Uber

Spook_ie

Nermal wrote: »

The cry of vested interests everywhere, 'my industry is special'.

Don't see that, do see regulation for all or regulation for none.

makeorbrake

Spook_ie wrote: »

Don't see that, do see regulation for all or regulation for none.

Or regulation that's fitting and doesn't stifle innovation.

end of the road

makeorbrake wrote: »

Or regulation that's fitting and doesn't stifle innovation.

such regulation is exactly what we have. fitting and allows innovation.

makeorbrake

end of the road wrote: »

such regulation is exactly what we have. fitting and allows innovation.

For ride sharing? Evidently that's not the case as there is practically no ride sharing in Ireland.

Spook_ie

usernamegoes wrote: »

Yeah, you'd object if you had to comply but don't mind if others do because it helps you minimize competition and pretend you actually care about wheelchair users as long as it's other paying for it.

The latest I found so far from the Dail
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2018-04-18/212/

The regulation of the small public service vehicle (SPSV) industry is a matter for the National Transport Authority (NTA) under the provisions of the Taxi Regulation Act 2013.

In order to support an increase in the number of wheelchair accessible vehicles (WAVs) in Ireland's SPSV fleet, licences for new taxis or hackneys will only be granted in respect of WAVs. This requirement was introduced in 2010.

To supplement this measure, the NTA administers a WAV Grant Scheme, which offers grants on a sliding scale from €2,500 to €7,500. The set amounts awarded by grants through this scheme aim to align with the cost difference in purchasing a WAV or converting a vehicle to fulfill the WAV requirements. This scheme is open to all SPSV drivers, with grants offered on a first-come-first-served basis.

The share of WAVs in our SPSV fleet is currently 8%. We are on trajectory towards meeting our goal of a 10% share by 2020. I remain committed to increasing the number of WAVs within our SPSV fleet and supporting the NTA in the administration of the WAV Grant Scheme.

In relation to your question on the number of accessible taxis available in Ireland, I have referred your question to the NTA for direct reply to you. Please advise my private office if you do not receive a response within 10 working days.

Perhaps all the statements from those who think they are in the know should direct their criticism at the government, now I don't know when they get to their 10% figure if they'll start to release saloon plates or not, but if they do then I would expect them to be restricted in number to ensure that the ratio of WATs doesn't fall below 8 or 9% before they only allow WATs again

AndrewJRenko

makeorbrake wrote: »

Eh, yeah. And you'll be the judge of that I suppose.:rolleyes:

Yeah, me and the taxi regulator.

makeorbrake wrote: »

You're being totally obtuse in trying to support the unsupportable. They are app developers with an app based platform that facilitate self employed people to go out and work on a gig basis.

That's nothing like the dummy apps you were going to throw it in with and it doesn't make them subcontractors either (despite what some eurocrats claim).

Are you changing your tune now? You claimed they were 'technology companies' because they operate an app - are you still standing over this industry-changing claim?

usernamegoes wrote: »

But, you could still do your job if you complied with the regulation. Same as anyone else who would like to become a taxi driver but doesn't have a WAV could become one if they complied with the regulation. This was the logic used earlier in this thread.

Seems unfair regulation works when its unfair in your favour. :rolleyes:

The difference is that your suggestion is just silly, for a whole range of reasons.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Has someone been taken hostage? as I see we have a list of demands getting touted around? Again, one more guy engaging in pettiness and semantics. Go back and re-read. He said the consideration as a whole didn't matter and I agreed with him.
If you're being any way genuine about this aspect of the discussion (which you're not right now), you'll acknowledge that the discussion centered on whether the addition of an app to ridesharing and taxi-ing was innovative. That's all that's to it. Leave the pettiness and semantics aside.


And yet, judges are just people. Those aren't the findings in other jurisdictions. To my point, it's political. You don't agree - that's fine. Park it up - or come back and say the same and Ill come back and refute it. ..whichever.


It may do - but no matter. They are not the same thing and ride sharing deserves its own regulation.

I'm seeing a trend here where you make up claims (four companies, tech companies etc) and fail to support them when challenged. Any chance of having an evidence-based discussion?

Nermal wrote: »

The cry of vested interests everywhere, 'my industry is special'.

The cry of libertarians everywhere as they race to bottom on standards for consumers and the possibility of earning a living wage. I've zero vested interest in this, other than as an occasional customer btw.

makeorbrake

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Are you changing your tune now? You claimed they were 'technology companies' because they operate an app - are you still standing over this industry-changing claim?

No, I'm not. They're still a technology company. They're based in silicon valley just in case that escaped your attention.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The difference is that your suggestion is just silly, for a whole range of reasons.

For one reason, right? Because his opinion doesn't match up with yours.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm seeing a trend here where you make up claims (four companies, tech companies etc) and fail to support them when challenged. Any chance of having an evidence-based discussion?

And I am seeing a trend here also. Three of you now being deliberately obtuse about something that in the greater context of the discussion makes no earthly difference.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The cry of libertarians everywhere as they race to bottom on standards for consumers and the possibility of earning a living wage. I've zero vested interest in this, other than as an occasional customer btw.

Why should your champagne socialism come into a discussion like this? A 'race to the bottom' my hole. Irish taxi's have been notorious for years - and not for these 'standards' you speak of. Consumers are being deprived of an innovative approach - as are the driving public (in terms of the ability to offer it) to appease taxi drivers.
As regards your living wage - if ride sharing has that impact, its quite simple. Go do something else. That's what the rest of us have to do in other industries when they get disrupted.

end of the road

makeorbrake wrote: »

No, I'm not. They're still a technology company. They're based in silicon valley just in case that escaped your attention.


For one reason, right? Because his opinion doesn't match up with yours.


And I am seeing a trend here also. Three of you now being deliberately obtuse about something that in the greater context of the discussion makes no earthly difference.


Why should your champagne socialism come into a discussion like this? A 'race to the bottom' my hole. Irish taxi's have been notorious for years - and not for these 'standards' you speak of. Consumers are being deprived of an innovative approach - as are the driving public (in terms of the ability to offer it) to appease taxi drivers.
As regards your living wage - if ride sharing has that impact, its quite simple. Go do something else. That's what the rest of us have to do in other industries when they get disrupted.

nobody is being deprived of anything innovative. the aps exist to allow the ordering of a spsv. people can work gig economy as long as they abide by the regulations. we are not going back to the days of any old car providing an spsv. it's gone, over, finished. ride sharing happens in ireland. uber operates in ireland.

makeorbrake

end of the road wrote: »

nobody is being deprived of anything innovative. the aps exist to allow the ordering of a spsv. people can work gig economy as long as they abide by the regulations. we are not going back to the days of any old car providing an spsv. it's gone, over, finished. ride sharing happens in ireland. uber operates in ireland.

This is like the Goebbels Ministry of Information. Ask irish people if they can participate in ride sharing here - as a driver or as a customer. The answer is no.

Applying taxi regulation to ride sharing stifles innovation.


We can keep going round in circles on this. I'm not looking to change your mind (!!) - far from it. But keep claiming black is white and I'll keep correcting you. Quite happy to agree to disagree and park it up - but up to you.(se).

kippy

makeorbrake wrote: »

This is like the Goebbels Ministry of Information. Ask irish people if they can participate in ride sharing here - as a driver or as a customer. The answer is no.

Applying taxi regulation to ride sharing stifles innovation.


We can keep going round in circles on this. I'm not looking to change your mind (!!) - far from it. But keep claiming black is white and I'll keep correcting you. Quite happy to agree to disagree and park it up - but up to you.(se).

Look,
There's absolutely nothing innovative about "ride sharing" as you call it. There's nothing stopping someone ride sharing at the moment apart from those who want to offer it for reward being in a shaky area insurance wise.

Plenty ride sharing going on around the place long before there were people doing it for reward.

listermint

House Sharing app, we can pretend they are all just friends who stay over for the night. But they pay me money for tea or coffee. We'll call it shared tea or coffee.

Can stack them 15 high in a room, because you know theyre just my mates staying over. We can even call it a snooze party to make it all above board outside regulation.


Win win for all. Sure is'nt their a market for places for people to put down their heads for the evening.

Some call it a race to the bottom, That's socialism speak. I call it Innovation. Tech innovation.

makeorbrake

kippy wrote: »

Look,
There's absolutely nothing innovative about "ride sharing" as you call it. There's nothing stopping someone ride sharing at the moment apart from those who want to offer it for reward being in a shaky area insurance wise.

Plenty ride sharing going on around the place long before there were people doing it for reward.

That's your opinion which you're more than entitled to. It's not one I share. Enabling ride sharing through an application for passengers and enabling drivers to dynamically offer the option to would-be passengers is an efficient use of transportation within an economy (provided its regulated correctly). That's not what we have in Ireland.

Where i'm living right now, everyone that I know uses ride sharing applications. If it wasn't innovative, then it simply wouldn't have become a thing. And of course, it cant be innovative if its stymied - like it is in the irish context.

Dravokivich

makeorbrake wrote: »

This is like the Goebbels Ministry of Information. Ask irish people if they can participate in ride sharing here - as a driver or as a customer. The answer is no.

Applying taxi regulation to ride sharing stifles innovation.


We can keep going round in circles on this. I'm not looking to change your mind (!!) - far from it. But keep claiming black is white and I'll keep correcting you. Quite happy to agree to disagree and park it up - but up to you.(se).

If there's a service charge to the ride sharee involved, Ride Sharing becomes a way of getting around PSV lisencing.

An idea that's different to the norm, should not just be tagged as innovation. That's not what innovation should be doing. It's just subverting the requirements to enter the market, instead of exposing something missed in the market.

magicbastarder

yeah, innovation is not 'a taxi by any other name'.

makeorbrake

Dravokivich wrote: »

If there's a service charge to the ride sharee involved, Ride Sharing becomes a way of getting around PSV lisencing.

An idea that's different to the norm, should not just be tagged as innovation. That's not what innovation should be doing. It's just subverting the requirements to enter the market, instead of exposing something missed in the market.

Markets are efficient - if it wasn't or isn't needed, we wouldn't even be talking about it - it wouldn't even be a thing.

magicbastarder wrote:

yeah, innovation is not 'a taxi by any other name'.

You're quite right insofar as ridesharing is NOT taxi-ing.

end of the road

makeorbrake wrote: »

Markets are efficient - if it wasn't or isn't needed, we wouldn't even be talking about it - it wouldn't even be a thing.


You're quite right insofar as ridesharing is NOT taxi-ing.

it is carrying passengers for reward. so on a basic level it is as good as taxiing. calling itself ride sharing does not get around the fact that when carrying passengers for reward, IE money, one is operating a public service vehicle, and that is what our regulation is designed to deal with, regardless of whether one is driving for all of the legal hours, or driving for 1 hour.

makeorbrake

end of the road wrote: »

it is carrying passengers for reward. so on a basic level it is as good as taxiing. calling itself ride sharing does not get around the fact that when carrying passengers for reward, IE money, one is operating a public service vehicle, and that is what our regulation is designed to deal with, regardless of whether one is driving for all of the legal hours, or driving for 1 hour.

And you're entitled to your opinion. Mine is that ride sharing is deserving of being enabled through forward thinking, progressive regulation.

LuckyLloyd

We live in the EU. The highest court in the EU has deemed Uber a transport company. That’s it. It is a fact that Uber is a transport company.

Also, the ECJ is *not* political. Ask the various member states over the years big and small who have lost cases argued within it if you’re unsure.

To continue talking about Uber as a “tech company” that doesn’t provide taxi services is a nonsense. The accepted law of the land says otherwise.

magicbastarder

makeorbrake wrote: »

You're quite right insofar as ridesharing is NOT taxi-ing.

it's only ride sharing if the driver was already going to make the journey regardless.
i may have missed part of the debate if that's precisely what is being discussed.

makeorbrake

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's only ride sharing if the driver was already going to make the journey regardless.
i may have missed part of the debate if that's precisely what is being discussed.

Sure, can be provided for when it gets the dedicated regulation that it deserves.

LuckyLloyd

makeorbrake wrote: »

Sure, can be provided for when it gets the dedicated regulation that it deserves.

It doesn’t require dedicated regulation, per the ECJ. It’s a transport company providing taxi services, existing regulations related to same will suffice.

magicbastarder

but that's not what uber does? they specifically put you in contact with people who will drive you precisely where you wish to go.

if you're talking about a solution that puts people in contact, who are going to be going the same direction *anyway*, that's not uber. i'm confused.

makeorbrake

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It doesn’t require dedicated regulation, per the ECJ. It’s a transport company providing taxi services, existing regulations related to same will suffice.

You have your opinion - and that's fine. If you think it's intelligent to blindly accept someone else making decisions and ALWAYS getting it right, then maybe you're better off being oblivious.

Ridesharing and uber are interpreted differently in different markets. What's more, consumers have shown that they WANT the service - and that to me is the bottom line.

makeorbrake

makeorbrake wrote: »

You have your opinion - and that's fine. If you think it's intelligent to blindly accept someone else making decisions and ALWAYS getting it right, then maybe you're better off being oblivious.

Ridesharing and uber are interpreted differently in different markets. What's more, consumers have shown that they WANT the service - and that to me is the bottom line.

Well no, the verdict from the ECJ is the bottom line, last line, end of debate in fact. Its so definite that Uber have accepted it.

That you disagree with the court verdict is nothing new in regards to the verdicts of courts, there's always going to be an unhappy party in any case taken. It doesn't change anything nor will it unless you plan on taking a further case on behalf of Uber.

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

That you disagree with the court verdict is nothing new in regards to the verdicts of courts, there's always going to be an unhappy party in any case taken. It doesn't change anything nor will it unless you plan on taking a further case on behalf of Uber.

I don't disagree with your point. However, the interpretation of ride sharing services differs between jurisdictions. I believe they've gotten it wrong and it is political. There is no individual or group of human beings on the planet that don't approach a topic without their own personal bias.

There's more of a protectionist/socialist leaning in Europe - and that's why Europe and European countries remain behind the curve in technological innovation by comparison with the U.S. and Asia.

Laws get made all the time...good ones and bad ones.

Uber is an illegal service where i'm living but I still use (a similar service) every day of the week.

end of the road

makeorbrake wrote: »

You have your opinion - and that's fine. If you think it's intelligent to blindly accept someone else making decisions and ALWAYS getting it right, then maybe you're better off being oblivious.

what he said is not his opinion. it is fact. uber is a transport company. when the judges at the ECJ would have been making their decisions, they would have heard all possible evidence, arguments and information from both sides. they decided uber fits the definition of a transport company. like i said if you have an issue with that, get funding together, get the best lawyers possible and challenge the ruling. judges make decisions on the basis of law.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Ridesharing and uber are interpreted differently in different markets. What's more, consumers have shown that they WANT the service - and that to me is the bottom line.

consumers can absolutely have the service. the transport company operating the service just has to abide by the regulations. in fact uber is already operating here.

makeorbrake

makeorbrake wrote: »

I don't disagree with your point. However, the interpretation of ride sharing services differs between jurisdictions. I believe they've gotten it wrong

As mentioned, you are entitled to your opinion but the highest court assessed the case based on what Uber put forward. They obviously were unable to paint a sufficient picture to show ride-sharing doesn't equal taxi/psv/transport therefore the court ruled they were the same.

Maybe if such a difference existed (rather than just saying "it's got a different name and look at our app") then the ruling would have been different.

There was no such difference presented to a high enough standard for the court to consider therefore the result as given stands.

Arguing the underlying reasoning behind the courts decision is fine, but won't change the fact that Uber didn't present a strong enough argument and have given up as there is nothing they can say to show they are different enough to not fall under the same classification.

makeorbrake

end of the road wrote: »

what he said is not his opinion. it is fact. uber is a transport company. when the judges at the ECJ would have been making their decisions, they would have heard all possible evidence, arguments and information from both sides. they decided uber fits the definition of a transport company. like i said if you have an issue with that, get funding together, get the best lawyers possible and challenge the ruling. judges make decisions on the basis of law.

Re-read the part of my post that you just quoted and came back with this ^ comment. I'm not disputing that the ECJ made the ruling and that we are governed by irish and european law. However, I point out that good and bad laws get made all the time. And other points...go read my last post.

end of the road wrote: »

consumers can absolutely have the service. the transport company operating the service just has to abide by the regulations. in fact uber is already operating here.

You can go on and on and on with the same argument - forcing me to post the same response. You know well that's not what people want. They are not using ride sharing services in Ireland because the TAXI regulation that you insist they should be subject makes ride sharing impossible.

Come back and refute and I guess we will keep going round...wash, rinse repeat.

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

As mentioned, you are entitled to your opinion but the highest court assessed the case based on what Uber put forward. They obviously were unable to paint a sufficient picture to show ride-sharing doesn't equal taxi/psv/transport therefore the court ruled they were the same.

Maybe if such a difference existed (rather than just saying "it's got a different name and look at our app") then the ruling would have been different.

There was no such difference presented to a high enough standard for the court to consider therefore the result as given stands.

Arguing the underlying reasoning behind the courts decision is fine, but won't change the fact that Uber didn't present a strong enough argument and have given up as there is nothing they can say to show they are different enough to not fall under the same classification.

And yet ride sharing flourishes in other markets. Go figure.

makeorbrake

makeorbrake wrote: »

And yet ride sharing flourishes in other markets. Go figure.

On a side note, you are surely aware that once Uber burns through the last of its funds its fubar. It'll have to do one or a combination of the following

1. raise prices to normal local rates

2. slash the percentages paid to drivers

3. Hope they can crack autonomous driving in all their markets asap. This will allow them to drop all drivers at which point they become a fleet owner

While #3 is most definitely on the way at some point, there's no way it'll be here before the funds run dry.

Implementation of 1 or 2 will see Uber take a nosedive in popularity