Uber Drivers Forum banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
123 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
.....says Uber.

But TfNSW beg to differ.

Ride share drivers targeted in compliance operations
Roads and Maritime Services inspectors will be ramping up enforcement of illegal ride sharing activity through direct and road side operations over the coming weeks.
"Drivers of ride share services such as UberX are breaking the law, it's as simple as that," Roads and Maritime Services Director of Safety and Compliance, Peter Wells said.
"They are not regulated, not authorised and are not subject to ongoing criminal checks like taxi, hire car and bus drivers are.
"It is only a matter of time before an incident occurs and a driver faces the possible denial of insurance cover, leading to substantial financial loss."
Mr Wells said while cases against 24 Uber X drivers have been withdrawn this week due to evidentiary issues, he can assure the community enforcement of illegal ride sharing activity is continuing.
"UberX drivers operate in unmarked cars and have proved time and time again they're willing to work around the law in any way they can," he said.
"We will continue to pursue compliance actions to discourage UberX drivers from breaking the law and will be ramping up our compliance efforts as part of a targeted operation in coming weeks."
Enforcement will be targeted at known hot spots and during random roadside tests. Taxi and private hire car services in NSW must be provided by an operator accredited by Roads and Maritime, in a licensed and insured vehicle which is driven by an authorised driver and subject to regular inspections.
While Uber Pty Ltd does not breach the Passenger Transport Act 1990 by offering the service, drivers transporting passengers for a fare do. Maximum fines are $11,000 for driving without a driver's authority, and $110,000 for operating an unaccredited service and for using a vehicle which is not licensed as a public passenger vehicle.
"The NSW Government has established an independent taskforce to look at the future of the taxi, hire car and ride sharing industry, but in the meantime, the community expects us to enforce the law and put safety first," Mr Wells said.
Ride share drivers targeted in compliance operations (pdf 216KB)
30 July 2015
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,657 Posts
But it's so illegal that the NSW government recently took 24 Uber drivers to court and then dropped the charges.

If they want to make it illegal, fully illegal, a criminal act, then do so - but stop all this pretend crap.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
123 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I do wish they make it fully legit in the near future.

It would be great if the authorities looked into making 'Ridesharing' legal, and looked into implementing some ideas like in this article:

http://www.afr.com/opinion/columns/an-uberheadache-may-help-consumers-win-20150809-giuyx1

The article was written by the director of the Productivity Growth Program at the Grattan Institute.

key quote from the article

"UberX drivers may not hold third-party property insurance that covers commercial driving. In some states they may also hold insufficient compulsory third-party injury insurance. Uber says it provides coverage if personal policies are insufficient but has not made a regulated insurance contract available. Governments can expect that once drivers are legal, insurers will create flexible (for example, per kilometre) coverage. They already do in other markets."

Insurance coverage (or lack thereof) is a key concern of mine. Uber say they have 'contingent insurance', but no one outside of Uber has ever seen the actual PDS of that insurance. My conspiracy theory is that their insurance is merely a cash warchest they hold in the company, rather than insurance as we know it.. so they would theoretically pay out each case, like they do with fines, as they occur. Essentially if you run into problems, you're at the mercy of Uber.

I would be jumping onto a per km based commercial insurance for Uber X, if it was made available. It hinges on govt legitimising 'ridesharing'.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,528 Posts
Yes the RMS got a bloody nose when they backed down after receiving legal opinion on the 24 drivers that were meant to be tried in Court.

Some part of the breaching process wasn't watertight and I guess it was a tactical retreat, avoiding a far more embarrassing outcome of the charges being tossed out by a judge. Uber and its legal team does scare the crap out of public servants who are more intent on protecting their personal situation within a beaurocracy.

For the typical Public Servant no decisions or directives means no career limiting mistakes, as they march slowly up the promotion list to department Manager. Uber is finally making RMS / Transport managers have to think about the Ground Transport system everyone deserves
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
123 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
you make a great point there Sydney Uber, re: public servants being very very VERY gunshy about legal ramifications.

My full time job involves sales and promotions, so its normal for me to put on a lunch, or take out clients to entertain them. Can't do this with public sector clients anymore. You can't buy public servants even a cup of coffee, or staples, or anything because they're so scared of any HINT of ACCC action. And I mean really scared. I call it the Obeid effect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,528 Posts
you make a great point there Sydney Uber, re: public servants being very very VERY gunshy about legal ramifications.

My full time job involves sales and promotions, so its normal for me to put on a lunch, or take out clients to entertain them. Can't do this with public sector clients anymore. You can't buy public servants even a cup of coffee, or staples, or anything because they're so scared of any HINT of ACCC action. And I mean really scared. I call it the Obeid effect.
Even when Public Servants follow Procurement & Tender rules they get it wrong.

A client of mine told me how his transport company lost a big job moving a $8,000,000 MRI unit from their warehouse to a Public Hospital. These things weigh 4 tonnes and need specialist equipment and handling. But they bid $48,000 for the move and a competing company bid $1500 less.

The Procurement officer went for the cheapest supplier. My client's company hired a 8tonne forklift for the lift from the warehouse floor to the top of a tray truck. Then the warehouse manager noticed the tatty nature of the straps they were using, refused to allow them to leave and GAVE them over-spec straps for the trip.

At the hospital the other transport company had a 4 tonne Forklift waiting. Working at the edge of its design capacity, it hit a slight slope and tipped, TOTALLY shattering a 8million dollar MRI!

From that point on, my client got ALL the sensitive freight for the Health Department- no tender just commonsense prevailed.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top