The " Uber " Answer !

It must be clear to any fair minded person that the Uber phenomenon can not go unchallenged indefinitely.We have laws that apply to a regulated cab or taxi industry and a new commercial company has simply ignored these requirements and set itself up in business in competition.

The government restricts the number of taxi license plates in this state and consequently their value has slumped because trade is being siphoned off by Uber.  Drivers earning a living as legitimate cab drivers need to wear a uniform and undergo not only licensing but a background check to ensure they are of good character.  The vehicle they drive must carry the company colour and signage, and it must be regularly checked by Roads and Maritime Services ( RMS ) to be clean and in a roadworthy mechanical state.

Uber is not just a New South Wales phenomenon.  It has aggressively barged into the taxi trade on a world wide basis and it's stock holding is now worth billions.   What many find fascinating is the sheer gall of a startup company recruiting ordinary people and urging them to use their cars to provide a paid private transport alternative - and virtually thumb it's nose at government regulators, the Taxi council, the RMS - and the Police !

The initial expectation was that this would be short lived.  Governments control most professions by way of a licensing regime and it seems unbelievable that ordinary people could set themselves up - completely untrained - as doctors, lawyers, plumbers, builders - or any other of the trades - and get away with it.   And yet, that is exactly what Uber has done - and is still doing !

Now we learn that in Sydney the RMS launched prosecutions against twenty-four Uber drivers for operating a taxi without a license - and were forced to withdraw the cases because they had difficulty obtaining information necessary to support their cases in court.

Are we to believe that what is essentially a " pirate taxi company " can openly run a service in our biggest city and support it with a communication system that allows the public to summon a cab - and that all this is beyond the ability of the authorities to find sufficient evidence to bring the matter to court ?

It seems that Uber is going unchallenged on a world wide basis.   Uber is operating freely in London and New York - and even in Moscow, where anyone who annoys Vladimir Putin finds themselves in court on a trumped up charge and receives a lengthy prison sentence  handed down by a tame cat judge.   What gives Uber phenomenal immunity from the due processes of the law ?

An enquiry labelled the " Point to Point Task Force " was setup to examine and report on the Uber situation and it is suggesting that we need a law change to confiscate the car of any driver charging a passenger for conveyance contrary to the Passenger Transport Act.   It is unclear whether such a confiscation would be for a given period of time, or whether it would be of a permanent nature.

This would seem a reasonable option to control Uber, but to be backed by law it would still be necessary to prove in court that an offence had taken place - namely that the ride was on a fare paying basis.

It will be interesting to see how the state intends to tackle this " evidence " issue.  There is no doubt that a multi billion dollar company will deploy the very best from the legal profession to defend it's position.   If the state fails to prevail, it is hard to see how regulations can be enfored across the wide spectrum of trades and professions.

Uber is really challenging the very concept of government - as we know it !