LifeSocial Carpooling unaffected by NSW Government ruling out Ridesharing Apps
Car-Sharing Apps
There's a fine line between cost sharing and profiting when Carpooling.
Yesterday afternoon 1/05/2014 I had a few friends contact me asking if LifeSocial Carpooling was affected by the NSW Governments ruling out of Ride-sharing apps after reading an article published by the Sydney Morning Herald.
At best the articles heading 'Ride-sharing apps ruled out by NSW government' is misleading. You read on further to see: Transport for NSW has ruled out smartphone apps that allow motorists who are not taxi or hire-car drivers to receive money for offering lifts.
The truth is this is not a new ruling, it's been a known law and is written in the Transport Act 2007.
The law is clear and has not changed: if a NSW driver is taking paying members of the public as passengers, the driver and the vehicle must operate in accordance with the Passenger Transport Act.
Under the act, such services must be provided in a licensed taxi or hire car, by an appropriately accredited driver, authorised by Roads and Maritime Services.
However, these laws do not apply to, for example, a group of friends sharing expenses or a car-pooling arrangement between colleagues sharing a ride to the office.
LifeSocial Carpooling operates on a different model that abides by the local laws in where we operate.
The difference is that drivers do not profit from taking lifts, however are allowed to recover costs that incur from the trip. Both parties are open to negotiation on the reimburstment costs and LifeSocial Carpooling do not take a profit from each trip.
We have articles for best practises on Cost Sharing and Profiting from Driving and advice on Insurance and how this may change when you are profiting from Carpooling
The article was aimed directly at Uber's Ride-sharing app and not all Ride-sharing apps.
However I will say that Uber are a bit out of line in offering services that are not within our laws, and to think Ms Berejiklian from UBER seemed to concede there was no problem unless Uber called itself a "taxi service".
If a man walks into a supermarket and puts shavers in his pocket and walks out and the man does not call it stealing but considers it borrowing, when the man left the store was the item stolen or borrowed?
The act of what went on was stealing, despite the man calling it borrowing. The reality for UBER is that they are effectively running a Taxi service and probably don't know it, or at least have not acknowledged it.
But I agree the Taxi Industry do need a shake up and wake up. They cannot go crying to the Government everytime competition and choice comes along giving the consumer the upper hand.
It's about time that consumers we're given better choices and better prices for transport, but we should be approaching it the right way.
The Taxi Industry need to review pricing, or will be forced to review pricing with more competition available. I resent the fact that I would have to pay a solid $530 Taxi fare to travel from Central Station, Sydney to Gosford, Central Coast. I know plenty of people who would happily do this trip for 1/3 of the price.
The reality is limosine's and hire cars are so much cheaper, and you are actually travelling in luxury, unlike the Taxi service of today.
Copyright (c) 2014 LifeSocial