Entrenched monopolies usually collapse like pricked balloons when a new techniques or technologies break up the barriers that protect the monopoly.

This has certainly been the case with the taxi industry and Uber. The background criminal and safety checks by Uber combined with electronic trail make offensive or dangerous behaviour easily traceable with rapid consequences, and provide incentives to drivers during peak or difficult periods.

The government has tried to protect its monopoly, but has failed due to the legal protection of the drivers by Uber. While I feel sorry for the drivers and taxi owners, I feel the government should act to smooth the transition rather than try to fight a doomed rearguard action.

Which government? The laws on this are different in every state!

I'm sorry, but allowing ubar to operate, while insisting the taxi industry be licensed and jump through hoops is little short of criminal.

If I were the owner of a taxi right now I'd be spitting chips.

Dear SM,

The Green Paper is yet to go to Cabinet for approval.
However after reading the explanations given in the
following website I must admit that I find that
getting rid of common problems like - taxi drivers
overcharging, fights between drivers and passengers
over fares, patron uncertainty about costs, and fare runners,
appeals to me.

We'll see if the Cabinet agrees.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-17/sweeping-changes-to-the-taxi-system-in-wa-proposed-in-green-pap/6628880

The wrong question is being asked:

It's not about "allowing uber to operate", it's about the freedom of individuals to provide car-rides to each other for a pay.

While this freedom should not be denied, it is still possible (if so desired) to prosecute uber while not interfering with individual drivers and passengers: that is because uber is a company rather than an individual and as companies are artificial constructs, they do not have any sacred or natural freedoms.

My personal interest is to keep the taxis going, so I might privately suffer from the operation of uber (to which I have no access) as I might find it more difficult, if not impossible, to find emergency transportation when I really need it or to get anywhere when I'm too old to drive, but as much as I dislike it, that does not give me (or anyone else, including the government) any right to harass drivers and passengers who use their service.

Meanwhile at least, taxis have the privilege of using express public-transport lanes and dedicated parking spaces: they paid for this privilege and they should continue to enjoy it exclusively. Additional privileges should also be considered, such as allowing taxis to drive faster or increasing the number of demerit-points that take a taxi-driver off the road.

Yu, it's not about fairness, it's about the law and more importantly, insurance laws.

You see with the majority of passenger owned cars being privately registered, it's against the law to charge for a ride, even to carry a parcel for a charge. This is why commercial rego is available, but it comes at a cost. Ones insurance is also higher fir com rego.

But, like most things it often comes unstuck when something goes wrong.

Take Queenslands new approach of no longer having a rego label on your car. What happens if you accept a ride from someone Uber or other, have an accident and the driver forgot to pay their rego.

Third party is not obliged to pay up, nor is the insurer of the vehicle involved, or any other
for that matter. This list goes on.

Personally, from a registered business mans point of view, I'm against the likes of Uber as they don't have the compliance costs associated with the taxi industry.

I must confes I know nothing about Uber but what i do know is that pretty much every other form of deregulation has ended in tears.

Dear Rehctub,

The "commercial rego" is a minor technicality, costing a few dollars more to compensate for the GST-refund that an owner can claim for using that car in their business.

Obviously, telling a passenger that they are insured while they are not, is fraud (which is already illegal) - but most passengers are not there for the insurance: they are there in order to get from point A to point B. If a passenger is injured as a result of the driver's, then the driver should compensate them, plain and simple. If they believe they can't afford such compensation then they should take an appropriate insurance.

My issue is with compliance itself, rather than compliance costs, as a taxi owner is obliged to do so many things well beyond the financial:

They MUST for example install all manner of gadgets in their car and agree to allow [guide-]dogs in their car; accept bad-smelling customers; and go anywhere the client tells them to, even if they have personal reasons not to go near those places. They must also pass some tests about their knowledge of the city. They do receive certain privileges for this (extra lanes and parking), but someone who objects to any of this (for any personal, health, religious or conscientious reasons), cannot legally work as a taxi driver.

It is important that such people can still work privately as drivers, even if they must forego some privileges, serving those who don't mind them not complying with the requirement of a taxi-license. Needless to mention, they may not mislead their customers by falsely presenting themselves as a taxi driver.

Customers too may prefer to go in cars that do not contain certain gadgets, or if allergic to dogs, to go in cars where they can be sure no dog-hairs are present.

I have no personal interest there (in fact it's against my personal interests as in order to use Uber one must have a mobile-phone, something I object to on moral grounds), but I take this position because it is still not right to order others around.

Yuyutsu,
Once apon a time I used to be a courier in the bad old days when the company took up to 40%
of your pay for the work they gave you, 5% for radio fees, made you pay
for signage and radio fitting and sent you miles out of your way for jobs that no one wanted.
I fought for what became the "Contract Determination" which ended the owners "Right by might"
Today the industry is well regulated and the rates of pay are befitting the work done.
The taxi industry is controlled by the owners through the Taxi Council.
The owners lease their cabs to drivers on a daily basis at little or no impost to the owner. They expect up to
50% of the drivers take.
The industry id a dinosaur and will die an agonizing death.
Good Riddance

Yuyutsu,

My experience is that Uber drivers are neat, polite and ready to take your fare no matter where. I have waited for a long time for a taxi that took another fare, and have had less than pleasant experiences. Not to mention the huge penalty for using a credit card.

Your code of ethics for the Uber drivers is more likely to be enforced, as failure to take fares incurs a penalty. Taxi drivers are far more common not to take dogs or inconvenient fares.

The Uber drivers need a 10 clean driver record and a police clearance. Similarly Uber fares have a traceable record in the event that they misbehave.

Dear SM,

That's all nice and well for those who want to and can use Uber.
There is certainly a commercial and social place for such a niche, even if it cannot serve me personally.

My concern is of a more general nature, but especially for those who do have personal limitations, thus cannot qualify as taxi drivers, perhaps not even as Uber drivers. Why should they not be allowed to do honest business with such customers who are happy with their terms of service? That's obviously wrong!

Examples of such limitations:

* Being allergic to and/or having a trauma with dogs.
* Unwilling to enter certain places/areas, perhaps because of a traumatic experience that happened to them there, perhaps due to a superstition, perhaps due to a court order, perhaps for keeping a promise, perhaps out of fear of being seen there by certain people, perhaps because of the poor air-quality, whatever.
* Unwilling to take the smell of certain passengers (eg. smokers, drinkers).
* Unwilling to take credit cards or other electronic payments.
* Unwilling/unable to use certain electronic devices.
* Unwilling/unable to pass a general-city-knowledge test.

Proper taxi drivers are supposed to tolerate all the above and more, which is draconic, but then they also have some privileges. Of course, those who fail to oblige should be disqualified.

Perhaps Uber is overtaking the taxi industry, but as far as I am concerned that's only an internal shuffle within the industry, not a fundamental fix.

Y,

You are entitled to your opinion. My experience is that Uber is more convenient, cheaper and the cars are clean and the drivers safe. I have voted with my feet.