Does anyone read their omnibus licence?

ymesaidi

New Member
The standard Omnibus licence is now 6 pages and contains a heap of beaurocratic obligations like fatigue management plan (and records of time worked),, vehicle maintenance plan, record keeping for charter vehicle work, register of complaints...and more.

So how many of you are compliant with your licence and not just the process milestones that allowed you to get it (like inspections and registration)?
 

Geely Gangster

Active Member
It would be interesting to see what would happen if DOT officers pulled up a Uber driver and wanted to view their Uber Partner App to see how many hours they had been logged on and they were doing excessive hours! This could happen.
From some of the posts on this forum I think some drivers are doing excessive hours without having the proper rest breaks and putting riders lives at risk from a fatigue driver falling asleep at the wheel. When I was driving the max hours in a row I would work would be 3 to 5 hours with a small break every hour or two. I found working on a Saturday night and it's getting to 2 or 3am in the morning after say 4 hours driving if I didn't go home and get some sleep I would be putting riders at risk.
 

Potsy

Well-Known Member
Hi
It would be interesting to see what would happen if DOT officers pulled up a Uber driver and wanted to view their Uber Partner App to see how many hours they had been logged on and they were doing excessive hours! This could happen.
From some of the posts on this forum I think some drivers are doing excessive hours without having the proper rest breaks and putting riders lives at risk from a fatigue driver falling asleep at the wheel. When I was driving the max hours in a row I would work would be 3 to 5 hours with a small break every hour or two. I found working on a Saturday night and it's getting to 2 or 3am in the morning after say 4 hours driving if I didn't go home and get some sleep I would be putting riders at risk.
Hi GG, it would be easy for Uber to take us offline for 20 mins every 5 hours or so for a coffee break but they don't. I myself am guilty of pushing on too long as Sat night is the only good shift normally so I often only stop when the pings stop after about 14 hrs. Shouldn't do it but so few good working hours during the week it's tempting to keep accepting that one last job.
 

Geely Gangster

Active Member
I know how you feel Potsy. It's like an addiction to get that one last job to reach a certain $ target you are maybe aiming for. Also sometimes I have found that you are thinking about finishing up for the night and start driving home, but stay logged on in the hope that you may get one last job on the way home which is heading in your direction, but Murphys law it's always going the wrong way and you regret not logging off!
Also concur that Uber should build into the app that it automatically should log you off for compulsory breaks to stop drivers driving for too log. Technically it would be possible!
 

Potsy

Well-Known Member
The standard Omnibus licence is now 6 pages and contains a heap of beaurocratic obligations like fatigue management plan (and records of time worked),, vehicle maintenance plan, record keeping for charter vehicle work, register of complaints...and more.

So how many of you are compliant with your licence and not just the process milestones that allowed you to get it (like inspections and registration)?
If driver's read the omnibus regulations in full many would quit. It requires meticulous record keeping which I'm sure a lot of people don't do.
I was nearly done by DOT when a few months after driving on SCVPlates I received a letter from DOT asking for my records. I had to spend/waste many hours making sure everything was exactly as they wanted it to avoid fines and they can be pretty tricky. After you send them your records they will send you a follow up letter asking for your banking records whereby they cross reference all your accounts with your bank records to try to find discrepancies.
 

UberPig

Well-Known Member
Glad I'm out!!!! That also adds up to hours of work that you need to add into your profit(less) making equation...!!!
 

lui6155

Well-Known Member
Guys my take on the licence conditions is that they are part one of a two part roll out of the legislation, with the second tranche imposing conditions on providers/dispatchers (read Uber). This is what the Green Paper proposed and so far it has come to fruition.
Those requirements to produce records aren't onerous/all available online and the green paper proposed the following obligations for the dispatcher:
dispatched vehicles are roadworthy, insured and licenced • drivers of dispatched vehicles are properly licenced • drivers are paid for dispatched work • drivers and passengers are safe • appropriate records are maintained • the vehicle standards are compliant with the licence conditions • driver fatigue management; safe working practices for the driver
 

Dog

Well-Known Member
It would be interesting to see what would happen if DOT officers pulled up a Uber driver and wanted to view their Uber Partner App to see how many hours they had been logged on and they were doing excessive hours! This could happen.
From some of the posts on this forum I think some drivers are doing excessive hours without having the proper rest breaks and putting riders lives at risk from a fatigue driver falling asleep at the wheel. When I was driving the max hours in a row I would work would be 3 to 5 hours with a small break every hour or two. I found working on a Saturday night and it's getting to 2 or 3am in the morning after say 4 hours driving if I didn't go home and get some sleep I would be putting riders at risk.
Police can't even view your phone without a warrant, just saying :p
 

Larrikin

Active Member
Dog is on the money with the phone, I've given it a bit of thought for that very reason - the Police are able to get a court order for your phone in the case of an accident etc, but they can't take it off you. I came to the conclusion that if ever asked by DOT officers, I'd refuse to hand the phone over, but would offer to supply s copy of that days work within five working days.
 

UberDriverAU

Well-Known Member
Dog is on the money with the phone, I've given it a bit of thought for that very reason - the Police are able to get a court order for your phone in the case of an accident etc, but they can't take it off you. I came to the conclusion that if ever asked by DOT officers, I'd refuse to hand the phone over, but would offer to supply s copy of that days work within five working days.
The police can seize your phone without a warrant under certain circumstances:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/cia2006243/s39.html said:
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION ACT 2006 - SECT 39
39 . Vehicle, search of for things relevant to offence
(1) If an officer reasonably suspects —

(a) that a vehicle is carrying a thing relevant to an offence; or

(b) that a vehicle is a thing relevant to an offence; or

(c) that a vehicle is carrying a person against whom an offence may have been, or may be being, committed; or

(d) that an offence has been, is being, or is about to be, committed in a vehicle,

the officer —

(e) may stop, enter and search the vehicle; and

(f) may, under section 46, establish a protected forensic area around or in the vehicle; and

(g) may, subject to section 146, seize any thing relevant to the offence; and

(h) may take any action that is reasonably necessary to stop any offence that is being, or prevent any offence that may be, committed against a person in the vehicle.

(2) If an officer doing a search under this section finds a thing relevant to an offence other than the offence giving rise to the search, the officer may, subject to section 146, seize it.

(3) If an officer doing a search under this section finds a thing that may be seized under this section, then whether or not the officer seizes it, the officer may do a forensic examination on it.

(4) The powers in subsection (1) may be exercised by an officer in the area associated with a dwelling but only if the officer reasonably suspects that —

(a) the person in charge of the vehicle does not reside in the dwelling; and

(b) the vehicle is not in that area with the express or implied permission of a person who does reside in the dwelling.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/cia2006243/s146.html said:
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION ACT 2006 - SECT 146
146 . Things relevant to offence, grounds for seizing

If this Act provides that an officer may seize a thing that is relevant to an offence the officer may do so only if the officer reasonably suspects one or more of the following —

(a) that the thing is property that has been stolen or otherwise unlawfully obtained;

(b) that the thing may be seized under another written law;

(c) that possession of the thing at that time and place by the person in possession of it is unlawful;

(d) that the thing may be forfeited to the State or the Crown;

(e) that it is necessary to seize the thing for one or more of the following purposes

(i) to prevent it from being concealed, disturbed or lost;

(ii) to preserve its evidentiary value;

(iii) to do a forensic examination on it;

(iv) to prevent it from being used in the commission of another offence.
 

Larrikin

Active Member
Interesting, I thought I read about a court case in Perth where the police couldn't use evidence from a phone, as they had illegally taken it, but I knew they could apply to get hold of the driver's phone after an accident - didn't know they could take it - might need some investigation to see whether DOT officers have the same power.
 

UberDriverAU

Well-Known Member
Interesting, I thought I read about a court case in Perth where the police couldn't use evidence from a phone, as they had illegally taken it, but I knew they could apply to get hold of the driver's phone after an accident - didn't know they could take it - might need some investigation to see whether DOT officers have the same power.
It might be that they didn't "reasonably suspect" an offence was being committed, they just took it anyway. In an Uber context, if they have two people sitting in the back saying they're on an Uber trip, but the driver doesn't have an omnibus or taxi licence, it would be reasonable to suspect that the driver is committing an offence, and to seize the phone for evidence (so the driver couldn't delete things, etc).
 

Dog

Well-Known Member
It might be that they didn't "reasonably suspect" an offence was being committed, they just took it anyway. In an Uber context, if they have two people sitting in the back saying they're on an Uber trip, but the driver doesn't have an omnibus or taxi licence, it would be reasonable to suspect that the driver is committing an offence, and to seize the phone for evidence (so the driver couldn't delete things, etc).
Remote wipey
 

Instyle

Well-Known Member
Moderator
It's entirely upto the operator to satisfy the license requirements, if the license his maximum time restrictions and scheduled breaks then upon request you may be asked to proved such evidence whether thats a logbook entry noting the time or the Uber app showing your trip history.
 

Potsy

Well-Known Member
In a shielded room about to be hacked by a police forensics team? Good luck? ET no phone home! :wink:
I know a guy who got busted by police for something pretty serious and police sent his phone to the manufacturer to recover all deleted info from it.
 

Dog

Well-Known Member
I know a guy who got busted by police for something pretty serious and police sent his phone to the manufacturer to recover all deleted info from it.
Seeing as the FBI couldn't access a suspected terrorists phone to the point of taking apple to court because they wouldn't help, I'm highly okay with police trying to get into my phone
 
Top