Uber

usernamegoes

Blueshoe wrote: »

We don't have Uber in Ireland.

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

AndrewJRenko

makeorbrake wrote: »

BS. How are they facilitated if you make them go out and buy a specific car (WAV) - when they have a car that has passed a road-worthiness test and is otherwise perfectly fine?

Having unmarked vehicles - 'ordinary cars' - is a security risk. That's one of the reasons why the regulator insisted on the large decals on taxi doors.

n97 mini wrote: »

This is it. Having used Uber and Lyft in the US daily for 6 months over a 3 year period, I only met one driver who didn't have another job. She was a stay at home mom whose kids were all at school. The rest were students to blue collar to white collar workers who were trying to boost their income. One guy was doing it so he could buy a boat to take his family on holidays.

The profile of Irish taxi drivers is completely different. Anecdotally very few have an education beyond inter cert. They're only working in the taxi industry because they can't get better employment elsewhere. There are no students, blue collar or white collar workers who are part timing it.

With that comes an entitlement culture. Taxi drivers are "entitled" to make a living from taxi driving, as they can't make a living doing anything else.

It's the American dream, isn't it - multiple jobs required to survive and keep your head above water.

There's certainly a segment of Irish taxi drivers that match your description, but you're missing a few other segments. The retired Garda or other white collar worker who does a bit of taxiing in his later years, and of course the recent immigrant to Ireland.

It's not about a sense of entitlement - it's about having some hope that someone can earn a decent living without working 14 hour days that will have them falling asleep at the wheel, possibly when they're on their other bus driving or truck driving job.

makeorbrake wrote: »

So if there's always an expectation that there's going to be more people using it -rather than taxis (given an expectation of increased congestion), then the service is wildly popular then.

There's a whole host of ways that could be tackled if there was a will (and it's that will to do anything that's missing). Uber pool for one - that takes cars off the streets. Who's to say licensing couldn't be conditional (provided its progressively so)?

Otherwise, licensing could be done in a way to take ride sharing back to the way it was originally intended. Someone a couple of posts above referred to 'non serious players' that would waste everyones time - but that misses the point of ride sharing so much - it's not funny. These are exactly the people that should be enabled.

If someone switches on the app on a drive across town or on a long commute into or out of the city, that serves multiple purposes;

1. More efficient use of the existing car fleet
2. The opportunity for the driver to reduce costs or make a modest few quid
3. More transportation options for would-be passengers

If anyone was interested, that could all be incentivised (the IF being key there).

The same for someone that wanted to work for a couple of hours dynamically. There is great power in that for society and for an economy.

Having more cars on the road more of the time is by no means efficient. It is killing our planet, killing our people and causing more and more congestion. The priority of regulators and legislators should be on enabling sustainable travel options.

usernamegoes wrote: »

So let's agree to drop the issue of surge pricing. Hackneys, Limos, and taxis do it to one extent or another.

Except taxis don't - there is a single additional charge for unsocial hours. That's a long way off surge pricing, and it can't be 'gamed' in the way that surge pricing can.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Very simple. Whip out the phone and try another app. With taxi's, I suppose you'd have to figure it out by experience (which isn't the end of the world if these are journeys you're taking locally/ that you're familiar with).

But app is very transparent.

Very simple for the tech literate and financial literate - not so very simple for many customers, who will be exposed to paying higher prices.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Ride sharing (as in actual ride sharing...not necessarily the Uber version of it) has the ability to provide a service at a much cheaper price point.

Virtually all on the opposing end to the argument here have said that widespread Uber usage will lead to traffic congestion. That means that more people are accessing such a service - so in that way, it's being a benefit to society (congestion is a bi-product but as per previous posts, there are other ways to tackle that).

It means that people can't afford to be using taxi's. So - if there is another means (and that other means doesn't mean any such race to the bottom, etc.) - then it's the way to go.

How exactly is having more people pumping out pollutants into the atmosphere more of the time 'a benefit to society'?

makeorbrake wrote: »

On the standards, we've been over this and we're not going to agree on it. Most people's experience has been better with Uber than with taxis (as per comments posted here). In any event, there is no stumbling block to adherence to standards aside from this WAV situation. That's the one that makes it impossible.

A few posts on a boards thread is not exactly a reliable measure of quality. Vehicle decals are required of taxi drivers as a security and quality measure, and you're trying to undermine this, and roll back progress for people with disabilities.

n97 mini wrote: »

Motor tax and vrt cover road maintenance, and more.

Motorists come nowhere near paying for the full costs of motorist - the costs of road building and road maintenance, the costs of public space given over to storage of private property, the huge environmental costs of pumping out noxious fumes, tyre particles, brake particles all around us.

n97 mini wrote: »

Night buses are exactly that. No congestion at night.

I take it you haven't been through Wexford St at 1am in recent years?

makeorbrake wrote: »

If there would be more more cars on the streets, its because more people can afford to travel (via ride sharing). It's only taxi's that drive around looking for fares - clogging up the streets.

If there would be more cars on the streets, that will kill our planet quicker.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Posted on twitter in the last 24 hours:

hxxps://twitter.com/ChrisPacia/status/1145988168799461376

"Seriously **** the government run taxi cartels. Just had two driver cancel on me using their "app" so they could pick up other customers. 45 mins of waiting an still no taxi. They drive Uber out of the city so they can provide this **** service."

Another example of the consumer being screwed at the behest of the ideologically wayward and selfish interests.

That's from New Hampshire, right? There are no taxi cartels in Ireland. There are no quantitative limits on the number of taxi drivers in Ireland - just decent standards.

makeorbrake wrote: »

You want me to have the regulator sign a statement to that effect (and even then, you still wouldn't be satisfied). It's my opinion and it's an opinion shared by a number of others here. I don't give a fiddlers if you don't respect that or believe it (or more accurately, your ideology conveniently aligns with not considering it as a possibility...and for others here, their self interest).

We can keep going back and forth over these same points or agree to disagree. Whichever you prefer.

It's an opinion indeed, and you are absolutely entitled to your opinion. It's also relevant to note that it is based on zero experience with or engagement with the Regulator - so it bears no more value that a belief in God or Santa Claus.

makeorbrake

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Having unmarked vehicles - 'ordinary cars' - is a security risk. That's one of the reasons why the regulator insisted on the large decals on taxi doors.

From the sublime to the ridiculous. Firstly, we're not talking about taxis. We're talking about ride sharing. Secondly, the passenger has the drivers name and the make/model/registration no. of the car. Where is the security risk?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's the American dream, isn't it - multiple jobs required to survive and keep your head above water.

Students and a guy buying a boat were the examples he gave. I guess the second guy would be 'keeping his head above water' alright. :rolleyes:

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There's certainly a segment of Irish taxi drivers that match your description, but you're missing a few other segments. The retired Garda or other white collar worker who does a bit of taxiing in his later years, and of course the recent immigrant to Ireland.

The former could work until 67 like the rest of us - that would solve that problem. The latter was hardly welcomed into the taxi industry - but is dynamic enough to adapt to a reality and go out and work at something else.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's not about a sense of entitlement - it's about having some hope that someone can earn a decent living without working 14 hour days that will have them falling asleep at the wheel, possibly when they're on their other bus driving or truck driving job.

If it's actual ride sharing as it was originally intended, then we're not talking about 14 hour days. And other than that, it is entitlement and an unwillingness to change. If someone is displaced within an industry they need to look to opportunities elsewhere.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Having more cars on the road more of the time is by no means efficient. It is killing our planet, killing our people and causing more and more congestion. The priority of regulators and legislators should be on enabling sustainable travel options.

Plenty of ways that can be tackled. Wouldn't Uber Pool lead to less cars on the road?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Except taxis don't - there is a single additional charge for unsocial hours. That's a long way off surge pricing, and it can't be 'gamed' in the way that surge pricing can.

If Taxis are cheaper then whats the concern? If people would still use Uber in these circumstances, there must be other reasons like ease of use and service.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Very simple for the tech literate and financial literate - not so very simple for many customers, who will be exposed to paying higher prices.

No worries - then just ban it. It can be regulated out without regulating out ride sharing. There's no deal-breaker here.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How exactly is having more people pumping out pollutants into the atmosphere more of the time 'a benefit to society'?

If people are so enamoured with the service and are otherwise facilitated as they simply couldn't afford to use taxis to the same extent, then that's a plus for society.
Remember too that if ride sharing is enabled as it was originally intended, then it would be a case of this plus less emissions and a more efficient use of the existing national car fleet - as guys turned on the app on a journey they were making in any event. Progressive regulation can bring us back to that point.
Other than that, there are other ways to reduce the number of cars and emissions such as pooling and measures taken across the entire driving public generally.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

A few posts on a boards thread is not exactly a reliable measure of quality. Vehicle decals are required of taxi drivers as a security and quality measure, and you're trying to undermine this, and roll back progress for people with disabilities.

On the feedback of others here - and the social feedback of those that ride share every day of the week, I disagree that it's not a significant measure of quality.
On vehicle decals, these are not taxi's first and foremost. If you want decals for taxis, have at it. Has nothing to do with ride sharing. Ride sharing is far more secure as the ride sharer knows in advance the name of the driver and the make/model/registration number of the car that's going to be picking them up. On the disabilities front, you're consistently hiding behind that issue. There is no reason why both can't be enabled and facilitated - not just one or one at a cost to the other.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Motorists come nowhere near paying for the full costs of motorist - the costs of road building and road maintenance, the costs of public space given over to storage of private property, the huge environmental costs of pumping out noxious fumes, tyre particles, brake particles all around us.

Right, and JoeMaxi is picking up the tab here is he? Do tell.
Other than that, if a ride share driver switches on the app on his commute or on a journey he would take anyway, that's a more efficient use of the road infrastructure and car fleet that could and should be encouraged.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If there would be more cars on the streets, that will kill our planet quicker.

So you keep saying. And as I have pointed out, that can be tackled in a number of ways.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's from New Hampshire, right? There are no taxi cartels in Ireland. There are no quantitative limits on the number of taxi drivers in Ireland - just decent standards.

There are innovation-busting barriers to entry that stymie the development of ride sharing in Ireland. Other than that, we've had a taxi lobby here in IRL down through the years that has had an unnatural level of influence.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's an opinion indeed, and you are absolutely entitled to your opinion. It's also relevant to note that it is based on zero experience with or engagement with the Regulator - so it bears no more value that a belief in God or Santa Claus.

This nonsense again. You try and sully any opinion or point of view based on this nonsense - and it doesn't stand up. Other than that, I have extensive knowledge of ride sharing services overseas and have had the opportunity to see the opportunity it can bring. But I guess we can conveniently ignore that aspect of things as it doesn't fit your world view.

usernamegoes

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Except taxis don't - there is a single additional charge for unsocial hours. That's a long way off surge pricing, and it can't be 'gamed' in the way that surge pricing can.

It is. It just doesn't suit your self-interest or ideology to call it that.

Spook_ie

usernamegoes wrote: »

It is. It just doesn't suit your self-interest or ideology to call it that.

Just as it doesn't suit to call rideshare by a correct name?

It's not surge pricing, simply because the prices are set up to 3 or 4 years in advance and not subject to change by the whim of a driver or an app.

makeorbrake

Spook_ie wrote: »

Just as it doesn't suit to call rideshare by a correct name?

Can you clarify?

Spook_ie wrote: »

It's not surge pricing, simply because the prices are set up to 3 or 4 years in advance and not subject to change by the whim of a driver or an app.

The basic premise behind them is similar. That said, I agree that Uber manipulate their algo sometimes to a cynical extent. There are a couple of approaches that can be taken to address this;
1. It can be regulated out (just the surge pricing, not the whole thing as is currently the case).
2. Create market conditions where there is competition and let consumers decide.

Either works for me albeit there may be some argument /preference for the former.

usernamegoes

Spook_ie wrote: »

Just as it doesn't suit to call rideshare by a correct name?

It's not surge pricing, simply because the prices are set up to 3 or 4 years in advance and not subject to change by the whim of a driver or an app.

Yeah, like the drivers of limos and hackneys setting the prices by whim. It'll lead to everyone being forced to make their own decisions on how to spend their money.

Prices in shops should also be decided by a government authority in case we get ripped off!

n97 mini

Spook_ie wrote: »

Just as it doesn't suit to call rideshare by a correct name?

It's not surge pricing, simply because the prices are set up to 3 or 4 years in advance and not subject to change by the whim of a driver or an app.

The fact is customers have no idea what the rates are, many probably don't know that taxis are even more expensive at certain times. They won't get to find out what the actual fare will be until the journey has finished. No other transport provider operates on such uncertainties. Can you imagine if airlines or trains didn't let you know the journey price until you got to the destination.

One the flip side, ridesharers are shown the estimated price (totally accurate unless there's something unforeseen) before they even book. If they don't like the price, they can book with someone else.

n97 mini

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Motorists come nowhere near paying for the full costs of motorist - the costs of road building and road maintenance, the costs of public space given over to storage of private property, the huge environmental costs of pumping out noxious fumes, tyre particles, brake particles all around us.

The reply was to a post about extra road maintenance. Motor tax and VRT cover construction and maintenance, and more. Google it.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

I take it you haven't been through Wexford St at 1am in recent years?

I haven't. I assume you're implying it's congested. If so, how many PSVs are congesting it as a ratio of overall traffic? It's not congested with Ubers.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

There are no taxi cartels in Ireland.

The Oxford dictionary defines a cartel as "An association of manufacturers or suppliers with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level and restricting competition."

end of the road

n97 mini wrote: »

The reply was to a post about extra road maintenance. Motor tax and VRT cover construction and maintenance, and more. Google it.

even if they do cover those specific costs (and i am not sure they actually do even if it is claimed otherwise) the poster is correct that that they don't cover all costs.

n97 mini wrote: »

I haven't. I assume you're implying it's congested. If so, how many PSVs are congesting it as a ratio of overall traffic? It's not congested with Ubers.

whatever the number, it is still congested. so, night busses are the answer to dealing with that congestion rather then uber.

n97 mini wrote: »

The Oxford dictionary defines a cartel as "An association of manufacturers or suppliers with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level and restricting competition."

correct. hence it doesn't apply to the taxi/psv industry.

makeorbrake

end of the road wrote: »

even if they do cover those specific costs (and i am not sure they actually do even if it is claimed otherwise) the poster is correct that that they don't cover all costs.

You're scraping the bottom of the barrel if you think this is a reason to isolate uber and ride sharing. Uber has also enabled Uber pool - which would reduce congestion and emissions yet not a single acknowledgement from any of you when I bring it up.

end of the road wrote: »

whatever the number, it is still congested. so, night busses are the answer to dealing with that congestion rather then uber.

According to who??
That's not correct. Not everyone wants to take a night bus (just like not everyone wants to take a taxi). Furthermore, there are only isolated cases of 'congestion' at night time! Where there is, pooling will reduce such congestion.

end of the road wrote: »

correct. hence it doesn't apply to the taxi/psv industry.

Sense of humour much? (because I'm certainly not taking this statement of yours seriously!

By the way, I'm still waiting on an answer from you on this =>

end of the road wrote:

they [regulator] are just holding the non-serious players back who would just be wasting everyone's time.

Who are the 'non serious players' and how would they be 'wasting everyone's time'?

end of the road

makeorbrake wrote: »

You're scraping the bottom of the barrel if you think this is a reason to isolate uber and ride sharing. Uber has also enabled Uber pool - which would reduce congestion and emissions yet not a single acknowledgement from any of you when I bring it up.

ride sharing is available in ireland.
buses and rail would reduce congestion and emissions a lot more then uber ever could.

makeorbrake wrote: »

According to who??

according to reality.

makeorbrake wrote: »

That's not correct. Not everyone wants to take a night bus (just like not everyone wants to take a taxi). Furthermore, there are only isolated cases of 'congestion' at night time! Where there is, pooling will reduce such congestion.

people can pool with existing psvs if they wish and with uber if they decide to enter the psv market further then they are already doing.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Sense of humour much? (because I'm certainly not taking this statement of yours seriously!

it's very serious and accurate.

makeorbrake wrote: »

By the way, I'm still waiting on an answer from you on this =>



Who are the 'non serious players' and how would they be 'wasting everyone's time'?

the people who are not so bothered enough to enter the industry with the current low level of regulations. if they require regulations to be stripped back for them to enter then they are not worth allowing into the psv industry.

makeorbrake

end of the road wrote: »

ride sharing is available in ireland.
buses and rail would reduce congestion and emissions a lot more then uber ever could.

Here we go again. If ride sharing - in real terms - is available in Ireland, why have so many people come on here and said they'd use Uber if it was available?

Buses and rail would reduce congestion and emissions - sure. However, last I checked, nobody was going banning every other form of transportation because of that fact, right?

Right back at you => Uber Pool can do more for congestion than a taxi can.

end of the road wrote:

according to reality.

'Reality' exclaims the guy who backs the notion that 'night buses' will deal with the rampant 'congestion' on irish streets during the night that uber won't.
The desperation in defending a position...

end of the road wrote: »

people can pool with existing psvs if they wish and with uber if they decide to enter the psv market further then they are already doing.

Eh, in theory they can - but it largely remains in theory. The beauty of the tech is that it can dynamically pool people that are travelling in the same direction. It means that if its rolled out in that way, pooling will be actively used. You think there wouldn't be a significant increase in pooling if it was app enabled and incentivised?

end of the road wrote: »

it's very serious and accurate.

That 'cartel' doesn't apply to the taxi lobby? I disagree entirely and i'm not the only one to disagree.

end of the road wrote: »

the people who are not so bothered enough to enter the industry with the current low level of regulations. if they require regulations to be stripped back for them to enter then they are not worth allowing into the psv industry.

That's just a smokescreen to try and scramble some context together to keep ride sharing out. They are exactly the people you need to be enabled. And nobody is looking for much other than the main barriers to entry to be cast aside. Remember, people have come on here and stated that their experience of Uber was that of higher standards - so you can try and claim higher standards with your 'regulations' all you want. It doesn't wash.

Uber is a taxi company that doesn't like playing by the rules

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

Uber is a taxi company that doesn't like playing by the rules

Has it broken rules in Ireland?

So there's no such thing as ride sharing then according to you?

makeorbrake

makeorbrake wrote: »

So there's no such thing as ride sharing then according to you?

Doesn't really matter what you call it, if a vehicle collects a person and drops them to a location and a fee is paid for doing so, then there is already existing regulations to cover this, regardless of what makey-upey name they want to put on it.

Anything else is them wanting special treatment for doing the same thing.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...... Its a f'in duck

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

Doesn't really matter what you call it, ...... Its a f'in duck

Insightful.

Ride sharing is not taxi'ing. To claim otherwise is completely disingenuous.

end of the road

makeorbrake wrote: »

Here we go again. If ride sharing - in real terms - is available in Ireland, why have so many people come on here and said they'd use Uber if it was available?

because it's cheaper. it's only cheaper due to shareholder subsidization and lax regulation where they do operate. ireland has regulations for psvs so it is possible they may not be cheaper, yet they are still operating here in some form.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Buses and rail would reduce congestion and emissions - sure. However, last I checked, nobody was going banning every other form of transportation because of that fact, right?

no forms of transport are being banned. they just have to abide by their regulations as set down.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Right back at you => Uber Pool can do more for congestion than a taxi can.

uber is a taxi. taxis here will do pooling as well, i have pooled a few times.

makeorbrake wrote: »

'Reality' exclaims the guy who backs the notion that 'night buses' will deal with the rampant 'congestion' on irish streets during the night that uber won't.
The desperation in defending a position...

they will.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Eh, in theory they can - but it largely remains in theory. The beauty of the tech is that it can dynamically pool people that are travelling in the same direction. It means that if its rolled out in that way, pooling will be actively used. You think there wouldn't be a significant increase in pooling if it was app enabled and incentivised?

it can already happen and is already happening. and that is without an ap.

makeorbrake wrote: »

That 'cartel' doesn't apply to the taxi lobby? I disagree entirely and i'm not the only one to disagree.

it doesn't matter whether you agree it's a cartel, it's not a cartel. it is a regulated industry.

makeorbrake wrote: »

That's just a smokescreen to try and scramble some context together to keep ride sharing out. They are exactly the people you need to be enabled. And nobody is looking for much other than the main barriers to entry to be cast aside. Remember, people have come on here and stated that their experience of Uber was that of higher standards - so you can try and claim higher standards with your 'regulations' all you want. It doesn't wash.

ride sharing is not being kept out.
there is absolutely no reason to remove the regulations, which in reality are not barriers to entry. the psv industry is highly regulated for good reason, and even then there are certain regulations which need to be tighter.

makeorbrake

end of the road wrote: »

because it's cheaper. it's only cheaper due to shareholder subsidization and lax regulation where they do operate. ireland has regulations for psvs so it is possible they may not be cheaper, yet they are still operating here in some form.

If its unsustainable, why the concern? Uber will implode and that will be an end to it. But it's not going to play out like that, right?

You mentioned about keeping the 'timewasters' and 'non serious players' out of the market. You know well if real ride sharing is enabled, taxi'ing is toast. Those prices for those guys are real. If I'm travelling into the city and turn on the app, then I don't have the same costs as a taxi.

You know this well - hence your keep them out mantra.

end of the road wrote: »

no forms of transport are being banned. they just have to abide by their regulations as set down.

Ride sharing as it was originally envisaged was to empower ordinary people to switch on the app dynamically (as offerer or offeree) - bringing both parties together. They can't do this when you put barriers to entry such as a WAV requirement in the way. Don't try and defend the indefensible.

end of the road wrote: »

uber is a taxi. taxis here will do pooling as well, i have pooled a few times.

Ride sharing is not taxi-ing. Pooling via an algorithm is far more powerful than manually agreeing with a couple of fellas to share the same cab!

end of the road wrote: »

they will.

You're doubling down on night buses solving the rampant 'congestion problem' late at night on irish streets (and that this should mean that uber should sling their hook). I'm not going to comment further on this one - but I will let this sit here for others to digest.

end of the road wrote: »

it can already happen and is already happening. and that is without an ap.

If it's being done without an app, then it means that it's hardly happening at all. Furthermore, it's not being led by taxi-men. Two customers hopping into a cab ...who are friends ...agreeing to share a cab because they're going in the same general direction is not serious.
Enabling that via app - on a dynamic basis - with the algorithm running it - is.

end of the road wrote: »

it doesn't matter whether you agree it's a cartel, it's not a cartel. it is a regulated industry.

You've been provided with the Oxford dictionary definition of a cartel - and that's what it is.

end of the road wrote: »

ride sharing is not being kept out.
there is absolutely no reason to remove the regulations, which in reality are not barriers to entry. the psv industry is highly regulated for good reason, and even then there are certain regulations which need to be tighter.

Ride sharing is being killed at birth in Ireland and wayward regulation is the thing that is killing it. You know it well because ride sharing is only enabled when ordinary drivers can choose to switch on the app dynamically. That can't happen when you make people go out and buy a WAV rather than use their existing vehicle.

makeorbrake

makeorbrake wrote: »

Insightful.

Ride sharing is not taxi'ing. To claim otherwise is completely disingenuous.

They charge a fare to collect and carry passengers from point A to point B.

Regardless what name you want to put on it, transport companies such as Uber, Lyft etc can operate within the existing regulations and do not warrant special treatment.

Despite your many, many, MANY, posts on the topic you've yet to state a logical reason as to why they should.

All you keep saying is they are different and shouldn't have to abide by the current regulations because they are different.

Maybe they are different, but they are not different enough to warrant either an exception from the existing regulations or new regulations just for them.

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe they are different, but they are not different enough to warrant either an exception from the existing regulations or new regulations just for them.

Ride sharing and the sharing economy generally has been lauded around the world. People don't know what it is in Ireland as it has been regulated out of existence.

end of the road

makeorbrake wrote: »

If its unsustainable, why the concern? Uber will implode and that will be an end to it. But it's not going to play out like that, right?

the concern is about not bringing us back 10 years. which you want to do.

makeorbrake wrote: »

You mentioned about keeping the 'timewasters' and 'non serious players' out of the market. You know well if real ride sharing is enabled, taxi'ing is toast. Those prices for those guys are real. If I'm travelling into the city and turn on the app, then I don't have the same costs as a taxi.

You know this well - hence your keep them out mantra.

taxiing won't be toast, but the industry we have strived for and have mostly got will be dragged back by years.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Ride sharing as it was originally envisaged was to empower ordinary people to switch on the app dynamically (as offerer or offeree) - bringing both parties together. They can't do this when you put barriers to entry such as a WAV requirement in the way. Don't try and defend the indefensible.

so be it.
there are psvs and there are regulations. they do the same thing.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Ride sharing is not taxi-ing. Pooling via an algorithm is far more powerful than manually agreeing with a couple of fellas to share the same cab!

if it takes someone from a to b for a fare in return it is a taxi.
pooling is pooling however it is done.

makeorbrake wrote: »

You're doubling down on night buses solving the rampant 'congestion problem' late at night on irish streets (and that this should mean that uber should sling their hook). I'm not going to comment further on this one - but I will let this sit here for others to digest.

uber don't need to sling their hook. we just don't need to remove regulations to favour them over others.

makeorbrake wrote: »

If it's being done without an app, then it means that it's hardly happening at all. Furthermore, it's not being led by taxi-men. Two customers hopping into a cab ...who are friends ...agreeing to share a cab because they're going in the same general direction is not serious. Enabling that via app - on a dynamic basis - with the algorithm running it - is.

if it is happening then it is happening. whether done via an ap or not.
i have pooled with strangers when heading in the same direction, ironically suggested by the taxi driver. pooling however it is done is serious.

makeorbrake wrote: »

You've been provided with the Oxford dictionary definition of a cartel - and that's what it is.

it isn't. it is a regulated industry who's components do not fit the definition of cartel.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Ride sharing is being killed at birth in Ireland and wayward regulation is the thing that is killing it. You know it well because ride sharing is only enabled when ordinary drivers can choose to switch on the app dynamically. That can't happen when you make people go out and buy a WAV rather than use their existing vehicle.

nope. what is being killed in ireland is any old car turning up to operate a psv. we had that and it didn't work.

usernamegoes

Deleted User wrote: »

They charge a fare to collect and carry passengers from point A to point B.

Regardless what name you want to put on it, transport companies such as Uber, Lyft etc can operate within the existing regulations and do not warrant special treatment.

Despite your many, many, MANY, posts on the topic you've yet to state a logical reason as to why they should.

All you keep saying is they are different and shouldn't have to abide by the current regulations because they are different.

Maybe they are different, but they are not different enough to warrant either an exception from the existing regulations or new regulations just for them.

Hackneys charge a fee to carry passengers from point A to B are they taxis?
Limos charge a fee to carry passengers from point A to B are they taxis?
Buses charge a fee to carry passengers from point A to B are they taxis?
Horse-drawn carriages charge a fee to carry passengers from point A to B are they taxis?
etc
etc
etc

People want different things when being brought from A to B that's why they are different.

usernamegoes

usernamegoes wrote: »

Hackneys charge a fee to carry passengers from point A to B are they taxis?
Limos charge a fee to carry passengers from point A to B are they taxis?
Buses charge a fee to carry passengers from point A to B are they taxis?
Horse-drawn carriages charge a fee to carry passengers from point A to B are they taxis?
etc
etc
etc

People want different things when being brought from A to B that's why they are different.

You should read my post again. I said that they can easily operate under existing regulations as they are not different enough to warrant an exception to the rules or separate rules. The regulator may decide different at some point but for now that's the way it stands.

usernamegoes

Deleted User wrote: »

You should read my post again. I said that they can easily operate under existing regulations as they are not different enough to warrant an exception to the rules or separate rules. The regulator may decide different at some point but for now that's the way it stands.

You should understand what you post. Is a taxi different enough from a hackney? Is a hackney different enough from a limo considering some limos can operate as taxis?

What in your view is the criteria on which we decide if things are different enough? Or do you just let the regulator tell you what to think?

The regulator may decide different at some point but for now that's the way it stands.

Well duh. We are saying the regulator is wrong because, in our view, it wants to avoid upsetting taxi drivers.

ShauntaMetzel

Yes, I also found the Uber's service very comfortable with friendly attitude of drivers.

Spook_ie

usernamegoes wrote: »

You should understand what you post. Is a taxi different enough from a hackney? Is a hackney different enough from a limo considering some limos can operate as taxis?

What in your view is the criteria on which we decide if things are different enough? Or do you just let the regulator tell you what to think?



Well duh. We are saying the regulator is wrong because, in our view, it wants to avoid upsetting taxi drivers.

A vehicle in use as an SPSV is only allowed to be in one class, either it's a taxi, a hackney or a limo. Uber are allowed to put a customer requesting an SPSV in contact with each other, same as any other app or dispatch operator. What they can't do, and this is what makenbrake and others want, is to allow unlicensed, unregistered and likely underinsured vehicles to operate as SPSV's.

At this present moment in time, you may put on the road as an SPSV any WAV that meets the regulations or any vehicle that can be classified as a limo. It may in 2020 revert to allowing non WAV to be licensed, that is for the government and NTA of the day to decide.

If they decide to reallow hackneys I fully expect Uber and Co. to lobby for a reduction in standards of licensing for the vehicles and drivers, as long as they don't allow non Garda vetted and not insured for hire and reward vehicles or vehicles that don't meet the current hackney specifications then Uber would be fine to operate within the regulations, as they do now.

usernamegoes

Spook_ie wrote: »

What they can't do, and this is what makenbrake and others want, is to allow unlicensed, unregistered and likely underinsured vehicles to operate as SPSV's.

This is a lie.

Spook_ie

usernamegoes wrote: »

This is a lie.

Which part of the sentence do you class as a lie?

usernamegoes

Spook_ie wrote: »

Which part of the sentence do you class as a lie?

No one I have seen post here has objected to reasonable regulation which may include a requirement to register for a licence without unreasonable barriers.

Certainly no one has advocated for uninsured trips.