Uber

AndrewJRenko

From https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/26/how-to-speak-silicon-valley-decoding-tech-bros-from-microdosing-to-privacy

disrupt (v) – To create a new market, either by inventing something completely new (ie the personal computer, the smart phone) or by ignoring the rules of an old market. If the latter, often illegal, but rarely prosecuted. Uber disrupted the taxi industry by flooding the market with illegal cabs, while Airbnb disrupted the hotel market by flooding the market with illegal sublets. See sharing economy.

makeorbrake

Stephen15 wrote: »

They should be the only vehicles in Dublin city centre along with a limited number of taxis. There's not enough space for Uber. Many city centres are public transport and cycling only

How very convenient. So I guess buses/trams/trains must not be 'more advanced solutions' afterall then.

Stephen15 wrote: »

Taxis are regulated

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

From https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/26/how-to-speak-silicon-valley-decoding-tech-bros-from-microdosing-to-privacy

disrupt (v) – To create a new market, either by inventing something completely new (ie the personal computer, the smart phone) or by ignoring the rules of an old market. If the latter, often illegal, but rarely prosecuted. Uber disrupted the taxi industry by flooding the market with illegal cabs, while Airbnb disrupted the hotel market by flooding the market with illegal sublets. See sharing economy.

Bravo - you found someone elses viewpoint that fits in with your narrative. Right back at you...

Who's Afraid of Uber

Ride sharing has disrupted the transportation-for-hire industry, breaking down barriers to entry that have protected incumbents in the industry for decades. The disruption has led to calls for increased regulation, along with criticisms about the effect of innovation on consumer safety, market stability, rule of law, and others. And yet, that disruption has also led to tremendous benefits to consumers, as they are freed from a regulatory regime that limited their transportation choices and forced them to pay higher prices for lower quality service.

Stephen15

makeorbrake wrote: »

How very convenient. So I guess buses/trams/trains must not be 'more advanced solutions' afterall then.

Taxis serve a particular gap in the market such as elderly people needing to go to an hospital appointment during the day. At night they're in demand from people coming out of bars and nightclubs when public transport is finished.

Jarrett Walker the man tasked with redesigning Dublin's bus network has an interesting view on Uber and Lyft which I would be inclined to agree with.

https://humantransit.org/2019/04/why-invest-in-lyft-or-uber-what-am-i-missing.html

makeorbrake

Stephen15 wrote: »

Taxis serve a particular gap in the market such as elderly people needing to go to an hospital appointment during the day. At night they're in demand from people coming out of bars and nightclubs when public transport is finished.

I don't have an issue with a service being provided where there is a need for that service. And I guess that feeds exactly into my argument.

Stephen15 wrote: »

Jarrett Walker the man tasked with redesigning Dublin's bus network has an interesting view on Uber and Lyft which I would be inclined to agree with.

There's plenty that I think can be done with ride sharing and the regulation of same. I'm very much inclined to agree that its moved away from its original concept. However, I have not seen much interest in considering ride sharing full stop in terms of this particular discussion right here - and so, I've not gotten in to that.

Blanket banning things at source from day 1 is not the way to handle innovative approaches though ...because it means that we miss out on what's innovative.

end of the road

makeorbrake wrote: »

I don't have an issue with a service being provided where there is a need for that service. And I guess that feeds exactly into my argument.



There's plenty that I think can be done with ride sharing and the regulation of same. I'm very much inclined to agree that its moved away from its original concept. However, I have not seen much interest in considering ride sharing full stop in terms of this particular discussion right here - and so, I've not gotten in to that.

Blanket banning things at source from day 1 is not the way to handle innovative approaches though ...because it means that we miss out on what's innovative.

there is no ban on ride sharing though.

makeorbrake

end of the road wrote: »

there is no ban on ride sharing though.

It's been regulated out of practical existence through the implementation of a regulation which ..

A. is for taxis (ride sharing is not taxi-ing).

and

B. appeases taxi drivers.

It's a flag of convenience to say uber can operate here if they want when in reality, nobody uses Uber in Ireland. There are clear reasons why (as in, it's been strangled at birth in Ireland).

I think we've been over this a few times. We can go back in a vortex of what you believe and what I believe. For everyones benefit, I'd suggest we agree to disagree on that point. It will save everyone a lot of time.

end of the road

makeorbrake wrote: »

It's been regulated out of practical existence through the implementation of a regulation which ..

A. is for taxis (ride sharing is not taxi-ing).

and

B. appeases taxi drivers.

It's a flag of convenience to say uber can operate here if they want when in reality, nobody uses Uber in Ireland. There are clear reasons why (as in, it's been strangled at birth in Ireland).

I think we've been over this a few times. We can go back in a vortex of what you believe and what I believe. For everyones benefit, I'd suggest we agree to disagree on that point. It will save everyone a lot of time.

as explained before, and remains the case no matter how much you complain. the regulations are for the operation of a public service vehicle, whether taxi, hackney, etc. ride sharing is the operation of a public service vehicle.
the regulations are not there to appease taxi drivers.

makeorbrake

end of the road wrote: »

as explained before, and remains the case no matter how much you complain. the regulations are for the operation of a public service vehicle, whether taxi, hackney, etc. ride sharing is the operation of a public service vehicle.
the regulations are not there to appease taxi drivers.

And I invited you to agree to disagree....but fine.

I'm not in dispute that someone can drive on the Uber platform in Ireland subject to taxi regulation - not ride sharing regulations. I never have been - i'm unsure how that's not clear.

Furthermore, if I can acknowledge that, you can acknowledge that it effectively means that there is no provision of Uber services in Ireland. Neither drivers nor passengers are engaging with the service. That's not the case in many other markets. So when I say it's being stymied and killed off at source, it's as clear as night and day that's the case. We've had numerous people on here that have used such a service abroad and would use it here if it was available.

end of the road wrote: »

the regulations are not there to appease taxi drivers.

In your opinion. It remains an opinion. Last time I checked, I was entitled to my own.

n97 mini

I don't think anyone objects to regulation (as useless as it is at times, eg 180 bogus drivers), but it's the cost of that regulation in terms of licensing fees, and the additional cost of insurance, all of which are paid for indirectly by consumers, resulting in high service fees and barriers to entry. Drivers gotta pay (big time) to play, which they'll recoup from customers.

Uber has no entry fee and self insures drivers for up to $1 million liability while they're carrying a fare.

Someone will come up with the counter argument that Uber can only do this as they're using investors' money to do so. So what. It's not a problem if you're not an Uber investor (is there even a single investor in Ireland?). They might also go bust. Again so what. There's Lyft and a heap of non-US equivalents.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

as explained before, and remains the case no matter how much you complain. the regulations are for the operation of a public service vehicle, whether taxi, hackney, etc. ride sharing is the operation of a public service vehicle.
the regulations are not there to appease taxi drivers.

makeorbrake wrote: »

In your opinion. It remains an opinion. Last time I checked, I was entitled to my own.

Ha, you should try asking taxi drivers their opinions about taxi regulation, its been a constant thorn for many. There is little love for regulation in that industry

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

Ha, you should try asking taxi drivers their opinions about taxi regulation, its been a constant thorn for many. There is little love for regulation in that industry

There may not be - and perhaps that's the point. Isn't it much easier for the regulator to fudge the issue and in that way not deal with it. Less headaches for that office. No drama - they can pick up their public service salaries and take it nice and handy. I didn't say that it was because the regulator loves taxi drivers.

makeorbrake

makeorbrake wrote: »

There may not be - and perhaps that's the point. Isn't it much easier for the regulator to fudge the issue and in that way not deal with it. Less headaches for that office. No drama - they can pick up their public service salaries and take it nice and handy. I didn't say that it was because the regulator loves taxi drivers.

Don't how the issue is being fudged to be honest, maybe you could clarify.

Far as I can see, they set the minimum requirements, enforce that those are being met and that's about it.

It would appear to me, that Uber, as a transport company, choose not to meet those minimum requirements

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

Don't how the issue is being fudged to be honest, maybe you could clarify.

Obtuse much?
It's fudged because there is no uber in Ireland. So the regulator has turned around, not banned it on the one hand but placed impossible circumstances on those that would choose to drive under the platform - to the point that it's a non-runner.

Deleted User wrote: »

Far as I can see, they set the minimum requirements, enforce that those are being met and that's about it.

That's as far as YOU see it. As far as I see it, the regulator doesn't want to get taxi drivers up n arms and have to deal with that and has created a situation where in reality, there will be no uber. They can kick back, bumble into work on a jolly and collect their public sector salaries. Job done.

Deleted User wrote: »

It would appear to me, that Uber, as a transport company, choose not to meet those minimum requirements

Firstly, Uber is a technology company that provides a platform for transportation. Would be drivers under that platform are the ones that had no plans becoming full time taxi drivers and going out especially to purchase a specific type of vehicle just to do that work.
What regulation in Ireland has Uber flouted?

end of the road

makeorbrake wrote: »

Obtuse much?
It's fudged because there is no uber in Ireland. So the regulator has turned around, not banned it on the one hand but placed impossible circumstances on those that would choose to drive under the platform - to the point that it's a non-runner.

uber is in ireland.

makeorbrake wrote: »

That's as far as YOU see it. As far as I see it, the regulator doesn't want to get taxi drivers up n arms and have to deal with that and has created a situation where in reality, there will be no uber. They can kick back, bumble into work on a jolly and collect their public sector salaries. Job done.

or why bother when uber could just comply with the regulations here as is their obligation, and which they do when operating here.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Firstly, Uber is a technology company that provides a platform for transportation. Would be drivers under that platform are the ones that had no plans becoming full time taxi drivers and going out especially to purchase a specific type of vehicle just to do that work.
What regulation in Ireland has Uber flouted?

incorrect again.
uber is a transport company as determined by the law experts of the european court of justice.

makeorbrake

end of the road wrote: »

uber is in ireland.

That's a technicality. There is no availability of Uber cars in Ireland. I pointed this out before but I'll draw your attention to it again. You're being deliberately obtuse on the issue. You know well that in reality, Uber cars are not available to the Irish public - but you carry on with this as it suits you (whether as a taxi driver or one driven by ideology - If I understand correctly, in your case, you're a taxi driver. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas).

end of the road wrote: »

or why bother when Uber could just comply with the regulations here as is their obligation, and which they do when operating here.

It's a nonsensical response to what I posted.
You are saying that Uber has broken regulations in Ireland. Please outline here what regulations Uber as a company has broken?

Uber drivers choose not to drive under the platform because the regulation in the first instance is designed for taxi's - ride sharing is not taxi'ing. Secondly, the inequitable regulation that has been thrust upon them means that it's totally unfeasible. You know it well - yet you and others continue to hide behind it.

end of the road wrote: »

Uber is a transport company as determined by the law experts of the European court of justice.

Uber operates worldwide. It emerged in Silicon Valley. It's a technology company first and foremost. Sure, the ECJ has deemed it to be a transport company. I'm capable of free thought, and I don't agree. And you'll say it doesn't matter, the law is the law. Once again, it suits your purposes.

Bad regulation and bad law is forged every day of the week. Unjust decisions are reached regularly in courtrooms around the world. But then, I don't have $$ to lose like you do because of ride sharing.

According to the ECJ, they're a transport company. You can call them a platypus for all you like, they've been legally defined as a transport company, end of.

Stephen15

makeorbrake wrote: »

Uber drivers choose not to drive under the platform because the regulation in the first instance is designed for taxi's - ride sharing is not taxi'ing. Secondly, the inequitable regulation that has been thrust upon them means that it's totally unfeasible. You know it well - yet you and others continue to hide behind it.

No reason why Uber couldn't apply using hackney licences. That would probably be more similar to the service they are providing. I fail to see what the big difference between Uber/Lyft and taxis or hackney's really is other than the fact Uber/Lyft is booked and paid for through an app.

Uber operates worldwide. It emerged in Silicon Valley. It's a technology company first and foremost. Sure, the ECJ has deemed it to be a transport company. I'm capable of free thought, and I don't agree. And you'll say it doesn't matter, the law is the law. Once again, it suits your purposes.

It's a technology company that provides a transportation service. Like saying Just Eat or Deliveroo are technology companies not food delivery services.

Bad regulation and bad law is forged every day of the week. Unjust decisions are reached regularly in courtrooms around the world. But then, I don't have $$ to lose like you do because of ride sharing.

We truly are an oppressed people being denied access to a basic human right Uber

makeorbrake

Stephen15 wrote: »

No reason why Uber couldn't apply using hackney licences. That would probably be more similar to the service they are providing. I fail to see what the big difference between Uber/Lyft and taxis or hackney's really is other than the fact Uber/Lyft is booked and paid for through an app.

Those who want them (many have commented here that they would use the service if it was truly available in Ireland) and those that detest them have identified that given the opportunity, they would be a resounding success in Ireland. In the case of the latter group, that admission has come via the suggestion that Uber would lead to traffic congestion in Dublin.

So clearly someone is doing something to stymie the development of ride sharing in Ireland and that someone is the regulator.

Stephen15 wrote: »

It's a technology company that provides a transportation service. Like saying Just Eat or Deliveroo are technology companies not food delivery services.

Probably. If they just provide the platform. Again, this may not apply in Ireland - but over here, we have Uber eats. Uber provides the platform. There are a gazillion bikers accessing the platform to deliver food. I'm not sure what there is to understand here. If you had a team of developers build an application that was scale-able and which just provided a technological platform for two parties to interact - consumers and people who have free time to deliver food - it's a technology platform.

Stephen15 wrote: »

We truly are an oppressed people being denied access to a basic human right Uber

You can maintain a backward attitude all you want (or perhaps one borne out of self interest, who knows). This permeates through all manner of things in Ireland. It's why we are always late in adopting any new innovation or technology. You think it doesn't affect the country but it does.

kippy

makeorbrake wrote: »

Those who want them (many have commented here that they would use the service if it was truly available in Ireland) and those that detest them have identified that given the opportunity, they would be a resounding success in Ireland. In the case of the latter group, that admission has come via the suggestion that Uber would lead to traffic congestion in Dublin.

So clearly someone is doing something to stymie the development of ride sharing in Ireland and that someone is the regulator.



Probably. If they just provide the platform. Again, this may not apply in Ireland - but over here, we have Uber eats. Uber provides the platform. There are a gazillion bikers accessing the platform to deliver food. I'm not sure what there is to understand here. If you had a team of developers build an application that was scale-able and which just provided a technological platform for two parties to interact - consumers and people who have free time to deliver food - it's a technology platform.



You can maintain a backward attitude all you want (or perhaps one borne out of self interest, who knows). This permeates through all manner of things in Ireland. It's why we are always late in adopting any new innovation or technology. You think it doesn't affect the country but it does.

It is interesting that you are equating those that are skeptical of the societal benefits of Uber with backwardness, in the same way that it is also interesting that you think that people who want something (ie there is a market for something) should be given access to that market simply because they want it.

makeorbrake

kippy wrote: »

It is interesting that you are equating those that are skeptical of the societal benefits of Uber with backwardness, in the same way that it is also interesting that you think that people who want something (ie there is a market for something) should be given access to that market simply because they want it.

Let me put this another way. Do you believe that we have world class regulation and administration in Ireland such that it facilitates innovation rapidly for the benefit of the country (competitiveness and efficiency) and for its citizens?

Because I certainly don't.

end of the road

makeorbrake wrote: »

That's a technicality. There is no availability of Uber cars in Ireland. I pointed this out before but I'll draw your attention to it again. You're being deliberately obtuse on the issue. You know well that in reality, Uber cars are not available to the Irish public - but you carry on with this as it suits you (whether as a taxi driver or one driven by ideology - If I understand correctly, in your case, you're a taxi driver. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas).


It's a nonsensical response to what I posted.
You are saying that Uber has broken regulations in Ireland. Please outline here what regulations Uber as a company has broken?

Uber drivers choose not to drive under the platform because the regulation in the first instance is designed for taxi's - ride sharing is not taxi'ing. Secondly, the inequitable regulation that has been thrust upon them means that it's totally unfeasible. You know it well - yet you and others continue to hide behind it.


Uber operates worldwide. It emerged in Silicon Valley. It's a technology company first and foremost. Sure, the ECJ has deemed it to be a transport company. I'm capable of free thought, and I don't agree. And you'll say it doesn't matter, the law is the law. Once again, it suits your purposes.

Bad regulation and bad law is forged every day of the week. Unjust decisions are reached regularly in courtrooms around the world. But then, I don't have $$ to lose like you do because of ride sharing.

i am not a taxi driver and i never have been.
uber is a transport company, not a technology company.

makeorbrake

end of the road wrote: »

uber is a transport company, not a technology company.

I don't think there's a need to repeat this. As far as I'm concerned, they're a Silicon Valley based enterprise and as with 90% of businesses in the Valley, they're a technology company.

I'm not going to be changing my mind unless you have something new to add on the subject. I don't mind if you don't agree. That's entirely your prerogative.

kippy

makeorbrake wrote: »

I don't think there's a need to repeat this. As far as I'm concerned, they're a Silicon Valley based enterprise and as with 90% of businesses in the Valley, they're a technology company.

I'm not going to be changing my mind unless you have something new to add on the subject. I don't mind if you don't agree. That's entirely your prerogative.

Wasn't there a court ruling on this?

kippy

makeorbrake wrote: »

Let me put this another way. Do you believe that we have world class regulation and administration in Ireland such that it facilitates innovation rapidly for the benefit of the country (competitiveness and efficiency) and for its citizens?

Because I certainly don't.

Theres no such thing as world class regulation and administration. If you think there is please define it and provide country we should be striving to mirror in this regard.

Plenty innovation facilitated in ireland by regulation. Aren't we punching above our weight in the R and D stakes?

AndrewJRenko

makeorbrake wrote: »

Let me put this another way. Do you believe that we have world class regulation and administration in Ireland such that it facilitates innovation rapidly for the benefit of the country (competitiveness and efficiency) and for its citizens?

Because I certainly don't.

It looks like the FAANG companies are fairly happy with the innovative and competitiveness regulation here

makeorbrake

kippy wrote: »

Wasn't there a court ruling on this?

Discussed at length - please see previous posts.

kippy wrote: »

Theres no such thing as world class regulation and administration.

That would mean that you believe that all regulators have the same scorecard and all governments have the same scorecard whether its Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Norway or South Korea? Really?

kippy wrote: »

Plenty innovation facilitated in ireland by regulation. Aren't we punching above our weight in the R and D stakes?

What innovative regulation specifically? How has R&D been enabled by an irish regulator?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It looks like the FAANG companies are fairly happy with the innovative and competitiveness regulation here

Interesting that you should bring this up. They've been quite happy with us facilitating their not having to pay damn all in tax, yes.

kippy

makeorbrake wrote: »

Discussed at length - please see previous posts.
That would mean that you believe that all regulators have the same scorecard and all governments have the same scorecard whether its Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Norway or South Korea? Really?


What innovative regulation specifically? How has R&D been enabled by an irish regulator?


Interesting that you should bring this up. They've been quite happy with us facilitating their not having to pay damn all in tax, yes.

Sorry, I'd forgotten that part. I just re-read it there. Uber ar a Transport company in he eyes of the EU. That's a fairly factual result.

I'd asked the question to give me a country with "world class" regulation - you've not done that. I don't know why. Possibly because there's no such thing as "world class" regulation. Let me know what you eventually decide on this.

I suppose the last two responses you have are tied together. Tax policy is a part of regulation, as are polices enforce by the IDA and others that make this country a hub for R and D and as such innovation and overall a good thing for the Irish consumer.
That doesn't suit your arguments, I know, so I don't expect any type of coherent/logical response to it but it would be good to get a response on where in the world you see as having "World Class" regulation.

usernamegoes

kippy wrote: »

Sorry, I'd forgotten that part. I just re-read it there. Uber ar a Transport company in he eyes of the EU. That's a fairly factual result.

What is it that people think is important about whether Uber is a transport company or not?

Ireland has decided that Uber is a dispatch operator under its law. I don't see what turns on this point.

Even if Uber wasn't a transport company what would that mean?

kippy

usernamegoes wrote: »

What is it that people think is important about whether Uber is a transport company or not?

Ireland has decided that Uber is a dispatch operator under its law. I don't see what turns on this point.

Even if Uber wasn't a transport company what would that mean?

I don't care in any event tbh, but I think the logic being deployed was that Uber was a Tech company so shouldn't be forced into complying with regulations aimed at transport companies. The poster I've been discussing this with doesn't seem to recognise Irish or EU laws/regulations.
I suppose the reality is Uber has to comply with regulations aimed at many areas in many different jurisdictions.

usernamegoes

kippy wrote: »

I don't care in any event tbh, but I think the logic being deployed was that Uber was a Tech company so shouldn't be forced into complying with regulations aimed at transport companies. The poster I've been discussing this with doesn't seem to recognise Irish or EU laws/regulations.
I suppose the reality is Uber has to comply with regulations aimed at many areas in many different jurisdictions.

Reasonable people can agree or disagree that Uber is a tech or transport company.

It has no impact on whether the drivers need to follow regulations that exist for drivers. Very little would change in Ireland if the CJEU had ruled the other way.

The question that is relevant is what should the regulations be for drivers of taxis, hackneys or those who want to do ridesharing?