Includes Cabs and 'Uber'  I will post a series of what I reckon is necessary, and if anyone disagrees, I hope they post why.

There must be a written agreement between Cab Companies and the 'Ubers' with all the people who drive using their platform.  Said agreement to ensure minimum work conditions and standards which also must be part of legislation.

Anyone disagree?

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Apr 15^th, 2017 at 5:34pm:


No.  Do you have any problem with my first item?

How about a hovercar?

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2017 at 4:49pm:


Before it becomes part of legislation, you have to motivate politician to legislate it.

When  I have gone through the list of just under 20 items, I'll be referring this Thread to all Qld politicians who seems to have great difficulty in doing the right thing by all Queenslander including many tens of thousands of small business owners and users of personalised transport.

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2017 at 5:07pm:


Gee, how quick of you, Effendi.

The point is:

'Uber' will aggressiveness resist these elements being forced upon them, because they will....when you see them all......make their business model even more of a failure than it demonstrably is now, except to the gullible drivers they entrap.

The Taxi Industry is now fully compliant with them all, and has been for years.

When you go for a taxi or limo drivers licence, you have to have a current police check.

You also sign a document stating that if anything changes in what you have stated you will be punished.

What makes you think something written down will make any difference at all?

However I do like the camera suggestion, but it needs to be sealed, untouchable by the driver, backed up to the cloud or another unalterable format, and cannot be turned off while the taxi is occupied.

Oh, and penalties need to be severly increased for sex crimes and attacks.

Valkie wrote on Apr 16^th, 2017 at 6:55pm:


Great.  So you are OK with Items 1 and 2.  Item 3 will be up tomorrow.

Everything will be driverless in the future. I predict the complete death of any chauffer driven vehicle within 10 years. The taxi industry as it stands is dead in the water, just like video hire shops.

Aussie wrote on Apr 17^th, 2017 at 3:04pm:




Why would anybody need to use a driver-less "cab"? (if/when they become "available")

What would all the taxi drivers do for a crust? Would the Cops still Breathalyze those who don't have a driver-less car?

If/when driver-less cars are available there will undoubtedly be other forms of "transport" that the common person CAN afford.

Taxi drivers will still be out of pocket and will need to find alternative employment.

freediver wrote on Apr 17^th, 2017 at 3:54pm:


So, do you have any problem with Item 3, Effendi?

Aussie wrote on Apr 17^th, 2017 at 3:57pm:


I sure do Aussie. Whether it is a number 1, 2 or 3, you should find a public toilet instead.

freediver wrote on Apr 17^th, 2017 at 4:01pm:


How about you express your problems, then.  Let's see them, Effendi.

We've already covered that ground, Effendi.  But.....it is beneficial to know that this Forum's Owner, and political activist, has no problem with Items 1, 2 and 3.  Thanks for that.

Item 4 tomorrow.

freediver wrote on Apr 17^th, 2017 at 6:35pm:


So far....nothing to do with 'fares' Effendi.  Safety.

freediver wrote on Apr 17^th, 2017 at 3:54pm:


When that day comes, maybe I'll launch a retro cab company. Mid journey a scent unit in the cab will spray a burst of eau de Indian, a heady mixture of cumin and stale sweat which will trigger the olfactory system to conjure up memories of cab rides past.

So who pays for it Aussie?

No issue with #1, no need to legislate 2 and 3. Plenty of other public workplaces don't require either one.

Aussie wrote on Apr 17^th, 2017 at 3:04pm:


As I have said before, taxis will become a bespoke service and a tiny part of the market. The "taxi industry" will be obliterated.

As for it "not being deemed safe", governments are already waking up to the fact that driverless has the potential to almost eliminate accidents. It is already proving safer. Even "nanny state governments like Singapore are embracing it for that very reason.

Stig wrote on Apr 17^th, 2017 at 7:46pm:


Well, that is all crystal ball 2030 stuff.  I am restricting my comments here to the Topic.  Item 4 tomorrow.

freediver wrote on Apr 17^th, 2017 at 7:58pm:


Not that I am aware of.  Ya see Effendi, you just do not understand.  Government sets Cab fares in Queensland.  I am completely unable to up the fare when some expense comes my way.

freediver wrote on Apr 17^th, 2017 at 8:09pm:


No, they don't.

Still no problem with Items I, 2, and 3.  Jolly good.

freediver wrote on Apr 17^th, 2017 at 8:19pm:


I have you know.



None of the Items I will post will have any impact whatsoever on Cab fares.

They are all driver/customer safety related.

Aussie while you still insist that any changes will have no impact on fares you only confirm that you are incapable of thinking this through.

For example, even in your case of government price fixing, the government inevitably takes the cost of running a cab into account when setting prices. Where the government does not fix prices, it will inevitably have an impact on fares. Your insistence that it doesn't is a 'fairies at the bottom of the garden' approach to policy, just like your idea of getting all players to voluntarily agree to changes that you know they won't agree to.

Item #4 - you're legislating technology. It's like saying "taxis must be able to be booked via an app available on iTunes"

And in any case - it isn't needed.

Aussie wrote on Apr 18^th, 2017 at 6:49pm:


Do you think cost is a factor in whether something is good or bad policy?

What does it cost Aussie?

.

I have about 15 more Items to go through Effendi.  Do you have any problem (other than this cost red herring.....we are talking about safety to the public and drivers, not cost) with Item 4, and if you do, say so with specifics.  Politicians will see it.

Aussie wrote on Apr 18^th, 2017 at 9:54pm:


You asked if I had a problem with it. I have a problem with it - you don't know what it costs and you mislead people by claiming it does not affect fares.

Would you trust anyone else selling you a safety system who refuses to tell you the price? Because that is exactly how you come across right now.

Quote:


Why not Aussie?

"Ideas for safe personalised Transport."

Sir Booby has thrown a suggestion into the ring.

freediver wrote on Apr 19^th, 2017 at 6:46pm:


Very far from it Effendi.  Do you agree that disabled people ought have access to all personalised transport as Item 5 provides for?

freediver wrote on Apr 19^th, 2017 at 8:47pm:


How many times do I need to tell you?  None of my Items will have any impact whatsoever on the current Cab fares.  Well, one or two might lead to a decrease.

freediver wrote on Apr 19^th, 2017 at 9:20pm:


Have you not noticed that I have been referring to the personalised transport industry?  That includes Cabs but not only Cabs.

freediver wrote on Apr 20^th, 2017 at 9:04am:


Look - Aussie is trying to create a list of things which taxis supposedly do at the moment, but Uber don't, in order to recommend that Uber should be forced to do the exact same thing - right down to stuff like having a little button on the steering column that activates a green light on the roof if the driver feels in danger.

The object is not to make things better for customers, it's to make Uber more expensive.

Perhaps next, we can have a thread about going back to the two airline policy where TAA was stopped from buying certain types of planes because Ansett couldn't afford them and allowing the purchase would have given one airline an advantage over the other.

No Aussie. I would love it if we could add all that technology for free. While we are at it, if we are ignoring cost, why not make them all driverless cars? After all, the cab driver is the biggest danger faced by passengers.

What are you proposing to actually change, and what does it actually cost?

I already said no.

How about you Aussie? Do you have a problem with getting rid of cab drivers and replacing them with driverless cars, assuming we spend the money to make them safer? Ignoring the cost of course, do you support this proposal?

Having nearly T-boned a cabbie at 80km/h when he ran a red light and pulled out in front of me, causing me to swerve into the other lane without checking if it was clear, I think it would be safer for everyone if cab drivers went the way of basket weavers, don't you?

I am asking your opinion Aussie, not what the government will support. You already acknowledged that your proposal is hopelessly ineffective when you based it on voluntary agreement from parties who will never agree to it.

Having nearly T-boned a cabbie at 80km/h when he ran a red light and pulled out in front of me, causing me to swerve into the other lane without checking if it was clear, I think it would be safer for everyone if cab drivers went the way of basket weavers, don't you?

Aussie do you agree that the ultimate goal for everyone's safety - cabbie, passenger, and other road users - is to get rid of the cabbie? Cabs will be the first vehicles to become driverless. They can literally be driven 24 hours a day, so the return on the cost of driverless technology in the vehicle will be massive compared to personally owned cars. Driverless cabs may end up being so cheap it significantly reduces the number of people who own cars. That means fewer car parks necessary in the city. Everyone benefits. So we can wait for Aussie to succeed in his idiotic plan to get uber drivers to agree to being less competitive, or we can focus on the real goal of getting rid of cab drivers.

This is going awesome Aussie. Thanks for the suggestions.

Having nearly T-boned a cabbie at 80km/h when he ran a red light and pulled out in front of me, causing me to swerve into the other lane without checking if it was clear, I think it would be safer for everyone if cab drivers went the way of basket weavers, don't you?

So you support the use of driverless cars, in principle, as a safer option than cab drivers?

What makes you think you would still have a role to play in the industry?

Quote:


You did not say whether you actually support it as safer and better all round. It would probably even be cheaper. And no more cabbies taking a dump in the street.

Quote:


You asked me whether I support it. I told you I oppose your ideas. I gave you my reason - you are misleading people about whether there are any real changes involved, who will pay for them, and what impact it will have on fares. You told me that was off topic. So this is me being on topic.

Do you support getting rid of cab drivers?

What role do you think you will have in the industry once we get rid of cab drivers? Washing the windscreens? We already have machines to do that.

Quote:


I oppose all of them because you are misleading people about the cost. I think the cost of a change is relevant to whether I support it, whether you like it or not. I am also sick of hearing cab drivers whinge about uber, so the sooner they are all out of a job, the better.

Having a licence does not mean anyone is going to pay you to sit in a cab and make small talk with the passengers.

And like I already told you, it would be wonderful if we could do all that for free, but in the real world someone has to pay for it, and you refuse to say who.

Do you agree that it will be better for everyone when there is no more need for cab drivers?

Aussie wrote on Apr 20^th, 2017 at 5:55pm:


Whether it is here depends on the price. If you spent enough money you could get it very soon, and as you like to point out, the cost is irrelevant.

It is not a red herring. It is exactly what this thread is about. Do you agree that it will be better for everyone when there is no more need for cab drivers?

What role do you see yourself having when that happens?

Quote:


So your role in the industry will be to own a licence to sit in a taxi and not get any customers?

Anyway, it's good to see that my proposal to allow Ubers and other ride shares access to transit lanes and taxi stands has been accepted too.

On with the thread!

Item 1: get rid of cab drivers ASAP by switching to driverless cars. Aussie is OK with this because he has a licence. It will mean less street defecation, fewer car accidents, better smelling taxis, more parking in the city, cheaper fares, fewer sexual assaults, less small talk etc.

Item 2: let uber drivers use taxi lanes.

Item 3: emergency buttons and cameras that no-one has to pay for.

Are you with me so far?