operate
And yet everyone and his dog is calling for Uber to be banned and NOT for Uber sticking to the laws. Which would be simpler and more in line with markets and fair competition. Calling for a ban and not even discussing if Uber drivers are licensced/insured according to the laws sounds like a FUD spin to me. Heck they make it even sound as if Uber would FORBID you to get proper insurance.
Re: (Score:2)
Fundamentally it is not possible for an Uber driver to be properly licensed unless they bought a taxi plate. If they held one of those, then they would also have the taxi insurance and drivers license.
Re: (Score:2)
yes, if it was a taxi, then it would be a taxi....
Re: (Score:2)
And yet everyone and his dog is calling for Uber to be banned and NOT for Uber sticking to the laws.
Obviously, since Uber has not the slightest willingness to stick to the laws, and couldn't possibly stick to the laws, because that would make it impossible to run their business at a profit.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, since Uber has not the slightest willingness to stick to the laws, and couldn't possibly stick to the laws, because that would make it impossible to run their business at a profit.
Thank you for one more example of exactly this flawed reasoning: "Uber can't be sticking to the law because "that would make it impossible to run their business at a profit" Bit of tautologic, don't you think?
And may I present you every effing taxi as evidence A that it is possible to get even the most ridiciouus licence asked for anywehere in the world and still not operating at a loss? Should be clear that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with a business concept of "charging amount X in exchange for t
Re: (Score:2)
They could also wait a week to issue the fines
I don't see how this could work. They need to confirm the driver's identity to issue the fine which they're not going to be able to do without confronting the driver at the time of the ride. Just knowing the vehicle's registration isn't enough.
Re: (Score:3)
They could also wait a week to issue the fines
I don't see how this could work. They need to confirm the driver's identity to issue the fine which they're not going to be able to do without confronting the driver at the time of the ride. Just knowing the vehicle's registration isn't enough.
Could be treated just like speeding and red light camera tickets. The ticket is issued to the registered owner of the car. The owner is then responsible for either paying the ticket or providing details of the person driving at the time, if they can't or won't provide the details then they wear the fine just like normal traffic fines.
Re:poor summary (Score:4, Informative)
Could be treated just like speeding and red light camera tickets. The ticket is issued to the registered owner of the car.
Apparently not under the existing laws. If they go to the trouble of changing the law I think they'll go a different way, like nasty penalties for repeat offences and, more likely, finding a way to hit Uber directly with some conspiracy to offend law with huge penalties for corporations.
Re:poor summary (Score:4, Informative)
In Australia a driver of ANY public transport needs to go to the local motor registry office. They have to have a police check done, they must pass medical requirements, they must also have a certain amount of driving experience (these rules differ slightly between states but are generally very similar), once you pass the basic requirements you can get your standard license upgraded to a commercial vehicle/public transport license. You also have two types of insurance. private car insurance and commercial car insurance. these are not requirements on Uber, they are requirements for driver/owner of the car. if you are operating your car in a commercial capacity then your private insurance is deemed invalid during that time as you are only covered for use as a private transport. here is the ACT commercial/hire car license application
http://www.rego.act.gov.au/__d... [act.gov.au]
Re: (Score:2)
and before you reply whinging about no reference to the insurance stuff. I use AAMI for my car insurance, however this particular line or something similar you will find in all private car insurance PDS in Australia under "What we do not cover" "Hire, fare, reward or courtesy car. your car being used for hire, fare or monetary reward" http://www.aami.com.au/sites/d... [aami.com.au]
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I stand corrected on the hire-for licence, but I've got to disagree with the following.
these are not requirements on Uber, they are requirements for driver/owner of the car.
I never said that Uber was required to have that insurance, I'm just saying that Uber covers the drivers/owners of the car with its own commercial coverage while they are driving and logged into the application on their phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the signup for Uber is that you have to have your own insurance. Even if Uber covers them It also becomes interesting how insurance will pay out in circumstances where the drivers are clearly in breach of driving laws, most insurances are not honored in such circumstances, maybe Uber somehow got their insurance to excuse unlicensed drivers. e.g. my AAMI policy states you are not covered if you are driving in breach of your license conditions.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=australia... [lmgtfy.com]
Re: (Score:2)
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=australia... [lmgtfy.com]
Thank you very much for proving that I actually did my research, as the first result in your search results is the exact same link I already provided in the post you're replied to.
illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail tim (Score:5, Insightful)
So Uber decided to trade a small fine for operating an unlawful taxi for criminal charges of conspiracy and obstruction of justice. Smart.
Re: (Score:2)
Or it could just be an automatic response of the system. If a person files for a refund enough times, that person may automatically be banned by the system. After all, this is how other systems [macrumors.com] handle similar issues.
Re: (Score:3)
You expect the government to uphold a civil contract that charges the government $100,000 in order for the government to do its job enforcing the laws the government passed?
Wow.
Re: (Score:2)
The contract wouldn't be between Uber and the government. The contract would be between Uber and the private individual who also happens to be a transport inspector, not even a police officer. Remember, it's a sting operation so they're not going to register as a government department. It's not so clear to me that this would fail in a civil case. Are there laws voiding contract terms that impede government officials in their duties? Lawyers anywhere?
I think $2000 would be a better number for Uber to tr
Re:illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, thats going to get thrown out of court with prejudice, and potentially fines or jail time for contempt.
Its as ridiculous as those notices on piracy bulletin boards thats said "if you are a member of law enforcement you do not have permission to enter".
Re: (Score:3)
How would launching civil litigation to uphold a contract be subject to "fines" or "contempt"? At worst, someone might get declared a vexatious litigant; but that takes a big effort involving repeated frivolous pleadings. And why would it be dismissed with prejudice? What is your reasoning?
I can't believe the post was modded "Informative".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Let me help you fathom it.
Uber is under no obligation to accept every potential passenger. They can choose who to do business with and who not to. If they proactively deny their services to a person who happens to be a regulatory inspector - after the customer happens to be discovered as a regulatory bureaucrat - it isn't obstruction of justice, it's merely refusing to do further business with them.
Obstruction of justice is the willful interference in an ongoing investigation or prosecution; not the ongoing
Re:illegal taxi:$100 Obstruction of justice: jail (Score:4, Insightful)
It is in-fact obstruction of justice, because you are purposefully obstructing the ability of the inspector to do their job *because* they are an inspector. If you were banning them for any other reason it would be fine, but to specifically ban them for conducting inspections - yeah, thats a cut and dried case of obstruction of justice.
Restaurants have the ability to ban customers and refuse them entry to the premises (it is private property) but they don't get to simply ban health inspectors - that gets them shut down pretty damn quickly.
Building sites are private property, you can't trespass on them, but you can't also ban government safety inspectors from coming onto the land through claiming trespass.
Oh, and you do realise that your constitution isn't in force outside the borders and territories of the US, right? So the examples you give don't count.
Re: (Score:3)
Solution is pretty simple. Just impound the vehicles. It won't be long before there will be no willing drivers, many of them probably rapists looking for another opportunity.
Under Australian law, those without a taxi license are effectively driving without a valid license. The penalty for this is the suspension or cancellation of the drivers licenses. Repeat offenders can face jail time.
Impounding cars are reserved for "hoon" offences (something I dont particularly agree with but its there anyway).
A few suspended licenses and Uber will find itself short of drivers very quickly.
Cue the Uberrage (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, countries/states/cities are free to enact bans and harsh penalties to prop up existing cartels. See also U.S. states banning Tesla direct sales to consumers, because, hey, entrenched dealership interests. And as a philosophical matter I encourage Uber to respect the rule of law (all over the world) and push for democratic change rather than just rolling down Main Street with a foam middle finger out the sunroof.
But I don't have to applaud legislative support for inefficient, customer-deaf monopolies, nor large-scale sting operations that look quite like a money making game. And Uber certainly doesn't have to welcome fake users into its app just so it can get fined. Cat, meet mouse.
P.S. - Maybe taxis in Australia are infinitely better than they are here in the U.S., in which case I'm infinitely sorry I painted them with the same brush. Good on ya, much-loved not-monopoly taxis!!
Uber/UberX (Score:2)
What exactly is the relationship between Uber and UberX, here?
Community service instead of fines (Score:2)
I suppose that requiring 50-100 hours of community service for the drivers instead of fine would have better effect. But to get that it would probably have to go to court and as far as I understand, it is all currently handled in same way as speeding ticket (even if expensive one).
Re: (Score:2)
But to get that it would probably have to go to court and as far as I understand, it is all currently handled in same way as speeding ticket (even if expensive one).
Yes, the Australian government knows that the average Australian citizen would actually be annoyed with their government if they knew how much time and money it was spending on preventing them from being able to hire a car from someone who doesn't work with an established taxi company via an Android app, so they don't actually let such cases to go trial because the people would be annoyed with them. I don't know whether Australians have a right to a jury of their peers or not, but in the USA such things are
Only if you want governments apart from the people (Score:4, Insightful)
Your opt-out suggestion is counterproductive and a denial of your responsibility as a citizen. You are part of society. Being sociopathic isn't going to improve society.
Re: (Score:2)
This rule is not suspended for the sake of China...
Re:Only if you want governments apart from the peo (Score:4, Insightful)
the term "sociopath" hasn't been in legitimate use since 1968 (DSM-II following the collapse of the Mary Bell defence). Please select another, more appropriate term.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem, noted in TFA, is that the existing legislation doesn't have provisions for higher penalties for repeat offenders. Currently it seems they can't do anything more than fine them $1700 per infringement. Uber is paying the drivers' fines for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
they are placing passengers at risk due to no valid license or insurance
People keep saying this, yet I've never seen any evidence it's true. In fact, on the contrary, here in the UK at least, Uber are licensed like any other private hire company. Not to mention the fact that, just about everywhere, running a business without appropriate liability insurance is illegal (and stupid) anyway.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Scores of women have now be raped by Uber drivers, who don't need to show any credentials, but just pretend to be someone providing a ride.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Citation needed. Beyond which I'm sure Taxis are no different. You're likely trolling, but if you're not then just look at the number of places where some of the most common scams include false/unregulated taxis.
Re:The most beautiful thing ever! (Score:5, Informative)
Australia REQUIRES hire car and taxi drivers to be operating under commercial licenses and insurance (this is not optional), private insurance for drivers is considered invalid if you are operating as a for hire service here and hence you are uninsured. It isn't specifically uber that is unlicensed and uninsured it is the drivers. Your normal drivers license and insurance is not valid for operating such a service in Australia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And we charge in the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS to be able to..
totally fucking bull shit, you wonder why it costs so much to catch a cab.
Re:The most beautiful thing ever! (Score:5, Informative)
"Uber Australia requires a K class (taxi/charter vehicle) license to be a driver, so they are covered for that situation."
False.
I had a look at Uber's signup system for Brisbane, QLD
UberX
---------
You Are...
At least 21 years old, with an Australian drivers license and comprehensive insurance.
(ie: illegally driving commercially)
Never asked me about whether I was licensed to carry commercial passengers.
UberBlack:
---------------
You Are...
A professional chauffeur with a commercial license and commercial auto insurance.
(legal)
Re: (Score:2)
there will always be people willing to take the risk of being caught. if they want to stop it they need to issue two fines. The current $1700 fine the driver gets and perhaps an exponentially larger fine for each infringement to Uber, say $17,000 fine for them. though drivers really should be getting suspensions too as they are placing passengers at risk due to no valid license or insurance.
Most countries would have the powers against unlicenced taxi operators to fine them, impound their vehicle, ban drivers, even hand out custodial sentences if the offence merited it. I'm sure Australia is no exception and if people are stupid enough to operate an unlicenced taxi service (which is what Uber is), then they can enjoy whatever delights the courts throw at them.
As for Uber, actively impeding the government might please libertarian nitwits (like Roman Mir), but I expect the courts would take an
Re:The most beautiful thing ever! (Score:5, Interesting)
Somehow I'd still like to call BS on those stories.
There shouldn't be anything easier than catching and putting into jail a rapist driver if you have the (electronic) paper trail of who got into whose car, where was the ride booked, where was the destination. Aren't they automatically checking the GPS logs that the driver ist taking you from A to B on the shortest route? And I'd bet that Uper is checking meticulously that you're not cutting into Ubers share by booking only the first half of your ride by Uber and pay the driver cash for the rest of the trip.
So if you live in a country where rape is not normal and the police actively is trying to catch rapists, Uber should be safer than being anywhere else without GPS tracking. Sounds like cab company FUD to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Its not the taxis that have prevented the rail line to the airport, its the operators of the toll road out to the airport (dont know Melbourne well enough to know exactly which road it is). The contracts signed at the time the toll road was built specified that the government wasn't allowed to compete by building a railway line for x amount of time after the road was built.
Blame Jeff Kennett and the liberals for that mess (they signed the contracts and did the deals to build the Western Link toll road), not
Re: (Score:2)
What's that got to do with uber? Simply eliminate the medallion system and that will get rid of the so-called taxi monopoly. Be aware, even if the govt doesn't mind, the existing taxi drivers will protest.