NSW Roads and Maritime issues 40 suspensions of registrations to Uber drivers.
27 replies, posted
[quote]The New South Wales Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) has put controversial ride-sharing giant Uber on notice, issuing 40 suspension notices against offending drivers.
RMS Director of Safety and Compliance Peter Wells said ride-sharing services were illegal and the Government was cracking down on those allowing their vehicles to be used.
"Taxi and 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," Mr Wells said.
"Thousands of dollars in fines have already been issued to drivers offering illegal ride-sharing activities and compliance actions will continue.
"If drivers continue to offer illegal ride sharing services - they will continue to risk registration suspensions and fines."
Mr Wells said 40 drivers have already been issued with suspension notices.
"The vehicle suspensions will take effect from midnight 30 September and will be in place for three months.
"The suspension notices have been issued to registered owners of vehicles found to be operating a privately registered vehicle for business purposes.
"If a suspended vehicle is found on the road after 1 October, the vehicle is deemed unregistered and uninsured, with penalties of $637 for each offence, increasing to around $2,200 if heard in court."
An Uber spokesperson told the ABC the RMS was denying drivers due process and the company is reviewing its legal options to reverse the decision.[/quote]
Read More: [url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-28/uber-drivers-face-suspension/6808582[/url]
oh no, people making agreements to drive each other around for profit
...what will our lobbyists think?!
This seems well outside their scope of law.. I hope they challenge this in the NSW Supreme Court.
[QUOTE=bitches;48776803]oh no, people making agreements to drive each other around for profit
...what will our lobbyists think?![/QUOTE]
Well in these cases it is illegal, pretty sure this law has been around long before Uber:
[quote]"Taxi and 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," Mr Wells said.[/quote]
But it sounds like if the driver is accredited by the RMS and the vehicle is licensed with them (for taxi or hire car services), that there would be no legal problems.
[editline]28th September 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Bradyns;48776828]This seems well outside their scope of law.. I hope they challenge this in the NSW Supreme Court.[/QUOTE]
This is well within the scope of the RMS. If they are taken to court, all they would have to do is prove that Uber is a kind of taxi or hire car service (which it is) and their action would remain lawful. Owning and driving a car is a privilege regulated by the RMS in NSW, not a right.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48776842]Well in these cases it is illegal, pretty sure this law has been around long before Uber:
But it sounds like if the driver is accredited by the RMS and the vehicle is licensed with them (for taxi or hire car services), that there would be no legal problems.
[editline]28th September 2015[/editline]
This is well within the scope of the RMS. If they are taken to court, all they would have to do is prove that Uber is a kind of taxi or hire car service (which it is) and their action would remain lawful. Owning and driving a car is a privilege regulated by the RMS in NSW, not a right.[/QUOTE]
no, a car is a vital tool of income and the law around taxi services is slanted in favor of existing business
[editline]27th September 2015[/editline]
no government has the right to act as dictator towards how you manage your own car
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48776842]Well in these cases it is illegal, pretty sure this law has been around long before Uber:[/QUOTE]
Why did it take them this long to start enforcing it though? Did they just not give a shit until taxi drivers started striking?
[QUOTE=bitches;48777103]no, a car is a vital tool of income and the law around taxi services is slanted in favor of existing business
[editline]27th September 2015[/editline]
no government has the right to act as dictator towards how you manage your own car[/QUOTE]
This isn't about how you use your car, this is about public protection and safety. This is like the difference between a commercial flight licence and a private one.
Even then, its not hard nor costly to get a commercial driving licence. (At least in Australia)
[I]Note: Where the applicant is a sole owner or member of apartnership owning a Service Licence the term fee can bewaived. Please discuss this at time of lodgement.[/I]
([url]http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Licensing/Passenger-transport-driver-authorisation/Fees.aspx[/url])
taxi law is an example of an overregulated industry that is also heavily invested against the drivers. sure a private owned badge can now go for 6 figures, but what you have is VCs basically funding taxi companies to buy up the badges and rent them to the drivers anyways, their model is not any different from Uber in this regard except they have the weight of lobbies, drivers, and the law on their side, where as uber has lots of money and lobbiests, but getting traction in the courts is very difficult
[editline]28th September 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=thedekoykid;48777408]This isn't about how you use your car, this is about public protection and safety. This is like the difference between a commercial flight licence and a private one.[/QUOTE]
so make a Comercial drivers license the requirement and get it done with, in the US outside of big cities, thats all you need to drive a limo, CDLs aren't nearly as hard to get as a taxi medalion/badge/whatevermacalit
[QUOTE=Sableye;48777428]taxi law is an example of an overregulated industry that is also heavily invested against the drivers. sure a private owned badge can now go for 6 figures, but what you have is VCs basically funding taxi companies to buy up the badges and rent them to the drivers anyways, their model is not any different from Uber in this regard except they have the weight of lobbies, drivers, and the law on their side, where as uber has lots of money and lobbiests, but getting traction in the courts is very difficult
[editline]28th September 2015[/editline]
so make a Comercial drivers license the requirement and get it done with, in the US outside of big cities, thats all you need to drive a limo, CDLs aren't nearly as hard to get as a taxi medalion/badge/whatevermacalit[/QUOTE]
It is a requirement, people just don't look into it before signing up to Uber.
[QUOTE=bitches;48777103]no, a car is a vital tool of income and the law around taxi services is slanted in favor of existing business
[editline]27th September 2015[/editline]
no government has the right to act as dictator towards how you manage your own car[/QUOTE]
Cars for commercial purposes are regulated just like anything else for commercial purposes. You can use your car for pretty much whatever you want, but if you use your car for the purpose of offering taxi-like services in a business-customer relationship with the people you drive around, you must follow the relevant law.
Actually governments do have the right, given to them by the people, to manage what people can and can't do with their cars as owning and driving a car is a privilege, not a right.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48777455]Cars for commercial purposes are regulated just like anything else for commercial purposes. You can use your car for pretty much whatever you want, but if you use your car for the purpose of offering taxi-like services in a business-customer relationship with the people you drive around, you must follow the relevant law.
Actually governments do have the right, given to them by the people, to manage what people can and can't do with their cars as owning and driving a car is a privilege, not a right.[/QUOTE]
I like to see it as a licence to promise not to murder people.
[QUOTE=thedekoykid;48777449]It is a requirement, people just don't look into it before signing up to Uber.[/QUOTE]
actually uber doesn't seem to make a CDL a requirement
[url]http://www.ridesharingdriver.com/uber-driver-requirements-qualify/[/url]
this might be old info though
[QUOTE=Jimesu_Evil;48777133]Why did it take them this long to start enforcing it though? Did they just not give a shit until taxi drivers started striking?[/QUOTE]
When taxi drivers started striking was probably when Uber became of a large-enough operating size to warrant the efforts of the RMS to check the accreditation and licensing of Uber drivers.
[editline]28th September 2015[/editline]
I have no problem with Uber as a service, and I would encourage that Uber be allowed to continue to expand its services. However the law is the law, and Uber's drivers in NSW must be accredited with the RMS and their cars must be licensed for commercial usage.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;48776828]This seems well outside their scope of law.. I hope they challenge this in the NSW Supreme Court.[/QUOTE]
How so? Sounds perfectly within the capacity of the RMS.
I really, really hope Victoria doesn't follow suit. It's been so goddamn convenient living in the inner city with Uber. It costs me like $12 in total to go score weed and then come back home within 20 minutes. They're at my house within like 3 - 4 mins. Pls government no pls
[QUOTE=mr apple;48777865]I really, really hope Victoria doesn't follow suit.[/QUOTE]
They are trying but there is uber black.
Also, Is it illegal to car pool now?
Interesting, I was looking through the NSW laws to try and figure out how the suspension was made. They've gone about it in a really strange manner. It will be interesting to see if these suspensions stick.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;48778003]Interesting, I was looking through the NSW laws to try and figure out how the suspension was made. They've gone about it in a really strange manner. It will be interesting to see if these suspensions stick.[/QUOTE]
Would you be so kind to explain your findings.
[QUOTE=Passing;48778001]They are trying but there is uber black.
Also, Is it illegal to car pool now?[/QUOTE]
No, because car pooling is not done for profit or commercial purposes.
[url]http://diaryofanuberdriver.com/[/url]
This guy's decided to continue driving, regardless what the government's said.
[QUOTE=Passing;48778001]They are trying but there is uber black.
Also, Is it illegal to car pool now?[/QUOTE]
Car pooling isn't done for a commercial purpose, and it's done with people in a social or domestic relationship, not a legal relationship.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48778971]Car pooling isn't done for a commercial purpose, and it's done with people in a social or domestic relationship, not a legal relationship.[/QUOTE]
It has no practical difference though. Whether the passenger hops in the car and exchanges cash to be taken to a destination or exchanges a blowjob at home, the practical effect changes in literally zero ways.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;48779868]It has no practical difference though. Whether the passenger hops in the car and exchanges cash to be taken to a destination or exchanges a blowjob at home, the practical effect changes in literally zero ways.[/QUOTE]
There is a significant legal difference, and yes there is a practical difference based on the kind of relationship and the intent. Going along the lines of your argument, you might as well just throw away centuries of development of contract law. A social or domestic agreement is not the same as a legal agreement (for the intent of doing business; the Uber service); each are treated differently under the law.
Wait, I was under the impression it was an oral contract?
[QUOTE=Passing;48780118]Wait, I was under the impression it was an oral contract?[/QUOTE]
You have to agree to the Terms & Services to use the Uber app, and by extension get a ride through an Uber driver. If that's what you mean.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;48778003]Interesting, I was looking through the NSW laws to try and figure out how the suspension was made. They've gone about it in a really strange manner. It will be interesting to see if these suspensions stick.[/QUOTE]
Is your dealer an uber driver?
A lot of dealers around here are cab drivers. It's great cos they don't have an excuse not to deliver
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48780057]There is a significant legal difference, and yes there is a practical difference based on the kind of relationship and the intent. Going along the lines of your argument, you might as well just throw away centuries of development of contract law. A social or domestic agreement is not the same as a legal agreement (for the intent of doing business; the Uber service); each are treated differently under the law.[/QUOTE]
A legal difference is not a practical difference. The driving will not change based on the nature of the relationship. Social, domestic, contractual, none of these are factors.
[QUOTE=Worstcase;48780142]You have to agree to the Terms & Services to use the Uber app, and by extension get a ride through an Uber driver. If that's what you mean.[/QUOTE]
Oh? Welp, I've been completely mislead by a friend then.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.