With some states now registering Uber and, given these same states have issue taxi licences, should these taxi owners and licensees be compensated for their license costs, their cabs and their loss of incomes.

I say this because when fishermen have their fishing grounds closed, this often results in compensation, even in some cases where they have not been fishing them.

for what its worth, I certainly think they should be compensated.

For once I find myself in agreement rechtub.

Taxis can't compete against Uber; it's a better service built on better technology... taxis are stuck in the land that time forgot. Their industry is going to go the way of the Australian car industry.

As the car industry has been wound down, the workers made redundant have received compensation and retraining to help them find new jobs. It seems only fair and reasonable that cabbies be given the same help.

"taxis are stuck in the land that time forgot"

And so am I (as I will never have or use those despicable little gadgets that are required by Uber and I always pay with cash), so on those rare occasions when I cannot use my own car, I will still require the services of taxis.

I'm not sure what side to take on this one.
In the first instance, Uber shouldn't be illegal.

Lets say I have no transport and I ask a friend or family member to give me a lift down the shops, and I offer then some incentive say $20 for helping me out.

Should this be illegal?
No, and if anyone says yes, then I would argue the government is overstepping the mark.

So Uber shouldn't be illegal in the first place.
It's fair and reasonable competition against Taxi's.

So should the government be responsible for a changing world?

Is it not reasonable that with the increase in technology, specifically smartphones, GPS and Apps that situation would not have been inevitable?

Should taxis license owners not take some of the blame for their own bad investment?

Point 1. In comparison to fishing grounds, the government is not closing the roads to taxis.
Point 2. Is there not a tender or auction process on the sale of taxi licenses?
If so, operators need to be responsible for their own bad investments in a changing world too, just my two cents.

Point 1. In comparison to fishing grounds, the government is not closing the roads to taxis.
Point 2. Is there not a tender or auction process on the sale of taxi licenses?
If so, operators need to be responsible for their own bad investments in a changing world too, just my two cents.

Arm Chair
Point 1. No, but they are knowingly limiting the earning capacities after issuing licences that are heavily regulated. They are regulated so as to not allow too many operators in one area.

Point 2. Yes, but there are strict regulations in place and licences are limited. They are also very expensive and have very strict licencing conditions that need to be met. The governments do this in an effort to keep dodgy operators out of the industry.

As for your last point, where is the bad business decision made?

I think this one will find its self in court. More wasted tax payers dollars.

To Armchair Critic in response to your questions and remarks..........

I speak with 41 years experience and involvement in the NSW taxi industry, around 15 years as a driver, 9 years as an owner driver and 18 years as a retired owner. During that time I also served several years on the board of management and the radio disputes committee. All these years were spent with one of the major co-operatives in Sydney. I retired from driving in 1997.

It is possible that Uber could fill a niche in the transport system, but more as a hire car type of service.

Many, many people have been sharing the expenses of a co-worker's car in getting to work. It's not illegal and never has been. BUT, if that car is involved in a serious accident then insurance coverage may not extend to covering everyone, especially if the co-worker driver is at fault. Insurance companies charge owners of taxis very large premiums that cover just about every contingency. I have not been so recently involved that I could provide a precise figure but would not be surprised if it was in the vicinity of $20k p.a. or even higher. The premiums always rose every year, especially when the state government issued new plates for tender.

The cost of making a taxi from a regular vehicle is also very large.
[1] Installation of conversion from liquid petroleum to LPG.
[2] " of camera and other security devices.
[3] " of meter.
[4] " of computer despatch and 2-way radio equipment with monthly fees in the hundreds of dollars. Cont......

......cont.
For optimum performance the taxi should be serviced and checked over around every two weeks which seriously cuts working hours. If you have a very good friend who is a very, very good mechanic he will save the owner a fortune. I was particularly lucky in having two of the best in Australia. Government regulations require an interior and exterior inspection at an inspection and registration facility that can be heavily time-consuming. Thus more time off the road.

Your "fair and reasonable competition" remark is far from fair. If Uber owners want to pay their share of the expenses of a taxi and provide the same services 24 hours a day 365 days of the year then they will find life to be a lot tougher than anticipated. They'd have to survive a mistake-free exam on getting from one place to another in the entire Sydney area, suffer the abuse of some irritated customers when they are forced to direct you. Deal in a calm manner with the sometimes drunk or potentially violent customer. Squeeze a meal somewhere into a 12 hour shift because you must not eat or smoke in a taxi. Treat "runners" as part of the job, because if you scare them they'll sue you and have your licence suspended.

How involved have you been in the taxi industry that you feel you can write with authority on it?

I feel certain that I have omitted some important factors in the taxi/uber debate. for that I apologise in advance. Separation from the industry by time and by geography, [I live in the Philippines now], I hope I may be corrected by a better qualified member of the taxi industry.

I must record here though that for 99.9% of the time I was proud to be a Sydney cabbie, am proud of and blessed by the good men and women who became my friends as a driver and an administrator. It can be a tough game for a beginner but I got a good grounding with my first owner, Ron and my drivers when I became an owner, Bill, Mick, Kevin, Joe and the fine Lebanese friend who lived close to me but whose name I can't recall. He was with me and certainly still is to all who know him, one of Nature's gentlemen.

It's a great job for those who want to work, who are conscientious enough to want to do a good job so that your co-op looks good and you feel the satisfaction of another job well done. I got paid back in spades for a job I loved doing.

It is impossible for bureaucrats once they start controlling something to stop, all the feel good crap they stick the taxis with means that the consumer get stuck with the most expensive taxi services in the world.

Now with Uber, they are going to be forced to allow normal safe motor cars to be used as taxis.

So there you go arm chair, NSW government looks set to register Uber and pay fair compensation to taxi licence holders, as i feel they should. At last a common sense approach from a government.

Pogi,

So what you're saying is that if I pop next door to my neighbours and they have a visitor whom I've never met and they offer me $20 to run them down the shops and back that I should be fined and considered a criminal for doing so.
Thats essentially what you're saying, is it not?

If Uber is so bad then why do I hear about Taxi drivers working as Uber drivers after their taxi shifts or on their days off?

Uber drivers own their own vehicle and probably take better care of them and use apps and GPS to replace meters and dispatch.

You mentioned LPG, you're business model probably wouldn't even be viable if you didn't use gas, and its probably part of regulations.
In your business model the driver, the operator and government (license issuer) all have their hand out.

Uber mostly keeps the money in the hands of the person actually doing the work.

The only issue I see at all is that Uber drivers may emit more emissions from non-LPG vehicles.

Uber drivers have reputation which means that I'm not likely to have one of your foreign (whoever you can get to keep the cash flowing) 'no speaka english' drivers take me the long way.

Also the driver himself is the owner and may give a better service because they are not just an employee.

Clearly in some ways it's a cheaper better more modern system.

I respect your involvement and knowledge in the taxi industry, yet this is not my concern in regards to my opinion on this issue.

I'm not an Uber driver.
But if someone else says I'm a criminal for accepting money for giving someone else a lift, then I say they are the criminal.
Whether I do it or not.

Arm chair, i think there is a real difference between offering an unknown a lift for a few bucks, and making a business out if it. If you cant see that then there is little point debating with you as you are closed minded.

The fact is that the NSW government, while registering uber, has also taken the pro active step of compensating taxis and rightly so.

Proactive governing is quite rare and pleasing to see.

The taxi business in Sydney has been an unthinking monopoly for far too long.

Their unbelievably rigid "change shifts at three o'clock" rule, when you couldn't find a cab on the streets at all for the best part of an hour, used to blow me away when I was a regular CBD cab-user.

Their arrogance in charging a 10% surcharge for the use of bank-issued credit cards has always been nothing less than pure extortion.

And as for Cabcharge itself - what a rort!

The arrival of a competitor has them in a tailspin, as it has exposed their business practices for what they are - essentially anti-passenger.

And it did surprise me, in one sense, when an Uber ride that picked up a guest from my place the other day turned out to be in the livery of a regular taxi firm. But hey, if the alternative system is better than the existing one, why not? That applies equally to the drivers as it does to the passengers.

Pericles, the real test for uber will come when one of their drivers is involved in a serious accident.

If you wish to introduce a competitor, first you must offer a level playing field for all involved. So we either increase regulation on uber, or decrease it for taxis.

As for cc surcharges, these fees are under review and not just for cabs. Of cause the other side of this is they still take cash, so to pay by card and complain is a personal choice. Airlines on the other hand give no such alternative.

The value of taxi plates is set by a market responding to supply and demand.

Gov't is in charge of limiting supply of taxi plates, thereby limiting competition. This, in turn, determines profitability. Plate prices have been bid up in accordance with profitability.

I think it stupid that plate supply was ever limited by gov't decree, when the free market would have determined taxi numbers. Every taxi fare builds in the added cost of repaying the mortgage on plate purchase. This gives Uber an inflated pricing point and I'm looking forward to seeing taxi/Uber fares fall when plates are scrapped altogether, as surely they will be.

Plate owners have always carried the risk of change to arrangements, so should not be compensated, IMO, although I feel sympathy for those who didn't see this coming before getting in.

If gov't removes negative gearing on new investment, I'll have no leg to stand on when asset prices fall as a consequence (capital loss). Same, same?

No i disagree Luciferase, Negative gearing and taxi licences are not the same. One is a tax write off, while the other is a licence to generate an income.

As for free markets, Coles and Woolworths are prime examples of an over supplied market place as they have now found themselves in unfamiliar territory. They have screwed the farmers, screwed to suppliers, screwed the transport companies, now they have none left to screw, other than the shareholders and wont have a bar of it i can assure you.

Just on negative gearing, no government would simply remove NG without a cooling off period, because that would plunge the economy into recession if not depression.

I still think the NSW government has done the right thing in compensating taxi license holders.

Armchair Critic 24/11: I am stating nothing of the sort. I am not part of the NSW state legislature and nor am I a public servant employed in regulating the taxi industry. You should diret your enquiries to them. Like all industries, the taxi industry has the right to impress the appropriate government ministry with its concerns and problems. I served my co-operative as a delegate to the Taxi Council of NSW and can assure you we have no concerns about charitable and helpful lifts anywhere by anyone whether they involve some recompense or not. When thought through logically your suggestion becomes ridiculous. A bunch of fishermen or golfers on a weekend jaunt in the non-drinker's van.

You write; "If Uber is so bad then why do I hear about Taxi drivers working as Uber drivers after their taxi shifts or on their days off?" I can make no comment on what you hear nor when, but I'd hazzard a guess that they wanted to earn extra money. If a double shift cannot be arranged to suit the driver then he may need to drive for Uber. A taxi driver can drive for whomever he wants and no blame can attach to him for this. It is his choice. Please point to where I have said Uber is "bad". Please point to where I have said anything derogatory about Uber.

"Uber drivers own their own vehicle and probably take better care of them ......" Pure speculation and obviously based on a bit of wishful thinking. You don't know this for a fact. It is an owner's duty and in his own interest to maintain a high standard of maintenance inside and underneath the vehicle.
Cont......

"You mentioned LPG, you're business model probably wouldn't even be viable if you didn't use gas, and its probably part of regulations.
In your business model the driver, the operator and government (license issuer) all have their hand out.
Uber mostly keeps the money in the hands of the person actually doing the work." Every one takes a "cut", even Uber. You seem to prefer guesswork rather than doing some basic research.

"Uber drivers have reputation which means that I'm not likely to have one of your foreign (whoever you can get to keep the cash flowing) 'no speaka english' drivers take me the long way." Your remarks are now becoming offensive, especially as there are remedies available to passengers. A complaint to a co-operative's complaint dept is treated seriously because a bad driver loses customers and can cause serious damage to vehicles through poor driving practices. Co-operatives appoint experienced drivers as monitors to keep an eye open for breaches of the rules, drivers suspected of breaching and varying other practices inimical to to the industry's good name. I was a monitor as well. What you imply clearly applies to some Uber drivers as well.

"Also the driver himself is the owner and may give a better service because they are not just an employee." Nothing has revealed your unfamiliarity with this subject so much as this remark. No driver is "just an employee", he is self employed and rents the use of a taxi for a specified period for a set fee per shift. He works for himself, pays his own income tax, GST and superannuation contributions [this last is voluntary as he is self employed]. Cont......

You write: "Clearly in some ways it's a cheaper better more modern system." Clearly you need generalisations to cover for your dismal lack of knowledge.

"I respect your involvement and knowledge in the taxi industry, yet this is not my concern in regards to my opinion on this issue." To be honest I find you to be a rather incompetent spokesperson for Taxi Complaints Inc. I have no desire to arouse you to annoyance or dudgeon, it's not in my interest though I do admit that you may rejoice in being of similar value to the taxi industry as a supporter and friend. Clearly you have a chip on your shoulder, probably induced by some unhappy experiences. This seems to convince you that you are something of an expert. Speculation and guesswork require minimal effort at refutation in subjects such as this. Perhaps you can try to offer something a little more challenging next time.

Before Uber, it was the governments handing out of licenses that was the issue.
Too many licenses made it difficult for taxi operators because there wasn't as many fares to go around.

You may consider my remarks offensive but it doesn't change the fact that its true.
Taxi operators hire Indian drivers at 45% of the takings of fares over Australians at 50%, so you've ALL brought the quality of your own service into disrepute by being greedy.
And you will have ANYONE drive a taxi if it comes down to it because you need to keep the dollars flowing, hence accidents.

I rented a factory about 15yrs ago where the man next door did maintenance on cabs, There were ALWAYS beat up looking taxis in there getting repairs from small accidents, so I should know.

I don't know what your problem is Pogi.
Maybe you're peed off because you spent hundreds of thousands on taxi licenses that now have far less value and now anyone with a car under 7years of age can get a piece of your action.

Maybe there is some scope for compensation since the government was essentially ripping you all off the entire time, but the aspect where I feel you should not be entitled to any recourse is where:

YOU YOURSELVES BID FOR THESE LICENSES AND YOU YOURSELVES SET THE PRICE.

If you go bid in an action and pay more than what something is worth then that's your fault no-one else's.

If its self employed then how come I have to apply for a job to be a taxi driver? That I have to do shifts that you decide?

Uber is self employed, Taxis are a job working for someone else where your pay is a cut of takings.

You had 41yrs in the taxi industry, maybe that's the problem.
You're outdated system was created in the days before mobile phones and where you needed a land line to request one.
I'm sorry but the world has changed since then.

Armchair Critic writes; "Before Uber, it was the governments handing out of licenses that was the issue.
Too many licenses made it difficult for taxi operators because there wasn't as many fares to go around." Hence with Uber now operating there are even more rides being offered to a simultaneously barely increased number of potential passengers.You seem to have forgotten from which side of the issue you are arguing from.

"And you will have ANYONE drive a taxi if it comes down to it because you need to keep the dollars flowing, hence accidents." Your points here are self-contradictory. Please refrain from attributing your own stupidity to your interlocutor. Employ bad drivers so their pay-in can be used for repairs and the concurrent time off the road? you would never get very far in any industry using that kind of reasoning. In addition, I know of no owner so desperate that he would employ a questionable driver. I know of several operators though who lease multiple plates from retiree owners and who have reputations as "cowboys", who are not too choosy about who drives for them. Their cars are the ones one sees regularly in body shops etc. As well, a very high percentage of working taxis are on the road 24 hours a day, that's the way to keep the dollars flowing with any sensible taxi business. Given their constant presence in traffic the car is much more vulnerable to damage than is a Uber car. I NEVER HAD JUST ANYONE DRIVE FOR ME. It is inimical to plain common sense and good business. Something you seem to not understand. It's a great pity that you are more likely to rely upon ill-informed criticim and derogatory remarks that have no basis in fact than to learn and be better informed and appreciate both sides of an argument. Cont.....

Personally, as I am unable to use services like Uber, I have a strong interest in the continuation of taxi services.

However, when two people agree on some deal between them, in this particular case that A will give B a ride in their car while B will give A some money, I can find no moral justification that would allow person C to deny them that possibility under threat of violence. The fact that person C happens to be a large group of people who name themselves "the state" makes no difference.

Believe me, if I could find such a justification then I would be using it to prevent the taxi industry from closing down and myself being stranded in old age once I can no longer drive myself, but I can't find any.

Armchair Critic writes; cont..... "You had 41yrs in the taxi industry, maybe that's the problem.
You're outdated system was created in the days before mobile phones and where you needed a land line to request one." Once again it becomes necessary to help you extract your foot from your mouth. The "outdated system" used means of communications as good as today except for GPS and cell phones [we had better instruments than cell phones]. These were extra-curricular, independent of the regular radio and computer or the older voice despatch systems. These means were not universally approved of by the co-operatives but were tolerated because we were all highly experienced and responsible owners and drivers and we brought in new work for our co-operatives and drivers from highly satisfied businessmen and made a lot of money by being damned good at what we did. Uber has not yet reached the standard of service some of us reached. Unfortunately such sophistication would have been very dificult to install and beyond the means of some owners and operators to buy. And doubly unfortunately, all of our group will have retired some time ago. The top executive from Bell South in the USA who came to Australia to set up the Optus network used my taxi exclusively while he was in Sydney. It was available to him 24 hours per day. His expense account would have turned Donald Trump green with envy.

All this was not common knowledge and quite esoteric, so I don't expect you to be familiar with our way of working within our group. Suffice it to say that if we were still operating Uber would find its business environment a lot tougher.

I would really like you to take full advantage of my offer to clarify and educate in a polite and and informed way so that we may save embarassment. Please consider........

"Hence with Uber now operating there are even more rides being offered to a simultaneously barely increased number of potential passengers." You seem to have forgotten from which side of the issue you are arguing from.

Have I?
I'm not on the side of the government regulated taxi industry Pogi.
I'm on the side of the consumer, and of the individual and of the free market.

I'm sorry that you may have lost out badly in an industry you spent your life doing, but the way I see it Uber amounts to progress in the world, a sign of the times and a changing environment.

When I think about it cost of plates only increases the cost of fares and so the whole industry is either charging the consumer more than the service is worth or ripping the driver off.

I think Uber's a good thing as it will give opportunities to people with health or medical issues that may have difficulty finding employment to find ways to earn some money for themselves.

I'm all for empowering the individual Pogi.

I'm just afraid that Uber will replace taxis as the next state-protected monster, as government would say "if you can't beat them - join and regulate them".

What would they decree next? That it be illegal to get a ride on the street from people you don't know unless you had phone contact with them first? That it be illegal to pay for rides in cash? That those who won't use electronic gadgets must walk or crawl till they drop dead in the gutter?

Armchair Critic writes; "Before Uber, it was the governments handing out of licenses that was the issue.
Too many licenses made it difficult for taxi operators because there wasn't as many fares to go around."

Pogi wrote; And how does adding hundreds of passenger carrying Uber taxis alleviate the problem you raise? Hence with Uber now operating there are even more rides being offered to a simultaneously barely increased number of potential passengers. You seem to have forgotten which side of the issue you are arguing from.

Armchair Critic replied; "Have I? I'm not on the side of the government regulated taxi industry Pogi.
I'm on the side of the consumer, and of the individual and of the free market."

If only you had placed the above brief para on page 1 you would have saved our having to read all the piffle and bunkum of your later posts. Don't you realise that by writing the above in reply you've thereby demonstrated that you have forgotten or are incapable of maintaining relevancy

It has become a feature of your contributions that as soon as you are presented with facts and figures you ignore them and resort to vacuous generalities. The consumer, the individual, the free market? These are exactly those important features of business that are of most concern to the taxi industry! No matter how you pontificate, whinge or deplore government involvement in industry, wherever free market competition occurs there will be need of legislation and regulation to curb excesses of human behaviour especially where customers/consumers can suffer disadvantage. There can be no question that if Uber becomes legitimate it will suffer the attention of overzealous legislators in much the same manner as the taxi industry has. No matter the sophistry generated by slogan-slinging windbags such as yourself, a would-be high flyer held aloft only by occasional gusts of wind.

Odds bods! Let us rejoice that the pen is not only mightier than the sword but is considerably easier to write with. Yet no joy derives from engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

To be fair and preserve the equanimity so far pertaining I urge you to cease writing the customary balderdash about the taxi industry and quit while you are behind. The consequence of non compliance will be no more Mr Nice-Guy from me should your lies, distortion and misrepresentation persist