Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Uber
Options
Comments
-
Considering that the comment about facts and lies was directed at AJRenko, I wouldn't dream of agreeing something so blatant as that
FTR AJRs post and your reply to that post
You expressed the view that you did at the time. Now you wish you had not as you think it represents an opportunity to have a go at me ....leaving aside the fact that such motivations are not in the genuine interests of the discussion overall.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 22058
makeorbrake wrote: »No earthly idea what yer on about with this.
GoCar is one particular model of car sharing of which there are a few. From the user end, there's little in the difference in that they access the car for a finite amount of time.
There are club-like structures where people share a car or number of cars. There are models where a marketplace is set up, facilitating car owners to share their own car out. And then there's the model that GoCar belong to...but it all comes under the auspices of 'Car Sharing'.
What do you not get? Ladyhawke, clearly put themselves in the position of customer. If they are a customer it's not a sharing experience. They are expecting to get to their end point, not somewhere nearby.
GoCar has nothing to do with car "sharing."0 -
Nonsense. It's still a consumer experience. Airbnb is a consumer experience. Car sharing is a consumer experience.Dravokivich wrote: »What do you not get? Ladyhawke, clearly put themselves in the position of customer. If they are a customer it's not a sharing experience. They are expecting to get to their end point, not somewhere nearby.
And yet, it's the sharing economy. Notice that second word - 'economy' - which is indicative of trade.
I respectfully disagree. At best, perhaps you are applying a different definition..but I disagree.Dravokivich wrote: »GoCar has nothing to do with car "sharing."0 -
usernamegoes wrote: »Regardless of what you say is Government policy. You'd lobby with us to change these rules because it's a bad policy. You're not pretending to agree with Government policy and that Government policy is correct because it protects you?
I'm not lobbying for or against it, just trying to show how idiotic your suggestion that it's all to do with the taxi drivers is.0 -
makeorbrake wrote: »You expressed the view that you did at the time. Now you wish you had not as you think it represents an opportunity to have a go at me ....leaving aside the fact that such motivations are not in the genuine interests of the discussion overall.
Once and for all, my comment about Uber and Hailo being chicken and egg was NOTHING to do with your claim of 4 companies, so STOP saying I agreed with you as it is a BLATANT BAREFACED LIE.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
I'm not lobbying for or against it, just trying to show how idiotic your suggestion that it's all to do with the taxi drivers is.
So now you're an IDIOT 'usernamegoes', I guess this feeds into the same type of thinking as AndrewJRenko i.e. "people are ignorant" but he "knows what he knows"
There's some greater minds on this thread and then there's the rest of us unwashed heathens it seems....0 -
makeorbrake wrote: »So now you're an IDIOT 'usernamegoes', I guess this feeds into the same type of thinking as AndrewJRenko i.e. "people are ignorant" but he "knows what he knows"
There's some greater minds on this thread and then there's the rest of us unwashed heathens it seems....
Does this mean that you subscribe to the belief that everyone has equal expert knowledge of every topic? It just seems a little bit 'communist' for you. Is it possible in your world that some people know more than others about any given topic?
Yeah, I get the point about being neutral - my question was more about the terminology of being 'a neutral'. It's not something I've come across before. It sounds like something from across the Atlantic, from the kind of discussions that produced terms like 'snowflake' and 'libtard' etc. I was just wondering if this term is commonplace now?makeorbrake wrote: »I'd imagine he means he's...
A. Not a taxi driver
and
B. Doesnt approach the discussion with this extreme ideology that you do.
He's just a consumer.
Consumers really aren't good at evaluating safety. If they were, they wouldn't be obsessed with helmets for cyclists but not for motorists and pedestrians. And yes, all cars are tested, but domestic cars aren't tested as frequently or stringently as taxis. Is this another one of the regulations that Uber wants to bypass?makeorbrake wrote: »Being deliberately obtuse once again, I see. You were the one that said people were ignorant. Consumers are quite capable of determining what represents a value proposition. As regards your shock absorbers, all cars are tested in Ireland.
Given that it's not a grammatically correct sentence, I really doubt if anyone has managed to work it out, but it's up to yourself either way.makeorbrake wrote: »Others do but don't you bother your pretty little head about it.
The 'other party' seems to have a different view about the relevance or otherwise of the claim. Could you please point out specifically where the other party said that it was irrelevant? And if it was irrelevant, why did you mention it in the first place?makeorbrake wrote: »Obtuse once again - given that we've been over this a million times. It means that given the other party to that specific discussion said that it was irrelevant to the discussion, there's no need to discuss it further as it doesn't bring the discussion on any further.
The great thing about these discussions is that you can scroll back and see what you actually said. And funnily enough, it's a bit different to what you're now claiming you said. Is more Trump 'fake news' where you just shout loudly and hope that no-one actually looks at the detail? Maybe that's what you meant to say, but it's not what you actually said. So feel free to withdraw your original claim and replace it with this much more sensible claim, which I'd generally agree with, btw.makeorbrake wrote: »Obtuse once again.
What I said was that Uber is a technology company - and that their APP is central to their offering.
The history of tech is full of snake oil salesmen or Emperor's New Clothes evangelists telling us what's great for us and what the great new world is going to be. We've been hearing that nonsense about bitcoin for the past few years again and again, but the reality never quite seems to get here. It's generally not a great idea to take newspaper articles at face value.makeorbrake wrote: »
Facts, huh? The irony!
Right, so experts who concern themselves with innovation say that Uber has innovated and you disagree on the basis of your Uncle Jim's experience with his Cortina in the 70's? I guess we all know who is the most credible there then.
I guess you have a comprehension difficulty in determining how innovation works. It happens when one or more companies alters industry practice or consumer behaviour. A few years ago, nobody used an APP to access transportation. Now the whole planet does. That, my friend, is innovation.
Facilitating credit card as opposed to cash - the very same.
The facts remain that all the points that you claim are such great innovations by Uber have been done before by others. Uncle Jim did the family car taxi service choosing his own hours in the 70s. Hailo/MyTaxi did ordering by app and payments by credit card. There really is nothing unique in Uber's business model, apart from the need to bypass regulation - hence their frantic efforts to not be legally seen as a transport provider (to avoid accessibility and other requirements) or an employer.
If there is something factually wrong with anything I've said above, please feel free to point out the factual errors.
Where exactly did I say that I was idealogically opposed to ride-sharing? Is this another of those things that you've just made up?makeorbrake wrote: »Well, thats not going to be an option for you given that you're ideologically opposed to using Uber - or any other ride sharing app. So that would leave you taking a taxi in - and taxi men here have been complicit in robbing people.
How could I have made comparisons when I don't actually know where you're based? Is this yet another of those things that you just made up?makeorbrake wrote: »Yes, you did. You started making comparisons with the great system in Ireland not even having an earthly clue what you were comparing it to.
I'm sure that are sexual deviants who have taxi licenses. And sexual deviants who have doctors licences. And sexual deviants who have accounting licenses. Being a sexual deviant is not illegal, or not actually a bad thing. Sexual assault is indeed a bad thing, but that's fairly different from deviancy.makeorbrake wrote: »
So sexual deviants and mobsters have (and still do) hold taxi licenses. Thanks for clearing that up - very helpful.
As for the mobsters who hold taxi licences, I think you need to look closer to home;
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/14/business/uber-driver-accused-war-criminal-invs/index.html
https://money.cnn.com/2018/04/30/technology/uber-driver-sexual-assault/index.html
https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/28/15887566/uber-driver-rape-lawsuit-warning-kansas-city
http://www.whosdrivingyou.org/rideshare-incidents
'Equates to the same thing'? Only in your twisted imagination. The words I used are crystal clear - I didn't equate taxi drivers to doctors. Please do go back and read those words.makeorbrake wrote: »You can try and be as disingenuous about it all you want. You used the doctor analogy which equates to the same thing. Try and weasel out of it all you want.
I don't suppose there's any chance that you care to share details of the 'any number of ways' that accessible taxi services for the one-seventh of the population that have some form of disability? Given that this challenge has persisted in most civilised societies, I'm really looking forward to hearing about your simple solutions to this.makeorbrake wrote: »
And what you're doing here is disgusting - hiding behind the disabled. That issue can be tackled in any number of ways - none of which has to affect ride sharing services to the point where it makes ride sharing unworkable. And by the very fact that ride sharing is impossible in Ireland, it means there are fewer options for consumers - which will have a knock on effect in terms of the WAV's available to those with disabilities anyway.
Once more - absolutely disgusting that you would hide behind the disabled in all of this.
Again, the disgusting behaviour of hiding behind the disabled in order to further your agenda.0 -
Warning to all - any more personal attacks or uncivil behaviour will lead to warnings and/or infractions.
Please keep it civil and do not reply to this post
- Moderator0 -
I'm not lobbying for or against it, just trying to show how idiotic your suggestion that it's all to do with the taxi drivers is.
Of course it's idiotic!!!! I totally agree. But you don't really care that it has the same effect on those who are not already taxi or hackney drivers and it seems you don't care because it helps you.0 -
Advertisement
-
makeorbrake wrote: »Gee, I dunno.... perhaps we could do something radical like let the consumer decide.
no . vetting is how it is and how it should be. that way we can pick up on individuals who are known to be, or suspected to be a danger to individuals. vetting won't always get it right or remove a problem totally but simply leaving it to the consumer was tried and it failed. also there is the issue that some consumers have a problem with a driver with a different colour of skin driving them (how we deal with that i don't know) but it is another example of why leaving things to the consumer is not always viable.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
I ascribe to the notion that you respect the opinions of all (at least up until the point at which someone becomes disrespectful.). That's the way I was brought up. Perhaps some were less fortunate in their upbringing - who knows.AndrewJRenko wrote: »Does this mean that you subscribe to the belief that everyone has equal expert knowledge of every topic? It just seems a little bit 'communist' for you. Is it possible in your world that some people know more than others about any given topic?
You seem determined to brand me in a derogatory way with some form of ideology. It's unbecoming and has nothing to do with the discussion topic.
Well I'll leave you to your musings on the term 'neutral'. I mean it could mean someone who neither has skin in the game financially or brings this entrenched political ideology into the mix but we can only muse about such things.AndrewJRenko wrote: »Yeah, I get the point about being neutral - my question was more about the terminology of being 'a neutral'. It's not something I've come across before. It sounds like something from across the Atlantic, from the kind of discussions that produced terms like 'snowflake' and 'libtard' etc. I was just wondering if this term is commonplace now?
.
With regard to your politically charged phraseology, I have nothing that I wish to add at this time. Readers can make up their own minds.
On the one hand it's wonderful that there are people so altruistic out there to champion the needs of consumers that they are unaware of to protect them from themselves. On the other hand, I don't much care for lies. Can you back up your claim that Uber Inc have expressed the specific desire to see their users break such regulation?AndrewJRenko wrote: »Consumers really aren't good at evaluating safety. If they were, they wouldn't be obsessed with helmets for cyclists but not for motorists and pedestrians. And yes, all cars are tested, but domestic cars aren't tested as frequently or stringently as taxis. Is this another one of the regulations that Uber wants to bypass?
It certainly appears to me that your comment in this instance lacks maturity. Despite the English lesson, everyone understood the statement including yourself. Therefore it's disappointing that you would look for an opportunity to be pedantic and disingenuous rather than address the point but there you go. I guess it's always best not to set your expectations high.AndrewJRenko wrote: »Given that it's not a grammatically correct sentence, I really doubt if anyone has managed to work it out, but it's up to yourself either way.
No, thank you. I think I've been more than patient on the subject.AndrewJRenko wrote: »The 'other party' seems to have a different view about the relevance or otherwise of the claim. Could you please point out specifically where the other party said that it was irrelevant? And if it was irrelevant, why did you mention it in the first place?
I won't be retracting anything, thank you. If you have a claim to make and may I add one that isn't obtuse and pedantic, I certainly invite you to both make and substantiate it.AndrewJRenko wrote: »The great thing about these discussions is that you can scroll back and see what you actually said. And funnily enough, it's a bit different to what you're now claiming you said. Is more Trump 'fake news' where you just shout loudly and hope that no-one actually looks at the detail? Maybe that's what you meant to say, but it's not what you actually said. So feel free to withdraw your original claim and replace it with this much more sensible claim, which I'd generally agree with, btw..
Thank you most humbly for the tech history lesson. Most insightful. Now would you care to disclose to readers why it was that you specifically homed in with the disparaging remarks about Bitcoin?AndrewJRenko wrote: »The history of tech is full of snake oil salesmen or Emperor's New Clothes evangelists telling us what's great for us and what the great new world is going to be. We've been hearing that nonsense about bitcoin for the past few years again and again, but the reality never quite seems to get here. It's generally not a great idea to take newspaper articles at face value.
My, what a shame that the world didn't come to appreciate Uncle Jim's innovation what with him being the original Uber. My, wouldn't it have been amazing if he made it out to Silicon Valley back then?AndrewJRenko wrote: »The facts remain that all the points that you claim are such great innovations by Uber have been done before by others. Uncle Jim did the family car taxi service choosing his own hours in the 70s.
Isn't it amazing too how all these experts on innovation worldwide have gotten it so wrong? According to what you say, they have gotten it sooo wrong in accrediting Uber as being such an innovative company.AndrewJRenko wrote: »Hailo/MyTaxi did ordering by app and payments by credit card. There really is nothing unique in Uber's business model,
Interesting. I mean so you and others keep saying yet it's factually incorrect. Uber have made no public pronunciation that they will bypass regulation.AndrewJRenko wrote: », apart from the need to bypass regulationAndrewJRenko wrote: »Where exactly did I say that I was idealogically opposed to ride-sharing? Is this another of those things that you've just made up?.
You have brought ideology and political themes into the discussion as they pertain to yourself and as you perceive them in others on numerous occasions.
Yeah, that just makes it worse on your account, sorry to say.AndrewJRenko wrote: »How could I have made comparisons when I don't actually know where you're based? Is this yet another of those things that you just made up?.
Respectfully, your claims then are a nonsense in terms of the expectations consumers can have re. Vetted taxi drivers when some were convicted deviants/criminals yet were awarded taxi licenses following vetting.AndrewJRenko wrote: »I'm sure that are sexual deviants who have taxi licenses. And sexual deviants who have doctors licences. And sexual deviants who have accounting licenses. Being a sexual deviant is not illegal, or not actually a bad thing. Sexual assault is indeed a bad thing, but that's fairly different from deviancy. .AndrewJRenko wrote: »'Equates to the same thing'? Only in your twisted imagination. The words I used are crystal clear - I didn't equate taxi drivers to doctors. Please do go back and read those words.
It is indeed most regrettable but it's true. You used the analogy of a doctor and put taxi drivers on the same level.
Respectfully no, there isn't.its quite unfortunate but I have not found your engagement in this discussion to be in any way constructive. On that basis, I decline your kind offer.AndrewJRenko wrote: »I don't suppose there's any chance that you care to share details of the 'any number of ways' that accessible taxi services for the one-seventh of the population that have some form of disability? Given that this challenge has persisted in most civilised societies, I'm really looking forward to hearing about your simple solutions to this.0 -
usernamegoes wrote: »Regardless of what you say is Government policy. You'd lobby with us to change these rules because it's a bad policy. You're not pretending to agree with Government policy and that Government policy is correct because it protects you?
Why is it a bad policy to get the number of WATs up to a percentage of the taxi fleet?
What workable changes to policy would you lobby for to ACTUALLY obtain an increase of WATs?0 -
I'm really just trying to see if there is any consistency in your position, and I'm struggling to find it, to be honest. Respect for opinions is great and all that, but opinions aren't knowledge. Opinions aren't facts. When we're seriously ill , or when we need a house designed or a car repaired, we don't go out to the whole world and get 'opinions' from everybody - we go to an expert. There is a difference between opinions and expert opinion.makeorbrake wrote: »I ascribe to the notion that you respect the opinions of all (at least up until the point at which someone becomes disrespectful.). That's the way I was brought up. Perhaps some were less fortunate in their upbringing - who knows.
You seem determined to brand me in a derogatory way with some form of ideology. It's unbecoming and has nothing to do with the discussion topic.
Championing the needs of consumers is not 'altruistic'. It is the job of regulators. It's the statutory function of the regulatory bodies set out in law. They don't do this to be nice - they do it because it's what they're paid to do.makeorbrake wrote: »
On the one hand it's wonderful that there are people so altruistic out there to champion the needs of consumers that they are unaware of to protect them from themselves. On the other hand, I don't much care for lies. Can you back up your claim that Uber Inc have expressed the specific desire to see their users break such regulation?
There's that strawman thing where you exaggerate and twist something that I've said so that you can argue with it. If you've any questions about what I actually said, I'll be happy to answer them.
Honestly, I had two or three goes at working out what the hell you were getting at. I still have no idea what you were at.makeorbrake wrote: »It certainly appears to me that your comment in this instance lacks maturity. Despite the English lesson, everyone understood the statement including yourself. Therefore it's disappointing that you would look for an opportunity to be pedantic and disingenuous rather than address the point but there you go. I guess it's always best not to set your expectations high.
Bitcoin was the most immediate example that sprang to mind about for that kind of 'emperor's new clothes' syndrome. You've seen it yourself, right? It's not the only example, but it's one of the most topical, I guess.makeorbrake wrote: »Thank you most humbly for the tech history lesson. Most insightful. Now would you care to disclose to readers why it was that you specifically homed in with the disparaging remarks about Bitcoin?
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here. I wasn't suggesting that Uncle Jim was innovative at all. He was doing the same thing that drivers have done since the radio became a feasible option for them - using the family car to work his own hours as a taxi. There was nothing particularly innovative when he did in the 70s, and nothing particularly innovative when Uber enabled it 50 years later. You keep banging the innovation drum, but you haven't identified any specific business model or innovation that was unique to Uber.makeorbrake wrote: »My, what a shame that the world didn't come to appreciate Uncle Jim's innovation what with him being the original Uber. My, wouldn't it have been amazing if he made it out to Silicon Valley back then?
Isn't it amazing too how all these experts on innovation worldwide have gotten it so wrong? According to what you say, they have gotten it sooo wrong in accrediting Uber as being such an innovative company.
But that's what you've said - they can't operate under current regulations, right? So they have to find a way to get past them.makeorbrake wrote: »
Interesting. I mean so you and others keep saying yet it's factually incorrect. Uber have made no public pronunciation that they will bypass regulation.
No-one is convicted of deviancy. Deviancy isn't a crime - more like a hobby. But there are lots of taxi drivers and Uber drivers that have been convicted of various crimes.makeorbrake wrote: »Respectfully, your claims then are a nonsense in terms of the expectations consumers can have re. Vetted taxi drivers when some were convicted deviants/criminals yet were awarded taxi licenses following vetting.
Factually wrong again - I compared your proposed regulation of taxi drivers to regulation of doctors. No more and no less.makeorbrake wrote: »It is indeed most regrettable but it's true. You used the analogy of a doctor and put taxi drivers on the same level.
That's a shame, because it sounded like you had access to several simple solutions that have eluded experts in the field across many countries for the past fifty years. I was really looking forward to hearing details of those solutions. I guess I should file this under the 'four companies' category.makeorbrake wrote: »
Respectfully no, there isn't.its quite unfortunate but I have not found your engagement in this discussion to be in any way constructive. On that basis, I decline your kind offer.0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »I'm really just trying to see if there is any consistency in your position, and I'm struggling to find it, to be honest. Respect for opinions is great and all that, but opinions aren't knowledge. Opinions aren't facts. When we're seriously ill , or when we need a house designed or a car repaired, we don't go out to the whole world and get 'opinions' from everybody - we go to an expert. There is a difference between opinions and expert opinion.
Right, so you don't find any 'consistency in my 'position'. I'm sorry for your loss. You and I both know that we're going to disagree so the logical thing there is that we park this up. I'd encourage you to leave it at that.
That's your position about the twisting and strawman this and that. Best of luck with it. In the meantime, you failed to face up to what I challenged you on - which is the fact that Uber Inc. have never called on any of people that use their platform to break regulation in any jurisdiction. There's no great shame in accepting and acknowledging that you made a mistake.AndrewJRenko wrote: »There's that strawman thing where you exaggerate and twist something that I've said so that you can argue with it. If you've any questions about what I actually said, I'll be happy to answer them.
I simply don't believe that but there you go. That said, if you don't understand it, then don't comment on it. Simples.AndrewJRenko wrote: »Honestly, I had two or three goes at working out what the hell you were getting at. I still have no idea what you were at.
Now this one is interesting. You are LYING - plain and simple. Over the past 12 months, 99.99% of my interest in boards.ie is confined to the cryptocurrency sub-forum. It's sad but it's as clear and night and day - you went through my old posts to find that out. You'll come back and say that's not so, yada, yada. Whatever - I'm not buying what you're selling on this one. I don't believe in coincidences.AndrewJRenko wrote: »Bitcoin was the most immediate example that sprang to mind about for that kind of 'emperor's new clothes' syndrome. You've seen it yourself, right? It's not the only example, but it's one of the most topical, I guess.
It's sad news to hear that 'Uncle Jim' isn't the innovator that I thought you said he was. As regards Uber - regardless of what lack of esteem you hold them in - they have been recognised as such. You can come back and regurgitate that and say the opposite, and I do the same and we can keep going round in a vortex, I don't mind. Whichever you prefer.AndrewJRenko wrote: »You keep banging the innovation drum, but you haven't identified any specific business model or innovation that was unique to Uber
And I guess this is where all these misunderstandings of yours come from - i.e. you misunderstanding. I never said that uber should break the law and Uber has never instructed anyone that operates on their platform to break the law.AndrewJRenko wrote: »But that's what you've said - they can't operate under current regulations, right? So they have to find a way to get past them.
And yet there have been a string of people that have criminal convictions that have been and/or are currently taxi drivers in Ireland. Go figure.AndrewJRenko wrote: »No-one is convicted of deviancy. Deviancy isn't a crime - more like a hobby. But there are lots of taxi drivers and Uber drivers that have been convicted of various crimes.
I wasn't 'factually wrong' the first time round - nor on this occasion. You used the analogy of a doctor to big up what an irish taxi driver brought to the table - that we all should be mortified to sit in a car with someone who wasn't professionally trained (!) to do the job - the same as if we had a doctor that wasn't qualified to do the job.AndrewJRenko wrote: »Factually wrong again - I compared your proposed regulation of taxi drivers to regulation of doctors. No more and no less.
It is ever so disappointing for you, I would imagine. Perhaps you can have a word with the great innovator, 'Uncle Jim' - he may have some ideas. But I'll leave that between the two of you.AndrewJRenko wrote:That's a shame, because it sounded like you had access to several simple solutions that have eluded experts in the field across many countries for the past fifty years. I was really looking forward to hearing details of those solutions. I guess I should file this under the 'four companies' category.0 -
Well, usually with an adult discussion, the next step would be for you to outline what is actually innovative about Uber. Whenever you're ready...makeorbrake wrote: »
It's sad news to hear that 'Uncle Jim' isn't the innovator that I thought you said he was. As regards Uber - regardless of what lack of esteem you hold them in - they have been recognised as such. You can come back and regurgitate that and say the opposite, and I do the same and we can keep going round in a vortex, I don't mind. Whichever you prefer.0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »Well, usually with an adult discussion, the next step would be for you to outline what is actually innovative about Uber. Whenever you're ready...
It's been covered ad nauseum. Additionally, experts in innovation have been cited - with links to same. An 'adult' would normally acknowledge that - but if you can't then that's as far as it goes.0 -
makeorbrake wrote: »It's been covered ad nauseum. Additionally, experts in innovation have been cited - with links to same. An 'adult' would normally acknowledge that - but if you can't then that's as far as it goes.
So that's another one for the 'four companies' pile. What a shame.
There’s not really a lot of depth behind your opinion, is there? If a small amount of probing exposes such obvious gaps, there is a message there.0 -
In your own world, it seems that's true. For anyone else, you repeating the same claim over and over - ad nauseum doesn't give it greater weight. Quite the opposite. There's your 'message'.AndrewJRenko wrote: »So that's another one for the 'four companies' pile. What a shame.
There’s not really a lot of depth behind your opinion, is there? If a small amount of probing exposes such obvious gaps, there is a message there.0 -
Lads — please stop the bickering.
If you guys are telling each other than you are both going around in circles, it’s time to stop chasing your tail.
— moderator0 -
Advertisement
-
Why is it a bad policy to get the number of WATs up to a percentage of the taxi fleet?
What workable changes to policy would you lobby for to ACTUALLY obtain an increase of WATs?
If the government and regulator genuinely wanted to improve access for those who have disabilities not only those in wheelchairs, they would remove artificial barriers to entry which should increase the number of cars available for hire. This would mean that WAT are less likely to be taken up by those who don't need them. It also means that those who don't need WAT but are otherwise disabled are more likely to get a car when they needed one too. It's no good all the cars being WATs but being unable to get one when it's busy.
In terms of increasing the number of WATs, the government could increase the grant available and introduce some tax incentives for those who drive them. Although I've not thought about this too much perhaps they could offer incentives to those who do have them like perhaps making bus lanes only for those who have them perhaps.0 -
usernamegoes wrote: »If the government and regulator genuinely wanted to improve access for those who have disabilities not only those in wheelchairs, they would remove artificial barriers to entry which should increase the number of cars available for hire. This would mean that WAT are less likely to be taken up by those who don't need them. It also means that those who don't need WAT but are otherwise disabled are more likely to get a car when they needed one too. It's no good all the cars being WATs but being unable to get one when it's busy.
In terms of increasing the number of WATs, the government could increase the grant available and introduce some tax incentives for those who drive them. Although I've not thought about this too much perhaps they could offer incentives to those who do have them like perhaps making bus lanes only for those who have them perhaps.
Removing the barriers to cars entering has the opposite effect, why pay 20k upwards for a 2nd hand WAT when you can put a newer reasonable spec saloon on the road for 15-20k, that's exactly what happened after deregulation in 2000, people brought 6.5k licenses and 4-5k cars to get on the road, almost no one was putting WATs into service, resulting in the number of WATs in service dropping. So why would anyone put WATs on the road unless they have to, as it is now.
Already said earlier that VRT on WATs should be removed as long as they are in service as taxis. How much of a subsidy do you think should be given? Maybe anyone who wanted to go ride-sharing could pay a registration fee and then a €150 a year afterwards and hand it out in grants, exactly what happens now with taxi license fees.
As to the bus lanes only for WATs then everyone would be ordering them because they were able to use the bus lanes. So still no WAT availability for those that depend on them.
Good try but really needs more fleshing out.0 -
I hadn't realised my taxi won't allow hackneys on their service when did this start. I think hailo used to allow them.
That's a bit poxy for someone that is legally allowed to take pre-booked work.
Not cool.0 -
listermint wrote: »I hadn't realised my taxi won't allow hackneys on their service when did this start. I think hailo used to allow them.
That's a bit poxy for someone that is legally allowed to take pre-booked work.
Not cool.
Didn't he say they'd put him on as a limousine, for some reason he thinks his SPSV insurance would be voided or that customers would be expecting a Merc, BMW, Rolls etc. rather than his Octavia.
Hard scrolling back on the phone so going from memory here0 -
Didn't he say they'd put him on as a limousine, for some reason he thinks his SPSV insurance would be voided or that customers would be expecting a Merc, BMW, Rolls etc. rather than his Octavia.
Hard scrolling back on the phone so going from memory here
Wouldn't a customer have to choose limousine options ?
I don't know how it works myself but surely it doesn't work the same way.
Insurance wouldn't be impacted I think that's a cod.0 -
That's exactly the situation that was in place for the years after deregulation in 2000 up to the introduction of the WAV scheme (around 2014 I think). It didn't increase the availability of WAVs in the slightest.usernamegoes wrote: »If the government and regulator genuinely wanted to improve access for those who have disabilities not only those in wheelchairs, they would remove artificial barriers to entry which should increase the number of cars available for hire. This would mean that WAT are less likely to be taken up by those who don't need them. It also means that those who don't need WAT but are otherwise disabled are more likely to get a car when they needed one too. It's no good all the cars being WATs but being unable to get one when it's busy.0 -
Removing the barriers to cars entering has the opposite effect, why pay 20k upwards for a 2nd hand WAT when you can put a newer reasonable spec saloon on the road for 15-20k, that's exactly what happened after deregulation in 2000, people brought 6.5k licenses and 4-5k cars to get on the road, almost no one was putting WATs into service, resulting in the number of WATs in service dropping. So why would anyone put WATs on the road unless they have to, as it is now.
Already said earlier that VRT on WATs should be removed as long as they are in service as taxis. How much of a subsidy do you think should be given? Maybe anyone who wanted to go ride-sharing could pay a registration fee and then a €150 a year afterwards and hand it out in grants, exactly what happens now with taxi license fees.
As to the bus lanes only for WATs then everyone would be ordering them because they were able to use the bus lanes. So still no WAT availability for those that depend on them.
Good try but really needs more fleshing out.
Totally disagree on your counter to my point on increasing the number of cars available. This would single-handedly improve the situation for disabled travellers.
I agree on the VRT point. Not sure on how much of a subsidy It's obviously needs to be more than it is now, but I'd be interested to hear argument on quantum or other innovative solutions to encouraging WAVs for those who are interested instead of using a sledge hammer to crack a nut as is the case now and being left with a ****ty nut even when it is cracked.
My point on bus lanes was for WAV taxis only and only in situations where all taxis can use them now. To be clear I don't think ride-sharing vehicles should be allowed use bus lanes.
Relatively constructive post until the needless patronizing at the end.0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »That's exactly the situation that was in place for the years after deregulation in 2000 up to the introduction of the WAV scheme (around 2014 I think). It didn't increase the availability of WAVs in the slightest.
Not sure where I said it would increase the number of WAVs. I said it would make getting a WAV easier for those who needed them.
Look, lets be honest you know that everyone knows that you honestly aren't that concerned with the WAV issue for the beneficent goal of allowing those who need them get them. You guys know that each other don't believe it and know that we don't believe you.
I get that it's an issue to do with more competition for those already in the industry. Many industries try it in one way or another. So why not just say it and ague against more taxis and hackneys because you say it'll make your job unsustainable or it's unfair because you've invested a lot in your job or something else. But realistically, no one buys the WAV argument and you know that already.0 -
Like I said, I didn't increase the availability of WAVs - customers with disabilities were routinely unable to get taxis to get to work, to job interviews, to concerts or cinemas or theatres, or to get them home from the pub at the end of a night out. Your proposed solution isn't a solution to this issue.usernamegoes wrote: »Not sure where I said it would increase the number of WAVs. I said it would make getting a WAV easier for those who needed them.usernamegoes wrote: »Look, lets be honest you know that everyone knows that you honestly aren't that concerned with the WAV issue for the beneficent goal of allowing those who need them get them. You guys know that each other don't believe it and know that we don't believe you.
I get that it's an issue to do with more competition for those already in the industry. Many industries try it in one way or another. So why not just say it and ague against more taxis and hackneys because you say it'll make your job unsustainable or it's unfair because you've invested a lot in your job or something else. But realistically, no one buys the WAV argument and you know that already.
What you believe is your choice. If you talk to anyone who was involved in the disability sector, or the Dept Transport Accessible Transport Committee, or the Taxi Advisory Council over that period, they will make it very clear to you how big an issue this was at that time, and indeed still is.0 -
Advertisement
-
Like I said. I didn't say it would. It would be better overall though.AndrewJRenko wrote: »Like I said, I didn't increase the availability of WAVs - customers with disabilities were routinely unable to get taxis to get to work, to job interviews, to concerts or cinemas or theatres, or to get them home from the pub at the end of a night out. Your proposed solution isn't a solution to this issue.What you believe is your choice. If you talk to anyone who was involved in the disability sector, or the Dept Transport Accessible Transport Committee, or the Taxi Advisory Council over that period, they will make it very clear to you how big an issue this was at that time, and indeed still is.
Look no one buys it. I can't remember if you are a taxi driver and if you drive a WAT or not. But If you are and if you don't drive a WAT then I think that's proof enough.0
Advertisement