Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators(smh.com.au)
smh.com.au
Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators
https://www.smh.com.au/technology/uber-to-pay-272-million-to-australian-taxi-operators-20240318-p5fd4p.html
178 comments
Toronto is notorious for this too. Either the credit card machine is broken and you must pay too much cash, or the credit card machine steals your card number, or you are refused a ride because it’s not far enough.
Even travelling through Europe I’ve been refused a ride because it was too short, and got overcharged by 2-3x once. I’d use Uber at this point even if it’s more expensive than a taxi.
Even travelling through Europe I’ve been refused a ride because it was too short, and got overcharged by 2-3x once. I’d use Uber at this point even if it’s more expensive than a taxi.
Same in New York. Also fuck you if it’s shift change or you’re my former black roommate, who despite being a habitual suit wearer and Brown graduate would get passed by 90% of the cabs on Fifth Avenue.
Since Uber, granted, they’ve massively improved. But take it away and, of course, the incentive structure guarantees one outcome.
Since Uber, granted, they’ve massively improved. But take it away and, of course, the incentive structure guarantees one outcome.
I'm in Toronto and never experienced any of this. Even before Uber, if a drivers' credit card machine wasn't working, they'd tell me before I got in. 95% of the time there was no issue with their machine. I used legitimate taxicab companies - if one wasn't available on the street corner, you could call their dispatch and they'd send one over.
> I used legitimate taxicab companies
There really are no “legitimate taxicab companies” in Toronto.
You have dispatching companies and companies that rent out cars with branding to drivers, but they’re all independent contractors.
In theory a dispatching/car providing company could boot a contractor off of its system, but it’s a fine line for them where they’ve taken fewer risks on this than Uber, because they absolutely do not want to be considered employers.
Even if you haven’t encountered the “card not working, cash only”, I’m surprised you never encountered the “right too short”/“don’t want to go there” refusal.
There really are no “legitimate taxicab companies” in Toronto.
You have dispatching companies and companies that rent out cars with branding to drivers, but they’re all independent contractors.
In theory a dispatching/car providing company could boot a contractor off of its system, but it’s a fine line for them where they’ve taken fewer risks on this than Uber, because they absolutely do not want to be considered employers.
Even if you haven’t encountered the “card not working, cash only”, I’m surprised you never encountered the “right too short”/“don’t want to go there” refusal.
I’ve taken many taxis in Montreal and London and other European cities, and in Taiwan, and have never had anything like this happen to me.
Instead I get Uber drivers who refuse to come to my pickup spot and drive around in circles hoping I’ll cancel the trip first so they can still get paid something.
Instead I get Uber drivers who refuse to come to my pickup spot and drive around in circles hoping I’ll cancel the trip first so they can still get paid something.
I’ve had good luck with broken credit card machines working when I declare I have no cash. Maybe it’s because of my stature and/or luck.
Either the credit card machine is broken and you must pay too much cash...
Wouldn't you just respond "Sorry, no cash!" and walk away? It's literally true for me - I rarely have more than $10 cash on hand, because I never need it.
Wouldn't you just respond "Sorry, no cash!" and walk away? It's literally true for me - I rarely have more than $10 cash on hand, because I never need it.
Because they’re threatening
I guess it depends on the location. I had a car service pull this on my at Denver International a few years ago. He wasn't asking for more than the flat-fee from downtown to the airport, so I hit the ATM and gave him the cash. But if I had been in a hurry, he would have been SOL, I would have gone straight to security and not given it a second thought.
Damn, I guess you’re hypothetically really resilient to that sort of thing
Threatening? Most taxicabs have cameras inside, and I've never heard of a driver getting violent with a passenger over an inability to pay (different from a refusal to pay), considering their picture and cab ID are prominently displayed inside the cab.
[deleted]
This and the sibling comment both show a pretty big lack of sympathy or empathy. Maybe you've never been in a situation where the line is blurry between dangerous/not-dangerous but maybe just assume everyone besides you isn't a moron and it's not as easy as you're saying
It's not a lack of empathy, I literally don't know how this would work in the driver's favor. I rarely carry cash. If we got to the destination and the driver demanded cash, what's he expecting will happen? Everywhere I've taken a cab in the last decade requires cabs to have CC readers.
Generally the idea is that they say the machine doesn’t work, and if you say you have no cash / won’t go to an ATM the machine magically starts working.
The city taxis are wayyy dirtier than Uber too, reviews were a godsend.
In 90% of all countries really, most common scam ever. That is why travelers use Uber more than natives.
This is also my experience with Toronto (and Athens and Barcelona and numerous other cities).
I’ll stand for a half hour in the rain before I take another Toronto cab.
I’ll stand for a half hour in the rain before I take another Toronto cab.
[deleted]
I have never had an experience like this with a taxi in any city
Why would you even use a taxi for that?
There seems to be a decent public transit connection. It costs $2.90 for that trip.
If it's your first time in a new city, you probably just want to get to your hotel as fast as possible instead of learning the transit system.
+1 to this. I did Heathrow to Bermondsey for £110 (first time in London). Then next morning, found myself wondering why I didn't just use the train. On the way out, I did use the train, and lets just say, I still think about that £110.
I've only traveled in Europe and Asia so far but this never looked like an issue to me.
Also I'd also use the transit system for the following days in the city, so have to learn about it anyways. (Not that there's really anything to learn)
Also I'd also use the transit system for the following days in the city, so have to learn about it anyways. (Not that there's really anything to learn)
Lugging around luggage through buses and transit, especially if there are stairs involved, is not pleasant.
It’s not pleasant in cities with great transit like Tokyo or Seoul, and it’s downright miserable in most of the cities being discussed here in this thread.
It’s not pleasant in cities with great transit like Tokyo or Seoul, and it’s downright miserable in most of the cities being discussed here in this thread.
Depends when they made that trip. I lived in that area for a while. The train is a little bit exxy and only used to go to Greensquare. You'd need two buses otherwise and there is sfa room for bags, so if you have luggage etc a taxi is an easier option for the $20 it should cost.
Buses can be problematic if you're not used to landmarks. Train will be around $15 (there is an airport surcharge). I'd pay a few more dollars (the actual rate, not the ripoff rate) for point-to-point too as a local if I had more than 1 bag.
"I still remember when I first just arrived in Sydney, I took a taxi from the airport to Waterloo and was charged $95..."
What, $95, do t you mean $9.50? (The last time I paid around that amount for taxi fares was from Disneyland to Bel Air along the longest 'carpark' in the world, and from Tokyo to Narita International Airport.)
I've taken taxis from Mascot Airport to my place in the same direction along Botany Rd but further (about double the distance to Waterloo) for at least one third that price. Were you parked in a traffic jam for hours?
I'll grant you the taxi business was already in a bloody shambles before Uber and has needed reform for many years but I've never experienced charges that high.
The root of the problem is that governments have learned to charge hundreds of thousands of dollars and sometimes a half million or more for taxi plates. Such huge amounts put taxi owners in a very difficult financial bind, they can be on the verge of bankruptcy for years paying for them, and or they hang onto them with grim determination fearing they could never afford or obtain another set. Moreover, increasing the number of plates available devalues them—little wonder taxi owners object strongly at any such move.
Thus, it's long been just about impossible to reverse the maddening situation.
What, $95, do t you mean $9.50? (The last time I paid around that amount for taxi fares was from Disneyland to Bel Air along the longest 'carpark' in the world, and from Tokyo to Narita International Airport.)
I've taken taxis from Mascot Airport to my place in the same direction along Botany Rd but further (about double the distance to Waterloo) for at least one third that price. Were you parked in a traffic jam for hours?
I'll grant you the taxi business was already in a bloody shambles before Uber and has needed reform for many years but I've never experienced charges that high.
The root of the problem is that governments have learned to charge hundreds of thousands of dollars and sometimes a half million or more for taxi plates. Such huge amounts put taxi owners in a very difficult financial bind, they can be on the verge of bankruptcy for years paying for them, and or they hang onto them with grim determination fearing they could never afford or obtain another set. Moreover, increasing the number of plates available devalues them—little wonder taxi owners object strongly at any such move.
Thus, it's long been just about impossible to reverse the maddening situation.
The taxi firms lost income because it wasn't a level playing field.
They played by the rules where Uber's well-known modus operandi in many countries was to skirt the rules or downright ignore them, while using billions of dollars of investor money to undercut the market.
I'm glad they exist to shake up the taxi market, and the rules changes were probably overdue. But I'm also glad uber got fined, because they behaved like pirates here and in many other countries. And I'm glad they didn't succeed in putting everyone else out of business, which seemed to be the play.
They played by the rules where Uber's well-known modus operandi in many countries was to skirt the rules or downright ignore them, while using billions of dollars of investor money to undercut the market.
I'm glad they exist to shake up the taxi market, and the rules changes were probably overdue. But I'm also glad uber got fined, because they behaved like pirates here and in many other countries. And I'm glad they didn't succeed in putting everyone else out of business, which seemed to be the play.
Did you take many taxis before Uber/Lyft? It was an adversarial relationship - your taxi driver would try their very best (they practice every day!) to rip you off any which way they can. Their lobby stopped any competition or reform, and they exploited the most vulnerable.
I have no sympathy at all for the taxi cartels - only their victims.
I have no sympathy at all for the taxi cartels - only their victims.
I did take taxis in Melbourne and Sydney before and after the arrival of Uber. I never had any issues with any taxi drivers, except one racist arsehole in Townsville.
Hah. Australian ex-pat living in Seattle. Took my girlfriend and her daughter to Australia to catch up with my family, etc. We did Sydney, Cairns and Melbourne. Hell, even with Uber... multiple pretty openly racist drivers in Cairns (I am extremely left wing, but my partner and friends like to tease that I could pass for a 'good old boy', so too many people feel comfortable just erupting in tirades and assuming I'll be in agreement).
Actually, in CNS, the most common problem was cancelations with Uber. Of maybe a dozen or more Uber trips I took in 4 days there, only one or two didn't have any cancelations. Usually it required one or even more cancelations before a driver would actually "commit".
Actually, in CNS, the most common problem was cancelations with Uber. Of maybe a dozen or more Uber trips I took in 4 days there, only one or two didn't have any cancelations. Usually it required one or even more cancelations before a driver would actually "commit".
I used to get the opposite problem using GoCatch to call taxis to the airport in the morning. They were so keen for my business they would often call me up to confirm they were on the way. I had no desire for a phone call at like 5.30am...
I did - this doesn't match my experience at all.
IME, Uber is universally sketchy, whereas cab company/cartel sketchiness varies by city.
"Their lobby stopped any competition or reform, and they exploited the most vulnerable." applies to both Uber and cab cartels.
"Their lobby stopped any competition or reform, and they exploited the most vulnerable." applies to both Uber and cab cartels.
As a costumer, I'm glad they skirt the rules because they provide better service for cheaper, and I certainly hope that traditional taxi parks go out of business, because compared to Uber and other apps they're horrible.
Sydney taxis are extortionate and often operate illegally around the airport, but also taxi plates in Australia costed $100,000’s (on the market, not sure how much when released by the government) and that investment got trashed by ride-share entry. From that perspective I’ve got some sympathy.
Why should we have sympathy because of an artificial constraint on the supply of taxi drivers? They're really nothing special except by being in an artificially protected market.
Taxi companies lobby for very expensive taxi registration to raise barrier to entry and prevent competition.
Someone finds a way around this malfeasance.
"Hey you gotta pay us for lost income, we spent a lot on those taxi medallions!"
Someone finds a way around this malfeasance.
"Hey you gotta pay us for lost income, we spent a lot on those taxi medallions!"
The NSW government controls the number of taxis and set the fares. I have some sympathy for the drivers, but if anyone should be compensating them it's the government, not Uber.
The article said they cost $500,000 (each), which was probably the least believable part of the article. If they actually cost $100,000, that might be close to reasonable.
Somebody can probably do 5-6 rides a day at $50 a ride for a $100,000 tag. That's pretty believable for an average over a year. Even $200,000 might be. I have difficultly believing they're all making money needing 30 rides at ~$50 every day all year long for a $500,000 tag.
> value of his three taxi licence plates – worth about $500,000 each.
Somebody can probably do 5-6 rides a day at $50 a ride for a $100,000 tag. That's pretty believable for an average over a year. Even $200,000 might be. I have difficultly believing they're all making money needing 30 rides at ~$50 every day all year long for a $500,000 tag.
> value of his three taxi licence plates – worth about $500,000 each.
I would believe the 500k number. Taxi badges are ridiculously priced. I think NYC’s was over 1.5m.
Keep in mind, they are able to lease the badge out, so you can have your cab running 24/7.
Keep in mind, they are able to lease the badge out, so you can have your cab running 24/7.
Why are you assuming it must necessarily be paid for in the first year? Are they not keeping these plates indefinitely, unless sold?
Guess because I thought that Australia would not put a huge up-front cost on starting a taxi service (and I'm now numb to Australian prices and numbers looking nonsensical from America. If the rents are in the $1000/wk, plane tickets are $5000, start losing track of "reasonable". It's Australia, multiply the normal price 5x-10x).
In Boston they peaked at selling for well over 500k. Your math assume drivers purchase them, but most drivers here would lease them.
You should believe it. They reach a high of $450,000 in 2014 dollars, so well over $500,000 now: https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/cost-of-buying-a-taxi-li...
They were at that price because of artificial scarcity. They created a tidy income stream for the governments who sold them, who found by limiting supply the prices when auction rose spectacularly. The net result was not enough taxi's to fill natural demand, while taxi drivers paid to delivery an artificially limited service were paid stuff all. This wasn't unique to Sydney - the model was repeated all over the world; they just copied it.
It created the perfect environment for Uber to step into. Because it was copied everywhere it was a huge, worldwide market. To exploit it Uber had to knowingly break the law, and lie about it. You can see that reflected in Uber's highly criticised internal culture at the time. The governments and taxi drivers fought Uber tooth and nail. Where I live taxi inspectors booking rides with Uber, and fining the drivers for not having a licence. Uber responded with technology, using their apps to track their phones and modify what they saw. The inspectors saw no Uber drivers around. It was open warfare for a while, technology vs the law. Technology won in that case. Uber's "it's all about me, whatever it takes to win" culture was probably a necessary part of that victory. Now the war has been won I see Uber is changing it's culture.
Here in Australia, the taxi licence owners watched the value of their licences evaporate overnight under Ubers assault. When it became evident the huge debts they took on to finance the licences meant they had no hope of competing against Uber commercially, they sued the government over the inflated prices they were forced to pay. The government responded to the law suit by saying no one forced them, they were sold at auction. The courts largely sided with the governments, perhaps because they have near infinite legal resources and the taxi's were broke. Some governments later did hand some "sorry" payments to the taxi drivers, but there were more token amounts.
So the real reason for the enormous pain the taxi's have had to endure (I'm sure it cause financial ruin and suicides) is taxi's licenses were effectively a very poorly implemented tax. When a business discovered how to use new technology to exploit the opportunity created by that tax, it wasn't the drafters of the law who suffered, it was the taxi's. They have my sincere sympathy.
They were at that price because of artificial scarcity. They created a tidy income stream for the governments who sold them, who found by limiting supply the prices when auction rose spectacularly. The net result was not enough taxi's to fill natural demand, while taxi drivers paid to delivery an artificially limited service were paid stuff all. This wasn't unique to Sydney - the model was repeated all over the world; they just copied it.
It created the perfect environment for Uber to step into. Because it was copied everywhere it was a huge, worldwide market. To exploit it Uber had to knowingly break the law, and lie about it. You can see that reflected in Uber's highly criticised internal culture at the time. The governments and taxi drivers fought Uber tooth and nail. Where I live taxi inspectors booking rides with Uber, and fining the drivers for not having a licence. Uber responded with technology, using their apps to track their phones and modify what they saw. The inspectors saw no Uber drivers around. It was open warfare for a while, technology vs the law. Technology won in that case. Uber's "it's all about me, whatever it takes to win" culture was probably a necessary part of that victory. Now the war has been won I see Uber is changing it's culture.
Here in Australia, the taxi licence owners watched the value of their licences evaporate overnight under Ubers assault. When it became evident the huge debts they took on to finance the licences meant they had no hope of competing against Uber commercially, they sued the government over the inflated prices they were forced to pay. The government responded to the law suit by saying no one forced them, they were sold at auction. The courts largely sided with the governments, perhaps because they have near infinite legal resources and the taxi's were broke. Some governments later did hand some "sorry" payments to the taxi drivers, but there were more token amounts.
So the real reason for the enormous pain the taxi's have had to endure (I'm sure it cause financial ruin and suicides) is taxi's licenses were effectively a very poorly implemented tax. When a business discovered how to use new technology to exploit the opportunity created by that tax, it wasn't the drafters of the law who suffered, it was the taxi's. They have my sincere sympathy.
Thank you for the rather long explanation that was not especially inflammatory.
The original point of the comment was that $500,000 seemed difficult to believe. You at least provide a thorough, if rather Machiavellian explanation.
Not sure if I agree on the sympathy, mostly because they probably had $AUS in their eyes initially, seeing the prices other people complain about. However, too far away in America, with too much American shadowbanning filter on all news, to have any relevant view on the issue.
The original point of the comment was that $500,000 seemed difficult to believe. You at least provide a thorough, if rather Machiavellian explanation.
Not sure if I agree on the sympathy, mostly because they probably had $AUS in their eyes initially, seeing the prices other people complain about. However, too far away in America, with too much American shadowbanning filter on all news, to have any relevant view on the issue.
The single best thing that Uber did to taxi companies was it eliminated this bullshit in so many places. I live in Edinburgh, and prior to Uber this sort of stuff was rampant. Now, all the private hire and black companies have apps, accept card payments, are clean.
I'm Irish, and on my last trip to Dublin, I ended up with a €70 taxi. The driver wouldn't take card, so he drove around until we found an ATM, by which time the meter was €75. I paid him the €70 and he left me at the ATM, without a receipt for me to claim reimbursement.
I have absolutely no sympathy for this nonsense.
I'm Irish, and on my last trip to Dublin, I ended up with a €70 taxi. The driver wouldn't take card, so he drove around until we found an ATM, by which time the meter was €75. I paid him the €70 and he left me at the ATM, without a receipt for me to claim reimbursement.
I have absolutely no sympathy for this nonsense.
> The driver wouldn't take card,
For future visitors to Ireland, note that this has been illegal since last year. The taxis are required to accept card. If this does happen to you, ask what their number is and say you'll call ComReg and this problem will almost certainly disappear.
For future visitors to Ireland, note that this has been illegal since last year. The taxis are required to accept card. If this does happen to you, ask what their number is and say you'll call ComReg and this problem will almost certainly disappear.
Isn't a scam not an official taxi, though?
I don't know the situation in Sydney, but where I usually travel, it's the unlicensed taxis that overcharge and scam people, i.e., not the real taxis.
Licensed taxi companies charge standard fares.
I don't know the situation in Sydney, but where I usually travel, it's the unlicensed taxis that overcharge and scam people, i.e., not the real taxis.
Licensed taxi companies charge standard fares.
That's wishful thinking but not true. I've directly called a legitimate taxi company before and been scammed and had to pay over triple the price. This was after specifically discussing the flat cost that this particular trip had. Due to circumstances I'm not going to discuss here I had no choice but to pay it, but if I'd been in a different situation I would have left.
Regulation is very lax here. Plenty of stories. The most basic being they won't unlock the door when you flag them until hearing where you are going - legally they have to take ALL rides unless they are in a shift changeover. If it's really far, like to a farm, I think they can ask for the return fee too.
Also, a booking isn't. It's like that Seinfeld skit. A booking is just an agreement to put your job out at the agreed time. Doesn't mean anyone has to take it. I live too close to the airport for anyone to want to take it, apparently.
Also, a booking isn't. It's like that Seinfeld skit. A booking is just an agreement to put your job out at the agreed time. Doesn't mean anyone has to take it. I live too close to the airport for anyone to want to take it, apparently.
The last taxi I ever took in Sydney drove twice the distance he needed to so he could charge me a higher fee. And that wasn't the first time something like that had happened. I've now been using Uber for years and I'm yet to be so blatantly scammed.
Meh. Last time I got an uber from Sydney airport the guy made us get in at the entry to the multi store car park across from the rideshare pickup. I just assumed because he didn't want to pay a fee. He then couldn't reverse out because someone turned up behind him and so did a run through the car park. Had a strange chat with him on the drive into town where he tried to tell me he was a student and had only been in Sydney for a couple of months, but it was totally suspicious, he kept getting carried away and relaxing into a undeniable western Sydney accent. My wife was in the car next to me texting me like crazy that something was up but I was just playing along. No idea what the go was in the end. Unsettling but otherwise uneventful trip. I didn't tip. I avoid uber from the airport now and just get a cab or a train. Price is about the same.
Edit: I should probably add that I don't avoid uber completely, still use it when travelling, esp. if I'm somewhere without a taxi rank. But I prefer a cab from the airport. It's genuinely less hassle.
Edit: I should probably add that I don't avoid uber completely, still use it when travelling, esp. if I'm somewhere without a taxi rank. But I prefer a cab from the airport. It's genuinely less hassle.
How much “should” it cost?
$90 is too much but $20 is just right?
Why?
$90 is too much but $20 is just right?
Why?
Taxis in Sydney are regulated and can't just decide what to charge. Travelers might not know, of course. If at all possible, take a picture.
It's worth noting that Australian taxis are generally terrible. They're expensive and notorious for ripoffs, particularly from the airport: scenic routes, bogus surcharges, "broken" credit card machines (plus 5% surcharge when they do work), drivers refusing destinations (by law they're not allowed to), and to top it all off they're not even safe, with taxi drivers responsible for a long string of sexual assaults.
Uber and its competitors have their own problems, but they're still way better, and they've forced positive change onto taxis as well with 13CABS (the largest company) now offering an Uber clone app with fixed fares, tracking, etc.
Uber and its competitors have their own problems, but they're still way better, and they've forced positive change onto taxis as well with 13CABS (the largest company) now offering an Uber clone app with fixed fares, tracking, etc.
Same here in India. A lot of people hate Uber but speaking for me personally it's been a godsend upgrade over the black yellow taxis we had here before.
I believe they are the #1 reason why foreigner tourists are scared of coming to India. The amount of scam and harrasment done by these old taxi drivers is just another level. The luxury and straightforwardness of app taxis is unparalleled to what we used to have before.
I believe they are the #1 reason why foreigner tourists are scared of coming to India. The amount of scam and harrasment done by these old taxi drivers is just another level. The luxury and straightforwardness of app taxis is unparalleled to what we used to have before.
I loved getting taxis in India for exactly these reasons, I used to get taken to random shops way out of the way of where I needed to go ... I'd just go along along with it, total adventure time! But I can see how it could grate after the novelty wore off. Or if you were maybe being a bit cautious as a traveller.
This can be really scary for women who are traveling.
You could be possibly sexually assaulted, trafficked, or other things.
You could be possibly sexually assaulted, trafficked, or other things.
You are 100% right. Though this problem isn't unique to India by any means. In fact you often hear of sexual assault cases re. taxis and ride share going through the courts in Australia.
That said I've personally witnessed things "nearly" happen, and heard some harrowing tales besides, to / from lone women travelers in a number of countries throughout Asia, the Middle East and Europe.
The world is not a safe place for women.
As an aside, Singapore seems to be one of the outliers here. We saw a woman exercising at about midnight one night coming from the airport. Taxi driver told us it wasn't unusual, ostensibly thanks to capital punishment. No way you'd feel comfortable doing that in Australia.
That said I've personally witnessed things "nearly" happen, and heard some harrowing tales besides, to / from lone women travelers in a number of countries throughout Asia, the Middle East and Europe.
The world is not a safe place for women.
As an aside, Singapore seems to be one of the outliers here. We saw a woman exercising at about midnight one night coming from the airport. Taxi driver told us it wasn't unusual, ostensibly thanks to capital punishment. No way you'd feel comfortable doing that in Australia.
The funny thing is, 99% of taxi drivers in Australia are Indian. Makes a lot of sense and it’s the context you’re not allowed to say.
> It's worth noting that Australian taxis are generally terrible.
Over here in Western Australia they are generally better than Uber. You know what sets the traditional operators apart from Uber in Perth?
They show up
That simple. You book a cab, you get a cab, more or less when you want it. You request an Uber and someone might come. They might not. They might accept the ride and then drive in circles for 15 minutes to try to make you cancel (it's not 100% clear what this does, but it's either just cancellation fee farming or to try to trigger a surge).
Uber's been pretty fucked over here for a while.
Over here in Western Australia they are generally better than Uber. You know what sets the traditional operators apart from Uber in Perth?
They show up
That simple. You book a cab, you get a cab, more or less when you want it. You request an Uber and someone might come. They might not. They might accept the ride and then drive in circles for 15 minutes to try to make you cancel (it's not 100% clear what this does, but it's either just cancellation fee farming or to try to trigger a surge).
Uber's been pretty fucked over here for a while.
It's weird how different cities in Australia have such different Uber experiences.
Newcastle (north of Sydney) Uber is near unusable. Cancellations etc. as others have detailed here. Taxis are a bit slow but they do at least pick you up.
Sydney - great.
Brisbane - great.
Newcastle (north of Sydney) Uber is near unusable. Cancellations etc. as others have detailed here. Taxis are a bit slow but they do at least pick you up.
Sydney - great.
Brisbane - great.
You know that is a direct result from competition from rideshare alternatives, right?
Growing up in the late 90s and early 2000s, taxis always added an exciting extra frisson to any airport trip or evening date. Would they turn up at all? Would they turn up, honk their horn, and drive away if you didn't run out the door in under a minute? Were you going to be left stranded at the end of the night with a constantly engaged taxi call line? Leaving you to resort to calling friends and family to pick you up?
Perth taxis were some of the most expensive and hardest to book in all of my experiences around Australia, pretty much right up to the late 2010s, which unsurprisingly was a few years after Uber's entrance into the market.
If taxis are a better service than Uber now, that's great. We probably want to keep that competitive pressure to keep the bastards honest.
Growing up in the late 90s and early 2000s, taxis always added an exciting extra frisson to any airport trip or evening date. Would they turn up at all? Would they turn up, honk their horn, and drive away if you didn't run out the door in under a minute? Were you going to be left stranded at the end of the night with a constantly engaged taxi call line? Leaving you to resort to calling friends and family to pick you up?
Perth taxis were some of the most expensive and hardest to book in all of my experiences around Australia, pretty much right up to the late 2010s, which unsurprisingly was a few years after Uber's entrance into the market.
If taxis are a better service than Uber now, that's great. We probably want to keep that competitive pressure to keep the bastards honest.
Huh, Cairns was so much the same. Watched that happen too. Most of the time we had to resort to enduring a cancelation or two before someone would show up. My parents ended up calling a taxi half the time.
You've nailed it.
Uber went south in Cairns in exactly the same way about when Didi and the others came out.
Call a cab and it turns up. Reliability is everything.
Uber went south in Cairns in exactly the same way about when Didi and the others came out.
Call a cab and it turns up. Reliability is everything.
If you are on long contract with a cab company, for example if you are a corporation who regularly needs a cab to pick people up from Airport, the prices are almost 4x per trip as compared to Uber. Even at peak hours Uber is much better
You forgot dirty and smelly. Specially compared to any Uber.
Living in Sydney, I have had few not so clean Ubers, here and there, but nothing compared to how bad taxis are.
[deleted]
> […] "broken" credit card machines (plus 5% surcharge when they do work), drivers refusing destinations (by law they're not allowed to) […]
You have forgotten to mention the cab operators sending complaints, e.g. about overcharging, to /dev/null. There is no feedback loop with the company, either, e.g. being able to report a bad cabbie.
The taxi industry has outlived itself and has to go now.
You have forgotten to mention the cab operators sending complaints, e.g. about overcharging, to /dev/null. There is no feedback loop with the company, either, e.g. being able to report a bad cabbie.
The taxi industry has outlived itself and has to go now.
I've taken lots of taxis over the years and never experienced any of that. I do believe the stories of sexual assault though.
I honestly think people forget how bad taxis were in general before Uber. In many places people just didn't use them because they were considered unreliable, expensive, and dangerous. Taxi companies had a reputation of being scummy. Now a lot of taxi companies have decided to be better, and it's largely due to pressure from Uber
Uber, for all its faults, is the classic example of "disruption". Now great taxi experiences are the new normal
Uber, for all its faults, is the classic example of "disruption". Now great taxi experiences are the new normal
Does someone know the real story? How can a company be fined for disrupting an existing business?
When Uber entered the market, what they were doing was technically illegal (the taxi industry was regulated, Uber wasn't a registered provider, its drivers didn't own a taxi permit (which no longer exist), etc).
You can generally sue for illegal behavior that causes you losses.
You can generally sue for illegal behavior that causes you losses.
Further to that, taxi licences were limited in number and sought after.
So it became less of driving a taxi and more about financial investment. People bought dozens of licences and leased them out.
It no longer became about driving taxis and was more an investment.
As soon as Uber came, those who invested heavily were left holding a useless (or heavily reduced) investment.
So it became less of driving a taxi and more about financial investment. People bought dozens of licences and leased them out.
It no longer became about driving taxis and was more an investment.
As soon as Uber came, those who invested heavily were left holding a useless (or heavily reduced) investment.
Ah! So the government created artificial scarcity just as they do in housing.
The argument I've heard before (about the medallion system in the US, which had the same result as what GP described with licenses) was that since roads are a limited resource, this prevented too many taxis from causing excess traffic just driving around looking for customers.
It's an interesting argument because having the app connect customers means they don't have to drive around aimlessly, which almost sidesteps the problem (they still have to pull over somewhere but aren't necessarily causing traffic).
It's an interesting argument because having the app connect customers means they don't have to drive around aimlessly, which almost sidesteps the problem (they still have to pull over somewhere but aren't necessarily causing traffic).
They could fix the whole system by issuing as many medallians as people want. Fixed reasonable price, renewable each year. You have to meet certain criteria for public safety, like good driving record, not a sex offender, the car must pass annual safety inspections, etc. But other that, let the market decide how many taxis.
It makes level of sense to limit number of medallions. And then also at same time cap prices and mandate availability. That is if you have a medallion you must have car on order or on road at all times. This could be achieved by multiple medallion owners working together so that there is a taxi available Wed-Thu night during rainstorm.
Also you do not want to give out so many medallions that owners cannot possibly make a living. Now transferability outside selling whole business is stupid.
Also you do not want to give out so many medallions that owners cannot possibly make a living. Now transferability outside selling whole business is stupid.
> cap prices
> Also you do not want to give out so many medallions that owners cannot possibly make a living
Do you really think that some government agency can come up with the correct price and license cap using Excel magic? Of course not, most likely this will just lead to corruption and an inferior service.
Let the free market find the price. If it's not possible to make a living people won't drive. Where I live taxis usually charge whatever Uber is showing.
> Also you do not want to give out so many medallions that owners cannot possibly make a living
Do you really think that some government agency can come up with the correct price and license cap using Excel magic? Of course not, most likely this will just lead to corruption and an inferior service.
Let the free market find the price. If it's not possible to make a living people won't drive. Where I live taxis usually charge whatever Uber is showing.
If you want free market to find the price. Why not force Uber and Lyft to accept pricing from their drivers. Absolutely any pricing and any rules. I think that would be reasonable.
Thats what sidecar did, and the driver market rejected it because it was an awful and unsafe experience. Imagine trying to set rates while you're driving around!
Uber shows how much they will pay, the driver doesn't have to accept the trip. If drivers don't accept Uber will have to adjust the price.
I can only imagine what NYC traffic would look like if there was an unlimited number of yellow cab medallions allowing pickups in NYC.
Correct. And the screeching from the taxi lobby was thunderous. We are better off now this has occurred, really its a sovereign risk issue and they should have sued the government instead.
I feel like you just ignored everything else that was said and just zeroed in on the one thing that aligns with your viewpoint.
Not OP. But I theorize that almost every single ill plaguing society on a large level ATM can be traced back to a specific government action or refusal by the government to act.
Homelessness? Check. Drunk driving fatalities? Check. Domestic violence? Check. Abusive monopolies on single-person transportation? Check.
Homelessness? Check. Drunk driving fatalities? Check. Domestic violence? Check. Abusive monopolies on single-person transportation? Check.
In theory government can do almost anything so it’s hard for this statement to be wrong…
I can't find a reference, but I'm pretty sure that someone on the Australian Financial Review's rich list, got rich from Taxi medallions. When Melbourne was to host the olympics, the licence authority decided there would not be enough taxis. They invited people to apply for free licences, and lots of people did apply for a licence. One person applied for a shedfull - something like 200?, and received them all.
Sounds like a racket. So still hard to fathom the legality.
Lobbying by the taxi industry has also been persistent for the past decade or so [0]. Along with some fairly excellent return political stunts from early days Uber [1].
[0]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/gq9jzm/queenslands-taxi-driv...
[1]: https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/uber-uses-hor...
[0]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/gq9jzm/queenslands-taxi-driv...
[1]: https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/uber-uses-hor...
Take a look at page 79 of the first 'key document' https://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/class-actions/join-a-cla...
The law said you need a license to provide taxi services. Uber and its drivers didn't have that license. So the lawsuit is for the damages caused by Uber's illegal behaviour.
The law said you need a license to provide taxi services. Uber and its drivers didn't have that license. So the lawsuit is for the damages caused by Uber's illegal behaviour.
But Uber wasn't and still isn't a taxi company. It's just an aggregator as they call it.
They can call themselves a hotdog stand, that doesn’t mean the courts agree.
How are they a taxi company? Certainly not thought of that way by your average person. Its taxis vs ride sharing.
"Ride sharing" is the silliest euphemism, it's not sharing a ride unless the driver was going there already.
If you don't want to lump them in with taxis, they're a car service with contract workers. That's all they are.
If you don't want to lump them in with taxis, they're a car service with contract workers. That's all they are.
> Certainly not thought of that way by your average person. Its taxis vs ride sharing
Uber operates primarily as a taxi service with an app
Ride sharing is a non-core feature called UberPool, which lets users share Uber taxis with other users.
Uber operates primarily as a taxi service with an app
Ride sharing is a non-core feature called UberPool, which lets users share Uber taxis with other users.
I think your average person does think that way.
This entire debate and court case is between Taxi's and Uber, because they're competing by providing essentially the same thing.
The passenger clearly doesn't care if the person driving them from A to B is using a company vehicle vs their own vehicle. Ride sharing is a silly name, as you're not really sharing the ride if the driver isn't going to the same place are they.
This entire debate and court case is between Taxi's and Uber, because they're competing by providing essentially the same thing.
The passenger clearly doesn't care if the person driving them from A to B is using a company vehicle vs their own vehicle. Ride sharing is a silly name, as you're not really sharing the ride if the driver isn't going to the same place are they.
“a type of vehicle for hire with a driver, used by a single passenger or small group of passengers, often for a non-shared ride. A taxicab conveys passengers between locations of their choice.” So yea that sounds like Uber/Lyft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxi
I regularly see people say they’ll call a cab and then use Uber/Lyft.
Ride sharing generally means carpooling/picking up hitchhikers etc. Where the driver is going on the route anyway and is adding passengers for HOV access, gas money, or just conversation. https://rideshare.org/
Uber’s initial intention was carpooling where someone would put in their intended destination and could pick people up for money. However the business model clearly switched to a taxi model with a paid driver not staying at the destination. They still wanted to call it ride sharing because what they where doing was often blatantly illegal
PS: Their initial subsidized prices convinced many people to advocate for an exception which was often granted. That’s the bit that’s rarely talked about, they essentially bribed the general public.
I regularly see people say they’ll call a cab and then use Uber/Lyft.
Ride sharing generally means carpooling/picking up hitchhikers etc. Where the driver is going on the route anyway and is adding passengers for HOV access, gas money, or just conversation. https://rideshare.org/
Uber’s initial intention was carpooling where someone would put in their intended destination and could pick people up for money. However the business model clearly switched to a taxi model with a paid driver not staying at the destination. They still wanted to call it ride sharing because what they where doing was often blatantly illegal
PS: Their initial subsidized prices convinced many people to advocate for an exception which was often granted. That’s the bit that’s rarely talked about, they essentially bribed the general public.
> Uber’s initial intention was carpooling where someone would put in their intended destination and could pick people up for money.
Historically incorrect. Uber started out as a black car service (with California tpc licenses). Lyft started as a pivot of the carpooling app zimride named after the founder.
> Their initial subsidized prices convinced many people to advocate for an exception which was often granted
That's not really what moved the needle. What moved the needle on exceptions was the sharp drop in drunk driving incidents and fatality.
Historically incorrect. Uber started out as a black car service (with California tpc licenses). Lyft started as a pivot of the carpooling app zimride named after the founder.
> Their initial subsidized prices convinced many people to advocate for an exception which was often granted
That's not really what moved the needle. What moved the needle on exceptions was the sharp drop in drunk driving incidents and fatality.
PS: There was sharing but it was time sharing Limos, so I can see getting those swapped.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/11101...
> Initially, the idea was for a timeshare limo service that could be ordered via an app. After the conference, the men went their separate ways. However, when Camp returned to San Francisco, he continued to be fixated on the idea and bought the domain name UberCab.com.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/11101...
> Initially, the idea was for a timeshare limo service that could be ordered via an app. After the conference, the men went their separate ways. However, when Camp returned to San Francisco, he continued to be fixated on the idea and bought the domain name UberCab.com.
> Lyft started
Ahh ok.
Ahh ok.
We hereby witness the effectiveness of Uber's PR machine tasked with creating that category with the specific goal of evading taxicab regulations.
Disagree there. I think most people would prefer uber over taxi for service/convenience/cost, but I doubt modern uber would be considered that different to a taxi service.
Laws are not strongly typed.
Not a taxi company, just a company that takes fares to drive people around.
if it walks like a duck and...
An unjust law, which was ignored justly.
You don't have LGBT people paying cops because they committed buggery before it was legalised.
Appealing to unjust laws for your argument is the weakest play in the book.
Uber didnt cause any damage, decades of taxi monopoly caused damage. Uber corrected the injustice.
You don't have LGBT people paying cops because they committed buggery before it was legalised.
Appealing to unjust laws for your argument is the weakest play in the book.
Uber didnt cause any damage, decades of taxi monopoly caused damage. Uber corrected the injustice.
Taxis are regulated and would be barred from operating if they fall out of compliance. this specific story is about taxi licenses which are of limited availability and costs a lot of money to get. Since Uber lobbied the govt for permission to operate without these, their value have freefalled and Uber is compensating the holders of those licenses.
That protectionism hasn't stepped up properly the past ten years only shows that maybe governments found they would benefit from letting the taxis get slapped around a bit. There will probably be more stories like this in the future as Uber has become entrenched and now will be pressured to get more proper.
That protectionism hasn't stepped up properly the past ten years only shows that maybe governments found they would benefit from letting the taxis get slapped around a bit. There will probably be more stories like this in the future as Uber has become entrenched and now will be pressured to get more proper.
>this specific story is about taxi licenses which are of limited availability and costs a lot of money to get.
An unjust situation created by the government. Uber didnt pass the unjust laws protecting cabcharges monopoly.
An unjust situation created by the government. Uber didnt pass the unjust laws protecting cabcharges monopoly.
"Taxis are regulated" - well, kinda...
They're only just now thinking up maybe potentially one day working towards regulating them. https://www.9news.com.au/national/rogue-taxi-drivers-could-b...
They're only just now thinking up maybe potentially one day working towards regulating them. https://www.9news.com.au/national/rogue-taxi-drivers-could-b...
[deleted]
My friend drives Red Cab in San Francisco. A couple of weeks ago he charged ~$500 from SFO airport to San Jose (taxi meter price). He informed the passenger, since he thought it's going to be too much for her, and gotten the response he shouldn't count her own money, and should just drive there, lol.
How in the world is that $500?!
What is the difference between taxi licenses and medieval monopolies (corporations)? Corporations had exclusive right to do some trade (e.g. make bread or produce salt) and nobody else was allowed to do it.
Government taking their cut(s) wherever possible
Taxi's in NSW/Sydney are much better these days. Uber X are typically shit by comparison.
A $95 UberX ride home is about $109 in a taxi for me.
Talking to a few friends who also live a similar distant from the CBD/downtown find that Taxi's are the better / more reliable option these days too.
The taxi is pretty much always newer, with a professional driver who usually isn't almost falling asleep behind the wheel. The quality of the driving is typically significantly higher. It feels like a safer ride.
Of the recent UberX's I have caught, the car was typically in need of a suspension replacement or significant servicing and around 6-7 years old or older.
Most recent taxi rides I have had a car around 12 months old or less.
Taxi's are better regulated and provide a better service. I'll happily pay the little premium there is in this market to use one over an Uber.
On a recent trip to NZ the uber to taxi price comparison was massively different.. Taxi was like 2.5x more expensive..
A $95 UberX ride home is about $109 in a taxi for me.
Talking to a few friends who also live a similar distant from the CBD/downtown find that Taxi's are the better / more reliable option these days too.
The taxi is pretty much always newer, with a professional driver who usually isn't almost falling asleep behind the wheel. The quality of the driving is typically significantly higher. It feels like a safer ride.
Of the recent UberX's I have caught, the car was typically in need of a suspension replacement or significant servicing and around 6-7 years old or older.
Most recent taxi rides I have had a car around 12 months old or less.
Taxi's are better regulated and provide a better service. I'll happily pay the little premium there is in this market to use one over an Uber.
On a recent trip to NZ the uber to taxi price comparison was massively different.. Taxi was like 2.5x more expensive..
And why are they better "these days"? Because competition from Uber forced them to up their game.
They still suck though, and ripoffs and even sexual assault remain legion.
They still suck though, and ripoffs and even sexual assault remain legion.
I ordered an uber from one side of the Sydney CBD to the other.
We got to talking about ubers situation in the CBD. He told me he doesnt normally accept fares in the CBD because he gets pushed around by the police. As he was saying that, a motorcycle cop ordered him to pull over for an inspection. I thanked him and decided to walk the rest of the trip.
Anyway, now armed with the reason I couldn't get an uber reliably in the CBD I found that Uber into the CBD, taxi out of the CBD was the best way forward.
We got to talking about ubers situation in the CBD. He told me he doesnt normally accept fares in the CBD because he gets pushed around by the police. As he was saying that, a motorcycle cop ordered him to pull over for an inspection. I thanked him and decided to walk the rest of the trip.
Anyway, now armed with the reason I couldn't get an uber reliably in the CBD I found that Uber into the CBD, taxi out of the CBD was the best way forward.
Or, you know, public transport...
I mean if I am in the Sydney CBD I am there for work. I usually need access to a variety of suburbs, the airport and the CBD itself for various work engagements. I need to be on time, and spend ideally less than 45 minutes in transit between engagements.
When I am on my own time in Sydney, I have an opal card and will train everywhere possible.
When I am on my own time in Sydney, I have an opal card and will train everywhere possible.
He said “best” not barely adequate at the best of times.
Uh, if you're in Sydney CBD, public transport (train/light rail) or even walking is faster than any kind of motor vehicle in my experience (this assumes that you have no mobility affecting disability, in which case use what you need to use).
I lived and worked in the city. I did not find this to be the case at all. (I had a motorcycle).
> Of the recent UberX's I have caught, the car was typically in need of a suspension replacement or significant servicing and around 6-7 years old or older.
This was a pet hate of mine in Australia. Order an UberXL "Fits your group of 6 riders (or extra luggage) comfortably" and most of the time someone was showing up in a Honda CRV or Passport (which has 5 seats). We had five passengers plus some luggage at times.
And when you cancel because that "XL" option won't meet your needs then the app starts hitting you for repeated cancelations, despite the fact that all of these vehicles don't actually fit the description and capacity described.
This was a pet hate of mine in Australia. Order an UberXL "Fits your group of 6 riders (or extra luggage) comfortably" and most of the time someone was showing up in a Honda CRV or Passport (which has 5 seats). We had five passengers plus some luggage at times.
And when you cancel because that "XL" option won't meet your needs then the app starts hitting you for repeated cancelations, despite the fact that all of these vehicles don't actually fit the description and capacity described.
I had a similar issue when Uber was newer (I don't think they had XL) at SFO, the guy showed up in a little car, and was SHOCKED, SHOCKED, that we had LUGGAGE! At the AIRPORT!
He did not want that on his nice seat, and the trunk would not fit much either since he had his own stuff in there. Silly guy. He made us cancel, old trick, since that makes us pay not him. Support sorted it out.
He did not want that on his nice seat, and the trunk would not fit much either since he had his own stuff in there. Silly guy. He made us cancel, old trick, since that makes us pay not him. Support sorted it out.
Also living in Sydney, and catching Uber often. I find the complete opposite.
The cars are old and beat up and Ubers are always newish.
Taxis are always smelly, Ubers much less so.
Maybe my experience is more a result of being closer to the city.
Maybe my experience is more a result of being closer to the city.
[deleted]
This entire thread is people arguing that breaking laws you disagree with is fine or even a "moral imperative".
You can hold that opinion, but as with most things it doesn't excuse you from the consequences of your actions.
You can hold that opinion, but as with most things it doesn't excuse you from the consequences of your actions.
[deleted]
It's ridiculous - you provide bad quality service with high fees and scammy operators, another competitor enters the market and takes your market share, then you sue them and win for beating you? Imagine that in any other scenario.
Not to mention, every trip in NSW has a $1.32 fee to help compensate taxi drivers.
Taxi operators should have tried competing on merits like price and cracking down on dodgy drivers instead of suing. The last time I got a taxi it was $80 for a 10km trip that's $32 on Uber. If they weren't so terrible then Uber would have never had an in on the market in the first place.
Not to mention, every trip in NSW has a $1.32 fee to help compensate taxi drivers.
Taxi operators should have tried competing on merits like price and cracking down on dodgy drivers instead of suing. The last time I got a taxi it was $80 for a 10km trip that's $32 on Uber. If they weren't so terrible then Uber would have never had an in on the market in the first place.
At the end of the day, Uber broke the Australian laws as they stood (even if you didn't agree with them).
If I had started an illegal gypsy taxi business I would have been fined or arrested. Why are there different rules for large corporations?
If I had started an illegal gypsy taxi business I would have been fined or arrested. Why are there different rules for large corporations?
>If I had started an illegal gypsy taxi business I would have been fined or arrested. Why are there different rules for large corporations?
Shouldn't you be wondering why is it illegal for you to do the first thing rather than the last?
Why shouldn't you be able to start what you call a 'gypsy taxi business.' what's the need for arresting you? Is it that authoritarian of a nation?
Shouldn't you be wondering why is it illegal for you to do the first thing rather than the last?
Why shouldn't you be able to start what you call a 'gypsy taxi business.' what's the need for arresting you? Is it that authoritarian of a nation?
I don't know, I used to catch gypsy cabs in London twenty odd years ago and you were taking your life into your own hands. There were some pretty shady operators. I can see why a government might want to license taxi drivers.
> Why shouldn't you be able to start what you call a 'gypsy taxi business.' what's the need for arresting you? Is it that authoritarian of a nation?
Why do we bother licensing drivers then too? Are we that much of an authoritarian nation that we need to control who drives a car? Should Uber drivers be allowed to drive without a driver's license too?
> Why shouldn't you be able to start what you call a 'gypsy taxi business.' what's the need for arresting you? Is it that authoritarian of a nation?
Why do we bother licensing drivers then too? Are we that much of an authoritarian nation that we need to control who drives a car? Should Uber drivers be allowed to drive without a driver's license too?
Except in this case you can't start that business without getting arrested. You can still get a license without getting arrested.
It's strange that you'd bring this false equivalence.
>I can see why a government might want to license taxi drivers.
Applying for a taxi-driver license is a whole another different thing than just having taxi mafia run your entire taxi industry. Can the said uber drivers even apply for a taxi license?
It's strange that you'd bring this false equivalence.
>I can see why a government might want to license taxi drivers.
Applying for a taxi-driver license is a whole another different thing than just having taxi mafia run your entire taxi industry. Can the said uber drivers even apply for a taxi license?
do you disagree with all laws or just ones meant to protect workers' wages?
The taxi laws didn't end up protecting the wages of the drivers. They ended up protecting the rights of the 'plate owners', who, having too much cash, used taxi plates as an investment and rented out the taxis to drivers on a nightly basis often for half cash. Which makes taxi drivers do anything for cash over recorded transactions.
The whole system is crooked, even today.
The whole system is crooked, even today.
Giving certain monopolies complete control over the industry and not letting competition in which drives down the prices for consumers is anything but "protecting workers' wages."
You don't work if you are getting 0 rides because they're too expensive for end-user. What wages?
You don't work if you are getting 0 rides because they're too expensive for end-user. What wages?
Just the ones designed to protect cabcharges monopoly.
if ride sharing didn't exist wages would be lower. companies like uber increase wages, see Seattle's law reducing the pay of drivers by enforcing minimums.
those laws do not protect wages, uber was right to protest them.
those laws do not protect wages, uber was right to protest them.
All the ones that restrict freedom without good reason
I'm not wondering why it's illegal for me to start a fly-by-night taxi business because I understand that the regulation was developed over a long time to avoid dodgy drivers who'd scam passengers or worse.
I can accept an argument where it was not fit-for-purpose for a tech-era reinterpretation of how vetted drivers deliver this service. Despite that, I think you're probably reaching if you were to try to tell me that you don't understand why the prevailing legislation existed in order to ensure passengers were picked up by vetted, known drivers whose identities were known and who could face recourse if they scammed passengers (e.g. by driving them around in circles to inflate fares), held passengers hostage or worse.
I can accept an argument where it was not fit-for-purpose for a tech-era reinterpretation of how vetted drivers deliver this service. Despite that, I think you're probably reaching if you were to try to tell me that you don't understand why the prevailing legislation existed in order to ensure passengers were picked up by vetted, known drivers whose identities were known and who could face recourse if they scammed passengers (e.g. by driving them around in circles to inflate fares), held passengers hostage or worse.
Sure but the responsibility is always to break unjust laws. And in this instance they were able to demonstrate why the laws were unjust and succeeded in getting them changed. There shouldn't be consideration for unjust laws. Its like suing a german car company for not using enough slave labor. "Its the Law" is just a rhetorical was to shut down debate. It should never have been the law, and when it was contested it no longer was.
>If I had started an illegal gypsy taxi business I would have been fined or arrested.
You shouldnt have been. Thats the point.
>Why are there different rules for large corporations?
The large corporation defeated cabcharge dominance for all of us. They get minor consideration for that.
Uber took us from a situation where a single large corporation had a complete monopoly, to a place where multiple large corporations compete, a place where you technically have the right to compete against them. They flattened the rules, they didn't create a new rule where only they get special consideration.
>If I had started an illegal gypsy taxi business I would have been fined or arrested.
You shouldnt have been. Thats the point.
>Why are there different rules for large corporations?
The large corporation defeated cabcharge dominance for all of us. They get minor consideration for that.
Uber took us from a situation where a single large corporation had a complete monopoly, to a place where multiple large corporations compete, a place where you technically have the right to compete against them. They flattened the rules, they didn't create a new rule where only they get special consideration.
Given uber developed software to block the regulator from regulating (see https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-19/the-uber-story/109129... and links therein), I'm not sure they can have said to have any moral ground in this.
It's worth noting that the regulator also blocked a majority of Taxi providers from providing a single app (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-12/accc-blocks-launch-of...), I think uber should also be able to be regulated.
It's worth noting that the regulator also blocked a majority of Taxi providers from providing a single app (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-12/accc-blocks-launch-of...), I think uber should also be able to be regulated.
They don't need moral ground just agency to act against the greater evil.
Uber settled, they didn't lose the suit. An Uber spokesperson even went as far as admitting there were "legacy issues" that they wanted to put behind them.
> "Since 2018, Uber has made significant contributions into various state-level taxi compensation schemes, and with today's proposed settlement, we put these legacy issues firmly in our past," an Uber spokesperson said in an emailed response.
> "Since 2018, Uber has made significant contributions into various state-level taxi compensation schemes, and with today's proposed settlement, we put these legacy issues firmly in our past," an Uber spokesperson said in an emailed response.
I don't think they missed reading that.
Just that regardless, the whole reason for the suit in the first place is just because a new company beat Taxi's at their game and the Taxi companies decided to complain rather than innovate.
Just that regardless, the whole reason for the suit in the first place is just because a new company beat Taxi's at their game and the Taxi companies decided to complain rather than innovate.
They broke the law, if they didn't want to potentially pay fines or a settlement, they shouldn't have broken the law. They could have spent all this money lobbying in advance to get laws repealed or get an exception instead.
In the grand scheme of things it seems like it worked out for them.
In the grand scheme of things it seems like it worked out for them.
>They could have spent all this money lobbying
So the valid response to an unjust situation is to throw money at it and pray for change?
That our laws should be decided on who has the most money? Cabcharge V Uber?
Or that, the law being stupid and unjust, was ignored by Uber, to the benefit of millions of australians, who experienced cheaper fares, resulting in a massive push to get the law changed from the bottom up?
So the valid response to an unjust situation is to throw money at it and pray for change?
That our laws should be decided on who has the most money? Cabcharge V Uber?
Or that, the law being stupid and unjust, was ignored by Uber, to the benefit of millions of australians, who experienced cheaper fares, resulting in a massive push to get the law changed from the bottom up?
Not everyone agrees with you that the situation was "unjust". And Uber is not the plucky underdog you're portraying them as. They built an empire on capital from the likes of Blackrock, JPMorgan, Softbank and other heavy hitters.
They arent a plucky underdog, they are a very large monied dog whose interests align better with the consumer than cabcharges near legislative monopoly.
> Not everyone agrees with you that the situation was "unjust".
More do, than don’t. You won’t find many shedding tears for the bullshit grift that was most of the Australian taxi industry. Good riddance to it and the completely terrible laws that allowed their nonsense to continue unabated for as long as it did.
More do, than don’t. You won’t find many shedding tears for the bullshit grift that was most of the Australian taxi industry. Good riddance to it and the completely terrible laws that allowed their nonsense to continue unabated for as long as it did.
Exactly.
Even if Uber had "Uber" funding, using Uber is a far better experience than using our Taxi services. Paying for and knowing how much your ride is going to cost before hand, using an app to be able to hail an Uber and see in real time as they're coming.
Just the basics they never had
Even if Uber had "Uber" funding, using Uber is a far better experience than using our Taxi services. Paying for and knowing how much your ride is going to cost before hand, using an app to be able to hail an Uber and see in real time as they're coming.
Just the basics they never had
The prices of cartel approved taxi plates crashed from ~200-150k to ~20k overnight once the market saw that the gov was letting Uber continue operating. Uber didnt compete on the same field, they created a new game, that was completely illegal in Australia, on another field. If a regular joe did that he would gaol.
This payment compentsates those taxi licence holders who held the dip.
This payment compentsates those taxi licence holders who held the dip.
Irrelevant. Uber flattened the market, removed cabcharge dominance. And removed the barrier to entry for other players.
Just because the barrier to entry was a tradable government stamp is irrelevant. There shouldnt have been a barrier in the first place.
Uber, in a weird, stupid, modernity sucks way, brought justice to an industry that had been unjust for a very long time. Love them or hate them, cabcharge is worse.
>If a regular joe did that he would gaol.
Also bad. The government and taxi lobby should not have set up a situation where giving a ride for money could lead to incarceration. This doesnt support your point, it just further illustrates that the situation was unjust until uber acted.
Just because the barrier to entry was a tradable government stamp is irrelevant. There shouldnt have been a barrier in the first place.
Uber, in a weird, stupid, modernity sucks way, brought justice to an industry that had been unjust for a very long time. Love them or hate them, cabcharge is worse.
>If a regular joe did that he would gaol.
Also bad. The government and taxi lobby should not have set up a situation where giving a ride for money could lead to incarceration. This doesnt support your point, it just further illustrates that the situation was unjust until uber acted.
You saying "irrelevant" doesn't make it so. The law of the land is, in fact, very relevant in a lawsuit.
Its a thought terminating cliche. A law being a law doesnt end an argument. If the law shouldn't be, we are permitted to continue thinking towards its removal.
Yep and government can continue to squeeze because their options are leave (immediately replaced with competitor apps) or give them their cut.
They broke the law. Furthermore Uber's competitive advantages are fueled by incredibly dangerous financial practices. In the kind of "any other scenario" you're alluding to, the new kid on the block typically isn't infused with tens of billions of VC.
>They broke the law.
Law was unjust, they had a moral imperative to break it.
>Furthermore Uber's competitive advantages are fueled by incredibly dangerous financial practices.
And if Uber was seeking a monopoly this might be relevant, but they opened the market up for anyone, including those not doing scary financial practices.
>the new kid on the block typically isn't infused with tens of billions of VC.
Yes, so it should have been the case that the taxi monopolies were broken up decades ago. Not waiting around for VC capital to do it.
Law was unjust, they had a moral imperative to break it.
>Furthermore Uber's competitive advantages are fueled by incredibly dangerous financial practices.
And if Uber was seeking a monopoly this might be relevant, but they opened the market up for anyone, including those not doing scary financial practices.
>the new kid on the block typically isn't infused with tens of billions of VC.
Yes, so it should have been the case that the taxi monopolies were broken up decades ago. Not waiting around for VC capital to do it.
>Law was unjust, they had a moral imperative to break it.
I disagree that they had a moral imperative to break it. But our laws must be quite bad because foreign companies seem to love breaking them while claiming the moral highground.
>And if Uber was seeking a monopoly this might be relevant, but they opened the market up for anyone, including those not doing scary financial practices.
Is there any successful rideshare company without similar financial practices? I admit I don't know much about any of them other than Uber. Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised. I'm glad to hear that uber isn't seeking a monopoly.
>Yes, so it should have been the case that the taxi monopolies were broken up decades ago. Not waiting around for VC capital to do it.
Irrelevant to my point, but thanks for the take
I disagree that they had a moral imperative to break it. But our laws must be quite bad because foreign companies seem to love breaking them while claiming the moral highground.
>And if Uber was seeking a monopoly this might be relevant, but they opened the market up for anyone, including those not doing scary financial practices.
Is there any successful rideshare company without similar financial practices? I admit I don't know much about any of them other than Uber. Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised. I'm glad to hear that uber isn't seeking a monopoly.
>Yes, so it should have been the case that the taxi monopolies were broken up decades ago. Not waiting around for VC capital to do it.
Irrelevant to my point, but thanks for the take
The biggest issue with Ubers financial practices (other than, not having much money) is that in the US they can also provide car finance, and can take the car payments directly from the trip payment. Its got a whiff of the company store about it. As far as I am aware none of their competitors do this anywhere.
Considering the low value proposition of the Uber app, I am relatively surprised that theres no strong open source competitor with a very modest sum going to maintain the app. Such a hypothetical competitor would now also be allowed after ubers entrance.
Considering the low value proposition of the Uber app, I am relatively surprised that theres no strong open source competitor with a very modest sum going to maintain the app. Such a hypothetical competitor would now also be allowed after ubers entrance.
>But our laws must be quite bad because foreign companies seem to love breaking them
There was a great interview I watched recently on ABC. A gentleman was politely explaining why theres a shortage of produce in Australia at the moment. He explained how the government increased requirements on local farmers, but haven't set the same requirements on imports. So large aggregators set up shop in countries with cheaper wages, and less onerous laws, can the produce there and ship it into Australia while pocketing the difference.
The reporter conducting the interview was shocked, and immediately asked the standard question. "Should the government be seeking to impose penalties, or tariffs or some other kind of support"
The farmer shook his head. He said he didn't think it was an issue of penalties, or tariffs. He just wanted the government to put the industry back the way they found it. But the reporter literally didn't understand his line of thinking. And kept asking. 2 more times he answered. No. No new laws please, just let us compete on the same basis as NZ. The NZ produce is being eaten by aussies anyway. so there's no net difference. Just let his business continue.
So yeah I believe our laws are quite bad. For a variety of reasons. Mainly that the country is addicted to the idea of a great national project, and despite terrible results in these areas (National Energy Market (Debatable but I think it does a lot more harm than good), National Broadband Network, National Disability Insurance Scheme) governments of all stripes continue to smash anything that's right fit at a small scale to fit it into these dumb nasho boxes. I am just glad that the government of the day has forgotten about its pre election promise to disband all private fibre network providers and roll them into the NBN.
There was a great interview I watched recently on ABC. A gentleman was politely explaining why theres a shortage of produce in Australia at the moment. He explained how the government increased requirements on local farmers, but haven't set the same requirements on imports. So large aggregators set up shop in countries with cheaper wages, and less onerous laws, can the produce there and ship it into Australia while pocketing the difference.
The reporter conducting the interview was shocked, and immediately asked the standard question. "Should the government be seeking to impose penalties, or tariffs or some other kind of support"
The farmer shook his head. He said he didn't think it was an issue of penalties, or tariffs. He just wanted the government to put the industry back the way they found it. But the reporter literally didn't understand his line of thinking. And kept asking. 2 more times he answered. No. No new laws please, just let us compete on the same basis as NZ. The NZ produce is being eaten by aussies anyway. so there's no net difference. Just let his business continue.
So yeah I believe our laws are quite bad. For a variety of reasons. Mainly that the country is addicted to the idea of a great national project, and despite terrible results in these areas (National Energy Market (Debatable but I think it does a lot more harm than good), National Broadband Network, National Disability Insurance Scheme) governments of all stripes continue to smash anything that's right fit at a small scale to fit it into these dumb nasho boxes. I am just glad that the government of the day has forgotten about its pre election promise to disband all private fibre network providers and roll them into the NBN.
[deleted]
they didn't break the law. Otherwise, if your boss asked you to drive their friend to the airport, then that would be illegal.
In many places it is illegal to ask someone to drive if that's not their explicit job.
Either way, not sure how you can equate asking something of an employee and asking the same from a gig worker. Uber has broken the law in plenty of places, and have always tried to wing it.
Either way, not sure how you can equate asking something of an employee and asking the same from a gig worker. Uber has broken the law in plenty of places, and have always tried to wing it.
All these takes here.
Two preambles: Y'all need to read Invisible Hands, really need to. That book is about how various losely connected sometimes even competing groups of businessmen worked to roll the New Deal back. It's not a conspiracy theory, there was no shadow cabal behind the scenes -- but the goal was common. https://wwnorton.com/books/Invisible-Hands/
Second, Amazon was started to become a monopoly in retail and only begun with books because it was a relatively easy thing to work with.
Similarly, while Uber started with fancy cars soon enough it became a means to destroy the protections organized labor managed to get in the last hundred or so years. Or at least what remained of them. In this the company was exceptionally successful by creating what is called the "gig economy". As people hate taxis, using that market for this purpose was the easy way. If you think past the introduction of UberX in 2012 Uber had anything to do with transportation then, pardon the pun, you have been taken for a ride.
Two preambles: Y'all need to read Invisible Hands, really need to. That book is about how various losely connected sometimes even competing groups of businessmen worked to roll the New Deal back. It's not a conspiracy theory, there was no shadow cabal behind the scenes -- but the goal was common. https://wwnorton.com/books/Invisible-Hands/
Second, Amazon was started to become a monopoly in retail and only begun with books because it was a relatively easy thing to work with.
Similarly, while Uber started with fancy cars soon enough it became a means to destroy the protections organized labor managed to get in the last hundred or so years. Or at least what remained of them. In this the company was exceptionally successful by creating what is called the "gig economy". As people hate taxis, using that market for this purpose was the easy way. If you think past the introduction of UberX in 2012 Uber had anything to do with transportation then, pardon the pun, you have been taken for a ride.
I still remember when I first just arrived in Sydney, I took a taxi from the airport to Waterloo and was charged $95, which made me fearful of Sydney prices. It took me time to realise that I had just run into a scam and that the ride should have cost just $20+. Nowadays I would never take taxi. That's why "they lost income when Uber entered".