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.