Taxis & Ridesharing - articles, discussion ...

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Taxi owners prepare $1.5b action against Qld Govt over ride sharing

TAXI licence owners are set to lodge a claim worth up to $1.5 billion against the State Government for legalising ride sharing in 2016.

Barrister John Ribbands said a statement of claim seeking compensation for plummeting licence values and loss of earnings was completed and could be lodged in the Supreme Court before Christmas.

The value of Queensland's taxi industry has plunged as much as 80 per cent since Uber and other ride-sharing companies disrupted one of the state's most regulated industries.

Licences that once sold for more than $500,000 are now struggling to attract a quarter of their original value with owners outraged after governments from both sides of politics had been promising for decades they would never deregulate the industry.

Across Queensland, average taxi licence prices have fallen 77 per cent from $380,941 in 2012 to just $85,676 this year.

In Brisbane, average prices dropped by three-quarters, from $417,309 in 2014 to $105,775 this year.

Mr Ribbands said taxi licence owners would argue it was unfair for the government to create a scheme that ensured the viability of operators, only to later deregulate the industry.

"What's happened is that by deregulating ride share, all of sudden the reason that these people had paid all this money for taxi licences evaporated overnight," he said.

Mr Ribbands said the total claim against the State Government could reach $1.5 billion including compensation for the licence owners' capital loss and ongoing revenue losses.

"This is not just about taxis," he said.

"This is just something that governments cannot do to ordinary people."

More than 100 licence owners attended a meeting with Mr Ribbands today in Cairns, with a further 85 logged in to a video stream. Another meeting is scheduled for tomorrow in Brisbane.

Mr Ribbands said the meetings were a "call to arms" for the owners of 3300 licences in Queensland, as they had until December 14 to sign up to the legal action.

The administrative demands of finalising the parties to the claim, which is expected to reach about 1000, could delay the claim until early next year.

The State Government created a $100 million assistance package for the taxi industry, however payouts were limited to $20,000 per licence and capped at two licences.

Queensland Taxi Licence Owners Association chief executive Paul Scaini said the Government had also provided other transitional funds for taxi licence owners, however it had put too much red tape around those payments.

"How much of that money is still sitting in the bank?" he said.

Mr Scaini said banks were getting ready to foreclose on many licence owners who desperately needed the money now.

"The Government's not giving it out to people who are trying to help the licence owners," he said.

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1065639771899277312

[ozbob]

Herald Sun --> Uber to face $1 billion legal challenge from angry Australian taxi drivers

Uber will be hit with a $1 billion lawsuit from angry cab driver s countrywide, who have accused the international giant of taking their livelihoods.

Cab drivers and private hire operators in Queensland, NSW and Western Australia have joined the Victorian class action.
More than 46,000 drivers and operators, some who have lost millions, will be eligible to file a claim against Uber.

They will be seeking compensation for the period when Uber was operating illegally in Australia.

The company arrived in Australia in 2012, but was only legalised in Victoria in August last year.

Queensland and Western Australia gave the San Francisco giant the green light in 2016, while NSW signed off on Uber in 2015.

President of the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Association of Australia, Rod Barton, who was elected to the Victorian Upper House at the weekend election, has been behind the campaign to take on Uber.

"We are glad to have paved the way for these other states to come on board and join this action as a way to hold Uber to account for the damage it caused to our industry," he said.

Maurice Blackburn has been co-ordinating the class action, to be filed within weeks.

An international litigation funder has backed the claim with at least $20 million already raised.

Uber has an estimated $120 billion value, which has emboldened the taxi drivers and operators to pursue the claim.

Maurice Blackburn won $494 million from power company SP Ausnet for failing to maintain a power line that started one of the deadly Black Saturday blazes in Victoria in 2009.

The claim against Uber, in terms of numbers of victims and the size of the losses, would at least double the Black Saturday claim, leaving the tech giant exposed to a $1 billion challenge.

Elizabeth O'Shea, a senior associate at Maurice Blackburn, said Uber "has caused extensive loss and damage to law-abiding taxi and hire car operators and licence holders across the country".

"It was Uber that came in and exploited people by operating outside of regulations, it was Uber's conduct that led to decimating losses suffered by our group members and for those reasons it is the multibillion-dollar company Uber and its associated entities that we are targeting in order to provide redress to those affected," Ms O'Shea said.

"This class action will likely be one of the biggest in Australia on any measure — the number of people involved, the potential recovery of compensation for law-abiding operators and licence holders, and no doubt the extent of the fight we are anticipating from the defendants."

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Document reveals holes in policing of ride-sharing since Uber legalised

TRANSPORT officials have been accused of putting public safety at risk after a new document revealed alleged holes in policing the ride share industry since Uber was legalised.

The document released under Right to Information laws revealed that in a 26-month span to November this year only one driver was fined for soliciting or touting for an illegal fare.

The Transport Department list of nearly 1600 infringement notices dished out to booked-hire license drivers also revealed more than 350 had been fined for illegally using taxi zones.

Authorities issued 283 infringement notices for driving defective vehicles, 19 for driving uninsured vehicles and cancelled the licenses of 315 drivers.

Taxi Council Queensland chief executive Blair Davies said the lack of enforcement of illegal touts was a "huge public safety concern" as the practice had become widespread after ride share was legalised.

"Our cabbies are seeing booked-hire drivers are on the streets of Brisbane brazenly touting for cash jobs every day and yet the enforcement officers could only find one over a two-year period," he said.

"It's like they all need to go to Specsavers or something."

Mr Blair said passengers were at risk if they jumped into a vehicle with no meter running because there would be no record of the trip, no tax paid and no safety protections.

"The government needs to be stamping out rogue and unsafe practices by booked-hire drivers and the latest RTI shows that's simply not happening" he said.

A spokesman for the Department of Transport and Main Roads said 16 extra compliance officers had been added since ride share was legalised to ensure compliance with the transport reforms.

A Brisbane City Council spokesman said the State Government regulated taxi zones but changes were being made to loading zone rules.

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/fel_caldwell/status/1095557346418290688

[InclusionMoves]

https://twitter.com/InclusionMoves/status/1095566229069164544

https://twitter.com/fel_caldwell/status/1095557346418290688

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/7NewsBrisbane/status/1103545102155182080

[verbatim9]

I disagree with this lawsuit. People who had invested at the time shouldn't of taken it as gospal, as a safe haven for retirement. Like any investment you need to have safe guards in place and diversify your investments to help lower or eliminate risks.

Everyone is asking for compensation everywhere these days. It's like they aren't taking responsibility for their own actions.

Compensation should be paid as a result from an accident which is unavoidable, not for bad investments.

[techblitz]

^ The taxi drivers/Maurice Blackburn have uber in their sights because said company walked in gung-ho and immediately began gaining market share even though they weren't yet approved to do so.

Maurice Blackburn is seeking damages for claimants in respect of losses sustained as a result of Uber's alleged conduct in the relevant loss periods (i.e. the period in which Uber operated illegally) for Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia.

Step outside your little 'tech progressive' bubble for a minute verbatim and realise that what uber did was unethical..

And try to learn the difference between a person making a bad business decision while the opposing competition acts fairly vs a person making a bad business decision while the opposing competition acts unfairly...
There are so many theoretical examples one could pull out of a hat to prove the point..

[verbatim9]

^^Everyone has a point of difference their are many that agree with me and others that don't. I don't believe our tax dollars should do towards compensating taxi driverrs plates further. It has been dealt with in legislation it's time to move on.

If you think they should be compensated and you are compassionate about it. Get a group together raise some funds and compensate the taxi industry with the funds that have been raised.

[techblitz]

It has been dealt with in legislation it's time to move on.

everyone will move on once uber are made to pay for their arrogance.....they think that because of their over-inflated valuation/massive venture capital & legal backing...that they could just walk into any city without consequence and operate illegally.....using their drivers as pawns and offering up discounts like candy to children to instantly get customers interested.

The ones directly affected aren't going to just cop it on the chin and lay down.....the buck stops with someone....either uber or the ones who failed to stop them operating illegally.

I suspect one of the reasons uber didn't care about being approved or not is because they knew once they get a crapload of drivers out there on the road then it would be near impossible for authorities to cease them from operating......clearly a pre-mediated plan by uber.

[verbatim9]

It has been dealt with in legislation it's time to move on.

everyone will move on once uber are made to pay for their arrogance.....they think that because of their over-inflated valuation/massive venture capital & legal backing...that they could just walk into any city without consequence and operate illegally.....using their drivers as pawns and offering up discounts like candy to children to instantly get customers interested.

The ones directly affected aren't going to just cop it on the chin and lay down.....the buck stops with someone....either uber or the ones who failed to stop them operating illegally.

I suspect one of the reasons uber didn't care about being approved or not is because they knew once they get a crapload of drivers out there on the road then it would be near impossible for authorities to cease them from operating......clearly a pre-mediated plan by uber.

Its not an uber regulation. its a ride sharing regulation. The Government  has also ready consulted with all parties in the past, forming the right balance. Taxis owners are still making money to this day even with competition from other ride sharing companies. And they will continue  to do so as the population grows.

[techblitz]

verbatim I'm quite aware that everything has 'balanced' itself out and most parties are now making money today....your veering off course.....the main point of focus is the period in which uber operated illegally. Not later when uber/government finally came to agreements and set out their respective policies...

[verbatim9]

verbatim I'm quite aware that everything has 'balanced' itself out and most parties are now making money today....your veering off course.....the main point of focus is the period in which uber operated illegally. Not later when uber/government finally came to agreements and set out their respective policies...

Ride sharing was never illegal as far as I was aware. There was a stop to cease order and fines put in place for a few months until the legislation went through.

[techblitz]

There was a stop to cease order and fines put in place for a few months until the legislation went through.

was an absolute piecemeal solution but probably all they could do at the time given how rapidly uber were gaining drivers...made even more piecemeal by the fact that uber blatantly offered to pay the fines...if that aint a big 'middle finger' to authorities then I don't know what is.

[verbatim9]

I think logical steps were taken under the circumstances. This litigation has only come to play because of the Victorian situation in which was left hanging for a long period prior to getting addressed. The situation in QLD is different and it's come down to greed and revenge from the taxi industry along with an experienced legal team. I don't agree with the ongoing litigation in QLD and I have stated my reasons. Unlike yours saying "Uber must pay" because they operated prior to legislation going through, when technically it was legal other than the stop to cease order.

[techblitz]

when technically it was legal

care to explain how it was technically legal prior to September 2016?

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/uber-in-queensland-your-rights-in-illegal-rideshare-20160422-gocgyf.html

I think your confusing yourself...you seem to think that because 'ride-sharing' legislation had not been passed yet then that made it 'technically legal' for any cowboy with a ride-share app to stroll on into town and start making money......irrespective of the plethora of policies that the established competition had to abide-by(eg: taxis,limousines).

also..
https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ehq-production-australia/0d5dedd1ea80953c4af535fe5cb4bb6084f042b2/documents/attachments/000/062/962/original/Media-release_New_level_playing_field_for_personalised_transport.pdf?1505269705

why would they even title it 'new level playing field'  if was supposedly level....face it.....from the time uber walked in until legislation was passed it was never ever a level playing field.....they were gaining a specific advantage because they were operating under their own personalised rules instead of the much more costly government rules.

[verbatim9]

Because ride share was ride share not a taxi company. It's been explained so many times in the past. Ride sharing was never illegal. It was just classified from the Taxi industry as a Taxi service as it threatened their monopoly, It's been dealt with and you are trolling and making personal attacks on my opinion as many other opinions and contributions  I have made this forum which are completely valid.

[techblitz]

it aint trolling....its education.

Mr Hinchliffe said from September 5 ride-sharing services would be legal,

scribble that on the blackboard 100 times and then ask yourself afterwards if ridesharing in QLD was legal prior to sep5...

[James]

I suspect one of the reasons uber didn't care about being approved or not is because they knew once they get a crapload of drivers out there on the road then it would be near impossible for authorities to cease them from operating......clearly a pre-mediated plan by uber.

Given Uber is "such a bad company" and broke the law, wouldn't people reject Uber, much like how society rejects drug dealing as an illegal profession?

Uber was successful because the people of Brisbane had been suffering for the better part of a decade with some absolutely sh%thouse taxi drivers charging extortionate rates. I could go on with my own experience, but paying nearly $20 for a 3km trip stood out in my mind as extortionate. Uber brought mobile phone booking, card payment (without surcharges) and friendly service all for a lower price - something people have wanted for years. Perhaps if the taxi industry had picked up its game, taxis would have maintained broad support.

Ultimately the responsibility lies with the government - half for letting Uber operate, half for restricting taxi licenses to artificially inflate the value of them. But you cannot shaft the entire blame on to Uber - there's a reason they succeeded.

[verbatim9]

it aint trolling....its education.

Mr Hinchliffe said from September 5 ride-sharing services would be legal,

scribble that on the blackboard 100 times and then ask yourself afterwards if ridesharing in QLD was legal prior to sep5...

Ask yourself that as well I think you are a bit delusional about history.

[verbatim9]

^^At the end of day ride sharing has improved potential passenger outcomes getting from A to B.

For anyone against more personalised and better public transport outcomes on this forum is beyond me.

[ozbob]

 

We all have a view point.   

Me?  I think the lack of a balanced introduction, bit like scooters, is hurting ..

Am I the only person left that has not used uber or uber eats?  But then again I have never watched pay TV. 

I support taxis.  But I don't care if uber is your game. 

I have my principles.

[ozbob]

[ozbob]

 

[techblitz]

@verbatim.....virtually every forum member here agrees they play an important part in personalised transport.

The issue I have is with the entry strategy into a city eg  what lime did.....just throw scooters out on the streets and hope for the best.....didn't work out so well for the gold coast did it??

I think this is where we are agreeing to disagree.....you feel that the 'street saturation without approval' strategy is fine.....well I don't...

@ozbob...

Me?  I think the lack of a balanced introduction, bit like scooters, is hurting

spot on...

[verbatim9]

I live in the city and a cyclist. Even though I have found scooters annoying at times most scooter riders have done the right thing. It has given active transport a boost.

Plus I am all for people still using taxis instead of Uber or Ola. It's a matter of choice. But I still sticking with my first post 'with reference to the upcoming litigation which I strongly oppose.

[techblitz]

well its going to be an interesting compo case that's for sure....

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/limoactiongroup/status/1107818294042484736

[techblitz]

updated abc article...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-18/uber-used-secret-spyware-to-try-and-crush-australian-start-up/10901120

International rideshare giant Uber used a secret spyware program to steal drivers from an Australian competitor with the aim of putting that company out of business.

A former senior Uber employee has told Four Corners that the idea behind the use of the Surfcam spyware was to starve GoCatch of drivers.

Best explain yourselves UBER spruikers....
You've got rocks in your head if you still think uber are completely innocent and should be freely allowed to dominate like they are.....wake up.....time to pull your focus away from so called 'smelly ripoff cab drivers' and start making sure your so called 'saviour' UBER is doing things legally....and allowing competition to flourish fairly and honestly...

[STB]

@verbatim.....virtually every forum member here agrees they play an important part in personalised transport.

The issue I have is with the entry strategy into a city eg  what lime did.....just throw scooters out on the streets and hope for the best.....didn't work out so well for the gold coast did it??

I think this is where we are agreeing to disagree.....you feel that the 'street saturation without approval' strategy is fine.....well I don't...

@ozbob...

Me?  I think the lack of a balanced introduction, bit like scooters, is hurting

spot on...

Tough!  Usually with innovation, you need to just throw the rule book out and just do it - it's the only real way things can progress sometimes.  Entrepreneurs and inventors don't just sit around twiddling their thumbs waiting for government to change the laws to introduce new ideas.

Uber, like all ridesharing is here to stay, the taxi industry needs to HTFU and come to the realization that the old model just would never work in the modern world, and they only have themselves to blame!

[red dragin]

I know people who "go out driving for Uber", they aren't just giving someone a lift who is heading the same general route they are. They are operating a Taxi, not being part of an innovating business.

[techblitz]

Entrepreneurs and inventors don't just sit around twiddling their thumbs waiting for government to change the laws to introduce new ideas.

do you know how fundamentally flawed this line of thinking is if it were applied across any and every industry out there? Say for example the medical/bio tech industries??
Invent >> put onto market >> screw the regs....ask questions later...

Free for all is just absurd....at some point you need to put startups on trial periods first to guage the progress of their implementation.

[James]

updated abc article...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-18/uber-used-secret-spyware-to-try-and-crush-australian-start-up/10901120

International rideshare giant Uber used a secret spyware program to steal drivers from an Australian competitor with the aim of putting that company out of business.

A former senior Uber employee has told Four Corners that the idea behind the use of the Surfcam spyware was to starve GoCatch of drivers.

Best explain yourselves UBER spruikers....
You've got rocks in your head if you still think uber are completely innocent and should be freely allowed to dominate like they are.....wake up.....time to pull your focus away from so called 'smelly ripoff cab drivers' and start making sure your so called 'saviour' UBER is doing things legally....and allowing competition to flourish fairly and honestly...

I'll agree with you here.

Uber, in its early days, was a high-quality provider doing jobs at reasonable prices with local labour. Now Uber has simply become the taxi industry - the default go-to operator, with poor service, mediocre driving and hiring foreign labour with poor English in the same way the taxi industry did. It's still better than a taxi, but barely.

I have switched to GoCatch for this reason, problem being it's hard to split a fare when nobody else uses the system.

[techblitz]

Now Uber has simply become the taxi industry - the default go-to operator, with poor service, mediocre driving and hiring foreign labour with poor English in the same way the taxi industry did

Population growth plays a big factor as well......any city which undergoes abnormal increases (aka SEQ/sydney/Melbourne)...you will find rideshare driver earnings becoming even more depressed as more desperate drivers looking to make a basic living come online.....its tied in with the flawed operational model......everything needs to have limits..

And there is also no denying that certain multi-plate taxi operators out there have/ still do exploit cheap labor to increase their margins..
Its all an absolute mess...

Heres an article...its from the AWU but still on the mark...

https://www.smh.com.au/national/here-s-a-tip-uber-pay-your-drivers-properly-20190301-p51137.html

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1111367966463942656

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Consumers winners in battle for ridesharing buck

THE ridesharing industry could be on the verge of a competition explosion, as new operators carve out a niche in the digital frontier.

In recent years, Uber, which itself has decimated the taxi industry, has faced new competition with the arrival of Lyft and Ola.

Marketing experts believe this, plus the recent expansion of bike and scooter sharing services like Lime, mark a new era for the sector.

"I don't even know where we're going to go, but it's going to be bigger and better," marketing expert Kelsie Smith said.

"I fully expect the competition to get better and better."

Mr Smith said Uber, while still slightly cheaper than traditional taxis, had become more expensive as price surges have become more frequent.

"Because it's so much busier now, the surcharge is more frequent than it used to be many years ago."

But he said rideshare operators like Uber and Ola had built loyal users through offering cleaner vehicles, in start contrast to taxis, which were perceived as dirty or unclean.

Marketing expert Toby Ralph said Uber was inevitably going to be challenged.

"Disruptive marketing works for a while, but then gets disrupted by others," Mr Ralph said. "Ola disrupted the disruptor by being cheaper and potentially more profitable for the driver."

"Ola are pulling their pants down on price, trying to gain share through freebies and vouchers."

But Taxi Council of Queensland CEO, Blair Davies, said despite recent advances taxis were still the best option.

"Taxis are more environmentally sustainable, identifiable, offer flexible payment arrangements and are more accessible than our competitors," he said.

"We're very big on having a clean and green fleet, an estimated 80 per cent of our vehicles in Queensland are hybrid and 20 per cent are wheelchair accessible."

Mr Davies said despite this, taxis have lost some price-sensitive customers.

"Our competitors offer prices slightly lower than ours but then during periods of high demands, implore surge pricing," he said.

"We don't employ these surge prices."

Kasey Abbas, 19, from Paddington, said although the services are similar, Uber and Ola still stand out.

"I think these two services are the most convenient as I'm able to order a pick up whenever I like and they are usually only a couple of minutes away," Miss Abbas said.

"You can also track and contact the driver. You can see how far away they are, the vehicle model and registration all through the app."

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/TimnaJacks/status/1124072855128485890

[techblitz]

https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/company-news/uber-makes-dollar785-million-in-australia-in-2018-–-but-pays-just-dollar85-million-tax/ar-AAAMDoO?ocid=spartanntp

Uber's local arm made a gross profit of $785 million connecting Australians to rides and restaurant meals in 2018, but most of it was wiped out by a service payment to its US parent, and it paid just $8.5 million in company tax.

Uber Australia Holdings, which combines four entities supplying the local ridesharing and UberEats meal delivery services, and the marketing supporting them, made an after-tax loss of $13.2 million, despite revenue from contracts with its driver and restaurant partners of $935 million.

A $691 million "service fees" charge, otherwise unexplained in the accounts, did most to reduce the company's taxable income.

does anyone not see the problem here??....its an internationally owned parent structure....with a very large venture capital fund.....they are going to continue to expand into other industries.....threaten a lot more industries with their disruption...sending many mom & pop owned business`s who pay their fair share of tax to the wall.....all the while continuing to minimise their own tax as they aggressively expand.

[timh]

https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/company-news/uber-makes-dollar785-million-in-australia-in-2018-–-but-pays-just-dollar85-million-tax/ar-AAAMDoO?ocid=spartanntp

Uber's local arm made a gross profit of $785 million connecting Australians to rides and restaurant meals in 2018, but most of it was wiped out by a service payment to its US parent, and it paid just $8.5 million in company tax.

Uber Australia Holdings, which combines four entities supplying the local ridesharing and UberEats meal delivery services, and the marketing supporting them, made an after-tax loss of $13.2 million, despite revenue from contracts with its driver and restaurant partners of $935 million.

A $691 million "service fees" charge, otherwise unexplained in the accounts, did most to reduce the company's taxable income.

does anyone not see the problem here??....its an internationally owned parent structure....with a very large venture capital fund.....they are going to continue to expand into other industries.....threaten a lot more industries with their disruption...sending many mom & pop owned business`s who pay their fair share of tax to the wall.....all the while continuing to minimise their own tax as they aggressively expand.

Part of the problem is tax laws which allow big companies to get away with stuff like this