Melbourne Uber Drivers Slapped With $1700 Fines; Service Shuts Down 255
beaverdownunder (1822050) writes "Victoria Australia's Taxi Directorate has begun a crackdown on Melbourne Uber drivers, fining them $1700 each for operating a taxi service illegally, with total fines apparently equalling over $50000. In response, Uber has shut down its Melbourne service, and has refused to comment on whether its drivers will be compensated, since Uber told them they were providing a legal service. (Fined Uber drivers could take the company to the state's consumer tribunal: stay tuned!) Uber is set to meet with the Directorate next week but it is likely the demands the Directorate will place on Uber drivers, such as mandatory criminal record checks, vehicle inspections and insurance, will make the service in Melbourne unviable. Meanwhile, the New South Wales government is awaiting a report to determine if Uber drivers operating in that state are doing so illegally, warning that drivers could face substantial fines if they are found to have been operating in breach of the law. In South Australia, it doesn't even appear Uber will get off the ground — the state has made it clear that those who operate as an Uber driver will be driving without being covered by the state's mandatory insurance coverage, essentially de-registering their vehicle and making them liable for fines and license suspension."
Death sentence (Score:5, Insightful)
Those aren't unreasonable demands of someone wanting to carry passengers for hire. They are checks that pretty much the entire Western world has come up with after numerous problems with unsafe, uninsured and unsavoury taxi drivers. If this is enough to make Uber unviable, then I wouldn't want to be one of their investors.
Re:Death sentence (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. I'm surprised this is legal anywhere (well, any developed country). And was it not obviously in breach?
Users of `look-after-my-child-for-a-few-hours.com` better watch their backs!
Re: (Score:3)
Users of `look-after-my-child-for-a-few-hours.com` better watch their backs!
I feed baby meat. Is good meat.
Also, baby's name is Piotr now. After my mother.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually the seem like they would be quite similar. While it might be fine for you to offer your services to your neighbor to take care of kids a web site that sets all that up and send someone to your house to take care of your kids would be subject to similar regulation that other daycare services are. Similarly Uber, it could be argued, should be subject to some of the same regulation that any other car for hire service is subject to.
Re:Death sentence (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know about you, but my car insurance policy (from The Hartford, through AARP) specifically states that it does *not* cover for-hire car use. Read your policy, and I expect it says something similar. When I had my limo service (note my Slashdot nickname) I had commercial insurance, and a minimum of $1 million instead of the $20,000 a cab was required to have. That $1 million policy cost me a lot less than a cab policy, because owner-operated limos are about the safest form of ground transport there is.
And when there are fines to be paid, Uber shows its true colors as it acts like the lowest form of taxi company and puts it all on the driver. I remember that bullshit from when I drove a cab in Baltimore.
The funny thing is, I think Uber is going to be very good for the livery car industry. When I started Robin's Limousine, Boston Coach was working hard to build their Baltimore operation. Customers asked me if I wasn't scared of them and their marketing muscle. "No," I said. "They're doing my marketing for me by selling the idea of a non-cab luxury transport service. All I have to do is be a little bit better and little cheaper, and I'll have the coolest customers. Like you. I notice you're riding with me and not Boston Coach."
I had a few friends, each with their own livery car or limo, and we covered for each other. The rule of the limo biz is that if you only have 2 customers, it won't be long before both of them need you at the same time, so you'd better team up with other reliable drivers.
One thing we did, by consensus, was *always* pop a small strip of red carpet for passengers getting in or leaving. That was quite the deal for proms and weddings, but we did it for transport jobs, too. George Clinton (the P-Funk dude) one told me that even though we charged less than most of our competition, he'd pay us extra (and believe me, he was a heavy tipper) because we were better at helping him make an entrance than any other limo company, ever.
If I hadn't moved off into writing (the limo company was taken over by my friend Charles, who still runs it), I might or might not join Uber today. But probably not. Once cell phones started giving you the first minute on incoming calls for free, I was cool on my own -- really in partnership with Charles. See, you called anyone else and you got an operator.flunky. Call us, and you got a boss. People like that. :)
Re:Death sentence (Score:5, Informative)
Uber has different levels of service. This appears to be a crackdown on "UberX" which lets anyone drive for extra cash. There's also "Black Car" which uses limousine services (i.e. "Town Cars") which are licensed and insured. That probably remains legal unless there is some problem with them picking up fares anywhere.
We used Uber Black Car and regular taxis in San Francisco recently. San Francisco taxis have really gone to the dogs - we had one driver who did nothing except talk on the phone and swerved in and out of traffic. The limo drivers were much nicer, the cars were nicer and the price was about the same.
Re: Death sentence (Score:4, Insightful)
Iâ(TM)ve lived in San Francisco since around a decade before Uber was even founded. And taxis were just as much crap then as they are now. The only difference is that Uber and Lyft are offering competitive options that provide a service that doesnâ(TM)t suck.
Thatâ(TM)s the particularly appalling thing about the taxisâ(TM) crusade against Uber and the like. They made their own bed by: pretty much never coming when and where you summon them; screaming bloody murder (and sometimes refusing entirely) if you ever want to goto, or be picked up in, the avenues; running various BS âoethe credit card reader is brokenâ scams; and often having their vehicles, or themselves, stink of smoke, vomit, or pee (There was even a bedbug infestation not long ago!). Now they need to just STFU and lie in that bed. If theyâ(TM)d offered a good service in the first place, Uber would never have had a niche to enter into the market.
Re: (Score:3)
Those aren't unreasonable demands of someone wanting to carry passengers for hire. They are checks that pretty much the entire Western world has come up with after numerous problems with unsafe, uninsured and unsavoury taxi drivers. If this is enough to make Uber unviable, then I wouldn't want to be one of their investors.
I'd agree with you on that. It would be different if this app was being used for car pooling or just to find someone else going to the museum today. But instead Uber and other companies like them have just turned it into a quasi-legal taxi service with full-time drivers. I'm not sure if I agree with the out-right ban on them. I'd prefer to see them forced to disclose information when you apply for the ride about their insurance, criminal history, etc... in the application.
Re:Death sentence (Score:5, Informative)
Taxis in Victoria are regulated where each vehicle is licensed by paying tens of thousands of dollars to the state government.
In such an industry, freelancers won't be tolerated.
Re: (Score:2)
Uber could have easily made changes to their software that would have made local authorities all across the world a lot less likely to care but they didn't. Given an entrenched industry you're competing with an easy way to put you out of business and they will.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you let people decide if they care to. Uber hasn't been killed off by a string of murders and rapes; it's been killed off by politicians.
Re:Death sentence (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes heaven forbid we take preventative action before someone gets hurt.
Re: (Score:2)
How many Uber drivers tell their customers that they would be riding in an uninsured vehicle? How many Uber drivers even know their non-commercial insurance is void? Most people don't understand the legalities of commercial insurance.
Sometimes things need to be killed of by politicians before bad things happen.
Re: (Score:3)
First, it is illegal to drive without insurance. Do people do it? Of course. Is it generally condoned by society? No. So why should it be OK for someone who wants to be a cab driver to drive without sufficient insurance?
You argued the passenger may not know the driver does not have insurance.
So why should all of society be forced to pay for to supposed 'right' of someone to drive an uninsured cab?
,
Why should we force all of society to forgo the right to pay any person to drive them, without first having a third party validate the driver's insurance, driving record, criminal background, and mental state?
You assume the cab driver is uninsured. I assume the risk exists, and a person is deciding on that risk. When I call Yellow Cab Service for a traditional charter, I assume the risk that the cab driver might buttrape me--
Re: (Score:2)
So it ok for for a driver working for app to kill a child and hurt others with the victims left holding the bag for there medical cost due to all kinds of fine print that lets the drivers insurance and the app one using loop holes to get out of it. When with others drives doing a limo and taxi are fully covered with no loopholes allow ed to be I'm place
What fucking loopholes? An Uber driver is on the hook the same as any other driver. If you drive into a ditch and kill your passengers, expect to be sued, Uber or not.
Re:So a death of a child is ok with you? And the o (Score:4)
Except that the driver has almost certainly voided their "residential grade" insurance policy by driving passengers commercially; meaning that they are essentially operating a vehicle uninsured. The state should step in to put a stop to this practice.
Re: (Score:2)
Catch a tram if you're too cheap to pay for a taxi. Use a designated driver rather than queuing for a taxi at 3am on a Sunday morning.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Death sentence (Score:4, Insightful)
What's really the difference between this and an online dating service though? You meet people online, some of them might turn out to be jerks or even dangerous. Use your own judgment. There already exist online systems where you can arrange carpools or split a ride with someone. Why does making the cars "for hire, at a profit" change the dynamic so much.
If you go to an "online dating service" where you meet a person and then pay them for a service rendered, that's pretty much changing the dynamic as much as you can (and would also be highly illegal in most places). Similarly, with Uber you aren't just meeting up and sharing a ride (where the most you would pay is for some gas), you are getting a service from the driver and paying them accordingly. Big difference between the 2.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What makes driving someone around such as special case or any other service?
Governments have people brainwashed into thinking that people can only drive with the bureaucrats' blessing and that they have deserve control over every aspect of motor vehicle operations.
It's very lucrative for those governments to have the people believe such things.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a concept a lot of people struggle with, but scale matters.
And perhaps moreover, every thing you described there is a function of it - in all those cases you're left with little recourse because the scale is too low to make most forms of it worthwhile. Hence eBay and PayPal really.
Re: (Score:2)
Another problem is that taxi drivers are among the most violent professionals out there, using lots of aggression to protect their livelihood if they have to. Now, it wouldn't take too long before taxi drivers start "ordering" rides with Uber, just to harass or attack those Uber-users.
Re: (Score:2)
What's really the difference between this and an online dating service though?
The fact that you don't pay your dates to go out with you.
Pretty sure Craigslist has been in some shit recently for that very reason.
Re:Death sentence (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Criminal record check is completely unnecessary.
So.. you would have no problem with not knowing that the person who is "giving you a ride" was twice convicted of rape, and spent some time in the hokey for kidnapping?
How are convicted felons ever going to find work if we put background checks on everything?
While I concur that felony convictions are often used to continue to punish minor and non-violent offenders far beyond what would be considered reasonably, that doesn't mean that the concept of criminal background checks is "completely unnecessary," as evidenced by the question I posed above. Throwin' the baby out with the bathwater, that's w
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Criminal record check is completely unnecessary.
So.. you would have no problem with not knowing that the person who is "giving you a ride" was twice convicted of rape, and spent some time in the hokey for kidnapping?
Has he been deemed fit to re-enter society, and is there a record of our transaction? If you think this man is still a danger then your problem is really with the criminal justice system.
Re: (Score:2)
So.. you would have no problem with not knowing that the person who is "giving you a ride" was twice convicted of rape, and spent some time in the hokey for kidnapping?
And... are you okay with these people [wikipedia.org] protecting you from rapists, murderers and convicted drunk drivers?
Re: (Score:2)
So.. you would have no problem with not knowing that the person who is "giving you a ride" was twice convicted of rape, and spent some time in the hokey for kidnapping?
And... are you okay with these people [wikipedia.org] protecting you from rapists, murderers and convicted drunk drivers?
What do corrupt politicians have to do with criminal background checks of commercial drivers?
Aside an attempt at false equivalence, that is.
Re: (Score:3)
You make the background check appropriate for the job. For example, I don't want a taxi driver who's been convicted of mugging or drunk driving, but I don't care if he's got a past as an embezzler. Conversely, I don't care if my accountant spent his teenage years knocking over convenience stores for drug money, but a history of embezzlement is unacceptable.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. And the Maryland Public Service Commission didn't blackball potential cab & limo drivers because they had criminal records. Violent crimes were the no-no for good reasons that most non- libbienuts understand.
Other crimes, you get an appeal hearing. Bring some friends who say you're a good person, wear decent clothes, have a drivers license with 2 points or fewer, don't call the hearing officer a motherfucker -- basic stuff like that, and they'd give you a license to carry passengers.
And the cab
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not about safety checks and insurance. It's about established factions limiting competition.
Otherwise it's as easy as "Sure, I meet safety and insurance requirements! Gimme my license!"
Re:Death sentence (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. In NYC a taxi licence costs one million dollars. Hardly about background check and vehicle inspection.
Re: (Score:3)
Most drivers in NYC don't own their medallions. They rent them from the actual owners.
That introduces a whole new dynamic into the taxi market, as now the artificial restriction of supply maintains a commensurately high value for the medallions. In that circumstance, the taxi commission ends up having the 'job' of maintaining the value of medallions.
This is not intentional of course, rather the natural consequence of monied individuals leaning on elected and appointed officials to protect their interest.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. Those overpriced medallions are why NYC has a strong gypsy cab business, some licensed and some not. Don't believe me? Call a cab by phone, and you will NOT get a yellow car. You'll get a black one. Or maybe white. Depends on the company. And if a hotel doorman or concierge makes the call, you can bet he hit the driver up for 10% or 15%, just like he's a mini-Uber.
Re:Death sentence (Score:5, Interesting)
In one of our most crime-riddled cities, we engage in the practice of slugging. This amounts to carpooling without speaking: a slug gets into your car and rides along the way, no conversation, no compensation, because you're going the way they want to go.
Mostly, this has lower risks than taking a taxi. I don't understand why; more rapes, assaults, and robberies happen in bona-fide taxi service. This offends the rational senses.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like more and more companies can't resist the temptation of going into illegal territory.
First Google, with their effort of scanning and publishing copyrighted books, publishing copyrighted videos.
Now also Airbnb and Uber.
Re: (Score:3)
The idea isn't totally dead if you start regulating it a bit. Smartphone apps to arrange rides opens up a middle ground between full-time professional taxi drivers and your friend taking you someplace that previously wouldn't work. You couldn't easily find someone who happened to be driving to the airport next week that had some extra space,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In Baltimore, you had (and maybe still have) "hack clubs" that were groups of (generally older) black men who would pick you up at the store with your bags or run other short errands cab drivers didn't want. The fare was always "whatever you feel like paying," a dodge that kept them from legally being cabs. Sort of. And if you shorted a driver, you'd go on the hack club list of bad fares, and they'd never pick you up again.
Re: Death sentence (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those aren't unreasonable demands of someone wanting to carry passengers for hire. They are checks that pretty much the entire Western world has come up with after numerous problems with unsafe, uninsured and unsavoury taxi drivers.
The problem is not that these are unreasonable demands, but that the entrenched taxi companies protect their monopolies with extremely onerous or even impossible licensing processes with the help of the government. It should be quick, easy, and inexpensive for anyone with a vehicle who wants to make some extra money via this type of service to show that they have insurance, a valid driver's license and a safety inspection any service station can do in 30 minutes. The overal state of the economy and people
Re: (Score:2)
No, it should not be quck and easy to do that. Cities have too much congestion already. Limiting the number of cabs is a good thing, as it both limits the number of cars, and increases the cost of cars so that public transport is cheap in comparison. More people riding public transport lowers pollution, etc.
The second point is that most people do NOT have insurance that covers driving for hire. That insurance is considerably more expensive, and thus will raise the cost of a ride, probably to the point wh
Re: (Score:2)
Interfering regulations .. (Score:5, Funny)
Criminal checks, insurance, vehicle checks .. what is the world coming to when you can't just get in some random fscked up car with an uninsured criminal ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not even.
Hitch-hiking is illegal here in Victoria.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Interfering regulations .. (Score:5, Insightful)
You can, nobody is stopping you. But if he charges you for it he will be encroaching on the taxi drivers' turf and cutting the city out of its share of the loot and for that he will be fined and/or imprisoned.
Occupational licencing in almost every case is nothing but a racket to artificially limit the number of practitioners and keep the prices high and to collect a tax by a different name. At least you can make a bogus safety argument when it comes to driving, but what about hairdressers, photographers, interior designers etc etc all of whom require a licence in many jurisdictions and who have to pay the city or the state an annual hefty fee in addition to taking useless courses and passing tests (more fees) in order to be able to work, despite the fact that many other jurisdictions don't have those requirements with provably zero ill effects. 1 in 3 Americans [buzzfeed.com] today are not allowed to work in their profession without a government license.
The historical cycle (Score:5, Insightful)
Step 1:
Get rid of all regulation.
Free market, yo.
Step 2:
A young girl is murdered and rape in a cab in a horrific fashion.
The democracy demands solutions!
Step 3:
Regulate. When that doesn't work, regulate some more.
Step 4:
Prices are high and a de facto exclusive license exists. People notice this is bad and want deregulation.
Re: (Score:2)
I always thought that taxi regulation had nothing to do with safety or training and everything to do with limiting the supply of taxis.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and ceos and religious leaders and [fill in random position with a lot of power]
Re: (Score:2)
Enough warning? (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder if the directorate gave the drivers enough of a heads up before the crackdown; if not, that would seem a rather harsh move.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's up to the individual to do due diligence before commencing any such venture.
Operating an underground taxi should set off warning bells such as 'do I need government accreditation?'
Re: (Score:2)
With apologies to Pink Floyd (Score:5, Funny)
We don't need no regulation
We don't need no quality control
No background checks in the taxis
Melbourne leave those cars alone
Hey, Melbourne, leave those cars alone!
All in all it's just another car on the road
All in all you're just another car on the road
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not even sure what I'm trying to say. Reading TFS, "We don't need no regulation" came into my head, and the rest just followed.
Refine as you like to suit your taste.
A Solution (Score:2)
Allow drivers to send those in via taking pictures of them with their phones. Have the drivers maybe pay a small fee to get some kind of background check on their driving records which the DMV should have anyway (instead of a criminal background check, which does't seem relevant). Problem solved.
Re:A Solution (Score:4, Informative)
What in the world makes you think a criminal background check isn't relevant? You want convicted sexual predators driving taxis around? How about people that have been convicted of fraud? You want them being responsible for operating the meter in an honest manner? There are enough issues with slimy/fraudulent practices in taxis services as it is, now you want to do away with the criminal background checks entirely? You're nuts.
Also, you seem to have completely ignored the third issue at stake here: insurance. Personal auto insurance != commercial auto insurance. The moment your insurance company finds out you were driving people around for profit at the time of your accident they will, completely legitimately, refuse to pay out any claims. While it's completely fine that you don't get paid after committing insurance fraud (which IS what you're doing when you violate your CLEARLY WRITTEN insurance contract to drive for profit) the important thing here is that anyone you've hurt (such as your fares and/or whatever/whoever you hit) are now left with no way to be compensated unless they can squeeze the money out of you. Since it's unlikely that people like Warren Buffet or Donald Trump are going to be Ubering in their Bentley, this means that those people are almost certainly screwed.
Re: (Score:3)
The ride-shares are additionally insured through Uber. Using Uber also causes the rides to be tracked, and removes the handling of cash out of the scenario. Your arguments are some of the exact reasons why you should use Uber over a Taxi company...
https://blog.uber.com/rideshar... [uber.com]
Re:A Solution (Score:4, Funny)
They could just have an option in the app: I want my driver to be: 1: a rapist; 2: a murderer; 3: prone to violent outbursts but hasn't killed anyone yet that we know of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think the problem is that almost no Uber drivers actually have valid commercial insurance at all, not that they lack documentation of it. And Uber contends that making them pay for it would make the service unviable.
Uber drivers presumably do have personal vehicle insurance, but a photo of that wouldn't be sufficient. Personal insurance policies typically explicitly exclude incidents that arose when operating the vehicle for pay, so they wouldn't cover a crash that happened during a trip booked via Uber.
Re: (Score:2)
>such as mandatory criminal record checks, vehicle inspections and insurance
Allow drivers to send those in via taking pictures of them with their phones.
Um... how do you inspect a vehicle through pictures?
"well, the picture of brake pads he sent in look good..."
Protectionism (Score:4, Interesting)
Once again, big business and government combine to profit at the expense of individuals.
Nobody asked me if I wanted to pay for all the red tape surrounding taxi services. If I want to take an informed risk, I should be allowed to have that opportunity.
Re: (Score:2)
'big business' ? Oh, the irony.
Uber are a $US3Billion American company, trying to increase their profitability by launching a stealth, rogue, taxi service in a foreign country.
The geek tries his luck. (Score:3)
If I want to take an informed risk, I should be allowed to have that opportunity.
You don't know if the driver has a license to drive, insurance, a criminal record, or that his vehicle is being properly maintained.
That isn't a calculated risk --- it's a roll of the dice that may be loaded against you.
Compare to taxi service (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good for you.
Can you verify that ALL Uber drivers have similar brakes (or even WORKING brakes) on their cars?
Re: (Score:2)
But the original point was that the portion of the Uber fare paid to the driver may not be sufficient to cover fuel and maintenance on the car, much less the required commercial insurance and/or licensing.
Thus, drivers are probably cutting corners by neglecting maintenance, not buying insurance, etc. A large portion of the commercial licensing requirements involves proving that the taxi owner is performing maintenance, has the required insurance, and that the drivers have the correct license. Apparently,
Re: (Score:2)
There is literally nothing in the contract agreements for Uber or even at the government regulatory level that would prevent what essentially amounts to 4chan on wheels from picking you up, driving you to the middle of nowhere, and kicking you out covered in mustard without saying a word.
I thought Uber has a reputation system? Does it not have a reputation system? Customer regulation is always more effective than contractual or governmental regulation if the systems are in place to make it work. Did Ube
Re:so much unsaid for uber. (Score:4, Insightful)
Uber? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Any publicity is good publicity.
But Montreal? (Score:2)
I don't get Uber. In Montreal, they offer their service, but they actually work with licensed taxis, at the official regulated price, just like any other taxi company. I don't understand why they can do it here, but make a big thing about it in other cities.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why they can do it here, but make a big thing about it in other cities.
In other cities they arent allowed to do that because of regulator capture. Livery licenses are restricted to a fixed number which is already filled by the existing companies, which then lobby to prevent increases in the number of livery licenses.
The only way to get in and own and operate a cab in New York City, for instance, requires buying a license from an existing license owner. These licenses (called medallions) go for over a million dollars today. This is the state of livery services in most cities
Libertarian view... (Score:5, Insightful)
The libertarian view of this: Uber customers know that they are calling a car driven by some random person. If they want to do that, really, it's their own business. If they want the assurance of a background-checked driver, they are also free to call a taxi company. What's wrong with keeping the government out of it and letting people choose?
Re: (Score:2)
Libertarian chooses unregulated cab. Said unregulated cab hits pedestrian. Insurance company of unregulated cab says 'your policy is for personal use only, we are not paying'. Who pays for pedestrian's injuries, the libertarian?
Re: (Score:3)
Libertarian chooses unregulated cab. Said unregulated cab hits pedestrian. Insurance company of unregulated cab says 'your policy is for personal use only, we are not paying'. Who pays for pedestrian's injuries, the libertarian?
The Libertarian chooses not to give a flying frak about the pedestrian. That is the "beauty" of such an ideology and the power of making choices </sarcasm>
Re: (Score:2)
Why should he? Not like he was driving, nor is the car his property. In the case you describe, the driver is at fault, not the passenger.
Or are you of the opinion that if you get a ride with a (soon-to-be ex-)friend, and he hits someone, and turns out to have no insurance, that YO
Re:Libertarian view... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why should he? Not like he was driving, nor is the car his property. In the case you describe, the driver is at fault, not the passenger.
Or are you of the opinion that if you get a ride with a (soon-to-be ex-)friend, and he hits someone, and turns out to have no insurance, that YOU are liable for the injuries?
That depends. I know someone who sued a passenger in a car for negligence. In this case, the passenger was stone cold sober and let his friend drive him around after having a few too many drinks (blood alcohol more than 3x the legal limit). The driver ran a red light and almost killed my acquaintance. The driver was uninsured and had no assets. The passenger, on the other hand, was insured and had plenty of real world assets. The passenger was at the bar with the driver when they got drunk. The passenger knew the driver was drunk and still let them drive them both around. I can understand someone wanting to hold the passenger accountable for his inaction. In fact, the passenger was held liable. So perhaps the Uber passenger could be liable for the actions of an uninsured driver.
Re:Libertarian view... (Score:5, Interesting)
Answer the question: who pays to cover the pedestrian? One option is the driver. Of course, if the driver has little assets (and chances are he would not be driving a cab if he was rich), he can't pay. The only other person involved in this wonderful libertarian world would be the passenger. But, of course, HE couldn't be expected to pay. So that leaves only two choices: either the pedestrian himself is responsible for all his bills (including loss of income, etc), or all of society pays (either through the goverment, or through higher insurance rates for everyone). And if random people and/or all of society are going to have to cover the cost of damage inflicted by a cab driver, then all of society damn well has a right to insist, through (gasp) regulations, that the driver of a cab must demonstrate the financial wherewithall to pay for damage he potentially causes (usually by purchasing insurance).
Your 'friend' example is stupid, because drivers ARE required to carry insurance. If they don't have insurance, society covers the cost, but the driver has violated a law.
Re: (Score:2)
Libertarian chooses unregulated cab. Said unregulated cab hits pedestrian. Insurance company of unregulated cab says 'your policy is for personal use only, we are not paying'. Who pays for pedestrian's injuries, the libertarian?
German insurances would pay to the third party victim. And then they would go after the driver for the rest of his life to recover the cost.
Re: (Score:2)
The libertarian would say, shit happens, welcome to the jungle.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing is wrong with that. If you change the law and level the playing field first. You can't say one company is unregulated and everybody else has to be regulated. What kind of free enterprise is that? If you want to allow unregulated taxi services, change the law to allow that. I'm sure the other taxi services would love that idea, too. Going out and just doing it in direct violation of the law is plain stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only the ones who've never read Snow Crash.
The great thing about Libertarianism is that you aren't required to agree 100% with the other members, unlike some other, more prominent political parties (or rather, party) who shall remain nameless.
Pitfalls of sharing economy (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why I am critical of the sharing economy. It is is the pinnacle of outsourcing where the management (uber, airbnb) reaps the cream of the profits at little risk, while their "subcontractors", so to speak, take the burden of all the risks (legally and financially), while also having to shoulder maintenance and operating expenses. The responsible and ethical move for these companies would be to properly inform these subcontractors the insurance requirements, legal risks, local workplace standards required for operation, and try to assist them if possible to meet these requirements.
Instead, they prefer to claim ignorance and shoulder all responsibility on their user base. When legal problems inevitably arise, they cast their users/subcontractors adrift, letting them fend for themselves. It's utterly disgraceful.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
When money changes hands everything changes. Expectations both from the customer and in terms of legal liability are so much higher that you cannot compare gift or free exchanges to a fundamentally commercial one such as Uber or AirBnB. There is all sorts of really interesting research into this from the psychology side showing that things shift the instant people see something as a monetary transaction instead of a social one.
The services like to act as though they are some hybrid between the two (Lyft i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is is the pinnacle of outsourcing where the management (uber, airbnb) reaps the cream of the profits at little risk, while their "subcontractors", so to speak, take the burden of all the risks (legally and financially), while also having to shoulder maintenance and operating expenses.
Meh.
If the "subcontractors" find this arrangement onerous they're free to opt out and find or create another that fits their needs better.
Fiction and Reality (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I find it somewhat ironic that the only recourse mentioned in the summary is for the drivers to sue Uber. What about suing the government instead?
For what? Not allowing them to skirt a law that everyone else has to follow?
It seems ridiculous to have legislation which is so obscure that you can't know for sure if something is legal or illegal until some regulatory agency made a ruling.
If you think being required to obtain a commercial driver's license is "obscure" legislation, I'd say you have no business so much as discussing this topic. It's not a new concept.
Re: (Score:2)