Uber

kippy

usernamegoes wrote: »

The market isn't developed here for ride-sharing insurance. If the regulator stopped blocking it and regulated for it then the market would develop. Perhaps even the operators could block negotiate rates for their drivers.

We could even require that all trips are supplementally insured by the operator incase there is any issue with the driver's insurance. My understanding is that Uber do have this insurance.

So, it's not just the regulator that is stopping any joe soap from ride sharing?
What happens in other countries where there is no regulation?
Just did a bit of reasearch there: US based but from the looks of it, its more than the regulator stopping these services taking off here:
https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/insurance/best-ridesharing-insurance/

For the record, I am on the fence.

makeorbrake

kippy wrote: »

So, it's not just the regulator that is stopping any joe soap from ride sharing?

Regulators plural rather than regulator singular.

Can anyone confirm a list of the countries that won't facilitate ride sharing unless the driver has a wheelchair accessible vehicle?

usernamegoes

kippy wrote: »

So, it's not just the regulator that is stopping any joe soap from ride sharing?
What happens in other countries where there is no regulation?
Just did a bit of reasearch there: US based but from the looks of it, its more than the regulator stopping these services taking off here:
https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/insurance/best-ridesharing-insurance/

For the record, I am on the fence.

I'm not sure of the point you're making; is it that there is no ride-sharing insurance in a country where ride-sharing is illegal? Well of course there is no insurance product for services that are currently illegal. They would become available if it was made legal like everywhere else.

Proper fit-for-purpose ride-sharing regulations could also deal with the insurance question. No one is advocating allowing people to offering ride-sharing without valid insurance.

AndrewJRenko

makeorbrake wrote: »

Yeah, and that's simply unreasonable. It's clear as night and day that this is a blocking exercise.

It doesn't block anyone - the same rules are available to everyone.

bk wrote: »

What special car are Irish taxi drivers buying?!!

It feels like almost any old clapped out family car will do for Irish taxis.

THere are different rules for new taxi licences - they must be wheelchair accessible.

bk wrote: »

I really am laughing out loud at folks going on about taxi drivers being highly trained and the quality of taxis being high!!

The taxi industry is really on average of a very poor quality. Training of taxi drivers is almost non existent here, most aren't very professional IME and most taxis are basically old bangers.

....I find the taxi industry here in Ireland to be overall very unprofessional. Ironically given peoples complaints about Uber being gig economy, I feel Taxi's in Ireland feel more like a gig economy that a professional service. Taxi services here feel like they are little more then some lad who has decided to take his old beaten up family car out and work as a taxi driver.

The average standard of taxi service here is really one of the worst I've experienced anywhere.

And you think the solution to these dreadful standards is to lower them to Uber's level?

makeorbrake wrote: »

That's not true. You know well consumers like accessing such services via an app. It's the very definition of innovation when some guys roll in with a certain approach and then the incumbents or those in a related industry copy it!

Consumers can order taxis by app today. I've been doing it for about five years now. We don't need Uber for that.

makeorbrake wrote: »

The ability for anyone to go and work a few hours on a gig economy basis is the core of this innovation and you're doing your very best to misrepresent it!
Furthermore, the efficiency that people, urban centres and economies can derive from ride sharing (when properly executed) is not something that should be passed over.

And again, the ability go and work for a few hours applies to the current regulations. There is no obligation on taxis to work particular hours.


But of course, your dream of people choosing to work extra hours on a gig hides the harsh reality of people having to work two or three jobs to survive - so the Uber drivers are probably going to be the guys who are driving trucks or buses on their main job and then jump into the car after ten hours in the truck to keep on driving. It's the American dream.

Markcheese

kippy wrote: »

Forget about that for a second.

Outside of the regulator - what's the story with insurance and liability?

Well since no one else is answering,
Your regular private car insurance doesn't cover "driving for hire or reward", you'd need taxi insurance (or Hackney or limo) to drive your car as an uber..

Disruption in the cab business in Ireland came about when they deregulated the taxi licence, so numbers weren't limited,

makeorbrake

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It doesn't block anyone - the same rules are available to everyone.

We can keep going round in circles on this as much as you and others here want. That's your opinion. It's the opposite of mine - which is that it's a very definite step to make ride sharing impossible/unworkable.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

THere are different rules for new taxi licences - they must be wheelchair accessible.

What other country has imposed precisely this measure?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And you think the solution to these dreadful standards is to lower them to Uber's level?

How lower? In most instances, I experience higher standards with ride sharing cars/drivers than with taxi's. You're pushing a fallacy (or at best, something that innovation/progression friendly regulation can address if there is even anything to address).

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And again, the ability go and work for a few hours applies to the current regulations. There is no obligation on taxis to work particular hours.

You know well that if you have to go out and buy a very specific type of vehicle, nobody will bother doing that to work a couple of hours here and there.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Consumers can order taxis by app today. I've been doing it for about five years now. We don't need Uber for that.

Please go back and read the section of text you wrote this in response to. Uber/Lyft innovated with that - you lot more recently responded to it. They were the ones that innovated (despite some of you here having suggested that there is and has been no innovation).

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

But of course, your dream of people choosing to work extra hours on a gig hides the harsh reality of people having to work two or three jobs to survive - so the Uber drivers are probably going to be the guys who are driving trucks or buses on their main job and then jump into the car after ten hours in the truck to keep on driving. It's the American dream.

Ok, is this thread for communists only? Or I guess selective communists given the self employed nature of the taxi gig.

Have you ever worked a second job? I've done so many times. I would wager that most have. Have you ever worked overtime in a job?

According to your logic, you would ban anyone working a minute over 40 hours/week. I didn't know that your involvement in this discussion was for benefit of those poor unfortunate uber drivers....:rolleyes:
Maybe its someone who goes to college who wants to work a few hours. They don't have a first job to begin with. Maybe its someone that wants to get some money together for a deposit on a house, etc? Maybe it's someone who just happens to be going the same direction - and want's to switch on the app so that they can receive a few quid so they don't even need to work extra hours in their first job?

makeorbrake

makeorbrake wrote: »

What other jurisdiction has this requirement?

Answer your own question yourself and don't be so lazy

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

Answer your own question yourself and don't be so lazy

There's no need to be rude and ignorant. I suspect the answer but I don't work in the taxi industry. That's why the statement has a "?" at the end of it. If you don't know the answer, don't answer it. Anyone that has an interest in furthering the discussion will provide the answer. Evidently, that's not you.

Spook_ie

makeorbrake wrote: »

And we can continue going round in circles. That's your opinion. My opinion is that it very much IS a blocking exercise.

What other jurisdiction has this requirement?

Does it matter, it's a current requirement HERE. It's a requirement that should have been brought in back in 2003 but that's another story.

makeorbrake

Spook_ie wrote: »

Does it matter, it's a current requirement HERE. It's a requirement that should have been brought in back in 2003 but that's another story.

So there isn't the same regulation anywhere else in the world?

LuckyLloyd

makeorbrake wrote: »

Right. Ride sharing is not taxi-ing. It deserves its own regulation. How else are we going to enable actual 'ride-sharing' (as per its very definition).?

We’re not, because it’s taxi by another name.

Ultimately it’s been a dramatically unambitious period in Silicon Valley history when this qualifies as “innovation”, per your definition.

We have the tech via MyTaxi or the Uber app. We don’t need the rest.

makeorbrake

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

We’re not, because it’s taxi by another name.

No, it's not.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Ultimately it’s been a dramatically unambitious period in Silicon Valley history when this qualifies as “innovation”, per your definition.

I don't really care if you're not suitably impressed. It's the same fundamental basis that has given rise to peer to peer lending, crowdfunding, car sharing, airbnb, co-working, fiverr, upwork, etc.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

We have the tech via MyTaxi or the Uber app. We don’t need the rest.

You mean Uber/Lyft innovated with the app and mytaxi was a knee jerk response from the taxi industry? That's the definition of innovation.
As regards, 'we don't need the rest', we most certainly do as you're trying to throw out the greatest innovation i.e. the facilitation and enablement of ordinary people to ride share dynamically on an opportunistic basis. The current position in Ireland (protectionism and appeasement of the taxi lobby) is backward.

Spook_ie

makeorbrake wrote: »

So there isn't the same regulation anywhere else in the world?

I've no idea, I'm not trawling the internet for your answers, as most foreign regulation websites are not in English, however, there are different councils in the UK, each with their own regulations, some of which give preferential treatment ( usually by age requirements ) for WA vehicles

Spook_ie

makeorbrake wrote: »

No, it's not.


I don't really care if you're not suitably impressed. It's the same fundamental basis that has given rise to peer to peer lending, crowdfunding, car sharing, airbnb, co-working, fiverr, upwork, etc.

You mean Uber/Lyft innovated with the app and mytaxi was a knee jerk response from the taxi industry? That's the definition of innovation.
As regards, 'we don't need the rest', we most certainly do as you're trying to throw out the greatest innovation i.e. the facilitation and enablement of ordinary people to ride share dynamically on an opportunistic basis. The current position in Ireland (protectionism and appeasement of the taxi lobby) is backward.

The entire crux of your argument in one word, opportunistic

opportunistic
/ɒpətjuːˈnɪstɪk/

adjective
exploiting immediate opportunities, especially regardless of planning or principle.
"an opportunistic political lightweight"

makeorbrake

Spook_ie wrote: »

I've no idea, I'm not trawling the internet for your answers, as most foreign regulation websites are not in English, however, there are different councils in the UK, each with their own regulations, some of which give preferential treatment ( usually by age requirements ) for WA vehicles

I never asked anyone to trawl the internet. I would imagine anyone who works in that industry would know whats being done overseas. It seems then that there is no other such regulation anywhere else in the world.

So you're now going to tell me that the Irish regulator is ahead of the curve by comparison with its peers worldwide? Give me a break. It's as clear as night and day that this was and is a move to block/stifle ride sharing. It makes for a far handier job for the regulator. Rather than deal with the issue and face off against taxi drivers, they can sit on their fat arses and collect their public sector salaries.

Spook_ie

makeorbrake wrote: »

I never asked anyone to trawl the internet. I would imagine anyone who works in that industry would know whats being done overseas. It seems then that there is no other such regulation anywhere else in the world.

So you're now going to tell me that the Irish regulator is ahead of the curve by comparison with its peers worldwide? Give me a break. It's as clear as night and day that this was and is a move to block/stifle ride sharing. It makes for a far handier job for the regulator. Rather than deal with the issue and face off against taxi drivers, they can sit on their fat arses and collect their public sector salaries.

Why would I know what regulations are required in France, Germany, Brazil or anywhere else in the world I'm not planning on driving a taxi there!

makeorbrake

Spook_ie wrote: »

The entire crux of your argument in one word, opportunistic

Yes, opportunistic. It's not the dirty word you make it out to be - and it doesn't involve the specific narrow definition that you've selected (in a pathetic attempt to make it fit your narrative). There is nothing wrong with availing of an opportunity when it arises. i.e. i'm driving across Dublin, let me switch on the app and ride share.

makeorbrake

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why would I know what regulations are required in France, Germany, Brazil or anywhere else in the world I'm not planning on driving a taxi there!

It's the industry you work in. You'd take an interest - particularly given the level of debate that has arisen in your own industry. That's if there's anything resembling professionalism here...but you know what, you're right ..why would you:rolleyes:

You are beyond trolling at this point

A simple Google search is linked below. I'm very curious as to whether you will maintain your ignorance and use it as a point of argument against the regulations in Ireland or will you educate yourself

Search parameter : wheelchair accessible taxi regulations around the world

Result : http://bfy.tw/O3Rj

bk

Spook_ie wrote: »

It has to be on an approved model list.
https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Model_Report_Database_01-02-18_PDF.pdf
those on the list have been assessed as meeting the size requirement, if the car isn't listed then as long as it meets the guidelines
https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Initial_Suitability_Inspection_Manual_Web_Version_26-02-2018_PDF.pdf

I take it you like Glanzas and Clios?

Ughh.. That list is a very low bar for seemingly a professional service!

And the reason it is a low bar is because the taxi unions fought with the NTA who wanted to bring in more strict requirements.

I'll also note that there is an exception that allows for vehicles up to 15 years old which have been taxis since prior to 2013 and there is no age limit on wheelchair accessible taxis prior to 2014.

Which explains why there are so many old bangers on our streets as taxis.

Ironically when Uber started in Ireland, they originally didn't allow all taxi's on the app. They had higher requirements then the above, allowing as far as I remember only bigger cars, brand name cars and only max 5 or 6 years old!

In other words Taxis on Uber were actually of a much higher quality then average taxis in Ireland. Ironic!

As I've said, any Uber I've ever taken in the US, has been better then almost every taxi I've taken in Ireland.

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

You are beyond trolling at this point
A simple Google search is linked below. I'm very curious as to whether you will maintain your ignorance and use it as a point of argument against the regulations in Ireland or will you educate yourself
Search parameter : wheelchair accessible taxi regulations around the world
Result : http://bfy.tw/O3Rj

You've got some neck on ye - coming back with this nonsense. That's the 'professional training' kicking in there that was talked about earlier in this thread....occupational hazard right?

I asked umpteen times - and despite working in the industry, some of you reckon you don't know and then you reckon you do but still won't answer. As far as I am aware, there is no such regulation in other jurisdictions that prevents EVERYONE from access to the industry without having a wheelchair accessible taxi - across the board. If you'd like to dispute that, go right ahead.

bk wrote: »

Ironically when Uber started in Ireland, they originally didn't allow all taxi's on the app. They had higher requirements then the above, allowing as far as I remember only bigger cars, brand name cars and only max 5 or 6 years old!
In other words Taxis on Uber were actually of a much higher quality then average taxis in Ireland. Ironic!
As I've said, any Uber I've ever taken in the US, has been better then almost every taxi I've taken in Ireland.

There's no surprise in that for me. That's been my experience in the U.S., Canada and latin america.

Spook_ie

makeorbrake wrote: »

It's the industry you work in. You'd take an interest - particularly given the level of debate that has arisen in your own industry. That's if there's anything resembling professionalism here...but you know what, you're right ..why would you:rolleyes:

No I wouldn't take an interest in the regulations required in a different country, unless I was planning to move there, I work in the Irish Taxi industry and I pay attention to what happens here NOT what is happening in a country that I don't even understand the language of.
I might pay attention to EU discussions on things like if Uber are a transport company or a tech company which hit the headlines a while back, but they are translated into several languages and usually hit the newspapers here anyway.

Anyways back onto your assertions that the WA taxi program is a sop to the taxi drivers to prevent access to all, it would seem to be government policy for a number of years, so perhaps you should write to Leo.


1990
2007
2010

You can search for wheelchair and taxi for the rest of the 1000+ results yourself

makeorbrake

Spook_ie wrote: »

No I wouldn't take an interest in the regulations required in a different country, unless I was planning to move there, I work in the Irish Taxi industry and I pay attention to what happens here NOT what is happening in a country that I don't even understand the language of.
I might pay attention to EU discussions on things like if Uber are a transport company or a tech company which hit the headlines a while back, but they are translated into several languages and usually hit the newspapers here anyway.

So much for the professionalism of looking at international best practice. I guess they don't cover that in this 'professional training' that Irish consumers allegedly get the benefit of when they step into a taxi here.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Anyways back onto your assertions that the WA taxi program is a sop to the taxi drivers to prevent access to all, it would seem to be government policy for a number of years, so perhaps you should write to Leo.

It doesn't make it any less of an appeasement in the context of the advent of ride sharing internationally.

Spook_ie

bk wrote: »

Ughh.. That list is a very low bar for seemingly a professional service!

And the reason it is a low bar is because the taxi unions fought with the NTA who wanted to bring in more strict requirements.

I'll also note that there is an exception that allows for vehicles up to 15 years old which have been taxis since prior to 2013 and there is no age limit on wheelchair accessible taxis prior to 2014.

Which explains why there are so many old bangers on our streets as taxis.

Ironically when Uber started in Ireland, they originally didn't allow all taxi's on the app. They had higher requirements then the above, allowing as far as I remember only bigger cars, brand name cars and only max 5 or 6 years old!

In other words Taxis on Uber were actually of a much higher quality then average taxis in Ireland. Ironic!

As I've said, any Uber I've ever taken in the US, has been better then almost every taxi I've taken in Ireland.

The taxi age requirement is a progressive introduction, as the older cars fall off then only the newer cars will be licensed, you won't find a taxi ( other than WATs ) older than June 2004, next year you wont find any older than 2005, once all the 15 year old vehicles have been replaced you wont found anything older than 10 years, it's likely then that the next phasing in of vehicle age or emissions will start.

As to the WATs age limit, positive discrimination to encourage drivers to retain their vehicles, I'd rather see a proactive stance such as the removal of the VRT on WATs for as long as they are in use as taxis.

As to WAT's numbers the NTA's approach would seem to be having some effect in that for the years 2014/15/16/17 743 new WAT's were plated out and 157 WAT's replaced at a grant cost of €5,425,000.

Still someway to go to get to the 10% of the fleet figure but getting there

Uber also didn't originally allow WAT's on their app either, but as of now AFAIK they are allowing the entire taxi fleet to access the app if they want to.

makeorbrake

makeorbrake wrote: »

You've got some neck on ye - coming back with this nonsense. That's the 'professional training' kicking in there that was talked about earlier in this thread....occupational hazard right?

I asked umpteen times - and despite working in the industry, some of you reckon you don't know and then you reckon you do but still won't answer.

What professional training are you on about???

Wait, you think I'm a taxi driver? Umm, ok??? Can I interest you in a tinfoil hat?

You asked multiple times for other people to do the research for you. I got bored of it so did the Google search and gave you the link to open in your browser for you to read through the many regulations from around the world. That you choose not to do is your issue,but your ignorance of the facts does not constitute a basis for a logical argument.

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

What professional training are you on about???

In recent days, I've been told on here that Irish taxi drivers are professional drivers - and are trained as such (whereas the world would fall apart if I got into a car with someone driving under the uber platform).

Deleted User wrote: »

Wait, you think I'm a taxi driver? Umm, ok??? Can I interest you in a tinfoil hat?

Many here have confirmed that they're taxi drivers. If you're not, big deal.

Deleted User wrote: »

You asked multiple times for other people to do the research for you. I got bored of it so did the Google search and gave you the link to open in your browser for you to read through the many regulations from around the world. That you choose not to do is your issue,but your ignorance of the facts does not constitute a basis for a logical argument.

Listen to yourself. You call me 'ignorant' when you posted this earlier
"answer your own question and don't be so lazy."

In your world where you think that anyone who asks a question should answer it themselves, I'm quite sure it's you that needs the tin foil hat. Secondly, I am not under any obligation to do "research". In case it's escaped your notice, this is a discussion forum where people discuss topics. That's what I'm doing.

As regards ignorance, look in the mirror. What have these last few posts of yours (attacking me) contributed to the discussion....nothing, nada, zero, zilch

Spook_ie

makeorbrake wrote: »

So much for the professionalism of looking at international best practice. I guess they don't cover that in this 'professional training' that Irish consumers allegedly get the benefit of when they step into a taxi here.

It doesn't make it any less of an appeasement in the context of the advent of ride sharing internationally.

Oh come on now, we're talking about planning from pre Uber in 2009, even before Kalanick filed for bankruptcy (1998-2000) with Scour and avoided tax evasion charges with Red Swoosh (2001-2007), Ride Sharing wasn't even a thing then!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_Kalanick

Neon_Lights

In Oz at the moment and uber works a treat, and is leading to other competitors like didi and ola to name but a few. Surely there needs to be a win win with both price and sustainability, but protectionism for those who shelled out for the 6 figure taxi licences is nonsense.

I agree in terms of data protection and both driver and passenger safety, and I feel Uber have it spot on in terms of driver certification and background checks here. Easy market to enter with the right amount of regulation, and never had a problem. Taxi drivers both here and at home are whinge bags who just didn't protect themselves career wise from disruption.

makeorbrake

Spook_ie wrote: »

Oh come on now, we're talking about planning from pre Uber in 2009, even before Kalanick filed for bankruptcy (1998-2000) with Scour and avoided tax evasion charges with Red Swoosh (2001-2007), Ride Sharing wasn't even a thing then!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_Kalanick

Doesn't make it any less of an appeasement when it seems that no other jurisdiction is imposing the very same barrier to entry (i.e. no access unless you have a WAT).

Spook_ie

makeorbrake wrote: »

In recent days, I've been told on here that Irish taxi drivers are professional drivers - and are trained as such (whereas the world would fall apart if I got into a car with someone driving under the uber platform).


Many here have confirmed that they're taxi drivers. If you're not, big deal.


Listen to yourself. You call me 'ignorant' when you posted this earlier
"answer your own question and don't be so lazy."

In your world where you think that anyone who asks a question should answer it themselves, I'm quite sure it's you that needs the tin foil hat. Secondly, I am not under any obligation to do "research". In case it's escaped your notice, this is a discussion forum where people discuss topics. That's what I'm doing.

As regards ignorance, look in the mirror. What have these last few posts of yours (attacking me) contributed to the discussion....nothing, nada, zero, zilch

Again driver training is a progressive on going thing, you only need to read and try a test exam for the current applications for an SPSV drivers license to see the improvements required to get into the industry, but I forget, to you they are just barriers.

https://ie.mytaxi.com/PrepareSPSVTest

Irish statute and the Proclamation of Independence forbids people to have a previously earned entitlement to work removed from them, the regulations are all aimed at tightening up on the get out of jail free cards from the criminally convicted but will only take effect as older drivers retire.

It was when I originally started driving a basic knowledge test for Dublin drivers only ( not sure about Cork ) if you required a license for other areas it was often a case that you just applied to the carriage office of a particular area and needed nothing other than a character reference. However, as I said once you had the license it was a near impossibility to remove it due to the Irish Constitution.

The industry knowledge section ( which is compulsory for ALL new drivers ) was given to drivers as an option to take once (for free) and the drivers who availed of it and passed have a slightly different ID card (Purple instead of Yellow)

As to discussing a topic, you're not you are asserting that things like WAT's only are designed as a foil to prevent ride sharing where as even when shown the recorded proof of Dail discussions preceding the advent of the idea of Uber's ride sharing platform, you ignore them.