Passengers pulled from 'illegal' Uber cab

Forums › Travel (planes, train, cruise) › Passengers pulled from 'illegal' Uber cab

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1212390 12-Jan-2015 11:42

markl:
KiwiNZ: Do Uber drivers have P endorsements?
Do Uber drivers display Photo ID?
Do Uber drivers display their fees both inside and outside the vehicle?
Do Uber drivers have checks including Police to determine character etc?
Do Uber drivers sit and pass language and area knowledge test?
Do Uber drivers keep logbooks?

Go back over the previous posts in this thread and I think you will find the answer to most of those questions. Honestly, it's pretty clear that you are opposed to Uber, how about telling us why?

I think that is a little unfair. KiwiNZ's post was essentially asking, does Uber meet these safety and capability checks that other taxi drivers do?
If Uber does meet the required or desired safety and capability measures, thats great. If not, is that a potential concern for passengers? Its a fair question IMHO

MikeB4

MikeB4
18777 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1212396 12-Jan-2015 11:48

markl:
KiwiNZ: Do Uber drivers have P endorsements?
Do Uber drivers display Photo ID?
Do Uber drivers display their fees both inside and outside the vehicle?
Do Uber drivers have checks including Police to determine character etc?
Do Uber drivers sit and pass language and area knowledge test?
Do Uber drivers keep logbooks?

Go back over the previous posts in this thread and I think you will find the answer to most of those questions. Honestly, it's pretty clear that you are opposed to Uber, how about telling us why?

I am not opposed to Uber, I do however believe in fairness. If Taxi drivers must meet certain criteria which affects their charge etc etc then so should ALL players in the market. Also I believe that if their are legal requirements then they must also be met by all.
If or when Uber meet all the requirements set by the governing body then I have no issue with them what so ever.
If one is going to run a business one needs to know the rules and comply with the rules. Don't like rules then don't do the business.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1212397 12-Jan-2015 11:48

BTR: Aren't all taxis required by law to have surveillance cameras now? Do the Uber taxi's comply with this law?

Note I am not 100% certain if this is the law or not but I am sure I remember hearing about it and a quick search of the NZTA site hints towards this.

Uber is NOT a Taxi service and is not registered as such. There is no requirement to have CCTV cameras.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1212400 12-Jan-2015 11:51

KiwiNZ:
sbiddle: NZTA rules

6.1(5) A driver of a private hire vehicle may not use a taxi meter to determine a fare. 6.1(6) A driver of a private hire vehicle may only charge a set fare or an hourly rate agreed with the prospective passenger at the time of booking.
It's been ruled in many markets globally that Uber's app is not a meter. If we're to accept it's not a meter (a legal definition of which is a device connected to the vehicle), then Uber are complying with section 6.1(5) of the NZTA regs that say they can't use a meter.

That means the point of debate is section 6.1(6)

Has it been so ruled in this market ?

No, but the NZTA say that a meter has to be connected to the vehicle - if Uber aren't operating something that is connected to a vehicle when I'm not sure they could argue that the app is a meter. It may be performing a similar role, but it's not a meter as defined under existing legislation.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18777 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1212416 12-Jan-2015 12:01

sbiddle:
KiwiNZ:
sbiddle: NZTA rules

6.1(5) A driver of a private hire vehicle may not use a taxi meter to determine a fare. 6.1(6) A driver of a private hire vehicle may only charge a set fare or an hourly rate agreed with the prospective passenger at the time of booking.
It's been ruled in many markets globally that Uber's app is not a meter. If we're to accept it's not a meter (a legal definition of which is a device connected to the vehicle), then Uber are complying with section 6.1(5) of the NZTA regs that say they can't use a meter.

That means the point of debate is section 6.1(6)

Has it been so ruled in this market ?

No, but the NZTA say that a meter has to be connected to the vehicle - if Uber aren't operating something that is connected to a vehicle when I'm not sure they could argue that the app is a meter. It may be performing a similar role, but it's not a meter as defined under existing legislation.

That is something that will need to be tested in court

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Sounddude

I fix stuff!
1935 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 640

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1212420 12-Jan-2015 12:05

No, but the NZTA say that a meter has to be connected to the vehicle - if Uber aren't operating something that is connected to a vehicle when I'm not sure they could argue that the app is a meter. It may be performing a similar role, but it's not a meter as defined under existing legislation.

Uber just needs to change their pricing model to remove the Km charge. Then it will be pefectly legal.

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

markl

348 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 83

#1212432 12-Jan-2015 12:16

Sounddude:

No, but the NZTA say that a meter has to be connected to the vehicle - if Uber aren't operating something that is connected to a vehicle when I'm not sure they could argue that the app is a meter. It may be performing a similar role, but it's not a meter as defined under existing legislation.

Uber just needs to change their pricing model to remove the Km charge. Then it will be pefectly legal.

No, not everything regulated has to be determined in court. As I said before, what a needlessly expensive and pointless way to do things. NZTA can rule independently, after assessing the situation, whether the app, running on a smartphone, constitutes a meter or not. There is no need for it to go to court necessarily.

Having said that, I'd imagine that if a) NZTA determine that it is a meter, or b) the Police continue to issue fines, then Uber will take it as far as court action to defend themselves.

NZtechfreak

4649 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 461

Trusted

#1212444 12-Jan-2015 12:32

KiwiNZ: People need to grasp the concept that the law is not optional, they need to comply with it, the police are doing nothing wrong enforcing it.

Lots of laws are optional in the sense that the Police do not enforce them.

Twitter: @nztechfreak
Blogs: HeadphoNZ.org

itxtme

2102 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 557

#1212468 12-Jan-2015 12:55

markl: b) the Police continue to issue fines, then Uber will take it as far as court action to defend themselves.

So the next question is, will the driver in question challenge the fine in court. One wonders if Uber will lawyer him up for that fight, and the legal arguments sbiddle has pointed out.

scuwp

3927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2510

#1212476 12-Jan-2015 13:02

markl:
Sounddude:

No, but the NZTA say that a meter has to be connected to the vehicle - if Uber aren't operating something that is connected to a vehicle when I'm not sure they could argue that the app is a meter. It may be performing a similar role, but it's not a meter as defined under existing legislation.

Uber just needs to change their pricing model to remove the Km charge. Then it will be pefectly legal.

No, not everything regulated has to be determined in court. As I said before, what a needlessly expensive and pointless way to do things. NZTA can rule independently, after assessing the situation, whether the app, running on a smartphone, constitutes a meter or not. There is no need for it to go to court necessarily.

Having said that, I'd imagine that if a) NZTA determine that it is a meter, or b) the Police continue to issue fines, then Uber will take it as far as court action to defend themselves.

Don't get to hung up on the meter. This issue is a private hire service must set the price or agree on an hourly rate at the time of booking. That is clearly stated in law. If the app stated a fixed price at the start that doesn't change, then I doubt there would be any argument (I have never used the app but understand that isn't how it works and there can be some variability including spike charging?) . Even if the app is ruled 'not a meter' by the NZTA or a Judge, Uber are still off-side with one of the fundamental rules of operating a private hire service.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1212480 12-Jan-2015 13:11

itxtme:
markl: b) the Police continue to issue fines, then Uber will take it as far as court action to defend themselves.

So the next question is, will the driver in question challenge the fine in court. One wonders if Uber will lawyer him up for that fight, and the legal arguments sbiddle has pointed out.

The Govt will have to update the legislation from decades ago to 2015.

While a lawyer could argue that its obvious that its a meter, metering the fare, that any derbrain can see that, but as SB said, the current law says it has to be connected. Maybe easier to change the law.

To bring Uber under the full, swathe of the regulations for taxis, and the costs that go with that, and they will walk away, no money here. Or to update the law so that the "regular" taxis as we know it, can operate under the same lesser rules as Uber can at the moment. Not sure if thats viable given the attention given to taxi driver and patron safety issues in recent times.

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

TLD

908 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 263

#1212536 12-Jan-2015 14:04

This was in today's Marlborough Express

Trevor Dennis
Rapaura (near Blenheim)

JonnyCam

644 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 52

ID Verified

#1212548 12-Jan-2015 14:11

Someone mentioned that most of the time when they take Uber rides they are off duty Taxi.

I'd like to know of the non taxi vehicles, ie some Joe Bloggs driving his vehicle, if they have a COF on the vehicle.

Pretty sure when I was an owner / driver of a truck the legislation said if they vehicle was used for hire or reward, then it needed a COF, not WOF (the COF carries a $600 fine for being expired)
I don't know how much more expensive it is to get a COF v WOF, but I'd imagine it does cost more.

scuwp

3927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2510

#1212604 12-Jan-2015 15:27

JonnyCam: Someone mentioned that most of the time when they take Uber rides they are off duty Taxi.

I'd like to know of the non taxi vehicles, ie some Joe Bloggs driving his vehicle, if they have a COF on the vehicle.

Pretty sure when I was an owner / driver of a truck the legislation said if they vehicle was used for hire or reward, then it needed a COF, not WOF (the COF carries a $600 fine for being expired)
I don't know how much more expensive it is to get a COF v WOF, but I'd imagine it does cost more.

Yes it does cost more, and there is a bit more too it. The private hire (Uber) cars must have a COF to passenger vehicle standards. Another ticket for Police if they just have a normal WoF.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

nathan

5695 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1630
Inactive user

#1212607 12-Jan-2015 15:30

all the NZ Uber's I've been in have COF

even the ones that aren't moonlighting taxis

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9